In praise of titanium - and Spa Cycles

[Pale Rider]

A visit to Spa Cycles in Harrogate today has all but converted me to titanium as a frame material.

As part of my get fitter, ride longer, campaign I've been looking for something a bit more sporty than my mountain bike.

I've managed to lose a stone or two - still a work in progress - but a bit less flab makes a drop bar bike a possibility.

Trawling the net, I came across the Spa Ti Adventure bike and decided to have a look.

Spa isn't far from my static caravan in Bedale, so I didn't bother ringing in advance.

The owner of the shop had taken the medium Adventure demo home, but one of the staff nipped round to get it for me.

In fact, Spa couldn't have been more helpful - I had the impression I could ride as many bikes as I liked for as long as I liked.

The ride on the Adventure was something of a revelation.

I've never ridden a titanium bike, and not ridden a drop bar one in 40 years, but I got on with it almost immediately.

All that stuff I've read about titanium being smooth, soaking up bumps and just plain nice to ride is true.

The Adventure made my ally frame bikes seem harsh and tinny in comparison.

Not so sure about drop bars, they felt a tad narrow, and I clouted my knee on the drops a couple of times when setting off.

That's probably down to pilot error, and the bars being lower on the demo than I would like.

Steering in tight spaces wasn't so easy, although once again I'm sure I could master it.

I did an easy 10 mile return trip to Ripley, so not much climbing, but the bike seemed to roll along nicely.

At the shop's suggestion, I also had a go on a steel tourer.

It felt harsh in comparison, possibly partly due to the narrower tyres.

On the plus side, it rolled a bit better than the Adventure.

A new bike is a heart as well as head decision, and I can't quite shake the notion that steel tourers are for CTC-type beardies.

I'm also more confident on the podgier, wider tyres of the Adventure.

So have I bought one?

Not yet, but I can see where this is heading.

Any thoughts on the bike welcome, and I'm also interested to hear what others think of titanium as a frame material.

http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b0s21p3104

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

A visit to Spa Cycles in Harrogate today has all but converted me to titanium as a frame material.

As part of my get fitter, ride longer, campaign I've been looking for something a bit more sporty than my mountain bike.

I've managed to lose a stone or two - still a work in progress - but a bit less flab makes a drop bar bike a possibility.

Trawling the net, I came across the Spa Ti Adventure bike and decided to have a look.

Spa isn't far from my static caravan in Bedale, so I didn't bother ringing in advance.

The owner of the shop had taken the medium Adventure demo home, but one of the staff nipped round to get it for me.

In fact, Spa couldn't have been more helpful - I had the impression I could ride as many bikes as I liked for as long as I liked.

The ride on the Adventure was something of a revelation.

I've never ridden a titanium bike, and not ridden a drop bar one in 40 years, but I got on with it almost immediately.

All that stuff I've read about titanium being smooth, soaking up bumps and just plain nice to ride is true.

The Adventure made my ally frame bikes seem harsh and tinny in comparison.

Not so sure about drop bars, they felt a tad narrow, and I clouted my knee on the drops a couple of times when setting off.

That's probably down to pilot error, and the bars being lower on the demo than I would like.

Steering in tight spaces wasn't so easy, although once again I'm sure I could master it.

I did an easy 10 mile return trip to Ripley, so not much climbing, but the bike seemed to roll along nicely.

At the shop's suggestion, I also had a go on a steel tourer.

It felt harsh in comparison, possibly partly due to the narrower tyres.

On the plus side, it rolled a bit better than the Adventure.

A new bike is a heart as well as head decision, and I can't quite shake the notion that steel tourers are for CTC-type beardies.

I'm also more confident on the podgier, wider tyres of the Adventure.

So have I bought one?

Not yet, but I can see where this is heading.

Any thoughts on the bike welcome, and I'm also interested to hear what others think of titanium as a frame material.

http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b0s21p3104

I'm pretty sure that our own @ianrauk was considering selling a very good Spesh because he's now riding the tit as the default bike.

 

[ianrauk]

I'm pretty sure that our own @ianrauk was considering selling a very good Spesh because he's now riding the tit as the default bike.

Very true. My Ti is coming up to three years old and every time I take it out for a ride it still feels like a new bike. Every time. Paid a lot for it but it was worth every single penny.

