Share article: 6 Reasons why your next bike should be steel

[Piaw Na]

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/why-your-next-bike-should-be-steel

Bike Radar appears to be a somewhat mainstream British cycling website.

[Patrick Moore]

I’d be interested to hear others’ opinions of these “top choice” steel road bikes; in particular, from those who can compare the handling to that of Rivendell road bikes. I’ve heard many good things about the Road Logic but I’ve never heard of the others at all. 

The prices are very reasonable, as far as I can tell (I’ve not bought a new off the shelf bike for decades).

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 9:40 AM Piaw Na <pi...@gmail.com> wrote:

https://www.bikeradar.com/features/why-your-next-bike-should-be-steel

Bike Radar appears to be a somewhat mainstream British cycling website.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/2f8d6ff8-f895-4742-a1d6-4bd330f0f0c0n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Patrick Moore

Alburquerque, Nuevo Mexico, Etats Unis d'Amerique, Orbis Terrarum

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, letters, and other writing services

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When thou didst not, savage, know thine own meaning,

But wouldst gabble like a thing most brutish,

I endowed thy purposes with words that made them known.

[Piaw Na(藍俊彪)]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 3:03 PM Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

I’d be interested to hear others’ opinions of these “top choice” steel road bikes; in particular, from those who can compare the handling to that of Rivendell road bikes. I’ve heard many good things about the Road Logic but I’ve never heard of the others at all. 

They're a UK site and tend to point to local companies and builders that you're unlikely to have heard of or seen in the USA. However, the Fairlight Strael 4.0 is a very impressive bike. Their design notes (https://media.fairlightcycles.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Fairlight-Strael-4.0-Design-Notes-v1.1.pdf) are so thorough and reveal attention to detail that's simply outstanding (and it's a gorgeously laid out piece of marketing literature). If they had a dual pivot caliper bike version of the Strael I'd be tempted to get one. As it is, if I wanted a disc brake bike with clearance for 40mm tires it'd be a very difficult decision between the Ritchey Montebello and the Strael 4.0, with an edge to the Strael for having support for UDH SRAM Transmission rear derailleurs (if you're going to go disc you might as well go whole hog and shoot for the latest and greatest electronic doodads). 

[Garth]

Patrick I can't help but notice your blue '99 Riv custom you post photos of as it appears to have a longer than typical front end. I don't know if you know the specs but it appears the actual tube lengths of the top and seat are the same. Virtually level TT even longer. Clearance for you feet to the front tire is plenty(front-center). That is uncommon with production off the shelf road frames. That short length of production frames keeps me from buying most anything, save a VO Rando and it's atypically long production bike front end. I just haven't finished building it yet. Leisurely pacing !

In checking out any frames it really helps to know the geometry of the bikes you have, at least the things you can measure easily. Magnetic angle finders can be had for <$15, Johnson is a good round dial type. Tubes are measured center to center. BB drop is relatively easy by measuring the center BB and center front axle to the floor, with the bike relatively vertical and fork stable. Subtract the difference. I've tried to measure fork rake but I wouldn't bet my measurements are accurate on that ! 

I think there's a whole more to a "fast bike" than mere tubing and/or weight alone. That's a rather "old fashioned" way of looking at it that just doesn't paint an accurate picture. I mean it sounds good, as it's just numbers, right ? Smaller must be "better/faster". Not so "fast" ! Hah ! Besides the bike in total and it's intangibles, the rider must always be accounted for, with all it's intangibles, things not quantifiable. Hey, why do some days I feel so "fast" and effortless, and others like a boat anchor with legs ? (( Shrugs )). Even the experience of the bike itself, varies. Every day it's a "new ride". It's never been the same, twice, such is Life Itself !

[Patrick Moore]

Thanks, Garth. The bike like the 2 other Riv road customs is designed for 26” wheels, and the wheels pictured measure 24 1/2” tall.

I know the geometry and tube lengths and bb drop (or, at least height with specified tires) because I talked to Grant about them.

It is nice not having toe overlap! The Matthews dirt road road bike with the 80 mm fenders has about 3” of it. Good thing it’s not a fixed gear! (Tho’ I commuted for years across town on fixed gears with toe overlap, with no problems.)

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/908ff9bb-3f05-4043-a700-57cafa320471n%40googlegroups.com.

[Patrick Moore]

Of course, for steel bikes, being the niche products that they are nowadays. 

Yes, I was struck by the Fairlight, tho’ I don’t need all-road capability for what I am looking for, and I’d prefer a steel fork and rim brakes.

Still, good to know that steel is still getting better and being produced. I wonder if a good rider would find the best steel road bikes competitive with CF in 2025 as Craven found his to be 15 years ago.

Frankly, exotic tubing and shaving off 280 grams would be pointless for me; but ride “feel” and a design for the “fit” I like are very much to the point.

