My bike is steel

[Pinhead]

I have never been "into" cars or bikes, cameras yes I am a so called professional Photo Journalist, shooting for magazines and press but anything else, no.

However years back I bought a steel frame and had the shop build me a bike, you have seen it many times.

I was purely out of interests looking at the sticker on it I know it is Reynolds 853 steel, and for the first time ever, this is 100% true, last night I used my phone for the first time EVER to google and read something, 64, had phones since the first luggables, only ever for talk and text, and I read about Reynolds steel frames.

Steel is supposedly (isn't everything) one of THE (not shouting, emphasising!) best materials for bikes.

Is this still true or a hornets nest.

Thanks.

[pwa]

It is debatable. At one time it was all there was available for most people, and the posher steel types (like your 853) stretched what steel could do. 853 manages to remain strong whilst also being drawn relatively thin, so it can make a relatively un-heavy frame.

On bikes using narrow high pressure tyres it used to be desirable to have some flex in the frame and forks to make up for the hardness of the tyres, but I think that property is no longer as important, now that bikes have tended to go towards wider, lower pressure tyres. Narrow steel tubes were good at giving that flex. Now you can get the flex from the tyres instead, so that benefit of steel isn't so important.

Steel can last a long time, for some people. Not for me, sadly. My steel frames have all rusted. But you may be one of the lucky ones who find it doesn't.

On a bike like yours, with generous tyres, I doubt you can feel the difference between Reynolds 853 steel and decent aluminium alloy.

[Cugel]

Best (let's say appropriate instead) materials for bike frames are best identified through use. Many materials have been tried, even beryllium (which is very light indeed, for a metal). There have been plastic (not carbon-fibre reinforced) and fibre glass bikes, there still are wooden bikes and even a bike made of grass (bamboo).

History and the evolution of actual bikes seems to have identified steel, titanium, aluminium and carbon-fibre reinforced resins as the four prime contenders for materials to build bike frames, with wood a viable option but very demanding of the particular design and construction. Other materials, including lightweight metals such as manganese and beryllium seem to have come, failed and gone.

They all have various properties that manifest as properties of the bike frames and their designs. The permutations are vast in number. Many claims are made for these properties, some being actually measurable and others being generated purely from fan-boy fervour. It's not always easy to seperate the two. Then there's fashion and its destruction of any logical or rational analysis of what's being bought .....

My own experience is that steel can make a very good bike to ride but that carbon fibre frames can generally achieve all the good features of a steel frame and then some, purely because carbon fibre frames can incorporate design elements that steel just can't - extreme shapes, different carbon fibre layups for different parts of the frame and so forth.

I still wouldn't put these materials into a hierarchy-of-worth, though. Some cyclists like the feel of steel even if there are limits to its abilities compared to CF frames, for example. Then there's the price factor. And, no doubt, several others.

[rjb]

Manganese I think you mean Magnesium like those Kirk frames which suffered from corrosion. Beryllium is toxic so you wouldn't be able to lick or drool over one of those.

Kirk precision

images.jpeg (11.85 KiB) Viewed 2229 times

[Psamathe]

Probably depends on what the bike is for. Concept of a "best" or suitability over a broad range of uses is daft.

Cycle RTW on a carbon frame might not be the best choice whereas trying to win a velodrome competition with a steel frame might also not be ideal. If on a budget, expensive frame material probably means cheap components (wear out quickly and/or need lots of maintenance) so "best" balance depends on many factors that will be different for different people.

Ian

[Cugel]

Manganese I think you mean Magnesium like those Kirk frames which suffered from corrosion. Beryllium is toxic so you wouldn't be able to lick or drool over one of those.
images.jpeg

This is quite a nice summary of the queer metals attempted for bike frames:

https://www.strongframes.com/more/metat ... l-chapter/

[PH]

Steel is often a suitable material for a frame, depending on application it's sometimes the most suitable. It's comparatively easy to work with and readily available, making it a popular choice for small scale producers. Titanium also lends itself to small scale production, though the costs are greater for both material and manufacture. Carbon and aluminium manufacturing tends to have greater set up costs, so might only be viable for larger volume production or high value products.
I like my steel bikes and my aluminium one and a titanium one before it cracked. I've also had bikes in those three materials that to some degree I didn't like. How much of that is because of the material and how much the design, is impossible to tell.

