why no more steel bikes?

Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others cannot
keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any other
material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will go so
far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure BS. Big
makers like trekspecializedgiantcannondale see steel as more expensive
and harder to make into a bike frame so they gravitate toward the 2
materials that can be made inexpensively these days in China and
Tiawan, carbon and aluminum.

We *could* be a little bit more accurate. Of the umpteen different models of
Trek-branded carbon fiber bikes, only *one* is built overseas. All others
are built in Waterloo, WI. And they are much more expensive, in terms of
both materials and fabrication, than a high-end steel frame would be.

Your point on aluminum is definitely true. China and Taiwan have learned how
to fabricate very cheap, very durable frames out of aluminum, using
processes that depend far less on the skill of the individual doing the
welding than is the case with steel.

And your point about frames getting soft is true as well. It was said about
steel frames when steel frames were all you could get, and then migrated to
aluminum, carbon & ti. I think what happens is that, after a while, people
get, in a way, too familiar with both the things they like and dislike in
something. Sometimes those things aren't even real, but they convince
themselves they are. And the longer they own something, the more they find
such things to quibble about. Bicycle frames change very little over time
(unless you've crunched one).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Aug 12, 7:29 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
is minuscule?

Steel has pretty much gone away as a standard production frame material (in
low-to-moderate-priced bikes) because, for a given weight, you can build
something pretty darned impossible to kill out of aluminum far easier than
you can out of steel. Let's say you're talking about a 4 pound steel frame.
To do so, you need to be careful about materials choices and welding
techniques if you want it to be durable. Throw 4 lbs of aluminum at a frame
builder and they can pretty much do as they please and not kill it, because
there's such a huge margin of safety built in (at that weight). Once you get
down to around 3lbs (for an aluminum frame), then you're talking something
that's going to require some (easily acquired) skill & technology to do
right.

Curious why you suggest the weight difference is minisule though. A full
pound difference in a standard production frame represents something most
would think more than "miniscule."


Perhaps because, if both are built up with the same components, the
weight difference between the bicycles will be (OMG!) "a....pound".
So, for example, an 18lb bike v. a 19lb bike. BFD.

one of the biggest reasons not mentioned is manufacturing costs, the
cutters in the automated mills and machinery last much longer with
aluminum, it comes down to $$ in production


On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 20:54:44 -0700, Sushi Fish
wrote:

steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
is minuscule?

On Aug 12, 8:05 pm, Ozark Bicycle
wrote:
On Aug 12, 7:29 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:





steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
is minuscule?

Steel has pretty much gone away as a standard production frame material (in
low-to-moderate-priced bikes) because, for a given weight, you can build
something pretty darned impossible to kill out of aluminum far easier than
you can out of steel. Let's say you're talking about a 4 pound steel frame.
To do so, you need to be careful about materials choices and welding
techniques if you want it to be durable. Throw 4 lbs of aluminum at a frame
builder and they can pretty much do as they please and not kill it, because
there's such a huge margin of safety built in (at that weight). Once you get
down to around 3lbs (for an aluminum frame), then you're talking something
that's going to require some (easily acquired) skill & technology to do
right.

Curious why you suggest the weight difference is minisule though. A full
pound difference in a standard production frame represents something most
would think more than "miniscule."

Perhaps because, if both are built up with the same components, the
weight difference between the bicycles will be (OMG!) "a....pound".
So, for example, an 18lb bike v. a 19lb bike. BFD.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good point. My Lemond is a steel frame and I don't notice any weight
problem at all. The rider, on the other hand..........

Smokey

On Aug 12, 10:10 pm, Smokey wrote:
On Aug 12, 8:05 pm, Ozark Bicycle



wrote:
On Aug 12, 7:29 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
is minuscule?

Steel has pretty much gone away as a standard production frame material (in
low-to-moderate-priced bikes) because, for a given weight, you can build
something pretty darned impossible to kill out of aluminum far easier than
you can out of steel. Let's say you're talking about a 4 pound steel frame.
To do so, you need to be careful about materials choices and welding
techniques if you want it to be durable. Throw 4 lbs of aluminum at a frame
builder and they can pretty much do as they please and not kill it, because
there's such a huge margin of safety built in (at that weight). Once you get
down to around 3lbs (for an aluminum frame), then you're talking something
that's going to require some (easily acquired) skill & technology to do
right.