Patrick Moore, who hopes soon to experience easier pedaling and more smoothness with TPU tubes in the Naches Pass ELs on the Matthews IGH fixed gear bike — which weighs 26 lb built to ride without bags or bottles (I guess with full 950 ml bottle, full large seat pack, and 2 empty Sports Packers, about 32 lb).

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rbw-owners-bun...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/rbw-owners-bunch/CAPh0EZ524C84VoUudMiYoNiPKdbu%3DvjMcyOqMt2bNN_RMK52CQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Elisabeth Sherwood]

I've seen two Fairlight Secans up close, and they are absolutely amazing.  Incredibly light, beautiful workmanship and paint.  If they came in a small enough size I would get one in a heartbeat!

Liz

Washington, DC

[Piaw Na(藍俊彪)]

On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 7:26 PM Patrick Moore <bert...@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course, for steel bikes, being the niche products that they are nowadays. 

Yes, I was struck by the Fairlight, tho’ I don’t need all-road capability for what I am looking for, and I’d prefer a steel fork and rim brakes.

The Fairlight Strael is amazingly enough as light as the Ritchey Logic. The capacity to take 40mm tires doesn't mean you have to use them. But yeah, the carbon fork and disc brakes are a deal breaker for me.

 

[Ben Miller]

I've seen a few of these "X Reasons to buy a steel bike" article over the years. But more and more they seem to suffer the same issue that I think befalls the current Bike Radar one: All the bike examples are of steel frames with carbon forks. I hate this.

Now personally I have never ridden a steel frame with a carbon fork, and its been over a decade since I rode a carbon bike. But I do know that a steal frame with a 1" steerer feels different than a 1-1/8" steerer. I can only imagine that the oversized tapered HT needed for carbon forks is much more different still. But they still offer up a "steel bike" with a carbon frame and OS HT as giving that "steel" ride quality. In general, I think the whole "this material has this ride quality vs that" is a bit over blown, but if there is anything at all to it, surely a steel frame with a carbon fork has to be different than a steel FF with 1" steerer?!?

And, as long as I am ranting, I think aesthetically steel frames plus carbon forks are the worst of both worlds. There are some very nice looking carbon bikes, all properly proportioned. And sure, I am now biased to the portions of steel bikes. But the mix of both looks off. The front end always looks heavy with thick lines glued onto to a skinny back end that looks ethereal in comparison. I'm sure there exists some architectural terms for with bad proportioning, but I think most know it inherently. 

Anyways, I don't think there is anything really wrong with steel+carbon, so if you have one or like the 2 bikes highlighted in the article, please don't feel attacked. But I do feel that this hybrid of materials is it's own beast, separate from either a steel or a carbon bike. I'm probably preaching to the choir here, and its not like the bike media is going to stop pretending they are the same thing anytime soon, so its the world that we are in now. It's just a shame that probably most people will get one thinking it's the same a "traditional" steel bike because that's what everyone is selling them as. 

In the end, the only Reason in the Bike Radar article that I actually agree with is: “We firmly believe that steel as an environmentally friendly, longer-lifespan, more comfortable (if built correctly from all steel), classically beautiful material for bicycle frame building should be much more common out in the world.” With my own slight edit :)

[Piaw Na(藍俊彪)]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 10:58 AM Ben Miller <ben.l....@gmail.com> wrote:

I've seen a few of these "X Reasons to buy a steel bike" article over the years. But more and more they seem to suffer the same issue that I think befalls the current Bike Radar one: All the bike examples are of steel frames with carbon forks. I hate this.

The weight of a carbon fork is around 300g. It's really an obvious place to save weight. My wife's Ritchey Road Logic handles off pavement very well (she prefers it to her gravel ti bike with a steel fork even when that gravel bike has much wider tires!), and the reality is that unless you buy a custom frame + fork (and sometimes not even then --- many custom frame builders won't build you a steel fork), it's really hard to get away from the carbon fork. Having said that when my brother and I bought our youngest brother his custom frame I did specify a steel fork with a 1" steerer.

 

Now personally I have never ridden a steel frame with a carbon fork, and its been over a decade since I rode a carbon bike. But I do know that a steal frame with a 1" steerer feels different than a 1-1/8" steerer. I can only imagine that the oversized tapered HT needed for carbon forks is much more different still. But they still offer up a "steel bike" with a carbon frame and OS HT as giving that "steel" ride quality. In general, I think the whole "this material has this ride quality vs that" is a bit over blown, but if there is anything at all to it, surely a steel frame with a carbon fork has to be different than a steel FF with 1" steerer?!?

It's still miles better than any bike built with disc brakes in mind. :-)  

 

[Garth]

Even the effort to make a steel frame on par with a carbon in terms of sheer weight aside, I can't help but be struck how fugly all these bikes look with CF or even a straight blade steel fork. I see lots of photos of custom steel frame makers from the trade shows and I'm just left saying WTH is that ?

