Steel Frames and Tire Wear

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:02:18 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:55:45 PM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:13:17 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 4:55 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:10:21 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:51:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road
surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would
you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in
cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time
going through turns?

For the last 25 years or so all professional bike riders have been
using carbon bikes. Steel has not been used since the 1980s I think.
All the pros go 50 mph down the mountains cornering through the
switchbacks. If you go watch a local criterium in your town you will
see all the riders using carbon bikes. Maybe one aluminum too.
Never any steel bikes, ever. How can they get around all the turns
in a criterium race if their bikes corner so poorly?

You are just making up, imagining nonsense.


Yeah, I sort of missed that part. I thought he was saying it was
something to do with cornering that made the tire wear flat not that the
CF bikes were so poor in cornering that people didn't use them the same.
This bike corners better than any bike I've had including the steel
one I just sold.

My "guess" would be the wheels and tire choices have more to do with how
a bike corners than what the frame material is.

Well, that sounds good but I tore down two carbon bikes and used the
parts and wheels on the steel bikes so that the wheels and tires are the same.

Another point of reference - On a couple of hills there is a fairly
sharp turn about 100 yards below where a steep drop starts. On the CF
bikes I had to "set up" for this turn and would be shaking when I got
around them at 40 mph or so. But on the steel bikes I don't even have
to set up and just ride around them.

Possibly this is because I am used to steel bikes after riding for some
40 years. But I don't think it is. The stiff bikes hoping all over the
road are not conducive to a lot of relaxation.


I'm much faster on my CF bike than my CroMoly bike. There are too many
variables for me to know if there's any causal connection to the frame
material.

If you're looking to find someone to support your hypothesis that steel
frames corner better good luck. I can see no valid reason that the
frame material alone would make a difference in cornering.

Duane - what is your "CroMoly bike" and what is your CF? I get the
feeling that you've been comparing apples and oranges.


Volpe and Tarmac. Like I said, too many variables for me to think there's
any causal relationship to the frame material.

Well, the Tarmac is built for speed period. The Volpe is constructed by
Bianchi isn't it? I think that they used to claim them a gravel bike.
Generally they use heavy tubes. A weight difference of some 3 lbs is
noticeable but shouldn't dramatically effect your speed. The weight
difference between those two bikes is likely to be more on the order of seven or eight lbs.

But the Tarmac should and from what I've seen DOES corner poorly in my
estimation. The couple of guys in the group that have them slow down a
lot, cornering. (But then I corner faster than the rest of the group
considerably.) They are both climbers though and more than make up for it
on the climbs. I recognize Specialized as being in the top of their respective classes.

Now what I mean by poorly would hardly show up in a big race with
everyone on nearly identical bikes but consider - Chiapucci crashed in a
turn and Armstrong cut across the field inside the turn, back onto the
road and continued. You are HARDLY likely to have been able to do that on a CF bike.

There are a couple of road turns by my house where the asphalt is so torn
up that even cars slow down in the corners. On the CF bikes I had to be
very careful on these turns but on the steel I watch but don't slow.

I really notice the difference and, like I said, the tire wear is
different as well. So this isn't something I'm inventing.


I find that this Tarmac corners better than any I've ridden. Not sure
where you get the data for your estimation. But I suspect wheels and tires
have as much to do with cornering as frame material.

If you have a smooth road and racing tires I'm certain that you could have no problems leaning a bike over. But on the broken surfaces of California roads the rigidity of the CF frames simply have too little give to allow corning with alacrity. This is what I have been talking about - my steel frames after about a thousand miles of careful observation really do corner much better than my top of the line CF bikes did. NOT FASTER but better. On CF you corner differently. I prefer a bicycle that corners like my motorcycle factory road racers did.

On 19/12/2016 12:30 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:02:18 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:55:45 PM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:13:17 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 4:55 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:10:21 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:51:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road
surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would
you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in
cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time
going through turns?

For the last 25 years or so all professional bike riders have been
using carbon bikes. Steel has not been used since the 1980s I think.
All the pros go 50 mph down the mountains cornering through the
switchbacks. If you go watch a local criterium in your town you will
see all the riders using carbon bikes. Maybe one aluminum too.
Never any steel bikes, ever. How can they get around all the turns
in a criterium race if their bikes corner so poorly?

You are just making up, imagining nonsense.


Yeah, I sort of missed that part. I thought he was saying it was
something to do with cornering that made the tire wear flat not that the
CF bikes were so poor in cornering that people didn't use them the same.
This bike corners better than any bike I've had including the steel
one I just sold.

My "guess" would be the wheels and tire choices have more to do with how
a bike corners than what the frame material is.

