Considering a Steel Cyclocross Frame

[hozn]

@JeremyCannon 91181 wrote:

Thanks,
I’ve been looking at the whisky parts co forks, but the’d defienetely be something i’d upgrade to later.

Yeah, I was just noting that almost all of the full-carbon disc forks are tapered 1.125-1.5. There are two exceptions that I am aware of: Ritchey WCS (no fender eyelets) and Spot fork (eyelets).

@JeremyCannon 91181 wrote:

Would you mind elaborating on your frame material comment? Are you saying that i’d feel no difference in ride quality between a aluminum/carbon for fork and a steel bike? I was actually looking at that niner before, and it’d probably be on the top of my aluminum list, especially with those paint jobs.

I think the question is really what the plans are for this bike. You will feel the difference in geometry between these frames for sure and probably the weight, but when you are talking about big squishy tires the idea that you will feel the difference in ride compliance seems wrong. I would get steel if you want a classic-looking bike and get aluminum/carbon if you want a race bike.

You probably will also feel a difference in flexy-ness of the frame material. I can certainly feel the difference between standing on the pedals on my ti bike vs my carbon bike. A laterally stiff bike is nice.

If racing is a big factor, I would definitely choose the lighter weight over the steel aesthetics. You will notice that on the super steep and short cx climbs and when picking up the bike for barriers, etc. The Macho Man looks like a heavy setup. You could shave a 1.5+ lbs switching out that fork for carbon (but you only have two choices for full carbon), but you still have at least a 3lb penalty in that frame — over something like the RLT9 (or certainly carbon frames like the Dirty Disco). I am in a similar camp; my 4lb frame is hard to economically build into a sub-20lb bike, but racing is quite secondary for that bike.

As for the Salsa Colossal, that is a disc-brake road bike, so won’t have the clearance for cx tires. Did you mean the Warbird? The Warbird looks interesting, but with no fender eyelets is definitely a race-focused machine. Nothing wrong with that, of course, just very different than e.g. the Macho Man.

@JeremyCannon 91181 wrote:

That Ti frame is definitely tempting, especially at that price, but maybe not quite tempting enough. How big a difference do you think Ti would make?/how well do you think it’d race?

I have raced it a few times; it races fine. I would build it up lighter if i were more competitive about that. Cables along the top, which is nice for shouldering. I don’t think you would notice advantages in the frame material over steel; this is not a super-light or “springy” ti frame. It is quite laterally stiff, but not going to be as stiff as carbon or aluminum. Yeah, I don’t know that it is worth the premium — especially as a first (?) cx frame.

@JeremyCannon 91181 wrote:

P.S. It looks like i have some work to do on that segment now.

Sorry, couldn’t help myself. But you will get it back

[JeremyCannon]

So are you saying that aluminum or carbon would be better for titanium for racing as well? What d0 you think about using a reynolds 853 steel or stainless steel for racing?

[hozn]

You can race any frame. I just think that if price were similar (or not an issue), I would choose to race on an 18lb bike over a 23lb bike. And stiff frame/fork is nice for climbing. Of course, it’s 90+% engine anyway and winning on a 23lb steel bike when the competition is on carbon bikes with deep carbon tubular wheels (yes, even cat 5 is redonculous when it comes to equipment) will probably feel priceless.

My SS MTB is steel, though, but in SS races that is pretty normal — and it isn’t holding me back.

I consider titanium to be basically equivalent to steel. Just without the rusting.

I don’t know that any frame will be any better than another on terms of durability. I have broken a steel MTB frame and a titanium CX frame. Have not broken an alloy frame, but my buddy went through 4 Gary Fisher Paragon frames, so I know they break.

[JeremyCannon]

I would think a well built Ti frame, like a Moots or Litespeed, would just as Light/Stiff while more compliant then most carbon, is that not true?

[hozn]

@JeremyCannon 91196 wrote:

I would think a well built Ti frame, like a Moots or Litespeed, would just as Light/Stiff while more compliant then most carbon, is that not true?

Not as far as I know/have experienced. Titanium is flexible and when the frame is trying to be lightweight, even more so. My Lemond Victoire, for example, was very laterally flexible: I could make the brakes rub easily on climbs and see the BB moving side to side significantly on the trainer. I am sure some frames are better than others but afaik the Lemond frame was well regarded. My Habanero road or cx frames (which do not have butted tubes) have been much less noodly but still are far less stiff then carbon. People tend to talk about the “springy” feel of ti; well, there are two sides to that coin. Carbon should be the ultimate material for ability to make a comfortable bike that resists any lateral flexing. The ti frames are nice, but honestly my Chinese carbon frame is as comfortable as my ti frame; it is just more responsive on climbs. And a lot lighter.

