I now only ride titanium, which to me feels exactly like steel. Without the danger of rust.
Just the cracked welds then?
Not yet, and not expected. My Argos Racing Cycles steel frame was recycled for baked bean cans long ago after repeated rust problems. My Thorn tourer frame went the same way after, admittedly, something like 18 years of service. Its 531 predecessor also yielded to rust. I got fed up shelling out on new paint that won't last.
Powder coating is much more durable. Had my commuter coated around 10y ago and no chips or exposed steel despite daily use and being left in the bike shed at work all day.
My '94 Dawes made of 531ST is my winter bike and has been for years, have owned from new 26y ago. Properly rustproofed internally with waxoyl many years ago and any paint chips are touched up. No rust to report and I've maybe spent 3-4 hours rustproofing the frame and touching up paint since I bought the bike....
Carbon is nice but the lack of damage tolerance bothers me. Aluminium is OK (I have 2 Ali bikes) but fatigues unless it's built not to flex which equals harsh ride. Ti bikes generally aren't made in my size.
Though curvy might not be the same as "compliant", "comfortable" or whatever, if the forks have been built for disc brakes.
I've got Surly Disc Trucker forks on my commuter bike currently and despite having curved and fairly small diameter fork legs they are harsh as hell. I can compare comfort as I've used three other steel forks on the same bike (two fairly cheap unicrown chromoly forks and a set built by Mercian from Reynolds 531 with a solid crown), which in themselves were all pretty stiff.
I think there's a lot to be said for some flex in the forks and yet modern bikes seem to aim to maximise stiffness in that area, with straight legs and oversized crowns.
My old Dawes has a long 1" steerer (flexier than 1 1/8") and 531ST unicrown forks and there is noticeable flex and a much comfier ride at the front end than my other, newer bikes.
what bgnukem says matches very well with my experience and observations too. It seems very much the exception that any disc brake fork manifests much noticeable flex, and any steel fork with a 1-1/8" steerer needs to have seriously flexible blades before it is anywhere near the comfort levels achieved with pretty mediocre 1" steerer models.
You know that 'fashion for wider tyres'? Well that is (IMHO) made more or less necessary in many cases by the forks fitted on many modern bikes.
Greystoke wrote:The latest Dawes Galaxy aluminium bike has aluminium forks....
I'm unsure what to make of that
I was curious to see what a Galaxy is like today and went to the Dawes site and couldn't even see it on the site and even searched 'galaxy' and nothing was found yet I can see it in stock on various sites and looks horrible to me. Besides if you are touring around the world and get into an accident 6061 is heat treated so would be very hard to repair by a mechanic. It feels like a long way from the ideal touring bike. I do think Claris is a good groupset for a touring bike though and the brakes are fine I just can't get my head around the 6061 frame and forks. They look neither strong or comfortable. I've seen classic Galaxy's in the past and was a little jealous but I wouldn't even want the current model. Thorn bikes look so much more clued up when it comes to touring bikes. I suspect the people who understood touring at Dawes have long gone. Tandem look like another British company that have lost the plot and are just shrinking with time and will end up out of business in a few years. I've visited many bike shops over the last year or so, I always check them out if I'm shopping in a different town or city and can't remember seeing Dawes or Claud Butler bikes in any of those. Seems like they are brands of the past now. There newer brands Squish and Pulse I've never heard of or seen anywhere either. British Eagle has a link on their site but just goes to the Tandem site with no bikes shown. Last time I saw a British Eagle bike I think it was a BSO in Asda.
SJS cycles/Thorn ought to see if they can buy the Dawes Galaxy brand it seems a much better fit in their range. Can't see why you can't have two companies using the 'Dawes' brand simultaneously. Halford's license brands so you have multiple companies using the same brand 'Voodoo'. People probably search 'Dawes Galaxy' for a touring bike and simply refuse to buy the current model and look elsewhere.
Marcus Aurelius wrote:Steel is real, so is rust. Viva Carbon fibre.