Curious why you suggest the weight difference is minisule though. A full
pound difference in a standard production frame represents something most
would think more than "miniscule."

Perhaps because, if both are built up with the same components, the
weight difference between the bicycles will be (OMG!) "a....pound".
So, for example, an 18lb bike v. a 19lb bike. BFD.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good point. My Lemond is a steel frame and I don't notice any weight
problem at all. The rider, on the other hand..........

Smokey

i love my steel kona singlespeed its as smooth as my carbon road bike
easily

[IMG]http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k203/craigjdurkee/kona/
DSCF1690.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k203/craigjdurkee/kona/
DSCF1691.jpg[/IMG]

imho also looks better

Sushi Fish wrote:
steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
is minuscule?

SMS wrote:
You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
frames cost the manufacturer $8.
There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
still steel because the frames need to be more durable.

Hank Wirtz wrote:
Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
welded by a guy in a turban.

I should think that a guy in a turban could wreck an aluminum bike as
well as a steel one. I could be wrong. Weld? They seem to prefer IEDs.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Aug 12, 9:48 pm, A Muzi wrote:
Sushi Fish wrote:
steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
is minuscule?
SMS wrote:
You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
frames cost the manufacturer $8.
There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
still steel because the frames need to be more durable.
Hank Wirtz wrote:
Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
welded by a guy in a turban.

I should think that a guy in a turban could wreck an aluminum bike as
well as a steel one. I could be wrong. Weld? They seem to prefer IEDs.


So would you, if a foreign military invaded and occupied Wisconsin.

Andrew Muzi wrote:
Sushi Fish wrote:
steel is cheap and alu is even cheaper, the difference is not much
different. why don't they make steel bike anymore when the weight diff
is minuscule?

SMS wrote:
You said it yourself, "alu is even cheaper." I heard Sheldon say that AL
frames cost the manufacturer $8.
There are still plenty of CroMo bikes available, but they're more a
specialty item, and are often expensive. Almost all touring bikes are
still steel because the frames need to be more durable.

Hank Wirtz wrote:
Not just durable - repairable. If something gets bent, you want to be
able to bend it back. And I think it was Grant Peterson (of Rivendell)
who said that for loaded touring, you want something that can be
welded by a guy in a turban.

I should think that a guy in a turban could wreck an aluminum bike as
well as a steel one. I could be wrong. Weld? They seem to prefer IEDs.

Who that wears turbans is using IED's? (Possibly part of the low level
conflict in Kashmir?)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct wave
Point” - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
Morten Reippuert wrote:

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:

Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will
go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure
BS.

Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
as a beercan.

What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?

Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?

Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel beverage
can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?

Tim McNamara wrote:
In article ,
Morten Reippuert wrote:

Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com wrote:

Steel is plentiful at many bike shops and from a multitude of
builders. Mostly US makers these days, but the likes of Sachs,
Waterford, Vanilla, Soulcraft, Pegoretti(ITA), and many others
cannot keep up with the demand. We sell far more steel than any
other material. Steel gets a bad rap of being 'heavy' and some will
go so far as claim it gets soft over time. Both of which are pure
BS.
Steel has one significant disadvantage compared to aluminum (or
titanium), when made light and stiff it gets the same caracteristic
as a beercan.

What are beer cans made from? How strong are they?

Have you ever seen a sawed-apart Cannondale?

Did you ever compare the anti-crushability stiffness of a steel beverage
can with an aluminum one of the same diameter?

timmy the retard can't even get a simple beer can analogy correct.

aluminum cans are much thinner walled than their steel counterparts -
primarily because then /can/ be made that way and it's cheaper that way.
formability is a major plus with aluminum.

seamed steel otoh is hard to make that thin and is dirt cheap, so
there's much less need to be economical. thin walled aluminum with
lower modulus and lower yield vs. thicker steel with higher modulus and
higher yield. hmm. wonder which one is going to be easiest to smash
against the forehead...