Tour de Lance '09

[turbo6bar]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

That was the story with my old Pinarello... I probably had close to $2k in components on that bike and it was hilarious as hell to go sailing by all the fat lawyers and entertainment industry types on Saturday mornings on my "looks like hell" 1980s steel frankenbike as they huffed and puffed along on their $5,000 Cervelos. I have very, very fond memories of that bike. It broke my heart when it got ripped off - even more so knowing that it almost certainly ended up with some opportunist or crackhead or other jerkoff that had no idea what they'd "acquired".

How do you know it wasn't stolen by a opportunistic crackhead/jerkoff hired by a fat lawyer or entertainment industry type? Wouldn't surprise me if some boss hogg looking lawyer watched your Pinarello be lowered into the smelter.

Also, I disagree with you regarding Lance and Contador. Lance ran his mouth before the Tour, calling last year's race a joke. When your legs can't cash the checks, you let the mouth do the work. Lance could very well pull off the win, but he is fighting the inevitable.

[billybek]

I have yet to ride a carbon bike.
Mind you I haven't been riding my old Proctor either.
753 Columbus, investment cast lugs hand built.
Stiff as heck beats you up after 2 hours in the saddle.
How do you fit modern components in an old frameset?

[Laneco]

Dang! Levi Leipheimer is out - broken wrist...

angela

[dd74]

Originally Posted by billybek

I have yet to ride a carbon bike.
Mind you I haven't been riding my old Proctor either.
753 Columbus, investment cast lugs hand built.
Stiff as heck beats you up after 2 hours in the saddle.
How do you fit modern components in an old frameset?

Easy. First, find out the spacing of your rear triangle. I assume it's 120 or 126mm. Then, find a friend or an accommodating local bike shop who might loan you a modern wheel with a modern 9 or 10-speed cassette. Take off your wheel and slip that wheel in place. If it fits, you've one half the battle. If the chain can hop from gear to gear with your friction shifters, then you've won the entire battle as far as gears go.

Sure, some say you'll have to widen (spread) the triangle with spacers, but I've found this to not be the case with my 126mm frames. I fitted a newer Bontrager rim with a 9-speed Shimano 12-25 cassette in without doing a thing. It's a wonderful modification, will allow you to climb and also go flat out downhill, and is extremely cost effective. You really don't need to buy a new bicycle as far as modern gears go (in the back).

Up front might be a bit more tricky, but hell, I like the old school 53/42 chainrings much more than the new 53/39. A three-tooth difference isn't worth the $$$ and hassle.

Index shifting you can accomplish if you have the brifters. But they're expensive and unless you're flat out racing, I think downtube friction shifting is as effective and accurate, less complicated and by far cooler.

Modern brakes - meh! Just get better pads.

As to the rest - like carbon seat posts, stems, handlebars, etc. -- waste of money. Get some newer wheels, maybe better pedals (wider, lighter) and your 753 will be within range of any bike with all the above flash.

Your saddle - unless it's uncomfortable - I'd leave it. If not comfortable, there's tons of newer, lighter seats out there. I'd go with something classy - like a Brooks.

[MFAFF]

Bringing my old (1985) vintage 531c framed roadie back into service... what a change from my current ali framed, carbon forked daily rider...

The steelie is very much more resilient and on a longer ride thsi makes a huge difference... power transmission is less of an issue compared to the increased 'reflaxation' the frame brings...

DD; I think I'll try your upgrade idea....a 10 speed cassette would be interesting...

But I'm more than convinced (for the moment) that for the riding I'm doing the oldie is a great choice.. even some many years later...

[dd74]

Originally Posted by MFAFF

Bringing my old (1985) vintage 531c framed roadie back into service... what a change from my current ali framed, carbon forked daily rider...

The steelie is very much more resilient and on a longer ride thsi makes a huge difference... power transmission is less of an issue compared to the increased 'reflaxation' the frame brings...

DD; I think I'll try your upgrade idea....a 10 speed cassette would be interesting...

But I'm more than convinced (for the moment) that for the riding I'm doing the oldie is a great choice.. even some many years later...

The thing about steel that people either forget to mention -- or with manufacturers - who don't produce steel bikes - don't want the consumer/enthusiast to know, is steel has a certain snap to it that gets it up and moving when sprinting. I think of it a bit like a Cheetah's spine, which compresses and expands, allowing the animal to get up to 60 mph when chasing a gazelle.

Also, because it's heavier, steel has a bit more momentum, which means in a fast pack ride, you can coast and rest a bit on occasion as opposed to continually pedaling as is the case with a bike that has less momentum - i.e. lighter carbon bikes.

Most importantly, steel is less likely to beat you apart on longer rides. It has flex and soaks up road vibration.

The rigidity of high-end carbon bikes, IMO, is overrated in its importance for the non GC contender (you and I) who probably will never make the cut in the Tour de France.

You do want to be able to walk and sit after a ride, right?