Yeah, right up until your first serious 'off'... I've thrown my tourer down the road too many times to remember, and it 'steel' comes back for more...
A Steel/ti/alu/Mag frame is more likely to be scrapped/broken in certain crashes/impacts compared to a carbon one that could very well survive the impact with no damage whatsoever. personal anecdote from riding carbon and being driven at with contact from side on plus a rear end hit and run and an off or two due to own stupidity gives me no qualms about having an 'off', I had a pretty big impact at 25mph with a large lipped pothole, the carbon wheel and fork were fine despite the huge jolt to rider Then there's this ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5eMMf11uhM&t=264s
Not yet, and not expected. My Argos Racing Cycles steel frame was recycled for baked bean cans long ago after repeated rust problems. My Thorn tourer frame went the same way after, admittedly, something like 18 years of service. Its 531 predecessor also yielded to rust. I got fed up shelling out on new paint that won't last.
Powder coating is much more durable. Had my commuter coated around 10y ago and no chips or exposed steel despite daily use and being left in the bike shed at work all day.
My '94 Dawes made of 531ST is my winter bike and has been for years, have owned from new 26y ago. Properly rustproofed internally with waxoyl many years ago and any paint chips are touched up. No rust to report and I've maybe spent 3-4 hours rustproofing the frame and touching up paint since I bought the bike....
Carbon is nice but the lack of damage tolerance bothers me. Aluminium is OK (I have 2 Ali bikes) but fatigues unless it's built not to flex which equals harsh ride. Ti bikes generally aren't made in my size.
I envy people who have cherished steel framesets that they have managed to keep in reasonable condition for decades. A chap at Argos Racing Cycles suggested that my sweat may be particularly acidic because the spot where I just cannot keep rust at bay is the forward cable stop on the top tube, which always rusts and no amount of touching up or waxing will prevent it. My last paint job from Argos, with several colours and a good deal of wallet emptying, was undone by rust in that area within a year. My powder coated Thorn Raven tandem (with lots of promises of anti-rust treatments) has had paint blister off in certain areas. I feel depressed when I look at it so I keep it under a sheet. So for me titanium is the answer and so far, after a lot of use my oldest titanium frame looks as good as it did the day I lifted it out of the box. If it had been a painted steel one it would look rubbish now.
Disc compatable forks need to be stiff due the braking fulcrum point being near to the axle,that's unavoidable. Rim brake forks made of thin wall or small section tubing and a hockey stick or J profile will be more compliant than those of a more modern 'lazy' curve design. But if you ride lightweight supple high TPI large section(35mm+)tyres such as Hypers or Rene Herse slicks run at optimum TP's for load,the tyre takes care of all but the biggest of hits before the fork comes into play. Supple large section tyres also take all of the high frequency vibration out of bad chip n seal UK crapmac that we dislike so much.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Greystoke wrote:The latest Dawes Galaxy aluminium bike has aluminium forks....
I'm unsure what to make of that
I was curious to see what a Galaxy is like today and went to the Dawes site and couldn't even see it on the site and even searched 'galaxy' and nothing was found yet I can see it in stock on various sites and looks horrible to me. Besides if you are touring around the world and get into an accident 6061 is heat treated so would be very hard to repair by a mechanic. It feels like a long way from the ideal touring bike. I do think Claris is a good groupset for a touring bike though and the brakes are fine I just can't get my head around the 6061 frame and forks. They look neither strong or comfortable. I've seen classic Galaxy's in the past and was a little jealous but I wouldn't even want the current model. Thorn bikes look so much more clued up when it comes to touring bikes. I suspect the people who understood touring at Dawes have long gone. Tandem look like another British company that have lost the plot and are just shrinking with time and will end up out of business in a few years. I've visited many bike shops over the last year or so, I always check them out if I'm shopping in a different town or city and can't remember seeing Dawes or Claud Butler bikes in any of those. Seems like they are brands of the past now. There newer brands Squish and Pulse I've never heard of or seen anywhere either. British Eagle has a link on their site but just goes to the Tandem site with no bikes shown. Last time I saw a British Eagle bike I think it was a BSO in Asda.
