Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    22

    Comparing old steel to new steel

    Looking for experienced riders of high quality steel frames to help with a big decision.
    I currently ride three steel bikes; a 1980 Schwinn Le tour SS, a 1985 Schwinn Voyageur SP SS, and a Lemond Zurich Spline Steel/Carbon fiber mix.

    My three bikes give me completely different rides. I feel as if I would like to upgrade but don’t want to spend the money to get a similar ride or just a small difference in ride quality.

    The Le Tour was completely redone and with 700x38 it is my bike of choice for those recovery rides and bike path bike. Its also the first new bike I ever purchased. It handles all bumps due to thicker frames (4130?) and big tires.

    The Voyageur is Columbus SL tubing and is definitely lighter which weighs in at exactly 23#’s. With 27 x 1 1/4 it too handles all bumps big and small just not as nicely as the Le Tour. It however is quicker and actually handles better which shocks me because its a touring frame.

    The Zurich with 700x28 soaks up all small road imperfections better than the other two. On smooth roads its awesome, however when the bumps get big and we have a lot of crappy roads, the ride is unpleasant. It almost feels as if things are going to break. I am running a set of mavic ma40’s so the wheels are stout and I am maxed out on tire size.

    Now if I want to test ride a Trek or Specialized - no problem I just go to a LBS and take them for a test ride. However when it comes to higher quality steel these is no such resource around me that I know of where I can do this. So buying a steel frame is more often than not, by reputation than actual experience unless you have some venues that have allowed you to experience these types of bikes. I have not.

    With this is mind, I know newer bikes will probably come in around 17-18 lbs. This is a significant difference from the bikes I ride now - but will the cost (I am assuming around $3-6K) really make a difference in ride quality, performance and comfort?

    I don’t know if the difference will be “OMG WOW!” Or “yeah this is nice” type changes. I guess my choice would be the cheapest frame that would give the best bang for the buck and not be upgraded. I am looking for a forever frame or just keep riding my old steel.

    If anyone has experience with different steel bikes and has any input please pass on the knowledge. I have read many reviews about steel bikes but never a comparison of old cheap steel and the new lighter, super steels. Thanks...

  2. #2
    old school drop out
    Reputation: laffeaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    1,552
    My thoughts...

    My "main" bike is a mid-2000s Carl Strong built with Columbus Life tubing. Before this I spent a lot of time on ~2000 Ritchey Logic built with Nitanium tubes. I'd consider both to be "high end" and "modern" steel frames. I also own and ride (much less frequently) two high-end steel frames from about 1990. One is made from Tange Prestige and the other I'm not sure about. I've also put a significant number of miles on a Reynolds 853 built in ''97 with a steel fork (I sold it a few months back).

    The biggest measureable difference between the old and new frames is weight - but it's really not that big of a difference. My Carl Strong frame is about 300g less than the older bikes. That's not insignificant, but it's huge either. However, once built into bikes, the Strong (with a carbon fork) is just under 17 pounds while the older bikes (with steel forks) are in the 20-21 pound range. The difference in weight has much much more to do with components, wheels, and fork than it does to with the frames.

    Is there a a huge "wow" factor for the new bikes versus the old? Not really. The newer bikes go up hills a bit faster - probably a combination of being lighter and and also having closer gear ratios due to more rear cogs. The bikes all ride well.

    As far as frame stiffness goes... The newer frames have larger diameter tubes, which in theory make them stiffer (much more so than tube thickness). I can't say that I feel a significant difference in any of them. However, since the newer frames are lighter and have larger diameter tubes, it's pretty safe to say that the wall thickness of the tubes is a lot thinner. The added stiffness of the increased tube diameter is likely offset by the decreased wall thickness. In the end, none of them are noodles and none ride overly harsh. The forks do transmit a different amount of road harshness though, and that's much easier for me to detect (i.e. the carbon fork that I had on the Ritchey rode well but transmitted much more of road buzz than the steel forks or the carbon fork that I have on the Strong).

