I'm glad Steve sort of came around - but Steve and I hate to say many builders themselves are still missing the point - the one to two pounds added in weight by using a steel frame is nearly TRIVIAL to the bikes performance as used by the majority of riders.
Comfort which equals less fatigue, and rolling resistance of tires are way more important to a bikes performance. And guess what - Steel bikes can be designed to meet these objectives better than most wonder material bikes on the market.
So the opinion that for serious unloaded riding a light wonder bike makes sense for most folks is wrong in many if not most cases. The bottom line is that if a rider is doing 40-60 mile rides plus the occasional century, a steel bike that accomodates 25 or 28mm tires AND which is especially comfortable may in fact be the bike that enables its rider to go faster.
Anyone interested in these issues should be subscribing to Jan Hein's Bicycle Quarterly. He actually does the MATH - yes, real analytics to get to the core of these issues.
Mike Kone in Boulder CO
\r?\n> A ways back Bruce made a few comments on how we as cyclists should
\r?\n> support the custom framebuilders etc. I was a bit insulted. My
\r?\n> thoughts were along the lines of, "Why should I pay huge cash for
\r?\n> what appears to be an overweight POS?"
\r?\n> So before I fired off a flame I went to his website. There he
\r?\n> explains in detail the very reasons why a you might want a heavy
\r?\n> steel custom bike.
\r?\n> If you want to do unsupported cyclotouring, in effect full loaded
\r?\n> biking, there is precious little (to nothing) on the market that
\r?\n> would be usable. You can't take your carbon or aluminum toy and load
\r?\n> it with 60 lbs. of gear and hope it survives. It won't.
\r?\n> I would encourage any who are thinking of loaded touring to go to
\r?\n> Bruce's website and read it.
\r?\n> Bruce, you were right. I salute you!
\r?\n> Steve (don't know Bruce, not selling anything, just educated) Leitgen
\r?\n> LA Crosse, WI USA