Where is the sense of beauty in these things, not just frames, but in parts ? I don't want to ride "tech", I want to ride an artfully crafted and graceful lined bicycle.

Is a "traditional" bike as we know it, just too "old fashioned" for the hipsters of modern-ism ? Gotta reinvent the wheel ? I think not, hah !

There are still traditional frame makers in the USA, an unknown number are not even on the web. My custom Franklin builder in Ohio has no website. He had a basic one with a few repair, painting and frame prices with various tubes at one time but likely didn't renew the certificate a few years ago. It's like where I live outside of a small town Ohio, most businesses have zero web presence. The web would have you believe the only life that happens is though it. The web lies, more lies and damm lies !  Ahahahahahaahaha !!!!!!! :-)

[Piaw Na(藍俊彪)]

On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 12:34 PM Garth <gart...@gmail.com> wrote:

Where is the sense of beauty in these things, not just frames, but in parts ? I don't want to ride "tech", I want to ride an artfully crafted and graceful lined bicycle.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and comes with a price. For instance, you may find Ritchey's integrated headset solution ugly. But it saves weight, is reliable, and needs no maintenance or adjustment. If you're a big person (160 pounds or more), maybe the weight savings doesn't mean much, but after my wife rode the Ritchey and then retried the Roadini which had sparked her desire to get a road bike of her own, she discovered that what she thought was a nice light road bike was actually quite porky and not as comfortable as the Ritchey. Weight savings matter, and sure, the Maxway welds on the Ritchey don't look as nice as lugs, but the savings of over a pound and a half shouldn't be sneezed at when you weigh 115 pounds and intend to climb 57000' in 3 weeks in the alps. And before you ask, yes, I spent $$$ getting carbon fiber brake levers and extralight tires and wheels and even lighter cassettes that don't shift as well as the Shimano they replaced but save half a pound (https://blog.piaw.net/2025/09/review-gabaruk-11-50-11s-cassette.html). Getting that bike under 8kg definitely paid off!

[Steven Seelig]

First, I wanted to share this video with Tom Ritchey where he talks about steel frames and carbon forks at about the 30 minute mark.  The entire video is super interesting but I will note that it is from 7 years ago and his views and the bike business may have changed, assuming he is still making design decisions at all.

Second, my long distance road bike with clippy pedals is a Spectrum titanium with a steel fork.  I love it.  I got super smug when I watched the Ritchey video where he talks about how the fork being steel is the most important part of the bike affecting ride feel.  I'm just a rider not a designer, but I do agree with him.

Steve Seelig

[Ben Miller]

Steve, Thanks for sharing that! I think you'll be happy to know that Tom Ritchey's philosophy hasn't changed. This video is from this year's Sea Otter. In it Tom says: "You have a whole generation of people that have lost touch with the feature and the uniqueness of the ride quality of a 1" fork." And if you don't know, he is still out there brazing 1" forks, but sadly only for the lucky few you have a 79-82 vintage Ritchey! Lucky ducks!

As for forks weights, that is not an argument I'm going to get into, but I know two things:

1. The difference in weight between a steel fork and a carbon fork designed for the same purpose and taking into the account the strengths of both materials, just is not that much.
2. But, if it too much for you, then yes, carbon is always going to be lighter. But a carbon F+F is always going to be lighter still. And that's the problem with chasing weight, it reduces the whole argument to a single number. No one is ever going to have a convincing argument to go with steel over carbon for the weight weenies. 

Again, my point was that a steel frame/carbon fork is not the same thing as a properly designed steel F+F and the bike media needs to stop pretending it is. As Steve points out, Tom gets it :)

[ascpgh]

A fun thread to follow. Carbon forks on steel bikes seem to be a shortcut and a way to grab a little credibility in a market that has positioned  CF as the premium material for anything. It's like the '90s, when the hot material was titanium. People bought screws, bolts, and nuts of the stuff to save grams and introduce new ways for those fasteners, once of mundane but capable steel, to fail.  

These stories seem to revolve around particular makers who build in steel, rather than a perspective saying it has outright merit, benefits, and performance that is (still) credible. 

The abruptness of the front ends of the early marketing 1 1/8" headtubed steel bikes, first on MTBs, was stunning. I never thought that objectifying stiffness and the ride consequences was a good idea.  I instead enjoyed screaming down a mountain on a forest service road with my MB-0 and riding my RB-1 on similar (but less remote and rough) roads. It was the combined suppleness of the frame and fork together that was so rewarding. Tom is (and was) right. A bike F & F is like an algebra expression with a lot of variables

My Coast 650B rando with a 1" headtube and threadless Kasei-legged fork has a great ride to it as well. 

