from a thread about steel as a material of choice in the current market...

> I would say that it could be that steel still has its limitations,
> whereas a ti, carbon or ti/carbon mix can give you a similar
> ride quality without the limitations of steel.
there is only one limitation with steel: since it lost its cache as
the go-to material in the manufacturing sector, most factories
and folks have moved away from it. the industry has concluded
that more units can be made for less money, and can extract a
higher profit, when nonferrous materials are used. when the
market forces are at work, ultimately an entire way of doing
something can be lost. it's no real bigee atmo since most industrial
made frames are higher quality than those made by hand even
as recently as 10 years ago. no matter. the material itself is not
what is limited. what we have here is a Sunset Boulevard situation:
JOE GILLES - "You're Norma Desmond, you used to be in pictures.
You used to be big."
NORMA - "I am big, it's the pictures that got small."
> I envy you, atmo. I wish that I could be that eloquent when I write.
thanks -
it's easy - parrot popular culture as often as possible atmo.
plus, i lived through all of this and watched the industry
deconstruct all through the embers of the mtb era years.
deconstruction works in fashion houses, but not always
in the sporting goods industry.
> well, I would have to add that it's hard to get sub 2.5lb frames
> with steel, afaik. with ti, alu and plastic, you can get 2lbs or less
> (although the 2lb ti frames are noodly). plus there's very little aero
> tubing available in steel (and only a bit more in ti), which is a
> disadvantage for TT bikes. those are the only two disadvantages
> I can think of, though. and with the right components, you can
> still get a 3lb steel frame down to the UCI limit. now, all that might
> change with more research.
and why is this 1+ pound differnce thing a disadvantage? are
you benchpressing the bicycle? a frame is stationary weight
and, assuch, is not subject to the same arguments that come
when we discuss wheel goods, or cranks, shoes, or anything
that rotates.and as far a shapes go, that is a mill spec, not one
that is determined by a material. and then there was alison steele ,
aka the night bird. she was hot, and a seminal voice in fm radio's
history. she'd have never reached that level had she been called
alison titanium atmo.
> if you're in the TDF, it is a potential disadvantage (assuming
> your total bike weight is 15.9 and your nearest competitor's
> is 14.9). every second and every watt does count. yes, for the
> hoi polloi, it doesn't matter in an objective sense, but the
> question was asked.
and in a grand prix race, my outback wagon would be a
disadvantage atmo. using the tdf, to me, is not a valid
qualifier wrt this material discussion, but that's just me.
the folks who ride and/or supply these frames that yield
14.9 or 15.9 pound bicycles have no expectations of them
other than to get to a finish line. even what happens the
next day hardly matters since the team (and supplier) most
likely has a tree in asia where all the frames are harvested.
note: this is not a political statement. it's just my pov about
why the nonferrous material are now (andhave been for a
while) the go-to material in the manufacturing sector atmo.

anyway, it's casual friday so cheers and bananas m'kay?
it' be an interesting exercise in its own right to find out if
the tdf "winners" are always the cats on the lightest bicycles
or if even watts call the shots. bicycle racing is a team sport,
and not just man against man or man against the clock atmo.
> Hypothetically speaking here - lets suppose pro cyclists
> could ride anything they wanted to - what would they choose?
therein lies the rub -
they are paid, salaried workers.in essense, they have (and there
is) no choice. in my personal jesus moments, i fantasize about
larry bird in braggards, not hi top cons. ymmv.
> ... and steel will be redisovered at some point.
cool atmo -

> Grant, isn't the negative image based largely on weight? If you
> could make a 1-pound steel frame it would put other materials
> out of business IMO.Relative weight on an MTB is more important
> than on a road bike, hence why the demise of steel there first.
> Just my opinion.
cliffnotes -
it was the down-and-outers from the mtb era that,in their last gasp
for air, decided to take a chance by diversifying into the road market,
something they knew nothing about, that set some of this into action.
they took their nonferrous baggage and their forks-R-us mentality,
and the road segment hasn't been the samesince atmo. hey - no bigee.
those of us in the margins survive. what's lost (if lost is really even the
correct word) is that the demand for steel, the material, has a ripple
effect far past the orignal reasons it's not used in the first place atmo.
iow, when the big guys cease buying it for production work, the little
guys have less of a menu to feed off of. howard beele moment atmo.