/steel/ ITT we discuss the objective superiority of steel bicycles

>>1062933
>superiority of steel
In what capacity?

>>1062940
All capacities.

>Heavy
>Prone to rust
What makes them superior? Being able to buy a £100 welder and fixing a crack yourself instead of paying half that to have a more skilled guy weld your aluminium frame? Do skinny tubes give you a hard on?

Steel mtbs absorb a lot of shock but are really heavy and generally outdated, finding spares for this kind of bike is a pain in the ass.
Anyone who rode a good steel bike (((back then))) will tell you that they feel better in terms of comfort, but worse in terms of weight.

Now, nobody manufactures them, well, at least, almost nobody. To make a good steel bike you need to use really expensive steel, so it will be priced on the same level of carbon bikes (i'm speaking about the best of the best here), and still weight more than good carbon bike.

To sum it up: it's fucking useless.

>>1062963
faggot
>>1062984
>they feel better in terms of comfort, but worse in terms of weight.
Yep. If a few grams extra is too heavy for you then GIT GUD, weak fuck
>To sum it up: it's fucking useless.
To sum it up: You're fucking useless

File: IMG_8310.jpg (148KB, 480x640px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 480x640px

>>1062933
meh, I dunno about "objective superiority" but I do like it. here's mine

>>1063013
This thread is about steel bikes, not fucking "chrome moledebiym" whatever the fuck that is

>>1063014
oh, so just hi ten shitters then ?
thanks for your informed clarification
clearly you know a lot about different materials and bikes in general.
thanks for taking the time to post !

>>1063016
what the fuck is hi ten? you mean bikes with ten speed shifters? I literally don't care how many speeds as long as its steel, not fucking chrome moybleidum or carbon.

>>1063014
what sort of steel do you ride, just out of curiosity?

post your decal, I'm really interested over here

>>1063021
there's this thing called google
using it properly can make you appear less of a fag

>>1063022
Steel. what the fuck do you mean "what sort of steel"? I ride STEEL not fucking molydarium. I barely even know what that is, I just remember it from chemistry class and it sure as hell isn't steel cause steel is made of iron
>>1063030
what do you mean? fag

File: trollface.png (22KB, 235x235px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 235x235px

>>1063013
>>1063016
>>1063022
>>1063030
LOL JK guys I was just trolling you. I know what chromoly is and I ride chromoly. EPICLY TROLLED!

File: smug scratch.jpg (88KB, 472x358px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 472x358px

Carbon > Ti > Steel > Aluminium

I speak the truth.

>>1063058
I guess that's why everyone that's too poor or too afraid to use carbon uses ti and steel. Especially those competitive riders, they never use aluminium.

>>1063065
aluminium is inherently weakened by time and use while none of the other options are.

Every time an aluminium frame flexes it loses a little strength it never regains, this doesn't happen with the other 3 options.

>>1063058
Steel > Titanium > Carbon > Aluminum (pavement)
Steel > Aluminum > Titanium > Carbon (trail)
fixed
I love my carbon road bike and my carbon mountain bike, doesn't change the fact that STEEL IS REAL and objectively superior

File: front.jpg (2MB, 3543x2355px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3543x2355px

>>1063071
if steel and Ti are superior why haven't F1 cars been made of titanium since the 80s?

>>1063068
So I assume you also use steel rims, cranks, bars, seatposts, etc.?

Aluminium frames can last a very long time, they can even outlast steel and ti frames (which despite what you've been brainwashed to believe are not immune to failure).

Scroil to the bottom for the results. Spoiler alert: the only frames to survive the test were aluminium and lugged carbon with the two worst performing being steel.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/frame_fatigue_test.htm

>>1063074
Fuck off fucking cager. No one gives a fuck about death cages. This is a cycling board. You are not welcome here. >>>/o/

>>1063078
FATIGUE LIMIT you fucking faggot
STEEL IS REAL
GET OFF MY BOARD
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

My three bikes are steel and I know that the things that I've done to my cross-check and MTB would have either led to an untrustworthy alloy bike or totally trashed a carbon bike.

Carbon is great for racing, but for high-mileage daily rides give me steel.

File: miyata14002.jpg (167KB, 533x800px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 533x800px

>>1063013
Hi Miyata friend.

>>1062984
>Anyone who rode a good steel bike (((back then))) will tell you that they feel better in terms of comfort, but worse in terms of weight.
t. hipster that doesn't even know what ((( ))) means

>>1063146
lol

This thread is cancer and makes me ashamed to browse this board.

File: Screen shot 2016-02-28 at 7.15.10 PM.png (1MB, 675x896px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 675x896px

>>1063145
what's good? nice ride. I remember you posting it before

>>1063158
How so? Besides the molybdenum shitposting there's nothing cancerous ITT

>>1063162
Why don't you just use panniers?

should i buy a surly 1x1 and put an igh in it for adventures and why or why not

>>1063197
No
Because instead you should get a Surly Straggler or Salsa Vaya (I prefer the Vaya just because I like how it rides, but both are equally good bikes). Or if you want to go on gnarly adventures, then a Salsa Fargo. Salsa Fargo is the best bike there is for a mix of on and off road adventures (aside from a full custom bike of course)

>>1063207

>drop bar geo

Do yourself a favour, if you go offroad don't bother with drops.

>>1063237
I assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that he'd be riding mostly on pavement
If off-road, then get a Surly Troll
or if you want to be a meme and ride a midfat, then an ECR

>>1063238

A troll is a midfat too. ECR is a longbike great for long distances.

>spending 1000's on a bike that will turn to rust in a year

ok

>>1063192
too mainstream, true bikerz let all their shit fly out when they hit a bump

>>1063249

>spending double that on a carbon bike which you need to scrap the first time you scratch it

>>1063207
ok
but *why*

igh is low maintenance, low profile, simple operation, and wont get broken by a slip on some iffy rocks
also expecting 80/20 off road/on road and surlys are set for fatter tires

File: Greg_May_TD_Bike.jpg (929KB, 2000x1384px) Image search: [Google]

929KB, 2000x1384px

>>1062933
>objective superiority of steel bikes
>posts Surly gaspipe bike
Also the goddamn dropouts on the Straggler, christ

>>1063207
Listen, I like the Vaya and the Fargo, but
>what is Soma Wolverine
>what is Soma Fogcutter
>what is Twinsix Standard Rando
>what is All City Space Horse
>what is Crust Evasion
>what is Black Mountain Cycles Monstercross
>what is Velo Orange Piolet
>what is Velo Orange Pass Hunter
... I could go on. QBP makes some nice bikes but there's a whole fuckin' world of people making damn nice bikes out there (Yes, I know All City is a QBP brand). The Fargo is absolutely not "the best mix of on and offroad". The most mainstream/accessible, perhaps.

>>1063237
>dissing dirt drops
kindly go fuck yourself, pic related

File: evidence.png (33KB, 899x547px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 899x547px

>>1063253

>>1063079
Then what about top end racing bikes? Theyre all made of carbon

>>1063074

Dragsters are all made out of cro-mo tubing.

File: carbon steerer.jpg (116KB, 666x1000px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 666x1000px

>>1063260

>>1063261
>Then what about top end racing bikes?
Because Titanium cost more as a raw material and cost more as a frame component. Soldering it require other tools and a new formation. If carbon fibers (and it is insanely cheap) weren't invented, Ti frames would be used more often in races.


>>1063253
I got hit by a car and my garbon frame's still good. If you hit hard enough to break it, it's also enough to bend a steel/aluminum frame.

>>1063146
Do you feel your superiority with every visit you make to /pol/, friendo?
On the other hand possess some sacred knowledge that (((normal people))) do not, you have every right to remain proud.

File: 15fc12343cd5a4e28123b8802d91fc96f4ca6aeec31357b609f1da0bf423da14.jpg (26KB, 476x280px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 476x280px

>>1062933
moar like Surly Struggler, amirite?

>>1063249
I have two 1980s steel bicycles, neither of which have turned to rust, and I only paid a few hundred dollars for them. Fuck off, downtube.
>>1063253
Carbon fags BTFO!
>>1063254
Because igh is a meme
>also expecting 80/20 off road/on road and surlys are set for fatter tires
Then get a Troll or ECR or Moonlander or Ogre
Or if you want to be an ultimate meme, a Big Fat Dummy

>>1063261
Yes but you aren't a racer are you? I am OP and I acknowledge that carbon bicycles have their place (for racing) but since 99% of cycling is done for transportation, adventure, etc, and steel is ideal for such types of cycling, steel is objectively superior to carbon.
>>1063271
REKT
E
K
T

>>1063334
so close and yet so far

>>1063370
>so far
Except it's literally not 'so far'.>>1063333

>>1063351
>igh is a meme
literally why
8 or 11 speeds, and you can always change your chainring if the range doesn't suit. I was thinking of a relatively small chainring for getting good torque and low resistance on over difficult terrain. I already have a garblon road bike, so I don't exactly need a speed demon

>>1063352
>steel is objectively superior to carbon.

Steel is a retarded material only used 'cause muh tradition or muh feel and because it's cheap.

Aluminum is the all-rounder, as they can make it stiff by using wide tubes, and it doesn't rust or whatever.

Carbon allow resistant frames with pretty much any geometry, being light, make it the best compound for road race.

Titanium is a superior material, minus the retarded engineering making fucking weak frames.