[Zef]

Originally Posted by dd74

The thing about steel that people either forget to mention -- or with manufacturers - who don't produce steel bikes - don't want the consumer/enthusiast to know, is steel has a certain snap to it that gets it up and moving when sprinting. I think of it a bit like a Cheetah's spine, which compresses and expands, allowing the animal to get up to 60 mph when chasing a gazelle.

Also, because it's heavier, steel has a bit more momentum, which means in a fast pack ride, you can coast and rest a bit on occasion as opposed to continually pedaling as is the case with a bike that has less momentum - i.e. lighter carbon bikes.

Most importantly, steel is less likely to beat you apart on longer rides. It has flex and soaks up road vibration.

The rigidity of high-end carbon bikes, IMO, is overrated in its importance for the non GC contender (you and I) who probably will never make the cut in the Tour de France.

You do want to be able to walk and sit after a ride, right?

I'm still able to do so...and more... after 2 hours + ride 3 to 4 times a week...

[T77911S]

Originally Posted by dd74

If you know what you're doing, you can tune the ride of any bike. The last place I'd tune ride is in the frame. The first place is tire pressure. Tires are also the first place to add or subtract stiffness.

It doesn't matter how stiff a frame is if tire pressure is off.

The first place to lose weight with a bicycle is in the wheels. It's also another place to add or subtract stiffness.

So the whole "stiff frame" stuff might be a bit of a myth. Frame angle, wheelbase, chainstay length has as big a part in stiffness as material. I've heard plenty of guys who own steel bicycles by Pegoretti, Merckx and even the Schwinn-Serotta Ti say these frames are the stiffer than carbon. Personally, I think that's bad as every frame should have some compliance for handling purposes. That's where tire pressure comes in again.


If you're referring to bike X as a carbon bike, um...no, I never said carbon "sucks." Carbon just isn't my cup of tea. I've also seen carbon break more than steel bend beyond repair. When I've had steel bikes as light as 16 lbs on which I have not had to compromise my idea of ride quality, to that end I have not seen the need for carbon, unless, like I said, I want a bike I can completely thrash and easily replace.



How do you know the bikes are carbon? Supposedly Mark Cavendish uses a steel Dolan on the Paris-Roubaix - it just has stickers from whomever provides his team bicycles to mask the difference.

i did not mean to imply anyting when i said bike "X" sucks. he just seemed to have good info to back his opinion. the comments about crabon just reminded me of this bike forum i was on a long time ago. it seemed there was nothing but kids on there and all they had to say was MTB'ers suck, no roadies suck when its really all about just riding the bike, whether it is MTB, road, carbon, steel or what ever you ride. i am not implying anything to anyone here by the way by that statement either. i ride/rode carbon, not because i hate steel, i would love a nice steel frame, they have very nice lines. some of the new carbon stuff is radical but i still like the ride.

although as far as a 16lb steel frame COMPLETE bike that could be riden every day, i just dont see it. if, and that is a very very big if, one could be built, it would cost $10k plus.

the best place to cut weight on a bike is with the rider.

technically, i have broken 2 trek carbon frames, they were from the 90's and i am sure their quality is even better now. and yes, i rode and talked with george hincappie about the carbon frames on P roubaix. can you imagine how much the carbon would absorb shock there and how that would relate to more energy for the end?

tire pressures? i would rather have higher pressures and a carbon frame, anything less than about 110psi and you start risking pinch flats and you get that spongy feel form a soft tire.

those frames should be stiffer than carbon. carbon is not really that stiff. absorbing the road shock is one of its benefits. every little bump is transmitted through steel staight to the rider. sitting still with the brakes locked, i can push on the pedals and see the bottom bracket flex. the giant carbon i had did it more than the trek. steel, i doubt you would see any flex, which is a good thing.

dont read too much into what i say, i dont mean it the way it sounds.
its all about the ride.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Zef

I'm still able to do so...and more... after 2 hours + ride 3 to 4 times a week...

I am too. But I feel like I can go another few hours after riding steel.

[tcar]

Originally Posted by Laneco

Dang! Levi Leipheimer is out - broken wrist...

angela

Just saw that online.

Astana and LA will really miss him.



This thread is like a developmentally disabled earthworm.

No cognitive idea of what the subject is.

It's now turned into the 1,135th repeat thread on steel vs. carbon fiber bikes.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by T77911S

although as far as a 16lb steel frame COMPLETE bike that could be riden every day, i just dont see it. if, and that is a very very big if, one could be built, it would cost $10k plus.

There was a frame one could buy from several manufacturers that had Columbus Spirit tubing and Columbus Carve carbon forks, seat tube and rear triangle. Set up with the lightest components, it was barely legal according to UCI rules. Needless to say, it was like riding a bucking bronco. I had one of those frames, and folded it; the steel was way to fragile.

Originally Posted by T77911S

the best place to cut weight on a bike is with the rider.

Though in some cases, that's not possible. One can gain muscle mass and weight from cycling. Ride like Cavendish, and a person might get bigger before they get smaller.

Originally Posted by T77911S

and yes, i rode and talked with george hincappie about the carbon frames on P roubaix. can you imagine how much the carbon would absorb shock there and how that would relate to more energy for the end?