"Better" has to be qualified for me and my uses. Just because all the other kids are doing it doesn't cut it. 

Andy Cheatham

Pittsburgh

[Mathias Steiner]

>>  fork being steel is the most important part of the bike affecting ride feel. 

I don't think it's the fork "being steel" but the fork being designed carefully for the desired ride qualities.

I also disagree with Andy about "suppleness of the frame and fork" because double diamond frames ain't "supple", at least not in the vertical direction.
The Rivendell "string" test and the amount of give it showed with their step-through frames was eye-opening in that regard. Nothing happened with the diamond frames.

It's all in the fork.

And I've said this before, so forgive the broken record, but between my '87 Cannondale ST600 and my '95 T500, aluminum frame w/ steel fork, the ride is better on the '87, because the newer bike is built to haul weight and has a stiff unicrown fork. It's still fun to ride, but for lightly laden rides, I prefer the lively feel of the older one with its proper crown and thinner, curved blades. What helps with the comparison is that the geometry of the bike is the same (angles, trail, wheelbase). 

If I could only have one bike, I'd keep the "T" for reasons of tire clearance and touring capability. But I'm glad to have both, and a few steel bikes besides :)

Mathias "aluminum is lovely" Steiner 
in East Lansing, MI

[Garth]

I liked the interview with Tom Ritchey !  The thing about carbon needing to twice as strong as steel to even pass a safetly test stood out to me. That they are always going to stiffer/harsher than a 1" threaded, curved fork. That in order for carbon to even approach steel in terms of ride qualities, it would have to go back to the 80's, like say with the '86 Look/TVT Hinault aluminum lugged carbon frames with round tubes. (I think the first TVT frames had aluminum forks, later versions were carbon). That the fork is the most  important aspect of the frame in total. I was surprised when he said that, but after thinking about it, I get it. That said, why on earth do all his road bikes come with carbon forks ? I see only the "Gravel category) Ascent and Tandem frame with a steel fork. I think the P-29er would be a cool offroad bike, or maybe I just think the white blue team colors just look awesome !  The rigid fork option is carbon though, and half the price of the frame, and it's not even sold in blue to match the team frame color. It's only sold in bummer matte black. Oh the blasphemy ! :-) But this photo of the Team version is cool !  https://cdn.sanity.io/images/pbcwwn3b/production/bf7c3ffc1ee6a11bea4f66103a8d34ecce78b3ea-2000x741.jpg

Here's some pics of a 80's TVT frame with a carbon fork. This shows the raw weave clear coated, but later ones were painted to team colors. 

https://www.velowizard.com/shop/brands/tvt/look-la-vie-claire-frame-by-tvt-51-cm-carbon-1-698g/

I thought they looked great and to me they still do today. While not the first carbon frames, these are the racing frames that made CF as a material as prevelant as they are today. Winning the TDF multiple times does that. Like how Trek went from just another bike brand to the mega brand it is today, thanks to Armstrong winning seven Tours on a Trek. The USPS became World famous overnight. (So they could raise their rates even more, hah hah !)

Speaking of steel forks though, how I marvel at my custom Franklin road bike with it's Reynolds 531 ST tubing, oh how that fork flexes as needed and smoothes out the crappiest of roads. Like no other bike I've had. Not happening with carbon the way it's being formed now. Make a carbon one with the same dimensions as the steel version, then maybe. That's pie in the sky now though. The tubes used in my Franklin aren't even the "regular" 531, I think some of the tubes are slightly thicker. It's a 62 c-c ST, with a 62 c-c level TT. There's nothing special about the design, it has about 60mm of BB drop, and accelerates just like any racing frame I had. The geometry is what was called "Sport touring", basically a sport/racing type frame that can take racks and fenders with slightly heavier tubing. I specified the chainstays being 18"(longest at the time), and the long 62cm TT, and a 1" head tube extension. The rest was left to the builder. The tubes aere decidedly skinny, I think the TT is 1" diameter. 

I get what Piaw is saying about lugging around less weight, particularly when hills/mountains are involved. Myself I really don't care if a frame is lugged or not, if it has smooth jounts or chunky. Even then though, it's not like a given bike, the types of bikes I and this group rides, is going to keep me from enjoying any ride. I don't ride for performance, to appease a clock or scale. I just love the sensation of riding, pure and simple. Being outdoors, wind in my face, sunshine, fresh air. It's not like I want to ride a 50 pound tanker, but even that still beats not riding at all. The bikes we all ride here, relatively speaking, are all quite high end, as far as the non-cycling public thinks of a bicycle. Tell the average non-cyclist how much your bike costs and they'll be surpised and/or not believe you. The differerences in bikes we are speaking of here aren't so great that they prevent or enable anyone from enjoying themselves. Claiming otherwise would be an exercise in non-appreciation for the marvels we all ride !