    One more thing on stiffness: lower end bikes should ride more stiffly than high end bikes (assuming the same tubing diameter). The thicker the tube wall the stiffer the frame at a given outer diameter.

    As far as comfort goes, bike fit and tire size are what matter. I have a touring bike with 38mm tires that I ride at 50 psi - now that's comfort! For a road bike 25mm tires with 95 psi are plenty acceptable to me. The tires, wheels, and fork will impact your comfort level much more than any frame meterial change.

    What is a big difference to me is how the bikes handle. According to geometry charts most bikes are pretty similar. There's maybe a half degree of variation here, or centimeter difference there... It seems like it's close enough that a slight saddle adjustment or stem swap make it all the same. But somehow, even fit properly, bikes that appear to be similar ride very differently. Some track better in a pace line, some are super stable on downhills, some get twitchy under certain conditions, some feel better when climbing out of the saddle, some "carve" a turn while others dart into them, some bikes turn by moving your hips while others turn with the handlebar, etc. To me, this is the biggest factor in determining if I like a bike. The "wow" factor has to do with how a bike reacts under me. While the material used may affect how a bike handles, overall it's the geometry that either works or does not.

    So... if your current bikes have geometry that works perfectly for you, you'll likely not be "wowed" by a new bike. A new bike likely will drop a few pounds which will help on climbs. However, if your current bikes have something about them that's not "perfect" for you, a new bike might fix that issue which might "wow" you.

    And as far as test rides go... yes it's great to test ride a bike before you buy. However for me, a test ride only tells me if I don't like a bike. When I hop on a new bike I can tell pretty quickly weather I dislike it. However, to determine how well I like a bike takes several hundred miles of riding under various conditions. Road conditions, hills (up and down), wind, group rides versus solo, hard rides versus mellow all make a bike handle differently. (For example, I loved the ride of one bike that I owned in every condition except for high-speed downhills in a cross or head wind. On calm days it was super stable, but when the wind kicked up it was sketchy to the point where I was scarred to ride it - I tired different wheels and had the same results. It's hard to find out something like that on a test ride.)

  3. #3
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,470
    With any of the high end steels, if the tube dimensions are equal, you won't notice a difference between brands and models.

    Tube diameter has by far the largest influence of ride quality(stiffness). Wall thickness has a very minor role especially since wall thicknesses vary in tenths of a millimeter. Tube shape is probably equal in influence to wall thickness.

    I've got three bikes, all built with high end steel frames and forks. Two of them are custom. I honestly couldn't tell you what influence the tubing has on the ride of each bike. Heck; with one frame I don't even know what tubing was used because there's no sticker on the frame. I've ridden bikes with Columbus SL, Reynolds 531, Tange #2, Tange Prestige Ultimate Extrastrong, and Reynolds 853. I've never attributed any frame's ride qualities to the tubing used; all the stuff is so close in diameter and wall thickness that I can't imagine there being any differences.

    With both custom frames I told the builder whatever information they were looking for when I ordered the frame and they chose the tubes. The bikes came out fine.

    What I'm trying to say is; don't worry about the tubing. If you're ordering a custom frame, keep your focus on the fit and ride qualities you're looking for and let the builder choose which tubes are best for your application.
    Last edited by Peter P.; 06-21-2012 at 07:17 PM.

  4. #4
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    22
    i have 3 vintage steel frames, a mass gran criterium and a merckx corsa extra that both have columbus

    tubing, and a trek 5something, all from the 80s
    my newer steel frames are Masi's from 2011 and 2012 the steel is considered oversized so the diameter of tubing is slightly larger than the traditional frame sets of the past

    as for the ride, it mainly comes down to tires for soaking up small bumps, but note on all my old bikes i have sew ups, or tubular tires, on the newer bikes i have clinchers.

    theres something about the way the older bikes ride, they seem stiffer over the bumps meaning the front and rear tend to hop over them but it still feels smooth, its hard to explain without riding both side to side. the newer frames still soak up plenty of road vibration and bumps but if i had to pick one, id go with the older generation theres just something about vintage lugged bike i can't seem to say no to

  5. #5
    OES
    OES is offline
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    14,508
    EVeryone seems to be posting long dissertations here, but I'll be brief. Except for weight, steel is pretty much steel. Ride quality will be essentially the same if you built idential bikes out of old 531 or the newest supersteel. Been riding various steels 40 years.