Comfyness isn't a valid argument, tires width/type and pressure being the main factor.

Got a steel bike as my first bike. It's a comfortable ride but I realized that it was heavy as fuck when I went to shop for a new bike the other day.

>>1063380
Steel is more comfortable and durable than aluminum.
Steel doesn't rust either if you're not an idiot.
I already explained why racing isn't a substantial factor.
Titanium is nice, and in some situations better than steel, but the advantages of steel generally outweigh the advantages of titanium. Titanium is not indestructible like some people claim; steel bikes are more durable.
tl;dr you're a faggot, fuck yourself

>>1063381
There are also heavy as fuck aluminum bikes, and there are light steel bikes. So fucking what?

>>1063384
>>1063385

Steel isn't noticeably comfortable than aluminum anymore. Get yourself a good saddle and a good pair of tires, even a carbon fork, you fucking mongoloid.


Titanium is always better than steel when handled properly. And yes, racing is a factor as there's a lot of people enjoying a good travel on a road bike, we don't need 45kg of stuff when touring.

And a retarded aluminum bike is lighter than a retarded steel bike, as as good alu is to a good steel.

You can ride whatever you want, nobody cares, just stop shilling a stupid thing.

A steel bike raped both my parents.

>>1063256
>>what is Soma Wolverine
Does that use a fucking quill stem? Looks like it in the pic I saw

>>1063391
>Steel isn't noticeably comfortable than aluminum anymore.
Yes it is
>carbon fork
Fuck off
>Titanium is always better than steel when handled properly
No it's literally not.
>You can ride whatever you want, nobody cares, just stop shilling a stupid thing.
Then why the fuck are you in a steel thread?

>>1063374
If you're thinking Alfine 8 or 11 you should know that if you gear them too low they will pull themselves out of short dropouts (you probably want something like 25mm+) and if the dropouts are particularly weak it could end up splitting them apart.

I think I run 42:16 on my 11 with 700c wheels which is the equivalent of 42:34.5 on the low end, low enough for most on road climbing whilst giving a decent top end of 42:8.5 for bombing hills. Whilst you can run much lower (I ran 32:18 at one point and I've heard of people running 32:22) without damaging the hub itself it's going to depend more on the particular frame.

>>1063408
The assumption I'm making is that the surly 1x1 frame is strong, being steel, and having long dropouts because it's made for single speed hubs. 32:18 would actually be pretty hot, since I'm all about endurance and bad conditions with this bike.

>>1063406
>Yes it is
No.
>Fuck off
Do you use steel wheels too ?
>No it's literally not.
Just open a inorganic chemistry book.
>Then why the fuck are you in a steel thread?
Because I own a steel bike.

>>1063408
>IGHs will tear your bike apart if you run a wrong gearing
And people still defend them

>>1063424
>No
You're a faggot
>Do you use steel wheels too?
No, I use aluminum wheels. The point of this thread is that steel is superior for FRAMES and if you weren't a fucking moron you would have grasped that
>Just open a inorganic chemistry book
I know more about chemistry than you, faggot
>Because I own a steel bike
Cool! I have three. I also have two carbon bikes.

>>1063428
Hey, it's not worse than people defending carbon which will literally explode if you hit a pothole.

File: 1436207137459.png (26KB, 1187x846px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 1187x846px

>>1063430
If steel is so superior as a material for frames why do you have carbon bikes? And if steel is somehow a superior material for frames why isn't it superior for wheels, or cranks, or any other parts.

>>1063431

File: chromag_mage.jpg (562KB, 1600x1066px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1600x1066px

>>1062984
>(((back then)))

you dont even know in what situations to use The Holy Parenthesis Coincidence Detector and this

>Steel mtbs absorb a lot of shock but are really heavy and generally outdated,

is wrong.

File: chromag_image.jpg (737KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 1600x1200px

STEEL = the most brilliant material for non competative dude radical mtb

File: oh you dsgsssss.png (68KB, 253x235px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 253x235px

>>1063391
>Steel isn't noticeably comfortable than aluminum anymore

>>1063445
If i were to blilndfold you, and put you on a steel and aluminum frame, there is no way you could feel the difference. Also riding blindfolded wouldn't be easy either huehuehue

>>1063421
Taking a closer look at that particular frame it looks like it will be good, just try not to have the axle too far backwards in the dropouts, and if you do then flip the anti-rotation washers on the axle so they're facing forwards instead of backwards.

>>1063295

>riding a crashed garbon frame

REST IN RIP

>>1063447
>If i were to blilndfold you, and put you on a steel and aluminum frame, there is no way you could feel the difference.
Maybe on a perfectly smooth and flat surface. On a street however, you will notice.

>>1063503

I think most people would notice when their steerer tube shears off and they eat pavement. I've heard plenty of accounts of alloy and garbon forks breaking. If you're riding your bike every day, only trust steel.

>>1063507
So that's why most mountain bikes use steel steerers, stanchions, frames, handlebars, seatposts, rims, axles, hubs, cranks, etc. instead of aluminium. Oh wait...

>>1063521

You're mistaking muh grams racing MTB with daily riders. But professional racers are paid to ride timebombs which are thrown out after a season and maintained by professional mechianics. But if you're doing loops every day and riding the streets, don't trust it.

And don't make me go and google broken mtb steerers, frames, seatposts, bars to shut your stupid face.

>>1063526
>You're mistaking muh grams racing MTB with daily riders.
Nope, even non-competitive riders ride aluminium with very few people riding steel frames and steel steerers and stanchions generally relegated to low end forks. Everything else I mentioned is always aluminium or carbon.

>And don't make me go and google broken mtb steerers, frames, seatposts, bars to shut your stupid face.
Shit breaks, what's your point? I could also show you plenty of broken steel stuff but it'd be pointless. Failures of these parts are very low and the likelihood of it happening isn't anywhere near high enough that you should use steel instead. If you do then you're likely paranoid, just like the people that are shit scared of carbon and think it will explode at the slightest knock.

>>1063079
What an autistic outburst kek

File: cracked_carbon_mtb_frame_specialized_s-works.jpg (152KB, 705x470px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 705x470px

>>1063529
>plenty of broken steel stuff

OK then, show me a steel bike that snapped clean in half, or sheared off steerer tube, or snapped fork.

>>1063530
>autistic

>>1063540
If you really want to play this game then fine.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=snapped+bmx+frame

>>1063432
>If steel is so superior as a material for frames why do you have carbon bikes?
I have a carbon enduro bike partly because steel enduro bikes are not readily available, partly because enduro bikes are heavy due to suspension (and used in climbing steep ascents) making it more important to use a light material such as carbon, and partly because I got it before I was aware of the superiority of steel.
I have a carbon road bike for when I GOTTA GO FAST, i.e. group rides and racing.
I ride my steel road bike more than my other four bikes combined.
>>1063438
Chromags are such awesome bikes.

>>1063529
>Nope, even non-competitive riders ride aluminium with very few people riding steel frames
For a few reasons
>aluminum is easier to work with when shaping a swingarm (hence steel fs bikes having alu swingarms sometimes)
>pros used to ride alu so people think it's better than steel, but pros rode it for the reasons other anon said
>the people that are shit scared of carbon and think it will explode at the slightest knock.
But it will
>>1063540
>dat pic
REKT

File: made in china.gif (2MB, 350x276px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x276px

>>1063571
>bmx
Yeah obviously because little shithead kids abuse the fuck out of bmx bikes. And that's also why bmx bikes are made of steel, because if they were any other material they'd break constantly instead of only occasionally.

>>1063577
>aluminum is easier to work with when shaping a swingarm (hence steel fs bikes having alu swingarms sometimes)
There are plenty of people that ride hardtails, yet very few ride steel ones.
>pros used to ride alu so people think it's better than steel, but pros rode it for the reasons other anon said
This isn't road cycling, non-competitive riders rarely give a shit what the pros are doing. They ride aluminium because that's what there is, because the manufactures know it's better than steel.
>REKT
Sure, I suppose you have a source saying that frame cracked just from dropping the bike, right? Chances are the crash that caused that would've also fucked an aluminium or steel frame too.

>>1063579
>Moving the goal posts
You asked for broken steel frames, I gave them to you. My point was that frames of all materials break, just because you can post a bunch of photos of them doesn't make that particular material bad.
>Shit breaks, what's your point? I could also show you plenty of broken steel stuff but it'd be pointless.

>>1063581
>There are plenty of people that ride hardtails, yet very few ride steel ones.
Yes and most people are idiots. What the fuck is your point? People ride what manufacturers sell them. Do you agree with bike manufacturers on everything? If so you're an idiot.
>Chances are the crash that caused that would've also fucked an aluminium or steel frame too.
Chances are you're wrong.
>You asked for broken steel frames, I gave them to you
It wasn't me that asked. You're still wrong.
>My point was that frames of all materials break, just because you can post a bunch of photos of them doesn't make that particular material bad.
Steel breaks less easily.

>>1063582
>Yes and most people are idiots. What the fuck is your point?
You said that only people who race ride aluminium, my point was that was false. Here:
>You're mistaking muh grams racing MTB with daily riders.

>Chances are you're wrong.
Okay, just waiting on that source.

>It wasn't me that asked. You're still wrong.
Did you not notice that you weren't the only poster I was replying to? And what am I wrong about exactly, that steel frames break? They quite clearly do.

