On 8/22/07, David Mann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not surprised... the weight of bikes has been steadily tumbling > in recent years if you're prepared to pay the money. Steel is for > freaks these days, carbon is the new hotness. > > My main trail bike is relatively heavy so it's a bit harder to get > uphill... but it's so much fun on the trails that I don't mind the > extra pain. > > - Dave (had a good night-ride today)
Steel is for freaks? Au contraire! Columbus is making some steel tubesets that rival CF for weight. http://www.columbustubi.com/eng/3_3.htm To my mind, for the vast majority of users, steel is the best frame alternative. It's more compliant than aluminium (yet can be made very stiff with double or even triple butting), and will last much longer than either of CF and aluminium. Professional road racers have new frames available for each race, so longevity isn't an issue, but at the weights they're racing (about 14.5 pounds for the full bike), those things are much more fragile than one might imagine, and failures do happen. I'd shudder to think what might happen over several months or years. My road bike, while not particularly light (due mostly to crap components - I could shave about 3 or 4 pounds quite easily) is wonderfully stiff yet comfortable, with a frame that I know will last me for many many years. It may not be as "sexy" as CF or Ti or Aluminium, but I'll be riding it for many years to come. cheers, frank (whose daily user is an alumium trackbike) -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