    (The splined Zurich is a bad comparison. Whole 'nother animal, and IMHO a boneheaded move by Lemond. Nice bike, but ... WHY? People bought Lemonds back then because that's where you could go for steel).




    Quote Originally Posted by underrated View Post
    Looking for experienced riders of high quality steel frames to help with a big decision.
    I currently ride three steel bikes; a 1980 Schwinn Le tour SS, a 1985 Schwinn Voyageur SP SS, and a Lemond Zurich Spline Steel/Carbon fiber mix.

    My three bikes give me completely different rides. I feel as if I would like to upgrade but don’t want to spend the money to get a similar ride or just a small difference in ride quality.

    The Le Tour was completely redone and with 700x38 it is my bike of choice for those recovery rides and bike path bike. Its also the first new bike I ever purchased. It handles all bumps due to thicker frames (4130?) and big tires.

    The Voyageur is Columbus SL tubing and is definitely lighter which weighs in at exactly 23#’s. With 27 x 1 1/4 it too handles all bumps big and small just not as nicely as the Le Tour. It however is quicker and actually handles better which shocks me because its a touring frame.

    The Zurich with 700x28 soaks up all small road imperfections better than the other two. On smooth roads its awesome, however when the bumps get big and we have a lot of crappy roads, the ride is unpleasant. It almost feels as if things are going to break. I am running a set of mavic ma40’s so the wheels are stout and I am maxed out on tire size.

    Now if I want to test ride a Trek or Specialized - no problem I just go to a LBS and take them for a test ride. However when it comes to higher quality steel these is no such resource around me that I know of where I can do this. So buying a steel frame is more often than not, by reputation than actual experience unless you have some venues that have allowed you to experience these types of bikes. I have not.

    With this is mind, I know newer bikes will probably come in around 17-18 lbs. This is a significant difference from the bikes I ride now - but will the cost (I am assuming around $3-6K) really make a difference in ride quality, performance and comfort?

    I don’t know if the difference will be “OMG WOW!” Or “yeah this is nice” type changes. I guess my choice would be the cheapest frame that would give the best bang for the buck and not be upgraded. I am looking for a forever frame or just keep riding my old steel.

    If anyone has experience with different steel bikes and has any input please pass on the knowledge. I have read many reviews about steel bikes but never a comparison of old cheap steel and the new lighter, super steels. Thanks...

  6. #6
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    465
    Cinelli seems to think Columbus XCr has a superior ride quality.

    http://www.cinelli.it/scripts/true_s...id=101&mode=sl

  7. #7
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Bob Ross's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,328
    Quote Originally Posted by underrated View Post
    I have read many reviews about steel bikes but never a comparison of old cheap steel and the new lighter, super steels. Thanks...
    It would be disingenuous to suggest that my experience has anything to do with the difference in frame materials, because so many other factors go into the subjective experience of riding a bike...but fwiw, riding my 2010 Carl Strong custom steel frame (a blend of modern Reynolds and Columbus steels, I think) feels nothing like riding my 1985 Bridgestone 600 (1" 4130 CroMo), except in the coursest of senses...yeah, I'm on a bicycle. Totally different sensation from one bike to the next

    ...but then again, they have totally different wheels, tires, bars, & bar tape...not to mention geometry (the Strong was custom designed to fit me, the Bridgestone was a stock frame that I picked up second-hand). So it's really apples to oranges.

  8. #8
    Windrider (Stubborn)
    Reputation: Len J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    21,849
    Yea...it's about All the variables....not just the tubsets.