>Steel breaks less easily.
Prove it. I've already posted results from a test that showed aluminium frames outlasting steel and titanium ones.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/frame_fatigue_test.htm

>>1063540

I've snapped multiple tubes on my steel MTB's. Your tubing might look fine on the outside but it could be rusted almost all the way through from the inside. steel is also flexy and springy which can form stress fractures and let rust fuck shit up. Forks with steel steerers have been recalled before due to steerer failure.

tldr: no material is resistant to fatigue and catastrophic failure.

>>1063582
>Steel breaks less easily.

Not the guy you were talking to, but no, there is virtually no difference between an aluminium and a steel frame if done correctly. Aluminium frames need to have bigger tubes and thicker wall strengths compared to steel ones, but then they are as strong as steel frames while being lighter at the same time.

The only advantage of steel is that it can be welded more easily when it breaks.

>>1063596
But carbon breaks more easily than steel, and steel is more comfortable than aluminium.

>>1063587
>You said that only people who race ride aluminium, my point was that was false. Here:
I didn't say that, I said that racers formerly using aluminium influences what mountain bikes are made of now
>Okay, just waiting on that source.
Throw a carbon bike off a cliff
Throw a steel bike off a cliff
See what one is still ridable
>Did you not notice that you weren't the only poster I was replying to? And what am I wrong about exactly, that steel frames break? They quite clearly do.
Steel frames break less easily
>Prove it. I've already posted results from a test that showed aluminium frames outlasting steel and titanium ones.
No, you're an idiot
>>1063594
>Your tubing might look fine on the outside but it could be rusted almost all the way through from the inside.
Nope, I've looked inisde my tubes
>steel is also flexy and springy which can form stress fractures
FATIGUE LIMIT, fucking downtuber

>>1063601
>I didn't say that, I said that racers formerly using aluminium influences what mountain bikes are made of now
That's not what you meant and you know it.
>You're mistaking muh grams racing MTB with daily riders.
That was in reply to me saying most mountain bikes use aluminium parts, so you were implying that only "racing bikes" use aluminium which is false. Even the people that ride every day yet never race use bikes with mostly aluminium parts.

>Throw a carbon bike off a cliff
>Throw a steel bike off a cliff
>See what one is still ridable
Neither.

>Steel frames break less easily
Like I said, prove it.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/frame_fatigue_test.htm

File: IMG_1321.png (1MB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1334x750px

>>1063013
What model do you have? I have a 912

>>1063606
>That's not what you meant and you know it.
Yes it is what I meant you fucking downtube
>That was in reply to me saying most mountain bikes use aluminium parts, so you were implying that only "racing bikes" use aluminium which is false. Even the people that ride every day yet never race use bikes with mostly aluminium parts.
This thread is about frames, not components
>Neither.
Depends how big a cliff
>Like I said, prove it.
Like I said, throw both off a cliff

>>1063502
I got it checked, I'm not that dumb.

>>1063620
>This thread is about frames, not components
Frames are a component. If aluminium was not suitable for frames it also wouldn't be suitable for those other parts.

The guy I was replying to even mentioned aluminium and carbon forks breaking was a huge issue, so my counter was that if it was then mountain bikers (who put much more stress on components than roadies) wouldn't be using all the parts that they do that were made from aluminium.

>Depends how big a cliff
If it's big enough to crack a carbon frame it will significantly bend or dent a steel one of the same strength. Whilst it could technically still be considered rideable you'd be an idiot to do so. Now, if the comparison frames are of the same weight then you can bet that the steel one will be fucked before the carbon one, same goes for aluminium.

>Like I said, throw both off a cliff
So you have no proof and are just spouting off nonsense that you've heard from other idiots, got it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5eMMf11uhM

>>1063633


>Why Can't I hold All This Fallacy: The Post

You know why you're wrong. Just get out.

File: t3_3ifdic[1].jpg (138KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 720x960px

>>1062984
>the only reason to not use carbon is price
neck yourself fredward

>>1063058
peak fred

>>1063074
>racing under the power of a motor
you ride a carbon e-bike too you fat piece of shit?

>>1063249
>spending even more 1000s on a bike that is structurally compromised by the light from the sun
lol

>>1063380
>resistant frames
what did he mean by this?
>comfort is not an argument
>running 32s on your brittle aluminum trash just so your teeth don't rattle out
lol

>>1063391
>I've literally never ridden a steel bicycle
out, child

>>1063447
>I can't tell the difference between frame materials so you can't either
out, child

>>1063295
>If you hit hard enough to break it, it's also enough to bend a steel/aluminum frame.
this is factually untrue. carbon is stiff against the forces exerted by a rider but the slightest impact on another axis is enough to shatter it.
>hurr i can't clamp my garbon frame into a workstand but it's just as durable as steel u guys!

>>1063530
>>>/o/ you manchild

>>1063606
>throwing bikes off a cliff
you ever wonder why they don't make rigid carbon mtbs? hint: because the material is weak as fuck

>>1063637
I like you.

>>1063633
>Frames are a component. If aluminium was not suitable for frames it also wouldn't be suitable for those other parts.
Okay, so if all components can be made of the same materials, then you must have a carbon chain, carbon cables, carbon housing, carbon tires, carbon tubes, carbon pedals, carbon cleats, and carbon valve stems on your carbon bike, right? Post pics, I'd love to see!
>If it's big enough to crack a carbon frame it will significantly bend or dent a steel one of the same strength.
Yes, it will, if it's a frame OF THE SAME STRENGTH. Protip: Carbon frames ARE NOT OF THE SAME FUCKING STRENGTH as steel frames.

>>1063637
Is your picture supposed to imply that a steel frame wouldn't be fucked if you try wrapping it around a tree?

>>1063642
>Carbon frames ARE NOT OF THE SAME FUCKING STRENGTH as steel frames
You're right. Carbon frames are much stronger.

>>1063637
>you ever wonder why they don't make rigid carbon mtbs?

salsa cutthroat would like a word with you.

perhaps you meat 'fully rigid gravity race bikes'?

look at this guy crushing a-line and dirt merchant with a carbon cx bike tho
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvL1agpqwvE

>>1063643
>You're right. Carbon frames are much stronger.
No, they're weaker, you fucking dumbfuck.

>>1063643
Well, yes, because it wouldn't. Not to say that steel frames are indestructible, but if you think they break at the same point as carbon frames, you're retarded. Notice, however, that this bike is actually snapped in two places, even though there's clearly only one point of impact. Is that how a bike is supposed to hold up under stress?

Carbon bikes are stiff, but stiff does not mean "resistant to impact", because carbon bikes are not resistant to impact. Again, the fact that you can not clamp a carbon frame into a workstand is a very good indicator of how poorly carbon fiber handles stresses outside of those it is built for. Carbon fiber is great at handling lateral and torsional loads, which is why it's used for racing road bikes. It can not handle impact or compressive forces, and it is extremely inflexible. This is why it fails catastrophically once it reaches its breaking point, and again, that breaking point is extremely low for loads that are not lateral or torsional, which means just about every load that you would experience, say, riding a technical downhill trail.

>>1063644
Okay. I was mistaken. Apparently they do make a fully rigid carbon MTB. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Per Salsa's website, the bike seems to be designed roughly for cross-country bikepacking. I'm sure it's great at that. I'm sure it can go over roots without shattering. But it still has limitations.

As for the video, I'm really not sure what this proves. The rider's skill is obviously very impressive, but if you think that the way the bike handled the course is impressive, you obviously have quite low expectations of carbon frames. Notice that he literally never takes a drop of more than two feet. Notice how slowly he goes over every root and rock on the course. This isn't because it would be uncomfortable, but because if he hits something too hard, his frame is going to snap.

>>1063404
No, it's 1-1/8" threadless. The only modern "adventure", "allroad", or "monstercross" bike that I know of that insists on 1" threaded is the Crust Romanceur.

>>1063651
>shitposting this badly

>>1063447
It's immediately apparent on anything that isn't glass-smooth asphalt. Have you actually ridden a steel frame in recent history? No, Tesco gaspipe BSOs don't count.

Alu: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Steel: ~~~~~~~~~~

>>1063643
>Carbon frames are much stronger.

Do this test on your frame: stab it with a screwdriver and/or have it fall on a concrete curb. Which do you think survives this better, carbon or steel?

File: carbon_002.jpg (103KB, 1000x569px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 1000x569px

>>1063644
>look at this guy crushing a-line and dirt merchant with a carbon cx bike tho
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvL1agpqwvE [Embed]

fantastic skills, that guy is a pro DHer. Your point doesnt stand, that bike is fresh from the factor and had no serious impact apart from few lighter crashed in the video.

pic rel is what happened to a carbon bike on a high level CX race

>>1063145
>shimano 600 tricoulour

I have the same groupset. how do service the BB, what tools do I need to open it?

very sexy bike, what are those rims?

From me it's aluminium,the best frame material

>>1063700
>>pic rel is what happened to a carbon bike on a high level CX race
>implying a weight weenie alloy frame wouldnt also be rendered unrideable when people fucking stomp on it
End yourself and this stupid meme.

>>1063642
>you must have a carbon chain, carbon cables, carbon housing, carbon tires, carbon tubes, carbon pedals, carbon cleats, and carbon valve stems on your carbon bike, right?
So you run steel tyres and tubes? And I suppose there's no aluminium on those pedals? As for cleats, I don't know what metal they're made from but I don't think it's steel. Also, there are carbon pedals, carbon chainrings, and carbon reinforced tyres and belts. You can make a cable from carbon but I don't think they exist for bicycles.

