moving on from the Ti vs carbn debate....

[02GF74]

.... I read somewhere recently that the TDF bikes for long flat stages were made from steel in order to be more comfy; carbon fibre and other lighter materials (Aluminium) being used for mountain stages.

Makes sense in a way but I don't believe it - anyone know more about this?

 

[Tynan]

keep reading that steel is comfier over the longer audax type rides

 

[Smokin Joe]

I don't believe it either. You didn't read it on an Audax forum, did you?

Comfort is down to geometry, correct posture on the bike and your tyres and saddle. I have read so many accounts from people who say something along the lines of how comfortable their 1955 steelie is compared to modern frames. What the neglect to mention is the old 'un has a wheelbase as long as the QE2.

 

[User482]

I don't believe it either. You didn't read it on an Audax forum, did you?

Comfort is down to geometry, correct posture on the bike and your tyres and saddle. I have read so many accounts from people who say something along the lines of how comfortable their 1955 steelie is compared to modern frames. What the neglect to mention is the old 'un has a wheelbase as long as the QE2.

This was covered in great detail in the "touring" section. There are good physical reasons why steel can be made to give a more compliant ride than aluminium. But as you say it won't matter if the geometry isn't right.