Confess about your geared ride

Character is as hard to define as chemistry when seeing/meeting a girl that bowls you over. That's what it comes down to for me regardless of material characteristics, it's the 'how do I feel factor'. Not a great answer in terms of scientific principles and properties but an honest one and one that I'm not alone in sharing. Just ask tynan's mum.

I am sure in twenty years time there will be people searching for SRAM rival and a caad6 frame for the vintage period piece arguing it has more character than its modern equivalent.

In this case character is possibly a synonym for a bit wilfully shit.

I am sure in twenty years time there will be people searching for SRAM rival and a caad6 frame for the vintage period piece arguing it has more character than its modern equivalent.

In this case character is possibly a synonym for a bit wilfully shit.

Not at all. Old lugged steel frames are excellent at what they do, but you wouldn't want to ride one competitively in most modern competitions. And yes you're right, in 20 years' time there will be people paying through the nose for current carbon bling. Nostalgia is a powerful thing.

Character is more a synonym for 'I don't care I just like it, so there' ;)

Bike design and manufacturing has improved - I choose to embrace this improvement.

Oooff.

I know this is tantamount to heresy on here, but modern bikes are far superior in terms of ride quality, stiffness, weight and so on. I love the De Rosa, but it doesn't compare to the Paduano.

Pretty bikes can hang (on a wall)

Would rather have a functioning bike

Bike design and manufacturing may have improved, but that's not my priority at all. I want pretty bikes, and I want to ride them, as well. How a bike looks is important to me, and certainly more important than high-end mechanical quality. I'm not a very good rider; a bike of average quality will do me just fine, so improvements in manufacturing are of little importance to me.

One of my road bikes is a Pogliaghi frame (not handbuilt, and post-Sante Pogliaghi, I hasten to add) with Columbus SLX tubing. That ride quality is easily good enough for me--runs dependably and straight, I feel very much at ease on it, it smooths out poor road surfaces wonderfully well--, and I don't care if more modern frames might handle better.

Also, there is a widespread modern tendency to separate aesthetics from 'function'. Looks can easily be considered an aspect of the function of an object. Looks may not be important to you, and you may find other aspects of function more important, but if you like the way an object looks, then that will contribute to your appreciation of its quality. It can increase your enjoyment of using it (it certainly does this for me)--not because you want to, say, ride, posing, through certain fashionable areas and thereby achieve an unrelated outcome, but simply for the sake of enjoying using a beautiful object. It certainly does this for me.

In terms of looks, for me bike design has gone from bad to worse in the last fifteen or so years. I've said before that my taste is very simple and boring--I basically like classic, even-diameter, round-tubed, horizontal top tube bikes. Maybe bike design is now more diverse and exciting to people who are keen on improving mechanical qualities, but those people might well have no complaint if the same mechanical qualities could be accommodated in a classical geometry, even if they didn't need it. By contrast, I would have no complaint if the same looks could be accommodated around improved mechanical function, even if I didn't need it. As long as both concerns aren't accommodated in one bike, it's a question of priorities.

(I know that some people will say that they like more modern, more sporty-looking bikes, with curvy tubes, innovative seatstay bends, large zippy letters on deep-section road wheels, or whatever, better aesthetically as well as mechanically, but while such bikes may 'jump out' more--looking more exciting, more shouty, with more flickering movement in the design, etc. (so have qualities that many people can appreciate)--, I disagree that these look more 'beautiful', although of course justifying that distinction is difficult. It's not arguing about taste as such, but about possible reasons for choice more generally, e.g. the above-mentioned priorities.)

i like my bikes made of unobtanium

I like my bikes made of damonium.

Steep fame angles add to the stiffness but give tense, twitchy handling.

If your rise is meteoric, that's probably all true. (Oooh, vicar ...)

From memory it was a Frank Kirk like -

The third hole from the left makes the frame too whipstifftwitchy. Fill it in with Blu-Tack and it'll be fine, though.

Personally I think there are advantages in all the materials, and that we are spoilt for chioce.

Ciocc spelling fail. ;)

^ classic eg.

and yes chains don't 'stretch' either ;)

Chains do stretch. :]

Classic eg.

An old ALAN has the same dimensions as a lugged steel frame, but it is not as stiff, infact it is whippy.