>Protip: Carbon frames ARE NOT OF THE SAME FUCKING STRENGTH as steel frames.
Prove it. For the same weight a carbon frame will be stronger, for the same strength a carbon frame will be lighter.


You know why some carbon frames are so fragile that you can't sit on the top tube or clamp them in a work stand? Because they're ridiculously fucking light with tubes that are stupidly thing, yet they're still strong enough to ride normally.

To make a steel frame as light would make it unribeable, but being heavier isn't a downside of steel right? There are some steel frames out there that did use stupidly thing tubing to make it light (yet still heavier than carbon) and they dent, bend, and crack easily, but we're smart enough to realise that not all steel frames are the same just like all carbon ones aren't.

>>1063598
>steel is more comfortable than aluminium

That's a myth. The material of your frame has very little to no influence on your riding comfort. Other aspects have much more impact.

>carbon breaks more easily

Carbon is a whole different story in itself because it's not a metal. So its behaviour and uses are quite different.

You said that steel breaks less easily than any other material which is wrong because aluminium or titanium are just as strong if the frames are made correctly. Carbon is slightly less reliable due to the nature of the material and how frames are built, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have its advantages.

>>1063701
It's an old-school British-threaded BB with loose ball bearings; you'll need a pin-spanner and a fixed-cup wrench. Probably a job for a bike shop or co-op since BB cups are prone to getting gunked into place from road grit
sauce: Shimano RX100 user

>>1063735
>That's a myth.

Post discarded.

>>1063737
>It's an old-school British-threaded BB with loose ball bearings; you'll need a pin-spanner and a fixed-cup wrench.

just serviced it an hour ago at the local bike place. I exepected complications but it was as smooth as a whistle with proper tools (the one with hooks made it).

6400 is such a good looking gruppeto, metallic grey brake calipers especially.

File: Raleigh_Commuter.jpg (1MB, 4128x3096px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4128x3096px

Here is my commuter, apart from tyres and bar tape all original.

>>1063795
What about cables, chain, and brake pads (tubes I'm guessing you included in tyres)? First two would be alright if the bike's hardly been ridden but the pads would probably be quite perished after all that time.

I like my steel bike (Niner RLT-9). I like my carbon bike when I want to go a little faster (Specialized Diverge). I didn't like the only aluminum bike I ever had, but it was a cheap BikesDirect bike.

Tire selection and pressure are more important than frame material for comfort, IMO.

>>1063799
I will be putting new pads on in a few weeks, pretty perished but don't ride fast when commuting. Tubes I replaced with tyres. Cables and chain still stock as was never ridden before I got him from a collector.

File: IMG_9019.jpg (186KB, 640x621px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 640x621px

I have both steel and aluminium bikes, and love them for differing reasons. Good Steel is comfy, springy (it delays/deadens bumps), and has a certain character that's hard to describe, I guess you could say planted.

I also like my aluminum bikes. They are light, lively, and the pedal exceedingly well. They are also not terribly expensive.

It's a bit like the difference between a luxury coupé and a sports/luxury coupé. They are both capable of the same things, but are better at one facet or the other.

I don't really like carbon bikes. They are super light, but they tend to feel dead, have no real 'personality' like you find in steel or (to a lesser extent) aluminum. Also, very expensive, typically. I run a bike shop and sell plenty of carbon, but no longer have any myself... I see no need.

I won't even go into length about the lifespan issue of carbon vs. aluminum vs. steel.

Pic related is my favorite road bike to ride, a 1985 Univega Gran Sprint built with modern and semi-modern parts.

>>1063722
>So you run steel tyres and tubes?
No, because I'm not the moron that said that the same material is suitable for all components, you absolute fucktard. This dumbass (you?) >>1063633 is the only one that ever made such a fucktarded claim. Fucking kill yourself on livestream.

>>1063687
STEEL
BECAUSE STEEL IS REAL
>>1063700
>tfw steel can handle pretty much anything but carbon can't even handle cx
>tfw I shattered the frame of my carbon enduro bike (but paid some guys $300 to fix it)

>>1063819
>tfw I shattered the frame of my carbon enduro bike

its a susser? it failed on the chainstay I assume?

>>1063820
Shattered where the shock mounts, I think because the shock bottomed out when I landed a drop. And it was a small drop, only like 4 and a half feet.
>inb4 ride your shock at higher pressure
Yeah I do now, and yeah it was partly my fault. But if it was steel or aluminum it wouldn't have shattered.

>>1063821
>But if it was steel or aluminum it wouldn't have shattered.

most likely, all alu failes Ive seen were on the chainstay. bottoming out is never good but alu frames usually handle it. what frame was it?

>>1063823
>what frame was it?
Cannondale Moto 3
The stays are aluminum btw, just the main triangle is carbon.

>>1063817
>No, because I'm not the moron that said that the same material is suitable for all components
No I didn't. What I did say is if aluminium wasn't a suitable material for frames it also wouldn't be suitable for those specific parts. If you were worried about an aluminium frame snapping then it would also make sense to worry about aluminium bars, hubs, etc. snapping.

Do you understand the point I was making now?

>>1063837
No, you're wrong and you're a fucking idiot. Not all parts serve the same function so not all parts should be made from the same material. Fuck you're an idiot.

>>1063840
So, are you confirming that you are paranoid about aluminium frames snapping but you have no concern with those other parts being made from aluminium? If so then you're the idiot.

>>1063845
No. Aluminum isn't as durable as steel, making steel preferable for frames, but the primary reason steel is superior to aluminum is ride quality. Durability is just a nice bonus. With carbon, however, durability is a more significant factor in why steel is superior.
>If so then you're the idiot.
>implying all components are at as high of a risk of snapping as the frame
No, you're an idiot.

>>1063848
>Muh comfort
If you want to ride on rock hard 25s then that's fine by me, but some of us make more sensible choices if comfort is a concern. Besides, the original argument was concerning mountain bikes anyway.

>>1063852
I don't ride 25s. I ride 23s on my carbon road bike, 28s on my steel road bike, and 32s on my steel hybrid. I don't even remember what I have on my steel mountain bike, 2" maybe? And on my carbon mountain bike I have 2.7" front 2.3" rear. Steel is more comfortable than aluminum regardless of tires. (of course on a full suspension mountain bike it's not as big of a deal)
>Besides, the original argument was concerning mountain bikes anyway.
No, it's about bikes in general, faggot downtuber.

>>1063854
>No, it's about bikes in general
No, the thread is. The discussion I was having was regarding mountain bikes.

>Steel is more comfortable than aluminum regardless of tires.
That's false. However, do you know why people think that most steel frames are more comfortable than aluminium ones? Because they're flexy as fuck, enjoy your wasted energy and poor handling.

>>1063855
>The discussion I was having was regarding mountain bikes.
The discussion I was having is about bikes in general. It fully applies to rigid mountain bikes, though not as much to full suspension mountain bikes (and moderately less to hardtails).
>That's false. However, do you know why people think that most steel frames are more comfortable than aluminium ones? Because they're flexy as fuck, enjoy your wasted energy and poor handling.
>wasted energy
>poor handling
I can outperform you with me on a steel bike and you on an aluminum or carbon bike so get fucked, nigger downtuber.

>>1063856
>The discussion I was having is about bikes in general.
Then have it with someone else you bellend. I was replying to some knob saying aluminium is weak by mentioning how it's used in mountain bikes, and for much more than just frames.

>I can outperform you with me on a steel bike and you on an aluminum or carbon bike so get fucked, nigger downtuber.
Sure you can, you believe whatever you want if it makes you hard.

>>1063858
But steel is stronger for mountain bikes

>nigger nigger nigger
>faggot downtuber
It sure smells Veganrider in here. Friendly reminder that no one likes you and your opinions are irrelevant. Go look up helium suicide tents, loser.

>>1063872
What the fuck are you rambling about?

>>1063870
That depends. At the same weight an aluminium frame will be stronger. Even if it was stronger it wouldn't matter because it's not like aluminium is too weak, by using steel you're just getting a heavier bike. As I mentioned all those other components could also be made from steel, sure they'd be stronger but unnecessarily so and the bike would be a shit ton heavier.

File: Message_1489614217063.jpg (1MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2656x1494px

I have two steelies

File: 20160628_170226.jpg (1MB, 2656x1494px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2656x1494px

>>1063879
I've put this one away for the moment. Will rehaul it with some deep dish rims and a 105 group.

>>1063875
Too new to know the cancerous tripfag, eh? Good on you lad.
He once sperged out so bad he wrote multiple posts about how proud he was that his mother never invited him home for Christmas. Or even called. Now you know what a sad person he is. He keeps coming back ever so often, thinking that his autism won't show if he doesn't trip.
Of course it does though, Veganrider-kun. The only cure is suicide. Make your mother happy again. She deserves it.

File: miyata 312 catalog87.jpg (574KB, 1163x1600px) Image search: [Google]

574KB, 1163x1600px

>>1063607
ha! you have the top-of-the-line model for the _12 series, and I have the bottom, a 312:

>>1063162

same triple-butted Miyata steel in the frames, afaik

>>1063795
cool :)

File: G Wash & Franklin.jpg (134KB, 960x402px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 960x402px

>>1063801
I have the steel Miyata 312 upthread but also an alu Trek 1400. that's some good aluminum, right there

>>1063882
Thats a pretty bike anon.