SJS cycles/Thorn ought to see if they can buy the Dawes Galaxy brand it seems a much better fit in their range. Can't see why you can't have two companies using the 'Dawes' brand simultaneously. Halford's license brands so you have multiple companies using the same brand 'Voodoo'. People probably search 'Dawes Galaxy' for a touring bike and simply refuse to buy the current model and look elsewhere.
A frame being weldable in the wild is only a factor if it brakes and if you actually need to get it repaired rather than replaced. Most people don't suffer frame breakages and most people also don't tour in Mongolia. Those who do visit such places probably don't do it on a (modern) Dawes, for all the reasons you've mentioned.
And those reasons also explain why Thorn are unlikely to buy the Dawes name!
Greystoke wrote:The latest Dawes Galaxy aluminium bike has aluminium forks....
I'm unsure what to make of that
I was curious to see what a Galaxy is like today and went to the Dawes site and couldn't even see it on the site and even searched 'galaxy' and nothing was found yet I can see it in stock on various sites and looks horrible to me. Besides if you are touring around the world and get into an accident 6061 is heat treated so would be very hard to repair by a mechanic. It feels like a long way from the ideal touring bike. I do think Claris is a good groupset for a touring bike though and the brakes are fine I just can't get my head around the 6061 frame and forks. They look neither strong or comfortable. I've seen classic Galaxy's in the past and was a little jealous but I wouldn't even want the current model. Thorn bikes look so much more clued up when it comes to touring bikes. I suspect the people who understood touring at Dawes have long gone. Tandem look like another British company that have lost the plot and are just shrinking with time and will end up out of business in a few years. I've visited many bike shops over the last year or so, I always check them out if I'm shopping in a different town or city and can't remember seeing Dawes or Claud Butler bikes in any of those. Seems like they are brands of the past now. There newer brands Squish and Pulse I've never heard of or seen anywhere either. British Eagle has a link on their site but just goes to the Tandem site with no bikes shown. Last time I saw a British Eagle bike I think it was a BSO in Asda.
SJS cycles/Thorn ought to see if they can buy the Dawes Galaxy brand it seems a much better fit in their range. Can't see why you can't have two companies using the 'Dawes' brand simultaneously. Halford's license brands so you have multiple companies using the same brand 'Voodoo'. People probably search 'Dawes Galaxy' for a touring bike and simply refuse to buy the current model and look elsewhere.
I think Dawes went downhill years ago when they stopped building their own frames. The steel bikes seemed to get quite a lot heavier after that and the prices were too high for the specs on offer. It's a shame to see a good brand go downhill but I guess the way of the world is to go for cheap frames mass produced in cheap labour countries.
The Surly Long Haul Trucker seems to have taken over the Galaxy's role as traditional steel touring bike, or Thorn or Spa Cycles offerings.
pwa wrote:Not yet, and not expected. My Argos Racing Cycles steel frame was recycled for baked bean cans long ago after repeated rust problems. My Thorn tourer frame went the same way after, admittedly, something like 18 years of service. Its 531 predecessor also yielded to rust. I got fed up shelling out on new paint that won't last.
Powder coating is much more durable. Had my commuter coated around 10y ago and no chips or exposed steel despite daily use and being left in the bike shed at work all day.
My '94 Dawes made of 531ST is my winter bike and has been for years, have owned from new 26y ago. Properly rustproofed internally with waxoyl many years ago and any paint chips are touched up. No rust to report and I've maybe spent 3-4 hours rustproofing the frame and touching up paint since I bought the bike....
Carbon is nice but the lack of damage tolerance bothers me. Aluminium is OK (I have 2 Ali bikes) but fatigues unless it's built not to flex which equals harsh ride. Ti bikes generally aren't made in my size.
