Bespoked: the versatility of steel

I can believe some of the comments around carbon bikes being faster, but whether that would be a fair comparison or not depends on the design remit of the bikes in question.

I ride a Genesis Equilibrium 725 with an Ultegra group/wheels, though was lent a full Dura Ace Cervelo R5 Team early last year.

On the 40-odd mile ride I did, the average speed difference was about 1.5mph, the Cervelo being noticeably faster. But then the R5 is designed for out-and-out speed, though aerodynamics and power transmission, whereas the Equilibrium is designed to be pretty quick, but maintain an element of comfort - which means the back end gets a bit squiggly when you really put the power down really hard.

I think that for a century, a ride over broken roads, or for anything with a lot of descending I'd still probably pick the Equilibrium, as I think it's the better tool for all 3 of those jobs.

I have been in to Rourkes and handled in person one of the latest stainless steel builds they have been fabricating. Anyone claiming you can't make a steel race stick that's competitive for all but maybe very elite pro riders is probably deluding them self that a carbon bike is making them faster along with the team replica jersey. I also feel that steel is far more adaptable and also more sustainable as a material for frame fabrication. Perhaps if we focused more on durability and repairabilty we would return to a more realistic form of the sport instead of what currently seems to be not a million miles from being re-enactment of pro cycling rather than actual competiton. I would like a carbon bike yes, would I want it to be the only bike I own? no.

Each one of these articles really makes me wish I'd been able to make it to the show, although I probably would have ended up ordering something and being murdered by the girlfriend as soon as we left.
I don't know about whether carbon bikes are really much faster, I'm sure many of them are lighter/stiffer etc, but as to which I want to own there's little contest. It's a bit like guitars, you can buy an off the shelf Fender or Gibson and they'll probably do the job better and be less hassle than a vintage instrument, but it's the vintage instruments that 90% of people seem to want to own. If it all came down to the numbers there'd be no point in so many manufacturers making bikes, I for one am glad there's so much variety.

If I was buying* a race bike I wouldn't choose steel, to be honest I wouldn't be buying top of the range either, no point buying anything you can't afford to repair/replace.

If I was buying* a sunday special then I would go steel/Ti, IMO they look nicer which is what the bikes are all about, and as I am less likely to crash it repair/replace isn't an issue.

*As it is I don't have the money for a new bike so the Lemond CdF continues, and will continue till I break it, which hopefully won't be until after discs** become widespread.

**I see little point buying a non disc bike "sunday" bike as that is where the market is going so might as well future proof the bike.

Versatility of steel and versatility of price, I'm gobsmacked at the cost of today's steel frames. I have an original Viscount Aerospace steel frame with beautifully crafted fillet brazed joints the equal of any of today's costly masterpieces. I picked it up in a bike junk shop for fifteen quid.

And what about comfort? I ride steel, carbon and Ti frames. The carbon may be the lightest of the three, but it's nowhere close in terms of comfort. If you can afford it, an 853 steel or Ti frame is vastly preferrable to carbon (imo).

It would be interesting to see the sort of prices these bikes fetch. I'd love to own a good looking steel or ti bike over alloy or carbon fibre but they seem to be comparatively expensive. And much heavier. If someone could build a steel bike that is only a pound or so heavier than the alloy or carbon fibre equivalent and doesn't cost the earth it would shift plenty of units. Genesis are giving it a go but they're not cheap for what you get.

Horses for courses. My carbon bike is 1.5mph average faster than my steel bike but my steel bike feels like history. Totally pointless trying to make steel race bikes, no matter what genesis and feather are doing, but they are good for going the distance and generally just cruising about on. And they last. And they are not an ecological nightmare when you try to retire them. But carbon bikes really are faster. But... but... but... rinse repeat until you have at least one of each

Of all those bikes above I saw at the show I actually liked the shands the most - quite plain in colour but great angles and very well thought out. The really bling bikes just put me off these days.

I will sign up to the lustful tag in seconds. The above bikes seem to convey more thought in their design, passion in their manufacture and greater originality than their carbon cousins. But why is this? I think the carbon variant is becoming almost generalised in nature, with little variance in its perceived perception. Yes, they are probably stiffer, lighter and more technologically advanced but I would argue that they do not provide the spread of variation that steel provides. There again, I am a fully paid up member of the 'steel (and titanium) is real' club and am, therefore, not totally objective!

The Brian Rourke looks smart, but are we to believe that they expect buyers to go to the trouble of finding and choosing such a unique frame, then combining it with an off-the-peg wheelset from Mavic?

Lustful comments are directly correlated to uniqueness or rarity IMO.

Given comments elsewhere about built in obsolescence, its funny how the bikes pictured from the bespoked show seem to elicit more lustful comments than the latest whizzy UCI compliant carbon electric aero thing.

Could it be that people actually like handmade metal - round section tubes no less, and gears that are fixable without a laptop - than something designed to be 1% stiffer, lighter, or more aero than the one released onto the market the previous week?