File: baby.jpg (6KB, 216x212px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 216x212px

>>1063882
daaaaaannnnnng!

>>1063886
I don't know what you're talking about. I can go to my parents' house whenever I want, invited or uninvited, they're always happy to see me. I am a skier so I go to mountains for the winter every year, so I am usually not at my parents' house during Christmas.

>>1063886
Oh and
>He keeps coming back ever so often
I'm on /n/ pretty much every day and have been frequenting /n/ since 2012. (4chan since earlier than 2012, 2012 is just when I started browsing /n/) If you think I am only here 'ever so often' then I guess you just usually don't recognize me when I post as anon.

>>1063845

Certain parts of the frame flex repeatedly and no matter how you design for stiffness, this will always happen. Chainstays, BB, headtube junction, forks all flex. It is a well known property of Al to have a finite fatigue limit after which it break.

Al and carbon a fine frame materials and if you want lightweight performance for racing or whatever, they're the way to go. But they are not even close to the durability of steel which is why steel bikes are superior for regular riding on street and trail where the bumps and bruises add up.

>>1063934
>fatigue limit
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/frame_fatigue_test.htm

Steel isn't magic pal

>>1063936
Steel has a fatigue limit. Fuck off.

>>1063934
>fatigue limit

Christ I think I'm going to vomit the next time I hear someone talk about how "aluminum has no fatigue limit" as if that matters at all. Quit trying to pretend to be an engineer.

SPOILER ALERT: boat anchor/gas pipe steel frames excluded, all steel frames are stressed above steel's fatigue limit. Your lightweight steel frame WILL fail from fatigue cycling eventually. Perhaps sooner than a well designed aluminum frame will fatigue!

>>1063938
No you stop pretending to be an engineer, steel has a fatigue limit, aluminium and carbon do not, STEEL IS REAL

This thread is pretty great. I'm just gonna post my Surly, cause it rules, and cause steel is also real.

File: HarleyJohnstoneontheWoodstockFruitFestivalfalloutchangingfocusfeatured500px.jpg (157KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 500x300px

>>1062933


>ITT poor fags trying to believe their own bullshit.

At this point I'm embarrassed to own a steel frame because of the poor fag/steel frame culture here in /n/.

>>1063828
>cracknfail

File: zelvy.jpg (189KB, 2048x1365px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 2048x1365px

>>1063959

It's pretty bad on /n/. Shit most bike messengers here are running carbon forks and sometimes frames. I've seen lots of kids riding custom mini carbon road bikes.

>>1063959
I have 5 bikes, 2 of which are carbon, and I ride my steel road bike more than my other 4 bikes combined so fuck off niggerfaggot

>>1062933

>steel

If you're not riding a titanium bike you may as well not ride at all.

>>1064009
Kill yourself. Literally kill yourself.

>>1063855
>That's false.

That's false.

>Because they're flexy as fuck, enjoy your wasted energy

So? The argument was comfort, not efficiency. Bigger tires = enjoy your wasted energy. And the reason steel is more comfortable is because you can't make an alu frame with that level of flex without it bending permanently under stress.

>>1063902
They let you in only out of courtesy. You know you have no friends and spends even NYE alone. But that's totally an informed choice on your part as being liked is """degenerate""" - was that how you put it?
Please, please, with a niggerfaggotdowntubecherry on top, please kill yourself instead of shitting up this board with your 'tism, you unloved failure.

>>1064073
>So? The argument was comfort, not efficiency.
No, it was about strength, for which I have provided proof that steel is not superior. So, not only is steel not stronger it is also less efficient, heaiver, and prone to corrosion. The only advantage it may have is comfort which can be compensated for with aluminium frames by using slightly larger tyres if you wanted, which brings me onto your next point.

>Bigger tires = enjoy your wasted energy
So you've also fallen for the skinny tyres = less rolling resistance meme, you gullible little bitch. That only works if you pumped them up rock hard, at which point you lose your comfort advantage. Not only that but you sacrifice grip with narrower over-inflated tyres, so you can add worse cornering and braking to the list of shit that comes with using a steel frame.

File: Untitled.png (47KB, 592x526px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 592x526px

>>1064117

>>1064125
I said it was false because he stated it as if it was always true, which it isn't. It can be and often is but there are steel frames out there that are stiffer than some aluminium ones. Stiffness depends highly on the frame design as well as the material used.

>>1064126
>the most comfortable aluminum frame is more comfortable than the least comfortable steel frame
>therefore 'steel is more comfortable than aluminum' is false
I read that as
>the most attractive black girl is more attractive than the least attractive Japanese girl
>therefore 'chinks are more attractive than niggers' is false
tl;dr you're a retard

>>1064117
>>Bigger tires = enjoy your wasted energy
>So you've also fallen for the skinny tyres = less rolling resistance meme, y
Then go enter a road race on a fat bike you fucking moron
>inb4 muh knobs
Thickslicks exist.

>>1064108
>They let you in only out of courtesy.
Nope. Nice job projecting your own insecurities onto other people though.
>You know you have no friends
I do have friends, actually. I'm going cycling with one tomorrow.
>and spends even NYE alone
I pretty much always spend evenings alone. Problem?
>But that's totally an informed choice on your part
Yes, what's your point?
>as being liked is """degenerate""" - was that how you put it?
The only things I typically refer to as degenerate are drug use, consumption of animal products, and laziness/lack of physical activity/unhealthy lifestyle. I have never claimed that being liked is degenerate, nor anything remotely similar to that.
>you unloved failure.
Cat 6 me and we'll see who the unloved failure is.

>>1064256
If there's an exception then it's not a rule, nothing retarded about that. If every single steel frame was more comfortable than every single aluminium one then fine, but that's not the case.

>>1064257
But you don't need 4 inch wide tyres to make an aluminium frame as comfortable as a comparable steel one. Will a 4 inch tyre have less rolling resistance than a 35mm? Probably, although there's nothing stopping it from being the other way round. Will a 23mm have less resistance than a 30mm? Not necessarily.

Check it, a 40mm tyre with less rolling resistance than a 37mm that weighs over 200g less, also a 35mm further down: http://www.bicyclerollingresistance.com/tour-reviews

Also if you go to the mountain bike page there's a 2.35 with less resistance than some of the 25mm road tyres.

>>1064267
>If there's an exception then it's not a rule
No one said it's a rule, fucktard. Steel is more comfortable than aluminum almost always, so 'steel bikes are more comfortable than aluminum bikes' is a valid statement.
>But you don't need 4 inch wide tyres to make an aluminium frame as comfortable as a comparable steel one.
Racing isn't even about comfort, faggot. If 4 inch tires are as low of rolling resistance as 23mm tires then go race on 4 inch tires. That or shut the fuck up.
>inb4 muh grams

>>1064282
> If 4 inch tires are as low of rolling resistance as 23mm tires then go race on 4 inch tires.
>Implying I said that
All I said is that a narrower tyre doesn't automatically have less rolling resistance than a wider one, which I have provided evidence for.

The reason a 23mm tyre is going to have less rolling resistance than a 4 inch one is because it's run at much higher pressure, the different casing construction, and probably the tread design and compound.

>so 'steel bikes are more comfortable than aluminum bikes' is a valid statement.
No, "most steel bike are more comfortable than most aluminium bikes" would be valid. It's the same as saying mountain bikes are lighter than road bikes when there are sub 20lb carbon hardtails and old ten speeds that weigh over 30lb.

>>1064284
So then ride a 4 inch tire at 100psi, faggotfuck. Get it custom made with the same construction and compound as a 23c.
>No, "most steel bike are more comfortable than most aluminium bikes" would be valid. It's the same as saying mountain bikes are lighter than road bikes when there are sub 20lb carbon hardtails and old ten speeds that weigh over 30lb.
You're an absolute fucktarded moron and don't even know basic English, fucktard. Might as well say 'chinks aren't cuter than niggers' and 'men aren't faster cyclists than women'

>>1064287
>So then ride a 4 inch tire at 100psi, faggotfuck
How about you learn to read, fuckstick. Inflation pressure isn't the only factor.

>You're an absolute fucktarded moron and don't even know basic English, fucktard
No you. Let me use some analogies that your simple mind might understand. These are not my opinions, just examples.

-Jews are greedy = false
-Most Jews are greedy = true

-Black people are thieves = false
-Most black people are thieves = true

>>1064290
>-Jews are greedy = false
>-Black people are thieves = false
Actually, neither of those is false, fucktard. Here, let me show you how it's done:
>Jews are greedy: true
>Most Jews are greedy: true
>All Jews are greedy: false
>Black people are thieves: true
>Most black people are thieves: likely true, have to check statistics
>All black people are thieves: false

>>1064292
Very good. However;
-All steel bikes are more comfortable than all aluminium bikes = false
-Steel bikes are more comfortable than aluminium bikes = false
-Some steel bikes are more comfortable than some aluminium bikes = true

>>1064295
>-Steel bikes are more comfortable than aluminium bikes = false
Wrong. That statement is true, fucktard.
>Very good
Implies you agree with my other statements. Meaning you agree that "Jews are greedy" is true while "All Jews are greedy" is false.
Steel bikes being more comfortable than aluminum bikes is true a higher percentage of the time than a Jew being greedy, so you're a fucking moron.
Kinda like "humans have two arms" is true even though some dumbasses go fight for Israel and get one of their arms blown off by a Muslim freedom fighter's grenade. A few humans only have one arm. Doesn't change the fact that "humans have two arms" is a valid statement.
tl;dr go fuck yourself

>>1064296
>Meaning you agree that "Jews are greedy" is true while "All Jews are greedy" is false.
"Jews are greedy" is true IF "All Jews are greedy" is true. Something can't be true if there's an exception to it, if it can be proven to be false.