    A custom steel bike built up for a 250 lb rider will ride stiff for a 120 lb climber
    A custom steel bike built for crits will ride completely differently than one built for touring......even using the same tubsets.

    Geometry matters
    Customization for what rider weight matters
    Wheels and tires matter
    Rider fitness matters.

    That being said, I have a custom steel made with modern colombus spirit (pego-richhie) tubeset...I also have a Merchk MXL made with the original Max tubeset that fits me well. 2 completely different rides...........viva le difference.

    IME

    Len



    "Evil....is the complete lack of Empathy!"

    ""We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit. " Aristotle

    No one is as bad as the worst thing they have done & no one is as good as the best thing they have done.........think of that when you feel like you understand someone.

  9. #9
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    22
    Ok, this all makes sense BUT no one is putting campy record on an old schwinn. In other words if steel rides basically the same why are cheaper frames be passed up for these top steel rides selling for such high prices? The new raleigh 853 is $6500! A lemond 853 can be found for $400-900 all day long. Even a new dura ace kit is about 2500. So the numbers do not add up. For about 1200 BikesPlus is selling an 853 framed complete bike.

    I guess its a status thing? The name? On the positive side there are a lot of bicycle companies selling steel framed bikes for a decent price $400-600. This is making the Soma Stanyan and Milwaukee Bicycle company frames a lot more interesting and tempting - if i even decide to upgrade.

    Thanks for the information.

  10. #10
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    524
    I'm not sure of your position. While the ride of steel bikes built to the same specs might ride much the same, there is the weight factor. in terms of your bikes, the letour may not be comoly steel. the voyger was made as a touring bike. either way these bikes did not come with high end groups in the first place. they were not light for bikes even in their day. This is why you would not likely see an old Schwinn built with record

    on the other hand an old paramount would be more likely to see a high end group, or more likely a high end vintage group.

    even with modern frames, there are many frames that just don't justify the expense of a high end group. I have record on my master light. I would never dream of putting record on my salsa.

    As to your original question, would there be a WOW factor? Only a small wow at best. One of my favorite bikes is my Mercian built with 531C. I would sell my Waterford first

  11. #11
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    674
    Ha! I was about to use the analogy of putting Record on a Colnago Master. Seems I was beaten to it.

    For custom steel bikes, well actually all bikes, you can go cheap or go costly. A Gunnar Roadie costs $1,250. Waterford's about $2,250, Dario's Marcelo is around $3,500, Cinelli Rapha is $4,500, An Ellis is about $6,500 and you cannot get a Vanilla for love nor money (5 year wait list). I'm pretty sure that if they were made to the exact same measurements and geometries, they would ride almost identically.

    The thing is that they're not all built the same. Herein lies the difference. What makes a frame truly special is the approach, skill and reputation of its builder and the intent of the bike. Gunnars and Waterfords are great but they are straightforward steel. Dario is, well Dario. Ellis and Vanilla include little details that turn the frames into works of art. Reputation goes a long way towards increasing the price, but also the thinking behind the frame.

    Bottom line is the Raleigh 853 is not worth $6,000 more than the Soma Stanyan if you measure them in terms of seconds gained per mile. But it's a much better and more desirable frame. Whether you agree that it's worth 6 grand more... That's for you to decide.

  12. #12
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    22
    Thanks for all of the responses. I have been riding for many years but never had the chance to ride higher end steel bikes. I have been desiring a high quality bike but don't want to spend more than i need to. I don't race i just ride for the joy of riding and fitness. The knowledge on these boards are amazing so thanks for sharing. I guess its not much different than build kits, while they all do the same thing and performance wise may not offer much more, there is a group for everyone. Some just cost a whole lot more than others.

  13. #13
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    545
    Be careful here with your interpretation of what some very knowledgeable people are saying here.

    It is the details that matter, not what group you just want to adorn your frame with.
    Would I put record 11 on a soma, most likely no; would I put that same grouppo on a Sachs...etc- hell yes.

