Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: Jahee
Originally posted by: DaShen
Originally posted by: cheapgoose
I keep hearing good things about steel frames. If I can get away with buying a new frame, it'll be tough to decide between a steel and a full carbon.
Much cushier ride (really forgiving on long rides), a little heavier but still worth it to get a good steel everyday rider.
Whys that? Do steel frames give a little more than carbon?
At the start carbon is really stiff, but after years of riding it can actually get softer and flex a bit more. Steel dampens really well so it's forgiving on long rides, and it stays that way. Reynolds 853 is supposed to be the best steel you can get. Fairly light (20lb road bikes easy) and rust proof.
One thing I'm worried about with fiber is its ability to get damaged. I know that at least with carbon fiber trekking poles, it is not a question of if they will break (crack), but when. There is no carbon fiber trekking pole company that warrants their CF poles for a lifetime. There ARE companies that do so with their titanium poles, however. It makes me think that if you crash on a CF bike, it's got a good chance of cracking, whereas steel or titanium will just bend or dent.
The beauty of CF is it's ability to be weaved and layed up to provide ultimate stiffness in one axis and compliance in another. Aluminum provides light weight and stiffness, but is very stiff in all axes (ref. any old-school cannondale frame). Steel is the ultimate in comfort, but can't really reach the strength/weight ratios of these other materials. Ti is just too freakin expensive and is more for the niche market consumer. A great hybrid design alternative, which is very popular now and I have one myself, is an aluminum main triangle with a CF fork and rear triangle. This results in a lightweight frame with excellent stiffness but great shock absorption capabilites as well. Almost all major high-end manufacturers offer such a frame.