[peterw_diy]

Stiff doesn’t necessarily mean fast; read Jan Heine’s thoughts on the subject. Jan’s the guy who just finished 2nd in the 360 mile Oregon Outback race – with downtube shifters, a steel frame, and a broken hand. You don’t need crabon to be fast.

(The winner rode a steel frame with a carbon fork: http://www.cxmagazine.com/winning-gravel-grinder-oregon-outback-winner-ira-ryans-breadwinner)

[hozn]

Absolutely, you don’t need carbon to be fast; the engine is what counts here. The gains that less weight provide are all in the margins — same for aerodynamics, for that matter. But there are gains to be had, even if small, by carrying 5 lbs less up the hills or on your shoulders. For stiffness, I will agree that it is probably just in the riders’ heads (unless the pads are rubbing the rotors etc. and truly robbing forward speed), but I definitely prefer climbing on a stiff setup (frame/fork/wheels).

[UrbanEngineer]

You know what’s really fun? Single Speed Cyclocross! If only there was somebody out there with a single speed cross bike for sale.

http://bikearlingtonforum.com/showthread.php?6824-For-Sale-Felt-Breed-2012-53-CM&highlight=felt+breed

[vvill]

I wouldn’t pick steel for racing CX simply because of the weight – and to a lesser extent the chance of it rusting. I feel that bike weight in CX weighs you down more than in other types of riding because you have to carry your bike, you don’t always have a lot of momentum going up climbs (which are often short/steep), and there isn’t much drafting. I’d go with aluminum or carbon myself (I’ve never ridden a Ti frame), but aluminum will likely be the lightest for the $, and carbon the lightest overall. (Also – don’t forgot about putting some money into the wheelset not just the frame.)

If I wanted a new bike for CX racing, I’d get something that’s CX race specific e.g. Raleigh RXC, Kona Major Jake, Specialized Crux, Blue Norcross, Cannondale CAADX, Ridley X-, Redline, etc. Most major manufacturers have similar 2014/15 lines for these – disc brakes, aluminum or carbon frames with tapered headtube, carbon fork – the only issue using CX race bikes in other situations is they tend to have tire clearance maxing out around 35-38mm so they are not as versatile as the 40mm+ gravel grinder bikes. (But FWIW I haven’t ever felt my 32mm CX tires were too narrow on gravel rides – singletrack might be a different matter). Also, some might worry about using race/light carbon frames on gravel if there’s rocks constantly being thrown up onto your frame (some people use tape under the downtube, I believe).

That said, if you do really want steel and are fine with a straight 1 1/8th steel fork, the Macho Man Disc would probably be one of my top choices too. It does have a CX race geometry and I love the paintjob. Also – Soma recently came out with the Triple Cross frame if you’re interested in them. I briefly considered the Double Cross when I got my CX bike, but the inability to test ride and weight took that one out of the picture.

[hozn]

Great suggestions from vvill. Good point especially that if the focus is racing, getting a real CX bike makes more sense than a gravel bike like the RLT9. And probably aluminum. I like the versatility of being able to put big tires on, but they’re not race legal (max 33mm). And even 32mm tires run tubeless can work fine on singletrack.

Definitely consider wheels, though. Getting a set of Stan’s Iron Cross — or the new Grail — wheels would be on the must-have list for me. Tubeless is very nice. (I am not quite willing to take the plunge to tubular.)

[JeremyCannon]

@vvill 91232 wrote:

I wouldn’t pick steel for racing CX simply because of the weight – and to a lesser extent the chance of it rusting. I feel that bike weight in CX weighs you down more than in other types of riding because you have to carry your bike, you don’t always have a lot of momentum going up climbs (which are often short/steep), and there isn’t much drafting. I’d go with aluminum or carbon myself (I’ve never ridden a Ti frame), but aluminum will likely be the lightest for the $, and carbon the lightest overall. (Also – don’t forgot about putting some money into the wheelset not just the frame.)

If I wanted a new bike for CX racing, I’d get something that’s CX race specific e.g. Raleigh RXC, Kona Major Jake, Specialized Crux, Blue Norcross, Cannondale CAADX, Ridley X-, Redline, etc. Most major manufacturers have similar 2014/15 lines for these – disc brakes, aluminum or carbon frames with tapered headtube, carbon fork – the only issue using CX race bikes in other situations is they tend to have tire clearance maxing out around 35-38mm so they are not as versatile as the 40mm+ gravel grinder bikes. (But FWIW I haven’t ever felt my 32mm CX tires were too narrow on gravel rides – singletrack might be a different matter). Also, some might worry about using race/light carbon frames on gravel if there’s rocks constantly being thrown up onto your frame (some people use tape under the downtube, I believe).

That said, if you do really want steel and are fine with a straight 1 1/8th steel fork, the Macho Man Disc would probably be one of my top choices too. It does have a CX race geometry and I love the paintjob. Also – Soma recently came out with the Triple Cross frame if you’re interested in them. I briefly considered the Double Cross when I got my CX bike, but the inability to test ride and weight took that one out of the picture.