Well, that sounds good but I tore down two carbon bikes and used the
parts and wheels on the steel bikes so that the wheels and tires are the same.

Another point of reference - On a couple of hills there is a fairly
sharp turn about 100 yards below where a steep drop starts. On the CF
bikes I had to "set up" for this turn and would be shaking when I got
around them at 40 mph or so. But on the steel bikes I don't even have
to set up and just ride around them.

Possibly this is because I am used to steel bikes after riding for some
40 years. But I don't think it is. The stiff bikes hoping all over the
road are not conducive to a lot of relaxation.


I'm much faster on my CF bike than my CroMoly bike. There are too many
variables for me to know if there's any causal connection to the frame
material.

If you're looking to find someone to support your hypothesis that steel
frames corner better good luck. I can see no valid reason that the
frame material alone would make a difference in cornering.

Duane - what is your "CroMoly bike" and what is your CF? I get the
feeling that you've been comparing apples and oranges.


Volpe and Tarmac. Like I said, too many variables for me to think there's
any causal relationship to the frame material.

Well, the Tarmac is built for speed period. The Volpe is constructed by
Bianchi isn't it? I think that they used to claim them a gravel bike.
Generally they use heavy tubes. A weight difference of some 3 lbs is
noticeable but shouldn't dramatically effect your speed. The weight
difference between those two bikes is likely to be more on the order of seven or eight lbs.

But the Tarmac should and from what I've seen DOES corner poorly in my
estimation. The couple of guys in the group that have them slow down a
lot, cornering. (But then I corner faster than the rest of the group
considerably.) They are both climbers though and more than make up for it
on the climbs. I recognize Specialized as being in the top of their respective classes.

Now what I mean by poorly would hardly show up in a big race with
everyone on nearly identical bikes but consider - Chiapucci crashed in a
turn and Armstrong cut across the field inside the turn, back onto the
road and continued. You are HARDLY likely to have been able to do that on a CF bike.

There are a couple of road turns by my house where the asphalt is so torn
up that even cars slow down in the corners. On the CF bikes I had to be
very careful on these turns but on the steel I watch but don't slow.

I really notice the difference and, like I said, the tire wear is
different as well. So this isn't something I'm inventing.


I find that this Tarmac corners better than any I've ridden. Not sure
where you get the data for your estimation. But I suspect wheels and tires
have as much to do with cornering as frame material.

If you have a smooth road and racing tires I'm certain that you could have no problems leaning a bike over. But on the broken surfaces of California roads the rigidity of the CF frames simply have too little give to allow corning with alacrity. This is what I have been talking about - my steel frames after about a thousand miles of careful observation really do corner much better than my top of the line CF bikes did. NOT FASTER but better. On CF you corner differently. I prefer a bicycle that corners like my motorcycle factory road racers did.


I seriously doubt that your roads are worse than Quebec roads. I only
get to ride on smooth roads when I go to the states or Ontario. I
suspect that you just prefer the feel of your steel bike where I prefer
my CF bike. Or maybe my wheels are different.

On Monday, December 19, 2016 at 9:46:43 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 19/12/2016 12:30 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 10:02:18 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Saturday, December 17, 2016 at 3:55:45 PM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
wrote:
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:13:17 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 4:55 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:10:21 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:51:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road
surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would
you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in
cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time
going through turns?

For the last 25 years or so all professional bike riders have been
using carbon bikes. Steel has not been used since the 1980s I think.
All the pros go 50 mph down the mountains cornering through the
switchbacks. If you go watch a local criterium in your town you will
see all the riders using carbon bikes. Maybe one aluminum too.
Never any steel bikes, ever. How can they get around all the turns
in a criterium race if their bikes corner so poorly?

You are just making up, imagining nonsense.


Yeah, I sort of missed that part. I thought he was saying it was
something to do with cornering that made the tire wear flat not that the
CF bikes were so poor in cornering that people didn't use them the same.
This bike corners better than any bike I've had including the steel
one I just sold.

My "guess" would be the wheels and tire choices have more to do with how
a bike corners than what the frame material is.

Well, that sounds good but I tore down two carbon bikes and used the
parts and wheels on the steel bikes so that the wheels and tires are the same.

Another point of reference - On a couple of hills there is a fairly
sharp turn about 100 yards below where a steep drop starts. On the CF
bikes I had to "set up" for this turn and would be shaking when I got
around them at 40 mph or so. But on the steel bikes I don't even have
to set up and just ride around them.

Possibly this is because I am used to steel bikes after riding for some
40 years. But I don't think it is. The stiff bikes hoping all over the
road are not conducive to a lot of relaxation.


