Iām constantly aggrieved by how little detail is given to the tubing choice in modern steel frame bikes. Everyone memeād themselves into āScience⢠says every frame material rides the same so weāll just use whatever factory best practiceā which means interesting tubing choices are buried in blurry screenshots or junk marketing doublespeak.
I had the Standert gravel bike on my short list last year but didnāt buy because it seemed like another spec 9-7-9 steel bike that was overpriced. This unintentional disclosure of the frame tubing for this bike makes it seem that probably isnāt the case.
Iām not saying everyone should do the full100-page detail PDF from Fairlight, but it would be nice if people selling ostensibly high-end production frames advertised the tubing thickness. A OS(double?) all-road bike with .6/.45/.6 tubing is something different and exciting.
I am once again asking for everyone to do the full 100 page detail PDF for boutique frames, if you donāt do that youāre trading on vibes and a cool livery
Aluminum bikes used to tout tubing specs. Easton stuff was a big deal. A lot of the triple butted Easton Elite 7005 stuff was very light. Kinda disposable, though. Even I killed a few. Oh, and Scandium!
Banshee is good about that, their site describes how they eke every bit of awesomeness out of the material they can. Never thought about what āinternal ribbingā looks like until I saw their chainstay cutaways.
I think it was part of the overall realignment to present less technical information to the user, through the 1990s/early 2000s. Steel simplified into ādouble butted/cromoly/4130ā, aluminum into 6000/7000 series, and CF into whatever in-house branding sounded cool.
One of my pet theories is the relative price of color photography and printing dropped significantly and people are more swayed by pictures than numbers and charts. While at the same time, convincing engineering expertise became more expensive - or perhaps even gatekept from entering - did anybody replace Frank Berto?
Interested bike customer can read 200 very dry words from a marketing manager about why Raleigh chose aluminum tubing 1/16" thinner than before, or they can look at 10 sick pictures of Tinker Juarez getting rad on dirt with a 15 word dialogue balloon saying how awesome Cannondale 6000-T6 is.
Of course, lots of other things were happening (limited custom aluminum framebuilder mythmaking) but these are easy to pick out looking at the contemporary catalogs and magazines.
itās basically free to include a couple technical pages in the hype pdf or product page discussing detail decisions for nerds though⦠doesnāt have to exclude the splashy photos
I think the barrier to nerdery for steel tubing is quite low nowadays due to the mystique of steel and eons of talk online. But realistically, there isnāt too much difference material between mid-tier production bikes. It really comes down to aesthetics, clearances, and rider fit. On the higher end there are bigger differences in perceived ride quality, but there are fairly significant durability and utility drawbacks.
Aluminum alloy bikes donāt have the same common knowledge base as steel. Even for VO, we had to do a lot of research into tubing availability and performance for our Chessie AL frame just because companies donāt talk about their frame specs bc most people donāt care. Similarly to steel, we found a double butted main triangle rode way nicer than straight gauge, but it is surprisingly uncommon on a production scale. To the point where weāre investing in custom mandrel bends to increase consistency in tube torsion/position during welding for the top tube. Weāre planning on doing a whitepaper for this frameset when the time to presale gets closer.
Ti is so out of the price range of most people that the knowledge base is fairly low. And tbh there arenāt THAT many options for bikes. Plus other components are straight gauge anyway. Kinda underwhelming and surprisingly heavier than their AL counterparts.
A 44mm by 0.6 tube also seems kinda dumb. Thatās bigger than what I use on trail bikes that are a foot longer. Going that thin is asking for fatigue failures. The problem with āwhite papersā is they are just marketing for nerds.