Thanks, yeah I’m pretty sure steel is out of the picture now. The two carbon frame set’s i’ve been looking at are the Trek Boone 9 Disc F/S and the Felt F1x. One nice thing about the Boone 9 is that there is a pretty good chance it is made in the USA since it’s Trek’s 600 Series carbon, and that it comes with a carbon seat mast cap and stem. Any thoughts on those?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6315[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]6316[/ATTACH]

[JeremyCannon]

@hozn 91234 wrote:

Great suggestions from vvill. Good point especially that if the focus is racing, getting a real CX bike makes more sense than a gravel bike like the RLT9. And probably aluminum. I like the versatility of being able to put big tires on, but they’re not race legal (max 33mm). And even 32mm tires run tubeless can work fine on singletrack.

Definitely consider wheels, though. Getting a set of Stan’s Iron Cross — or the new Grail — wheels would be on the must-have list for me. Tubeless is very nice. (I am not quite willing to take the plunge to tubular.)

And Yes, i have also been looking at quality components a lot too, and i’ll ask on your thoughts on them as well if you don’t mind, i just wanted to figure out the frame first.

[vvill]

@JeremyCannon 91245 wrote:

Thanks, yeah I’m pretty sure steel is out of the picture now. The two carbon frame set’s i’ve been looking at are the Trek Boone 9 Disc F/S and the Felt F1x. One nice thing about the Boone 9 is that there is a pretty good chance it is made in the USA since it’s Trek’s 600 Series carbon, and that it comes with a carbon seat mast cap and stem. Any thoughts on those?

I do ride a steel bike, amongst others – it’s really up to the rider and what they want. There are high level racers on All-City’s CX team, for example, and in the UK, there are road racers competing on Genesis steel frames (Reynolds 953 I believe). Ultimately it’s in the engine, but like I said in CX racing I do feel the weight of the bike itself has a bit more bearing.

Felt and Trek are both reputable/major/popular brands, so hopefully you can find a LBS for a test ride for fit/feel – the differences in these main brands will be mostly aesthetic, especially if it’s your first CX bike. I’ve always liked the look of Felt bikes but of course that’s personal.

Component wise, a lot of it is also up to the rider and their preferences. Some prefer one of Shimano/SRAM/Campagnolo over the others, and most have their own pedal/saddle/handlebar preferences. I would talk to other riders/LBS for more opinions, etc. Most modern components you’ll find at a LBS are “quality”, it’s more about saving weight and customization. Wheels can make a big difference though. I love my Stan’s Iron Cross wheels, they really changed how I felt about my CX bike (the stock wheels were heavier, had narrower rims and the hubs didn’t seem to spin as freely).

Not to be a total buzzkill, but I wouldn’t be sure if I’d go all-in on the “perfect” bike build until you’ve done some CX racing, or gravel (or whatever exactly you want to do with the bike.) Since a lot of customization is based on an individual’s preference, and you build up those preferences from riding time, it might be better to get a cheaper stock build and upgrade as you see fit (or even add a second CX bike and use the original one as a pit bike). New bikes and components are notoriously easy to covet (at least for many on this forum, including me) and CX racing can be quite a specific cycling “niche” if you take it seriously (I don’t). You can build a road racing bike and ride it all over town, but I reckon most CX racers wouldn’t want to wear out their $100+ CX race tubulars riding at 25psi on pavement, or even on sharp gravel. Also, you get diminishing returns the more you spend. For me, around $1.5k-2k is about what I’d lay down on a first CX bike unless I wanted full carbon (add about $1k), and it if got stolen or broken I’d be able to replace it in a reasonable time. I think $1-2k is about the best value price point, or even less if you’re going used.

I will throw in a plug for Bikenetic, where I got my Kona Jake (limited lifetime frame warranty since it’s not carbon) – they do free lifetime tuneups! I do wish the model year I’d bought looked more like this one though.

[JeremyCannon]

I’m definitely going to get some nice wheels too, which is part of the reason i am planning on doing a custom build kit. I am leaning towards a nice alloy rim with some disc compatible king hubs.

[83b]

I have an old Lemond PoPrad (853 steel) that is my Jack of All Trades bike. I picked it up for a song on Craigslist back when I was a broke student and my bikes got stolen. It’s got a mishmash of old/new components on it and weighs in at something perfectly reasonable. The limiting factor in my riding is, as Hozn points out, always me and my (lack of) fitness.

Relevant for your purposes… If the frame ever gives out on me, I’m going to replace it with a new Gunnar or a Curtlo. If it was going to be used exclusively for cross racing, I’d be very tempted by that sweet Niner for the same ~$1K. The open-mold carbon frame route would also be quite tempting.

[Author]

Posts