I envy people who have cherished steel framesets that they have managed to keep in reasonable condition for decades. A chap at Argos Racing Cycles suggested that my sweat may be particularly acidic because the spot where I just cannot keep rust at bay is the forward cable stop on the top tube, which always rusts and no amount of touching up or waxing will prevent it. My last paint job from Argos, with several colours and a good deal of wallet emptying, was undone by rust in that area within a year. My powder coated Thorn Raven tandem (with lots of promises of anti-rust treatments) has had paint blister off in certain areas. I feel depressed when I look at it so I keep it under a sheet. So for me titanium is the answer and so far, after a lot of use my oldest titanium frame looks as good as it did the day I lifted it out of the box. If it had been a painted steel one it would look rubbish now.
Some of the newer titanium frames have partially machined out tubes to create a lighter butted type tube and those are much more competitive on weight but do not offer the long term strength of some older titanium frames. Same is true of steel. The older cheaper heavier steel frames are simply stronger than steel frames designed to be lightweight most of the time. People talk about steel being better or aluminium being better but its far more down to how it was manufactured. Many cyclists act like making a frame lightweight has no effect on the strength and lifespan of the frame. That common cycling rule; lightweight, cheap, strong choose any 2 makes it sound like a lightweight frame can be a strong frame as long as it is expensive and that really isn't true when it comes to materials like steel, titanium and to a lesser extent aluminium. You can make a titanium frame to last a lifetime or you can make a titanium frame that is light and comfortable but has a much shorter lifespan.
Most modern instruction manuals for bikes clearly state a performance bike is not a long lasting bike, they use fairly generic text that comes from the certification so you often see pretty much the same text used across multiple brands. Basically it tells the customer that a performance bike is not a long lasting bike and the frame will fatigue and fail over time and such fatigue is normal use not a fault. It's not included in the warranty of the bike etc. However so many cyclists argue that such bikes are as strong or long lasting as often cheaper heavier bikes and you simply have to give up on explaining it to those people as such cyclists seemed to be fuelled by bike brand marketing information rather than the engineering reality. Just about any material can have both performance versions and heavier longer lasting more durable designs. So its often very confusing when people argue for different materials being better as often as a reader you don't know what sort of frame they have. Maybe they have weak lightweight frame of that material or a heavy duty frame of that material. I've seen people criticise steel frames because a super lightweight steel frame made in Italy of Columbus tubing was exceptionally weak and was the first frame to fail when tested. The end verdict was steel frames were weaker, it was the most ridiculous test result because clearly steel is not competitive for lightweight frames and they only made the frame weight competitive by completely compromising its strength and lifespan.
Text from a Giant manual;
High-Performance Road CONDITION 1 Bikes designed for riding on a paved surface where the tires do not lose ground contact. INTENDED To be ridden on paved roads only. NOT INTENDED For off-road, cyclocross, or touring with racks or panniers. TRADE OFF Material use is optimized to deliver both light weight and specific performance. You must understand that (1) these types of bikes are intended to give an aggressive racer or competitive cyclist a performance advantage over a relatively short product life, (2) a less aggressive rider will enjoy longer frame life, (3) you are choosing light weight (shorter frame life) over more frame weight and a longer frame life, (4) you are choosing light weight over more dent resistant or rugged frames that weigh more. All frames that are very light need frequent inspection. These frames are likely to be damaged or broken in a crash. They are not designed to take abuse or be a rugged workhorse. See also Appendix B.
The name Dawes doesn't mean much to folk under the age of 50. If it disappeared tomorrow most cyclists wouldn't notice. The name Thorn has a lot more kudos among touring cyclists and has done for a decade or more. Ditto Spa and Surly. They all have real cyclists behind them. Who designs Dawes bikes these days? I don't know. Does anyone?
pwa wrote:The name Dawes doesn't mean much to folk under the age of 50. If it disappeared tomorrow most cyclists wouldn't notice. The name Thorn has a lot more kudos among touring cyclists and has done for a decade or more. Ditto Spa and Surly. They all have real cyclists behind them. Who designs Dawes bikes these days? I don't know. Does anyone?
