Hacker News Reader

Comment by aidenn0 | Hacker News Reader

Oh this is such a thing. The lack of compatibility also makes things less customizable. I used to always add a horizontal brake lever for reaching when I lift up from the drops (which I do when in traffic), but now that every shifter is different and every shifter is integrated into the brake levers it's not really an option.

Somewhat unrelated I also kind of hate how popular aluminum has become (or at least was when I last bought a road bike). Since all the mass produced frames are aluminum, the only options for a steel frame were more exotic models and thus expensive. In retrospect I wish I had just bought a steel hybrid frame and built a bike myself, but I was rather busy at the time, and it probably still would have been more expensive since so many of the parts are non-interchangeable.

View on HN

I ride a Niner RLT Steel (bought as a frame) for that exact reason.

It was a tossup between that or a Lynsey, and I snagged a close out color of the Niner for 1/3 of the quoted price of the Lynsky at the time, and that included a carbon fork.

I’m actually overhauling it now with an entire group set after riding the last one since 2016.

Interesting fact that relates: the first couple years of the RLT Steel shipped with a fork that is 15x100 thru axle; nowadays the gravel/cyclocross market has settled on 12x100.

So I ended up getting a set of New Old Stock (NOS) 29” wheels from that same era that are 15x100/12x142 and 22.5mm wide. Perfect for my bike, but vanishingly hard to find now as a set due to the oddball matchup.

Yeah, that frame costs more than my entire bike did. There were steel-framed options at the time, but the cheapest ones were pushing $2k.

I was going to say I paid around half of what they list for, but it looks like they are closing out last years color right now. Inflation adjusted I paid about what they are asking today ($1,300).

Pretty pricey, but I also got a bike fit and some other stuff and wanted a frame to just be done with it and ride. It’s served me well, and has many years of life left!

Random side note: I just realized this is the second time in two days I’ve responded to you (other was regarding a 7 seat vehicle). HN can be quite a small place!

If you're using it in place of a car $1,300 is cheap. Plus you're much more friendly to the environment and your own health.

I commuted on it for a few years, and now that I’m retired it’s getting plenty of recreational use.

> If you're using it in place of a car $1,300 is cheap. Plus you're much more friendly to the environment and your own health.

Except it was being compared to a $700 bike (not frame, assembled bike), by the person with whom I share financial decisions.

Keep an eye on that fork and treat it with kid gloves.

I'll ride any bike (even experimental ones) but no carbon forks for me.

My Ritchey carbon fork is nearly 20 years old, still going strong! And this is on my former racing bike.

Fork has been hammered to hell and back over the last 7 years, though no major crashes. Not an issue so far, nor are there any reported issues (Niner RDO carbon fork) with anyone else using it.

If you buy wheels with DT Swiss or Hope wheels you can usually swap the end caps to fit different standards.

I am using almost exclusively DT Swiss 350 hubs and some of my wheels have been in use with quick axle, 15x100 and 12x100 frames. I even converted some 12x142 wheels to 12x148 (boost) mountain bike standard with the Boostinator kit from Wolftooth components.

DT Swiss is what I ended up buying, though they were already the setup I needed.

Same for Industry Nine and a couple of others. But you really have to re-dish the wheel if you're going from 142 to superboost or 157.

True. I am used to wheel building so it was no big deal to me.

Out of curiosity, why would you opt for a steel frame? Durability?

There's a few reasons some people prefer steel. 1) You can weld it pretty easily, if your frame cracks. I guess this is nice if you're bikepacking through Nepal or something, but I don't really see the practicality for normal people. 2) It's cheap (well, not any more). 3) It's more flexible than aluminum, so some people prefer the way it rides.

These days, I'd say #3 is the only really valid reason for most people. Steel bikes are generally heavier than aluminum however, but it is possible to get them close if you use a high-grade cromoly steel, but then that removes most of the cost advantage.

#1 matters if you want to own and ride a bike for a few decades, which used to be a relatively common thing.

I've seen no evidence that aluminum bikes don't last a few decades. Frame failure is not a common failure mode in bicycles.

I've had two frames fail with fatigue cracks at ~ 10k miles or less. One steel (at the chainstay bridge weld) and one aluminum (at the seat tube/bottom bracket weld).

Not only can you weld steel, it also is more forgiving in the failure mode. Steel bends and the damage to the frame is better visible (and could be corrected, if you prefer so) while aluminum frames can develop hidden defects and catastrophically fail.

#4: steel bikes have a lower carbon footprint than aluminium bikes.

In like........any measurable way? I'm not being funny, I'm honestly curious.

The lowtech magazine published this number¹:

> Scientists have calculated the lifetime carbon emissions of a steel bike at 35 kg CO2, compared to 212 kg CO2 for an aluminum bicycle.

[1] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2023/02/can-we-make-bicycles...

That's super interesting - it's a lot more than I would have thought it is. Metal is metal, right? Didn't think the difference would be so large.

I'm not sure on all the particulars, but metals are not the same: some require more energy to work with or to refine than others.

Steel (IIRC) needs a lot more energy to melt than aluminum, however I think aluminum requires more energy to extract from ore. Also, IIRC, aluminum needs more energy to weld just because it conducts electricity so much better, even though it has a lower melting point.

Contrary to iron, silver or gold, aluminium has to be chemically extracted. The mineral you extract aluminium from is bauxite. This chemical process was mastered so recently that the Washington Monument is tipped with it just to show off. Even then the tip is so small that you can barely see it with your own eyes, but you can see it in Spiderman :)

https://thescienceof.org/spider-man-washington-monument/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPVzP2Jfdgs

Yeah, I think Napolean used to show off his wealth by using aluminum silverware at his fancy dinner parties.

Frames made of wood do exist, their footprint is probably even lower.

They tend to use a lot of toxic resins though. Same for bamboo made bikes.

Durability is part of it, but mainly I prefer the way it rides.

An interesting feature of steel frames is demonstrated by Surly frames: their rear end spacing is currently 145mm, which is neither 142 nor 148 (the standards). What they say is that because it is steel, you can bend it a couple of millimeters without any negative side-effects, the frame will tolerate it and will not break. So your frame can accommodate both sizes.

From university I learned that aluminium and steel both have around the same weight to strength ratio. The fact they use aluminum for airplanes is that steel will become too thin and is therefor not stiff enough.

I think for bikes the opposite matters, with aluminium at required strength you will get a very stiff frame.

Not sure what country you live in, but here separate brake levers and steel frames are still easily found.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com