[853]

As the owner of a Reynolds 853 framed bike, too, you can't expect me to say anything derogatory about high quality steel frames.

I also have a much cheaper aluminium framed bike, however, and if the frames were covered up I doubt, in all honesty, that I could tell which one I was riding

[peetee]

It ain’t what it’s built from, it’s the way that it’s built.
That is to say, knowledge and skill elevates a bike frame above and beyond what might normally be expected or provided for. Choose your source wisely and you can get a superior product regardless of the material.

[rareposter]

Steel is supposedly (isn't everything) one of THE (not shouting, emphasising!) best materials for bikes.

Is this still true or a hornets nest.?

Oh it has been (and no doubt will continue to be) debated ad nauseam in magazine articles and on internet forums. You can make long lists of pros and cons of pretty much any frame material although steel, aluminium, carbon and titanium are "the big four". However within those, there are countless different "grades" of material, often designated by numbers; 531, 631, 653, 753, 853 are examples for steel and they describe the particular alloy (steel is an alloy, a mix of many metals. Mostly iron but with trace elements such as chrome, nickel, manganese, molybdenum, vanadium which all alter that tube characteristics).

Most frame builders will also wax lyrical about how their material is the best, their building method is the best and so on for ever and ever.

There's no right or wrong answer really. "best" is a very subjective term and will mean different things for different people. Ultimately, so long as you're enjoying the bike you've got, it doesn't really matter what it's made from (within reason!)

I had an 853 framed road bike back in the days when it was a very new steel. Nice bike but the aluminium one that replaced it was stiffer, lighter, faster and handled better - however a lot of that is down to the geometry, components and so on, not just the frame material, plus standards for road bike design were changing a lot back then as well.

[UpWrong]

Whilst steel tubes can be manipulated, aluminium can be hydroformed into engineering art. Take a look at the rear triangle of an ICE VTX recumbent trike. Or the main tube of a Cannondale Adventure hybrid.

[cycle tramp]

It ain’t what it’s built from, it’s the way that it’s built.
That is to say, knowledge and skill elevates a bike frame above and beyond what might normally be expected or provided for. Choose your source wisely and you can get a superior product regardless of the material.

Absolutely- and I would go even further by saying that whatever the material a frame is built from, is almost a secondary concern to whether the frame fits you body dimensions. (It ain’t what you got it's the way that they've done it (for you) - and that's what gets results)

[Pinhead]

Steel is supposedly (isn't everything) one of THE (not shouting, emphasising!) best materials for bikes.

Is this still true or a hornets nest.?

Oh it has been (and no doubt will continue to be) debated ad nauseam in magazine articles and on internet forums. You can make long lists of pros and cons of pretty much any frame material although steel, aluminium, carbon and titanium are "the big four". However within those, there are countless different "grades" of material, often designated by numbers; 531, 631, 653, 753, 853 are examples for steel and they describe the particular alloy (steel is an alloy, a mix of many metals. Mostly iron but with trace elements such as chrome, nickel, manganese, molybdenum, vanadium which all alter that tube characteristics).

Most frame builders will also wax lyrical about how their material is the best, their building method is the best and so on for ever and ever.

There's no right or wrong answer really. "best" is a very subjective term and will mean different things for different people. Ultimately, so long as you're enjoying the bike you've got, it doesn't really matter what it's made from (within reason!)

I had an 853 framed road bike back in the days when it was a very new steel. Nice bike but the aluminium one that replaced it was stiffer, lighter, faster and handled better - however a lot of that is down to the geometry, components and so on, not just the frame material, plus standards for road bike design were changing a lot back then as well.