Nope. I can't imagine it, except for what Cervelo tells me in their commercials.

Originally Posted by T77911S

tire pressures? i would rather have higher pressures and a carbon frame, anything less than about 110psi and you start risking pinch flats and you get that spongy feel form a soft tire.

Yep. That's what tuning a ride is all about. But to mitigate costs, one should start with tire pressures instead of blaming frame stiffness. It's the same principle in auto racing. If your ride doesn't stick or it pushes in the corners, adjust air pressure before buying a new set of tires.

Originally Posted by T77911S

those frames should be stiffer than carbon. carbon is not really that stiff. absorbing the road shock is one of its benefits. every little bump is transmitted through steel staight to the rider. sitting still with the brakes locked, i can push on the pedals and see the bottom bracket flex. the giant carbon i had did it more than the trek. steel, i doubt you would see any flex, which is a good thing.

The fact about flex is one has to be either very heavy or very strong to flex any bike. Every bike should have some give or the machine could rattle the components and the rider apart. Absorption with carbon is limited to small bumps and uneven surfaces. Larger bumps are much better absorbed with steel. Also, that same absorption you bring up about carbon equates to some as a "dead" feel to the frame.

I have never felt bumps transferred to me from my frame. The shock stops at the wheels. Now, with my frame which had carbon forks, stays and seat tube, I grimaced each time I went over the slightest of divots.

All I'm really saying is, like the sloping top tube, stiffness has evolved to a sales gimmick more than a needed facet of road cycling. One is much better off paying attention to wheelbase and angles, IMO than weight and stiffness.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by tcar

Just saw that online.

Astana and LA will really miss him.



This thread is like a developmentally disabled earthworm.

No cognitive idea of what the subject is.

It's now turned into the 1,135th repeat thread on steel vs. carbon fiber bikes.

Well if all the CF guys would just admit that steel is better then we could put an end to it already!

[dhrcr911s]

Levi out, bummer................

[Racerbvd]

Did you guys see this??

Lance Armstrong Check this out. All bikes auctioned for the LAF @ the end of the year
www.trekbikes.com
Source: www.trekbikes.com

[924slover]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

That was the story with my old Pinarello... I probably had close to $2k in components on that bike and it was hilarious as hell to go sailing by all the fat lawyers and entertainment industry types on Saturday mornings on my "looks like hell" 1980s steel frankenbike as they huffed and puffed along on their $5,000 Cervelos. I have very, very fond memories of that bike. It broke my heart when it got ripped off - even more so knowing that it almost certainly ended up with some opportunist or crackhead or other jerkoff that had no idea what they'd "acquired". Probably pawned it off for $50 to go buy some crack. There are very few enthusiast types around that would have appreciated what I'd done to that bike...

It was awesome enough to give me the "brand loyalty" to go buy a newer-model Pinarello, which happens to be aluminum/carbon. I do like it - it's a great ride and it's very quick and responsive, but not quite the same "soul" as the steel one. I'll eventually get another I think. Either another Pinarello or a Colnago would be ideal. Preferably with Campy stuff.

luckily mine is still in the shed waiting for me to get my lazy a$$ out there and ride it, I've been meaning to paint it but don't wanna cover the original decals and such.

[tcar]

Just heard on the radio that someone was shooting at the riders with a pellet gun.

Hit one in the hand.

Spaniard had to have a pellet dug out of his leg.

Haven't heard it anywhere else, but did hear on 2 diff news cycles.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Originally Posted by 924slover

luckily mine is still in the shed waiting for me to get my lazy a$$ out there and ride it, I've been meaning to paint it but don't wanna cover the original decals and such.

I know the feeling. I have an old (steel) Peugeot that used to be my commuter bike when I was in Chicago. Thing is a tank - probably weighs 30 pounds (mountain-type frame but "hybridized" with taller gears, slicks, aero bar, etc.) I've been meaning to sandblast it and rebuild it from the frame-up. I've got enough spare components sitting around to make it a very fun training/ride-around bike. Most people around here use those "beach cruisers" which I utterly can't stand for some reason... At least they're steel (I think).

[herr_oberst]

Originally Posted by 924slover

luckily mine is still in the shed waiting for me to get my lazy a$$ out there and ride it, I've been meaning to paint it but don't wanna cover the original decals and such.

Better take a picture and let us decide if you are going to paint that bike or not. This is not a decision to take lightly.

[924slover]

Originally Posted by herr_oberst

Better take a picture and let us decide if you are going to paint that bike or not. This is not a decision to take lightly.

I'm going to the formula races at lime rock tomorrow but ill post some pictures up when i get back

[look 171]

Originally Posted by billybek

I have yet to ride a carbon bike.
Mind you I haven't been riding my old Proctor either.
753 Columbus, investment cast lugs hand built.
Stiff as heck beats you up after 2 hours in the saddle.
How do you fit modern components in an old frameset?

With the Columbus, Renolds, and such tubing, you could cold set the drop outs to accomondate a wider morden wheels. Just pull the drop outs apart.