>Steel bikes being more comfortable than aluminum bikes is true a higher percentage of the time
But not 100%, right? Say it's right 80% of the time, that means that 20% of the time it's wrong (false).

You can't say something is true if it's not always true. Words such as "usually", "generally", "often", commonly", etc. exist for a reason.

>>1062963
>>Heavy
>>Prone to rust
Don't forget this:
>Experiences metal fatigue over time

>What makes them superior? Being able to buy a £100 welder and fixing a crack yourself instead of paying half that to have a more skilled guy weld your aluminium frame? Do skinny tubes give you a hard on?
LOL you can't even do that. A steel frame cracks, you throw it away. You can't weld cracks, it ends up weaker not stronger.

>>1062933
>ITT we discuss the objective superiority of steel bicycles
FTFY: ITT poorfags who can only afford ancient rusted-out thriftstore bikes try to make themselves feel better about being poor

>>1064300
>not knowing how ftfy works
>being this fucking new

>>1064299
>"Jews are greedy" is true IF "All Jews are greedy" is true. Something can't be true if there's an exception to it, if it can be proven to be false.
But that's wrong you fucking retard. "All jews are greedy" and "Jews are greedy" are not the same fucking statement. You also said "very good" implying you agree with those statements, fucktard. Of course you probably said that since you can't read, judging by your poor grasp of English.
>But not 100%, right? Say it's right 80% of the time, that means that 20% of the time it's wrong (false).
No, it's not true some of the time and false some of the time. It's a statement, and the statement is true, fucktard.
>You can't say something is true if it's not always true.
You don't even know what "always" means. It wasn't true before bicycles existed. Back then, even "steel is sometimes more comfortable than aluminum" was not true (in the context of bicycles) so "steel is more comfortable than aluminum" is currently true despite not always being true.
>Words such as "usually", "generally", "often", commonly", etc. exist for a reason.
"Always" and "all" also exist for a reason, fucktard.
You are literally the most incompetent person on 4chan. I literally hope you get run over by a cager and die.
I bet you also cycle without a helmet. And that's a good thing.

>>1064282
>>1064287
There's more to choosing tires for racing than rolling resistance. Aero is a pretty big concern also. And winning 2.7 watts on Rollin resistance by putting on 4 inch wide tires isn't worth it if you lose 27.3 watts on wind resistance and the bike becomes much heavier.

File: atomcycles_1493115991478041906_185411481.jpg (87KB, 1080x778px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1080x778px

This fucking sterile discussion, mates. Steel frames are a work of art that will last a lifetime, you either like them or gtfo.

>>1064401
>0 rake
y
tho

>>1062933
Fellow straggler owner here, bro bump

>>1064412
track frame

>>1064267
Whatever tires you use to make an alu frame "just as comfortable as steel", remind yourself that you could put those tires on the steel frame and make it even more comfortable.
There is no way to make this argument work in your favor.

>>1064433
You know what's more comfortable than a steel frame and chunky tyres? Full suspension. If you're going to prioritise comfort and ignore the disadvantages of steel then why not go even further?

>>1064446
>what's more comfortable than a steel frame and chunky tyres? Full suspension

It's not. Do you even ride bikes?

>>1064447
But it is. Even a short amount of suspension can soak up bumps many times greater than even the chunkiest of tyres on a flexy frame and in a more controlled manner.

>>1064449
It also does next to nothing for steady high frequency vibrations aka road buzz.

>>1064449
>*le hat tip*
Thanks for proving you don't actually have any reasonable breadth of riding experience. We can all go back to ignoring you now.

>>1064433
This
>>1064267
>>1064446
Kill yourself
>>1064449
>But it is.
No it literally is not

>>1064282
>>1064381
>>inb4 muh grams

So I've seen steel and titanium frames with a full carbon seat tube (seat mast). Are there any aluminium frames like this?

>>1064890
Alu frame with carbon fork yes. Seatpost? Not sure, likely.

>>1064433
Aluminum plus fatter tires weighs less than steel plus skinnier tires though. It's not like I ride cruiser balloon tires and want that level of plushness.

I don't know what kind of pussy riding you fags do but my bikes get hell and are covered in scratches which would have taken good chunks out of CF. I had an alu road bike once and I liked it well enough, but road bikes are for skellingtons and tryhards.

>>1064918
The weight difference between frames is a couple hundred grams if that, and you're adding weight precisely where you don't want extra weight.

>>1064915

No like this but with an aluminium frame instead if titanium
https://22bicycles.com/products/aurora

>>1063074
KTM's MotoGP bikes are made of steel. Of course the issues they're having (it's their first year in the comp) are chassis issues so uhh lets wait and see on this one.

>>1063078
>tfw no lugged carbon frame

>>1065017
>implying trying hard is a bad thing
Lazy fuck detected. Probably a fatass too.

>>1065023
Oh I thought you said seatpost not seattube lol
Never seen anything like that. I think titanium/carbon frames are sorta common but never heard of carbon/alu or ti/alu

STEEL
IS
REAL

BTFO BY GALLIUM

Also anyone who doesn't think Steel bikes are awesome has never ridden one.

There must be some conspiracy because it is objectively better for anything but road racing and competition.
But it's almost impossible to get even a road bike using it anymore.

Just because Alu is cheaper and more environmentally friendly....

Don't even get me started on carbon, it's an absolute joke unless you are riding in a completely shock free environment.

>>1067056
>it is objectively better for anything but road racing and competition.
How so? It's usually more flexible and heavier, more fragile if it's light, and prone to corrosion. Also steel frames tend to be rather basic with no hydroforming or large machined parts (because it's harder to machine and heavier), although that's more of a concern with mountain bikes.

>>1064267
didn't know about those schwalbe almotion tires - thanks for posting

>>1067056
Alu is more environmentally friendly? Steel is sure as hell more environmentally friendly than carbon. Not sure how it compares to aluminum.

Is this good /steel/ for the price?

https://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/bik/6075805702.html

File: IMG_7848.jpg (11KB, 269x299px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 269x299px

>>1062984

>(((back then)))

>>1067072
yeah, if it fits you - old lugged treks are great bikes. go check it out and offer 160 or so...

>>1067072
>non-driveside pics
>description
It's very clear that the owner doesn't know fuckall about bikes and probably didn't take good care of it. IF it's in good condition and your size, go for it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to have worn sprockets, stretched chain, non-existent brake pads, damaged cables, etc. Just because this guy probably doesn't know enough to take good care of it.
Of course that issue is hard to avoid entirely when buying old steel bikes, just something to always be aware of.

>>1067101
I got there and measured it and it was a 1989 in 22". Being a 6'5" nerd, and including the fact that he looked sad af, I just gave him the $180. It's so fucking smooth. I'm debating putting some bigger wheels on it. It has brake holes to support a bigger size. I need to do some research, but I'm psyched. Really nice hardware, old school mountain rack, few scratches but clean overall.

File: 1488856687847.png (195KB, 308x340px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 308x340px

Gotta love how steel-shitters' threads are the only threads on /n/ that descend into incoherent rambling and name-calling.

Nobody likes you or your untermensch underperforming relict frames, no matter how much you try to shitpost force it.

>>1067202
Spot the alu hybrid nerd.

>>1067219
It's a flat bar road bike you insensitive clod.

>>1067202
Fuck off you fucking downtube.

>>1067227
If it's flat bar, it's not a road bike, dork.

>>1067312
But it's a Boardman. And Chris Boardman was a road cyclist. Checkmate, atheists.

File: DSC_3574.jpg (2MB, 2215x1340px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2215x1340px

>>1067318
>He thinks that's me
I'm flattered that you remember me

>>1067320
Autism like yours leave an imprint.

>>1067322
I dunno man, you've gotta be pretty autistic to insist that all road bikes must have drop bars.

Anyway, back on topic.
Aluminium > Steel

File: Untitled.jpg (812KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

812KB, 1920x1200px

>>1067323
Count the flat bars.

File: fbrb.jpg (933KB, 1924x2160px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 1924x2160px

>>1067342
That's like saying that fat bikes aren't mountain bikes because hardly any show up when you Google "mountain bike", or similarly not many BMXs show up when you search "bike" but BMXs are in fact bikes.

>>1067344
Your rigid hybrid with alfine in vertilal dropouts still isn't a road bike.

>>1067345
It's a flat bar road bike, which is a type of road bike.

>>1067348
No.

>>1067348
Please autist, we've explained this before. It is not a flat bar road bike, and the definition of road bike is not 'any bike used on the road'. Only an actual, clinical not-4chan-meme-autist autist would be stuck to that type of literal language interpretation. You're not in the right here. You're displaying a classic symptom of your neurological disability. Show some insight and accept it.