    Just to give you a couple of examples, yes you can have builders create a bike with the exact geometry, but each builder will likely select different shaped tubesets and butting profiles: will they ride the same with the exact same saddle, tires, bars and pressures? Most likely not.

    To give you my own concrete evidence, I have a couple of steel bikes, a masi cx, a kona honky tonk, and a Rock Lobster all arounder. Do they ride the same? No, with 100% certainty I could tell the difference in ride quality by just riding over a couple of man hole covers.
    the tubesets are similar oversized steel, but the kona has a tubeset that is closer to the rides of old, and my Lobster has smaller diameter seatstays and Paul's vast knowledge of building, so that one rides the best of the 3. Just enough spring, just the right stiffness and overall balance.

    hope this helps...
    Last edited by a_avery007; 06-25-2012 at 02:27 PM.

  14. #14
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    51
    The only person you need to make happy is you. Take the frame that best meets your need, put the group you want on it then go ride it and have fun. Remember the saddle only fits one person so it makes no difference what other say or do.

  15. #15
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: esldude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    223
    I think foremost is geometry.

    Next I would says tires and wheels.

    Next at a lower level is the material.

    I have a lower end 1980 Motobecane. Moto claimed they made all of their frames to the same stiffness and strength. Better tubing was thinner and lighter. Only having ridden mine I can only say it fits me well and handles well with the geometry it has. Also have a Gunnar Roadie. Fits well, has a bit racier geometry also nicer tires/wheels. It seems to have a bit more lively and efficient feeling character. It is 9 pounds lighter. I think most of the liveness is geometry and stiffer oversized tubing. It clearly is better in most ways, but it isn't an OMG experience between the two.

    And while you can feel the lightness in some contexts it doesn't always stay on your mind. Often it isn't a perceptible factor to me when riding either bike vs the other.

  16. #16
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    30
    Here is what happens when an 80's steel frame bike hits a '09 Voodoo Wazoo head on. There was not a scratch on her bike.







  17. #17
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    545
    first, hope you are Both ok!
    second that is not catostrophic failure, notice it just bent like crazy, fortunately it did not shear and hurt anyone.
    could you fix it? some knowledgeable builder could probably just weld on a new top tube and make sure the frame is aligned, i would scrap it.
    i do not think it was the difference in model years, if you reversed the collision most likely the newer steel bike would look the same.

  18. #18
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21
    You can make a darned good bike from Aluminum, Steel, Ti or CF. Steel has some specific advantages. It has nearly 100 years of history in manufacturing. A great deal is known about what works and what doesn't work with steel. Steel is more durable. When properly protected from corrision steel has greater absolute strength and yield strength than the other materials. This gives steel a greater crash worthiness and more durability. Steel is more custumizable than the other materials which can provide specific advantages for specific applications. It also permits you to make personal and asthetic touches which are more difficult with other materials. Steels main drawback is it's specific gravity. It's heavier than the other materials per unit volume of material. A high end steel bike speced out with modern high end components will weigh a couple of pounds more than a comparable high end CF bike with comparable ride quality. The trade off, for comparable ride quality handling you will pay more and sacrifice durability for a high end CF bike vs a high end steel bike. The CF bike will weigh several pounds less though. For you average super tourist/grand fondo cyclist you'll get more bang for the buck with a high end steel bike than CF. For racing at the highest level, you'll be more competative with the high end CF bike, particularly if climbing is involved.

  19. #19
    Decrepit Member
    Reputation: Scooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,685
    Well, it took eighteen posts, but somebody had to bring in aluminum, titanium, and carbon fiber.