I'm much faster on my CF bike than my CroMoly bike. There are too many
variables for me to know if there's any causal connection to the frame
material.

If you're looking to find someone to support your hypothesis that steel
frames corner better good luck. I can see no valid reason that the
frame material alone would make a difference in cornering.

Duane - what is your "CroMoly bike" and what is your CF? I get the
feeling that you've been comparing apples and oranges.


Volpe and Tarmac. Like I said, too many variables for me to think there's
any causal relationship to the frame material.

Well, the Tarmac is built for speed period. The Volpe is constructed by
Bianchi isn't it? I think that they used to claim them a gravel bike.
Generally they use heavy tubes. A weight difference of some 3 lbs is
noticeable but shouldn't dramatically effect your speed. The weight
difference between those two bikes is likely to be more on the order of seven or eight lbs.

But the Tarmac should and from what I've seen DOES corner poorly in my
estimation. The couple of guys in the group that have them slow down a
lot, cornering. (But then I corner faster than the rest of the group
considerably.) They are both climbers though and more than make up for it
on the climbs. I recognize Specialized as being in the top of their respective classes.

Now what I mean by poorly would hardly show up in a big race with
everyone on nearly identical bikes but consider - Chiapucci crashed in a
turn and Armstrong cut across the field inside the turn, back onto the
road and continued. You are HARDLY likely to have been able to do that on a CF bike.

There are a couple of road turns by my house where the asphalt is so torn
up that even cars slow down in the corners. On the CF bikes I had to be
very careful on these turns but on the steel I watch but don't slow.

I really notice the difference and, like I said, the tire wear is
different as well. So this isn't something I'm inventing.


I find that this Tarmac corners better than any I've ridden. Not sure
where you get the data for your estimation. But I suspect wheels and tires
have as much to do with cornering as frame material.

If you have a smooth road and racing tires I'm certain that you could have no problems leaning a bike over. But on the broken surfaces of California roads the rigidity of the CF frames simply have too little give to allow corning with alacrity. This is what I have been talking about - my steel frames after about a thousand miles of careful observation really do corner much better than my top of the line CF bikes did. NOT FASTER but better. On CF you corner differently. I prefer a bicycle that corners like my motorcycle factory road racers did.


I seriously doubt that your roads are worse than Quebec roads. I only
get to ride on smooth roads when I go to the states or Ontario. I
suspect that you just prefer the feel of your steel bike where I prefer
my CF bike. Or maybe my wheels are different.

Someone here responded to a question I asked about steep roads back east with an organized ride up a series of cliff faces and the roads between those climbs were even worse than here. A LOT worse.

I just got back from a ride. With layers and layers I still was cold everywhere but on climbs so only put in 30 miles. But that put me over the 4,000 mile mark. So I'll take a break for awhile and it's suppose to be a very wet year for the rest of the rainy season.

On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 5:17:01 AM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 4:57 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:00:43 PM UTC-8, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 2:19 PM, DATAKOLL MARINE RESEARCH wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 1:10:21 PM UTC-5, Duane wrote:
On 05/12/2016 12:54 PM, wrote:
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:51:20 AM UTC-6, wrote:
On my carbon fiber frames the tires would wear flat on the road surfaces. But on the steel frames they appear to wear round. Would you suppose because the steel frames give you more confidence in cornering so that the tires are banked over a good deal of the time going through turns?

For the last 25 years or so all professional bike riders have been using carbon bikes. Steel has not been used since the 1980s I think. All the pros go 50 mph down the mountains cornering through the switchbacks. If you go watch a local criterium in your town you will see all the riders using carbon bikes. Maybe one aluminum too. Never any steel bikes, ever. How can they get around all the turns in a criterium race if their bikes corner so poorly?

You are just making up, imagining nonsense.


Yeah, I sort of missed that part. I thought he was saying it was
something to do with cornering that made the tire wear flat not that the
CF bikes were so poor in cornering that people didn't use them the same.
This bike corners better than any bike I've had including the steel
one I just sold.

My "guess" would be the wheels and tire choices have more to do with how
a bike corners than what the frame material is.

? maybe.....take another look at the geometry's geometry


Well yeah, but if you have a different geometry, different wheels and
different tires and think the cornering is different because of the
frame material...

My C40 and my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra have almost identical geometry. So again that sounds good but doesn't seem to be the case.


Ok, so now you have exactly the same bikes except the different frame
material. Amazing.

What is amazing about that? My Colnago C40 had almost identical geometry to my Eddy Merckx Corsa Extra. The Basso Lotto has a lot lower center of gravity and you can tell it easily in a turn.