And Genesis have caught up fast. I own two, a Longitude and a Vagabond they lack nothing in build quality and design. Surly and Thorn whilst both good bikes are grossely over priced these days IMHO
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
Greystoke wrote:The latest Dawes Galaxy aluminium bike has aluminium forks....
I'm unsure what to make of that
I was curious to see what a Galaxy is like today and went to the Dawes site and couldn't even see it on the site and even searched 'galaxy' and nothing was found yet I can see it in stock on various sites and looks horrible to me. Besides if you are touring around the world and get into an accident 6061 is heat treated so would be very hard to repair by a mechanic. It feels like a long way from the ideal touring bike. I do think Claris is a good groupset for a touring bike though and the brakes are fine I just can't get my head around the 6061 frame and forks. They look neither strong or comfortable. I've seen classic Galaxy's in the past and was a little jealous but I wouldn't even want the current model. Thorn bikes look so much more clued up when it comes to touring bikes. I suspect the people who understood touring at Dawes have long gone. Tandem look like another British company that have lost the plot and are just shrinking with time and will end up out of business in a few years. I've visited many bike shops over the last year or so, I always check them out if I'm shopping in a different town or city and can't remember seeing Dawes or Claud Butler bikes in any of those. Seems like they are brands of the past now. There newer brands Squish and Pulse I've never heard of or seen anywhere either. British Eagle has a link on their site but just goes to the Tandem site with no bikes shown. Last time I saw a British Eagle bike I think it was a BSO in Asda.
SJS cycles/Thorn ought to see if they can buy the Dawes Galaxy brand it seems a much better fit in their range. Can't see why you can't have two companies using the 'Dawes' brand simultaneously. Halford's license brands so you have multiple companies using the same brand 'Voodoo'. People probably search 'Dawes Galaxy' for a touring bike and simply refuse to buy the current model and look elsewhere.
A frame being weldable in the wild is only a factor if it brakes and if you actually need to get it repaired rather than replaced. Most people don't suffer frame breakages and most people also don't tour in Mongolia. Those who do visit such places probably don't do it on a (modern) Dawes, for all the reasons you've mentioned.
And those reasons also explain why Thorn are unlikely to buy the Dawes name!
6061 is pretty much unfixable anywhere not just Mongolia. It is nice to have a steel touring bike that can be easily fixed pretty much anywhere which is why many touring bikes have un-heat treated steel frames. Many people have accidents riding in new countries, or they have overloaded the bike or just worn out something on the frame or maybe broken something loose like an eyelet or something.
Lets say you are riding in Germany and you have a small accident that bends your stays and damages your brake mount. You can coldset it back into position and get someone to weld a repair on the brake mount, no need to buy a new bike or frame in Germany. Lets also not forget the steel frame will be more accident tolerant anyway capable or resisting damage better, it's a denser material that is typically harder to dent as it has typically smaller diameter tubing. Lots of reasons why steel is the best material for touring even in developed countries. From what I understand even for heat-treated steel you can still weld a repair with reduced strength at the weld and it is nowhere near as bad as doing the same on heat-treated aluminium.
However I don't claim to be an expert on touring and may have remembered some stuff wrongly. Thorn do a fantastic resource of information with lots of tips regarding touring. Yes its biased towards their commercial interests but its hard to argue with their conclusions for why steel is the ideal material.
Marcus Aurelius wrote:Steel is real, so is rust. Viva Carbon fibre.
I have never ridden carbon fibre, but I have 2 similar bikes, 1 being alloy with carbon forks, the other 531 Competition. Both have their good and bad points, but for ride comfort it's the 531C bike every time- even with 23 width tyres. Handling is another story. The modern bike on descents is day at the office even at 40 mph, the other bike is ahem, more involving. I still prefer the steel bike though..
Last edited by atoz on 6 Jul 2020, 7:44pm, edited 2 times in total.