>>1067344
>all but two are actual road bike frames with flat bars
>he unironically posts this to support the notion that his hybrid is a road bike
ohshitniggerwhatareyoudoing.gif

>>1067348
Yes a flat bar road bike is a type of road bike

but a rigid hybrid is not a road bike

>>1067353
> It is not a flat bar road bike
How is it not?

>>1067357
>all but two are actual road bike frames with flat bars
And so what are the other two? And how is my bike not a flat bar road bike?

Call it a hybrid all you want, I won't disagree with that, however it's a shitty term and flat bar road bike is a better description.

>>1067362
>language is wrong any only i the autismus maximus can bring order to it
Yeah, or kill yourself, pretty please. The world doesn't conform to your magic patterns.

>>1067362
>And so what are the other two?
Rigid hybrids. If I google red velvet I get cake, Korean kpop band girls and some fabric. Clearly this proves that Korean women are made of cloth ... r-right? They showed up in the same s-search, so p-proof, right?!
Google doesn't conform to your ordered universe theory either, autist.

>>1067369
>Rigid hybrids
Okay, so what's the difference? What's the difference between my bike and an "actual" flat bar road bike? No doubt it'll be a more autistic reason than anything I've said.

>They showed up in the same s-search, so p-proof, right?!
So by the same reasoning the fact that only drop bar road bikes show up when you search "road bike" isn't proof either. If that wasn't you who posted that image then cheers for countering that argument for me.

>>1067378
There is no actual flat bar road bike.

>>1067378
>Okay, so what's the difference?
That has been explained by several people in many threads previous, autism-kun. On levels a five year old would understand. The fact that you do not still is proof of how bad your mental handicap has stricken you. You are not worth wasting further time explaining on. You should just feel shame that we have to suffer you and accept the collectives authority on the matter.

>>1067380
So what would you call a drop bar road bike that has been converted to flat bars? Is it still just a road bike to you, or would you call it a hybrid and that's it?


>>1067381
>That has been explained by several people in many threads previous
No, it actually hasn't. All people can say is that it's a hybrid or that flat bar road bikes don't exist (as above), the latter is just being silly. If you are one of those that believe that flat bar road bikes are a thing then just give me some solid logical reasons as to why my bike is not one. If you can't then just carry on calling me autistic.

>>1067385
>So what would you call a drop bar road bike that has been converted to flat bars?

An abomination.
Not every mix and match creates a new bike class. If you put drop bars on a BMX frame what does that make? Hold on I think we have a thread for this somewhere...

>>1067385
>No, it actually hasn't.
Yes. It has. You're just too autistic to understand it. Both the explanation and the explaining. You disregard every explanation that doesn't fit your preconceived notions about definition. It's going to be a recurring theme of you life, autism-kun. The only thing you'll ever truly understand is the phone book. Possibly by heart.

>>1067385
>So what would you call a drop bar road bike that has been converted to flat bars?
Are you implying that's what yours is? Surely you can't be this thick.

>>1067387
>Not every mix and match creates a new bike class
I wasn't saying it does. However there are plenty of people who do believe that flat bar road bikes are a thing (as evidenced by that Google search) and have decided that it is an appropriate term for them. It can't be considered an abomination of any sort, especially when road bikes started out with non-drop bars in the first place.

>>1067388
>You disregard every explanation that doesn't fit your preconceived notions about definition
No, I disregard bullshit reasons.

>>1067391
>Are you implying that's what yours is?
No of course not, it comes straight from the manufacturer with flat bars. However, what it comes stock with doesn't matter and doesn't make it any different from a converted bike.

>>1067393
>>No, I disregard bullshit reasons.
>WAA-WAA YOU DIDNT EXPLAIN WAAAA
>WAAAAAA I DIDNT LIKE EXPLANATION REEEEEEEE WAAAA

>>1067402
So is that you admitting that you don't actually have some logical reasons? You can't just expect me to accept your bullshit just to shut you up.

>>1067405
I accept that there is probably no other frame of reference that you would accept other than your own. It is pointless explaining to one who does not want to understand. That's why I never bothered. You surely are a sad autistic fuck though. Gratuitous insults have never been so well deserved, boardman-kun.

>>1067408
Come on now, just give me some reasons. This is your final chance, if all you can reply with is calling me autistic I'll take that to mean that you concede the argument (that's usually why people start throwing around that insult).

>>1067413
Autism is a diagnosis.

File: roadhouse.jpg (684KB, 2814x1716px) Image search: [Google]

684KB, 2814x1716px

Local shop got one of these in; excessively nice, but I'm not sure if we have the market that likes steel, and has $5000 CAD.

>>1067323
>Aluminium > Steel
Kill yourself you stupid fucking moron.
>>1067348
Your bike is a hybrid, not a flat bar road bike, you fucking moron.
>>1067345
>>1067342
You're also a moron if you think that flat bar road bikes do not exist. The other faggot's bike is not a road bike, but flat bar road bikes do exist. (if you acknowledge this then I apologize for calling you a moron, it just seems that you are arguing against the existence of flat bar road bikes)

>>1067358
This nigger gets it.
>>1067362
>How is it not?
The fact that it's not a road bike frame/fork you fucking autist doublenigger downtuber.
>>1067378
>Okay, so what's the difference? What's the difference between my bike and an "actual" flat bar road bike? No doubt it'll be a more autistic reason than anything I've said.
>>1067378
Geometry, you literal autist
>>1067380
Yes there is and you're as moronic as the other fucktard downtuber
>>1067381
REKT
E
K
T
>>1067385
>So what would you call a drop bar road bike that has been converted to flat bars? Is it still just a road bike to you, or would you call it a hybrid and that's it?
That's a flat bar road bike and it's different than your hybrid, autism-kun.
>then just give me some solid logical reasons as to why my bike is not one
GEOMETRY YOU LITERAL FUCKING AUTISTIC DOUBLENIGGER DOWNTUBER

File: trashman.jpg (32KB, 680x465px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 680x465px

>>1067442
>carbon fork

>>1067451
>The fact that it's not a road bike frame/fork
Would you care to clarify that? How does it differ?

>Geometry
Erm, the geometry is pretty much identical to the drop bar version except it has a longer top tube.

So, is the sole reason that my bike isn't a flat bar road bike the top tube length? If so then you dumb as hell. I appreciate you actually attempting to give a reason though.

>>1067463
GEOMETRY AND TIRES AND GEARING

>>1067467
>GEOMETRY
Not different, do you really need me to find a "road frame" with a top tube just as long? Boardman make a drop bar bike that's only 5mm shorter.

>TIRES
You mean the 700x28 road tyres?

>GEARING
Well, sure it's different to most drop bar bikes but I don't see how that determines what type of bike it is. What about single speed road bikes (drop or flat)? What about a drop bar road bike with a MTB cassette in the back? What about a drop bar road bike with an IGH? Are those no longer road bikes in your eyes?

aluminum frame + steel fork

most of the safety of steel (fork failure is bad)

2 or 3 lbs lighter

good idea imho

File: IMAG0729.jpg (3MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x3000px

>>1067320
>the flat bar road bike autist still thinks his IGH boatman is a road bike
>I actually have a flat bar road bike
>mfw

>>1067498
That's a hybrid.

>>1067202
>Gotta love how steel-shitters' threads are the only threads on /n/ that descend into incoherent rambling and name-calling.

Have you seen any MTB thread on /n/? They invariably devolve into inane roadie vs MTB arguments and name calling, complete with autistic pedantry about what it means to be a "roadie" or a "mountain biker".

File: crust romanceur.jpg (163KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1024x683px

>>1062933
S T E E L
T E E L S
E E L S T
E L S T E
L S T E E

File: traitor crusade.jpg (218KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1500x1500px

>>1062933
bought one of these recently because they were on sale at evo.

bikes fun, but the single-speed hub is a lot quieter than the mtb hubs i'm used to and the ratio is kinda light but i'm working on fixing that.

>>1067521
Literally a 300 series Madone with flat bars.

>>1067536
So a hybrid?

>>1067548
I though we've already established that flat bar road bikes exist. And that Boardman-kun's bike isn't one.

I don't really care how people classify my bike. It's currently on sale in the hybrids section at the local bike forum. It still is what would classify as a flat bar road bike.

>>1067527

Nice girth on those wheels. That's one advantage of steel, it's easier to get a fat wheel in the stays without all that boosty stuff.

>>1067553
No we didn't. They don't.
It's a made up marketing buzzword to make hybrid freds fell like they own a real bike and can ride with the big boys now.

File: 1491816009761.png (29KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x480px

>>1067527
>1 inch steerer

>>1067562
>you can't ride a flat bar bike with big boys

>>1067527
Jesus, what an abomination.

File: N5-BAHAMA_1960_10xbig.jpg (536KB, 1960x1307px) Image search: [Google]

536KB, 1960x1307px

one of the best full squishes you can get.
wish i had the 1900 euro for a frame set.

>>1067470
>geometry
Yes, find a road frameset with the same geometry (and while you're at it, the same weight).
>tires
>28c
>road
laughing_girls.png
>single speed road bikes
Those are called single speeds, not road bikes.
>IGH
That's called a meme.
>MTB cassette
Acceptable on a road bike used for climbing mountain passes and/or for a road bike ridden by someone at least 80 years old. Are you 80? Do you spend all your time riding mountain passes? Nice flat pedals, 1x drivetrain, and huge stack of headset spacers, btw. That stack of spacers is longer than my penis.