    The thread title is Comparing old steel to new steel.
    -Stan
    my bikes

  20. #20
    cmg
    cmg is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,769
    Sounds like you've got some experimenting to do. get about $600+/- and buy a used frame/ fork combo, add everything else, wheels,drivetrain, etc. etc. ride for a season. remove components and buy another frame combo and repeat. after a while you'll find what you like. the experimenting is half the fun and you're forced to learn bike mechanics. enjoy.

    i favor steel Serottas, majority of them have a lower bottom bracket, 8cm while most other manufactuers are 6.7- 7cm . some say this trival and it probably is but i dig the setup. after 4-5 used Serottas i came to this conclusion.

  21. #21
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Scooper View Post
    Well, it took eighteen posts, but somebody had to bring in aluminum, titanium, and carbon fiber.

    The thread title is Comparing old steel to new steel.
    LOL My bad. There really isn't that much difference. Steel is steel. The newer alloys, like Reynolds 853 have incrementally increased the strength of steel so that thinner tubes can be drawn and the air hardening qualities increases strenght in critical areas, basically where the tubes are joined. That means a slightly lighter weight with some improvements in durability in these critical areas. In terms of handling and ride qualities, there's virtually no difference. Frame geometry and the skill/crafstman ship of assembly, would have a greater impact on frame quality then the metallurgy. Likewise with components. There have been huge advances in drive train and wheel technology in the last 20+ years and thats where you'll see most of the difference in an old steel bike vs a new steel bike.

    For example, I own two steel bikes one is made from Tange Prestige (1992) and the other from Reynolds 853 (2011). They both have near identical geomotries and both are excellent frames but the 2011 bike is substantially superior because the 2011 components are superior. That's where most of the differences lie. If I was to update the 1992 Tange Prestige frame with the same 2011 components as the Reynolds 853 frame the rides would probably be virtually identical though the Tange Prestige bike would weigh about a half a pound more.

  22. #22
    Decrepit Member
    Reputation: Scooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by Mottleydude View Post
    LOL My bad. There really isn't that much difference. Steel is steel. The newer alloys, like Reynolds 853 have incrementally increased the strength of steel so that thinner tubes can be drawn and the air hardening qualities increases strenght in critical areas, basically where the tubes are joined. That means a slightly lighter weight with some improvements in durability in these critical areas. In terms of handling and ride qualities, there's virtually no difference. Frame geometry and the skill/crafstman ship of assembly, would have a greater impact on frame quality then the metallurgy. Likewise with components. There have been huge advances in drive train and wheel technology in the last 20+ years and thats where you'll see most of the difference in an old steel bike vs a new steel bike.
    I agree with this. The only thing I'd add is that the new stainless steels like 953, XCr, and KVA MS2 also offer a high degree of corrosion resistance and can be left bare; the weight of paint to protect the exterior surfaces of 853, S3, Platinum OX, Spirit, Life, etc., isn't insignificant.
    -Stan
    my bikes

  23. #23
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    155
    Hmmmm...
    Gotta say, I think modern head tubes and tubesets are a new game compared to 20 years ago.
    Even lumping XCR with MS2 is off, since the latter is so much stiffer.
    There are also so many variations these days, customs tubes with amazing attention to detail.
    I like old school and nu skool just as much, but I would not say they are the same...at all.

  24. #24
    Decrepit Member
    Reputation: Scooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,685
    Quote Originally Posted by CippoForLife View Post
    Hmmmm...
    Gotta say, I think modern head tubes and tubesets are a new game compared to 20 years ago.
    Even lumping XCR with MS2 is off, since the latter is so much stiffer.
    There are also so many variations these days, customs tubes with amazing attention to detail.
    I like old school and nu skool just as much, but I would not say they are the same...at all.
    I'm not sure I understand this comment. The modulus of elasticity or Young's modulus which describes a material's stiffness is virtually the same for all steels (~200 GPa), including XCr and MS2. What makes a tubeset stiffer is increasing the wall thickness, the diameter, or both.
    -Stan
    my bikes

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

INTERBIKE

Contest

Hot Deals See All Hot Deals >>

Interbike Featured Booths

Check out the hottest road bike products from these brands!



















See All Interbike Coverage - Click Here »


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook