People romanticize carbon same as steel, instead of ride feel they use race credentials. While carbon surely has it's place, 'lively acceleration' is not what I'd use to describe it. 'Direct acceleration' would be a better choice of words.eurostar wrote:I have an 853 randonneur frame which I built on Dave Yates' course. Also got a Parlee Zero which I prefer because it's so much lighter. The 853 is weighed down by S&S couplers and a 1.2 kg crankset, a Rotor RSX4 triple. It's got huge tyre clearances, so it has expedition bike potential. Maybe one day.
I don't buy the special, unique feel of steel which people go on about. It's romantic baloney. I've learned enough about framebuilding to know that ride quality has very little to do with steel vs carbon. Geometry, tyre width and suspension gadgets (e.g. zertz, isospeed) are many times more significant. You can build a stiff or a bendy frame with steel, aluminium, ti or carbon. People form prejudices about certain materials being inferior because of bikes which have suffered from cost-cutting, for example a steel frame with a high quality main triangle but cut price stays and forks. But weight doesn't lie. A carbon frame, assuming the wheels and components are comparable, inevitably has much livelier acceleration because the steel one has a weight penalty of 1 kg or something. Ever noticed how the modern steel bikes with the best reviews always seem to have the shallowest rims?
The best looking steel bikes, in my opinion allthough subjective, are standard gauge tubing, horizontal top tubes, high spoke count and ultra shallow tubulars.
Sent from my SM-T813 using Tapatalk