File: jjjlol.jpg (28KB, 801x534px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 801x534px

>>1067488
>2 or 3 lbs lighter
MY SIDES ARE IN ORBIT

>>1067498
>inb4 autism-kun is triggered
>>1067521
>>1067548
>>1067562
No, you're wrong and you're a dumbass. The other idiot has a hybrid, not a flat bar road bike. But the guy you're talking to now does have a flat bar road bike. Are flat bar road bikes pointless? Yeah, kinda (though I could see them being useful for an old guy with back problems or something like that). But do they exist? Yeah.
>>1067525
Of course he hasn't seen the MTB threads because his bike handling skills are not good enough to ride off of pavement. (I am both a road cyclist and mountain biker, as well as a commuter; I am not saying mtb is better than road, both are great)

>>1067527
AYYY that's a beautiful as fuck bike. Is it yours?
>>1067530
That looks really fun to ride.
>>1067579
The only ugly thing about it is the saddle. Other than that, it's perfect.

>>1067587
I WANT THIS
I love my carbon enduro bike but if I ever have to replace it I might get this (assuming the swingarm is steel; if only the main triangle is steel then fuck it). Or else a Kingdom Switch (ti).

>>1067602
i think the swing arm is steel, as that's one of the down sides of cotic's droplink bikes, their swingarms are aluminium.

>>1067595
>Yes, find a road frameset with the same geometry (and while you're at it, the same weight).
As I've said, the drop bar version of this bike has almost identical geometry except for the top tube length (at the same size). If I compare mine to a larger size the geometry is the same.

>laughing_girls.png
What, is 28mm not skinny enough for you? You do realise that most people that don't race use 28 or larger? In fact even a lot of racers use 28.

>Those are called single speeds, not road bikes.
Sure, but then so are single speed mountain bikes, track bikes, BMXs. It makes sense to differentiate between the different types and single speed road bike perfectly describes them, otherwise we might as well call all types of bikes just bikes.

>Nice flat pedals, 1x drivetrain, and huge stack of headset spacers
It's a short distance commuter, clipless would offer little advantage whilst adding cost and requiring me to change my shoes when I get to where I want to go. It has an 11 speed IGH. Stem has since been lowered, congrats on your tiny penis though.

>>1067640
.....My road bike doesn't have drop bars.

It's 100% a road bike.

Litespeed, has vision base bars and profile design clip ons

>>1067640
You're still trying to claim that your bike that, by your own admission, doesn't have road geometry or any road components, other than the tires, is somehow a road bike.

Just the IGH alone will make it a hybrid. IGH are inefficient and heavy options that do offer longer maintenance intervals. It's the definitive hybrid drivetrain option.

File: Pinion-Titan-Rennrad5.jpg (175KB, 800x532px) Image search: [Google]

175KB, 800x532px

>>1067644
>doesn't have road geometry or any road components, other than the tires, is somehow a road bike.
It does have road geometry and everything other than the bars, grips, shifter, and brake levers could be considered road components. Well technically the seatpost is marketed for mountain bikes (RaceFace, don't think they make any road stuff) but it's just a bloody seatpost.

>Just the IGH alone will make it a hybrid.
How so? Not all road bikes are for racing or gottagofast try hards, for commuting the extra weight and inefficiency don't matter that much. Say in 20 years gearboxes take over completely (not saying they will or won't, just a hypothetical). will new road bikes cease to exist?

>>1067645
Once IGHs reach the same efficiency and weight as derailleurs I'll have no problem with IGH bikes being classified as road bikes. Until that happens they're not road bikes.

>>1067650
Okay, so your issue is not with it not being a derailer drivetrain but rather the weight and efficiency. The weight increased something like 700g when I switched from derailers, so would adding an additional bottle to a road bike make it no longer a road bike? What if I put some carbon bits on my bike to offset the weight increase?

As for efficiency there's like a 3-8% difference compared to derailers. That's a loss of 16 additional watts at 200w, the rolling resistance of tyre, tube, and inflation pressure combos can vary by more than that. So, you're saying that if someone decides to slap some heavy duty tyres on their drop bar road bike and runs them at a lower pressure it is no longer a road bike.

>>1067657

It's only a road bike if you bend right over and have a pointy hard saddle which jams right up your faget asshole every time you hit a grain of sand with those pizzacutters.

>>1063145
>glorious nippon steel bike
I like your style senpai. Late 80's Japanese road bikes are objectively the best bikes you can buy for under $200

File: Elephant-NFE.jpg (317KB, 1335x890px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1335x890px

>>1067557
The tires look bigger than they are because the wheels are small. 26" MTB rims; fits "normal" 2.2" - 2.4" MTB meats, or fat flicks.

>>1067563
Eh, there's nothing wrong with 1" threaded on a steel frame. You don't need a larger diameter headtube for strength like you do with alu or carbon, and since no one buying this frame is going to put a carbon fork on it, there's also no need for more area at the steerer-crown junction on the fork. This isn't a full-squish mountain bike that's going to get hucked down mountains, so it doesn't need to be designed like one. (And some people really fetishize the classic horizontal toptube and quill stem look...)

If you want this kind of bike but MUSThave a 1-1/8" threadless steerer, you can always get in line for the NFE.

>>1067579
>no fun allowed

>>1067600
Nope, not my bike. I'm really temped to get one, though. And agreed that's an ugly saddle.

>>1067631
Yeah that's exactly my problem with Cotic.
>OUR BIKES ARE STEEL
>lol jk they're only half steel trollololol

>>1067640
>You do realise that most filthy casuals use 28 or larger?
Fix'd (btw I ride 23s and I have only competed in one race in my life)
>In fact even a lot of racers use 28.
Yeah maybe in fucking Paris Roubaix, that means nothing
>It has an 11 speed IGH.
>1x11 road bike
LOL nice one
>congrats on your tiny penis though.
Thanks!

File: jjjlol5.jpg (36KB, 797x534px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 797x534px

>>1067657
>As for efficiency there's like a 3-8% difference compared to derailers.
>>1067689
>80's Japanese road bikes are objectively the best bikes you can buy for under $200
THIS

>>1067781

I bet you love that saddle ramming right up your asshole you dirty little faget. :3

>>1067780
yeah it sucks, but i really want a rocketMAX though, as a steel front triangle for £200 more over an all aluminium trek, is kinda worth it, although for the same price you can get a plastic YT jeffsy.

>>1067780
>>1067851
Does it suck, really though? The swing arm should be as light as possible because mass increases the moment of inertia of the moving part of the suspension system which directly translates to worse grip and terrain tracking. And since shocks acting on the rider via the swing acts in series with a damper, high energy impulses and consequent distortion and fatigue of the swing material should be easy to engineer out.

I think it makes very little sense to make a swing arm out of steel. Even on a steel bike.

>>1067783
Wishful thinking, manfucker

>>1067902
STEEL IS REAL
FUCK OFF
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

tfw these steel bikes are lighter than you cabron bikes.

>>1068107
http://www.rodbikes.com/index.html

forgot link

>>1068109
>http://www.rodbikes.com/index.html
>steel bike
>has more carbon than an entry level carbon framed bike
My carbon bike has a steel chain, and steel QRs, and a steel crank axle, and steel spokes, and steel bearings and steel screws and other shit so technically my bike is actually a steel bike.

File: image_0.jpg (10KB, 274x184px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 274x184px

>>1063735
>the material of your frame has very little impact on rider comfort.

>>1063821
>4ft
>bottomed out
Lol, I did a 4ft drop to pavement out of a warehouse today on my full rigid steel mtn bike. This is not uncommon for me either.

>>1069716
>rigid
>bottoming out not uncommon
Anon, do you realize what 'bottom out' means?

>>1069719
I meant its not uncommon to jump of the bay of the warehouse I work at. I do it every day when I leave.

File: maxresdefault (5).jpg (111KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1920x1080px

Carbon fags BTFO

>>1069724
Oh cool
do you wear a helmet?

Steel frame, plush tyres, leather saddle, bicycles were done a century ago. If you're not riding this combo and you're not getting paid to race disposable dentist bikes, you're and idiot.

File: trashman2.jpg (43KB, 310x425px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 310x425px

>>1069732
>leather saddles

File: dat feel.png (117KB, 599x554px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 599x554px

STEEL IS FEEL!

>pleb
Carbon
>contrarian
ti
>tripfags
steel
>patrician
AL YOU MIN EEE UM

so stiff it will break your cockx hitting a pebble
gives you a boner going up the climbs out of the saddle though

>>1069871
>faggot
you

File: 1468727122529.jpg (187KB, 598x465px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 598x465px

>>1069871
I like the way you bait.

Ive owned steel, cf, and aluminum. Never had a titanium frame.

My favorite frames have been aluminum believe it or not. CF frames are kinda meh. Comfortable, stiff. Totally forget you are riding a bike on them and it just feels like your putting on the miles...nothing 'there.' Steel can be really good or really shit. Second favorite frame I had was a Serotta that was weird ass steel tubing and a CF SS. The aluminum frames I've had have all been pretty comfortable and very zingy/lively.

File: Columbus Gaspipe decal_B.jpg (32KB, 400x280px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x280px

>>1063022

File: 4kpGw1k.jpg (66KB, 928x878px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 928x878px

>>1070015
>aluminum
>but not titanum

How about some fucking consistency.

>>1070019

>autism
>not autisum

>>1070033
forced as fuck