The 'harshness' associated with aluminium must come from the modern oversized aluminium alloys that use zinc etc to achieve a higher modulus.

In comparison to an old thin gauge steel frame which is in turn whippy forgiving.

And yes you're right, in 20 years' time there will be people paying through the nose for current carbon bling. Nostalgia is a powerful thing.

I'm not sure I agree with you there. Old steel frames takes knocks and scrapes pretty well. I sometimes doubt that carbon has the same longevity. I'm not sure I would seriously consider buying a carbon frame second hand even now, unless I knew the exact history of the frame and trusted the seller. These old steel frames that are being beautifully restored/turned into 'rad fixies' will mostly have had countless owners. Would you trust a carbon frame that has had the same?

Aluminium is not stiff. It has to be made oversize because it is not as stiff as steel. I refer to Young's Modulus for the geeks...

http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/physics/introduction/e-rho_metals.jpg

Look at the graph again - aluminium is stiffer than steel, weight for weight. Stiffness is always connected to thickness and therefore weight in any material. Because it is stiffer (weight for weight) it is the material of choice for building a bike frame if stiffness and light weight are your priority and you're on a lower budget.

Most modern road bike frames are therefore made out of aluminium. Obviously not all, but most - if you look at the Specialised range, for example, all but the Dura-Ace equipped top end models have alu frames. I can't find any stats but I bet that a very high percentage of road bike frames manufactured in the last year are aluminium.
I'm not saying older bikes are better, or that aluminium is a bad material, or that other frame materials don't exist. I've had a couple of great aluminium bikes. I just posted in response to various comments along the lines of "why oh why do people like old steel bikes when new ones are so much better". All I'm saying - and I can't really believe that this is in any way a controversial point - is that depending on what kind of riding you do, an older steel frame might be a rational choice: a softer ride, good value for money, and perfectly adequate in terms of function for the job, and with a certain period charm that might or might not move you but certainly does it for some.
Hippy, I would suggest that you're not one of the people who would make that choice - if you rode the Paris - Roubaix course you must be a fit fucker, and I bet you thrash your bikes mercilessly on your daily commute. So you want and appreciate a nice stiff frame that won't bounce around too much when you're up out of the saddle. But plenty of people don't ride like that, and it's not just hipsterism if they choose a classic steel road bike - it's actually a perfectly rational, value and task-based decision.

so....
who makes a good scandium road bike?

Stiffness is always connected to thickness and therefore weight in any material

When modulus is tested they do not use a thicker bit of aluminium cause its lighter. They use a test piece of the same dimensions for all materials.

so....
who makes a good scandium road bike?

i feel like i'm listening to people explain "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" and the concept of quality.

@konijin, i feel i should have included 'vaguely affordable' on that.
oof, just seen the average price of the scandium crowd.

well. maybe if I save up- I'll get one in time for 2011 summer season.

I like bikes.

I like old (geared) bikes... they have soul.... patina ftw

there is so much armchair bullshit theory™ in this thread, i sometimes wonder if anyone has actually ridden any of these bikes they know so much about, or it's all half remembered spurious claims they read on the internet somewhere.

rode my old steel geared CIOCC in today... like rationality and Zen-like "being in the moment" can harmoniously coexist...

@ MrSmyth - agreed, I'm still waiting for someone to come out with the "vertically stiff but laterally compliant" comment though. :-)

Most people who are arguing for bikes 'with character' appear to have never used something built post-2000. I find my Kinesis vertically stiff but laterally compliant.

@konijin, i feel i should have included 'vaguely affordable' on that.
oof, just seen the average price of the scandium crowd.

Kinesis do a Racelight scandium frameset? The Kona cross bikes are scandium too.

@ MrSmyth - agreed, I'm still waiting for someone to come out with the "vertically stiff but laterally compliant" comment though. :-)

i could describe a quill stem that way if you like.

Kinesis do a Racelight scandium frameset? The Kona cross bikes are scandium too.

Yep, and I use a Kona scandium cross bike and it is a great frame. To me is seems a great material and it somehow feels faster than steel (especially up hills) but that may just be because of no feeling of flex?
Can't comment on comfort as to me that is just about bike fit, the frame material makes no difference when riding on 37c tyres!