In regards to Spa Cycles, I have only ever heard good things about them, their bikes and their service.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

You say all thoughts are welcome, so here goes.
Titanium in an inappropriate frame material. It has no benefits over steel, aluminium or carbon and is more expensive to manufacture than any of them.
Titanium's reputation as a super-strong material is ill-founded. It is half as strong as steel but half as heavy. It is twice as strong as aluminium, but twice as heavy. Strength is not the crux of the story though since even aluminium (four times weaker than steel*) is strong enough.
Titanium tubing is very expensive and it is an expensive material to work with. It readily work-hardens so that it's properties change as the piece is milled or drilled or bent. Without proper heat treatment, those pretty welds do crack and rather quickly too, if the job is not perfect.
Other materials are better at doing the job of a modern frame. Aluminium can be hydro-formed into organic shapes (think smooth tapered head tube and special blending end-pieces where one tube meets up with another). Carbon is of course the ultimate organic-shapeable material. it can be made into just about any form and we see these smooth, flowing forms on today's carbon frames. By comparison, titanium frames are agricultural. The bottom bracket is just a piece of pipe, as is the head tube. Yes, they've fiddled a bit with the downtube nowadays but even that looks bolted on, it just doesn't mimic the organic forms we have come to love on modern bikes.
Yes it is rust-proof, but CroMo steel bikes just about never rust through either and of course, aluminium is equally corrosion proof (except for seatposts, but that happens with Ti too).
To make everyone realize you have a ti bike, you have to leave it unpainted, otherwise no-one will know. It smacks a bit of the Rolex syndrome to me.
Titanium bikes are not light - not that I mind, but I do not like the way they attempt to control the weight by fitting carbon forks.

In summary, it is expensive, solves no known problem and applied to the job at hand purely for its mystical iron-curtain military connotations.

Then, as for its shock-absorption properties. Those are non-existent. A double-diamond frame bike is essentially an inflexible truss that does not absorb shock due to it's shape. It cannot be distorted (not enough to soak up bumps in anyway), so that is a myth. Most shock absorption properties of bikes and tyres are a psychological by-product of the acoustic feedback from the bike/tyres.

Trusses are laterally flexible but that's not how a bike absorbs shock and vibration.

Sorry Pale Rider.

But....years ago I lusted after a Merlin ti/carbon hybrid bike where the lugs were ti and the tubes carbon.




* I am loosely basing my "co-efficient of strength" on a combination of tensile and compressive strengths of an average alloy of all the materials.

 

[Andy_R]

blahblahblah

Why do they make airframes out of Ti alloys then?

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Why do they make airframes out of them then?

Do you really want me to explain why it may be appropriate for airoplanes but not bicycles?
Why don't you save the blaah's for when you look in the mirror first thing in the morning. Critique my statements on their content and contribute to the debate.

 

[DanZac]

I'm not in a position to comment on the benefits of Titanium from a bike sense having not owned a Ti frame, but kind of agree with @Yellow Saddle in some ways, I do however know that I prefer the ride and feel of steel over Ally mainly in the way that steel appears to take the harshness out of the road surface so suspect that there must be some flex in the frame build to allow for this (in fact I know there is as you can feel the flex when you put the power down or try to flex the frame). As such I would suspect that knowing how Ti behaves in a aerospace way that utilising these properties in a frame must be possible and you should end up with a frame that takes the harshness out of the road in the same way that steel does but is slightly lighter. Having never owned a carbon bike I cannot comment there, but again know full well that it is possible to design just about any property you wish into a composite lay up by varying materials so suspect that that could be even better than Ti.

I have however dealt with Spa and have been mightily impressed with their products and would not hesitate to recommend them, however please be warned that they are not your run of the mill supplier (as you are no doubt aware having been there) and whilst you will get the best bike you have probably ever owned you may end up waiting a bit longer than they promised

 

[StuAff]

Thread title is 'in praise of titanium', not 'throw a strop and disagree with everything the OP says'. And there are painted titanium frames.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Thread title is 'in praise of titanium', not 'throw a strop and disagree with everything the OP says'. And there are painted titanium frames.

OK, I'll praise titanium. When oxidized, it makes great white paint pigment. It is also a fantastic metal for dental and orthotic implants because bone bonds very nicely to it and of course, it doesn't corrode.

 

[Pale Rider]

You say all thoughts are welcome, so here goes.
Titanium in an inappropriate frame material. It has no benefits over steel, aluminium or carbon and is more expensive to manufacture than any of them.
Titanium's reputation as a super-strong material is ill-founded. It is half as strong as steel but half as heavy. It is twice as strong as aluminium, but twice as heavy. Strength is not the crux of the story though since even aluminium (four times weaker than steel*) is strong enough.
Titanium tubing is very expensive and it is an expensive material to work with. It readily work-hardens so that it's properties change as the piece is milled or drilled or bent. Without proper heat treatment, those pretty welds do crack and rather quickly too, if the job is not perfect.
Other materials are better at doing the job of a modern frame. Aluminium can be hydro-formed into organic shapes (think smooth tapered head tube and special blending end-pieces where one tube meets up with another). Carbon is of course the ultimate organic-shapeable material. it can be made into just about any form and we see these smooth, flowing forms on today's carbon frames. By comparison, titanium frames are agricultural. The bottom bracket is just a piece of pipe, as is the head tube. Yes, they've fiddled a bit with the downtube nowadays but even that looks bolted on, it just doesn't mimic the organic forms we have come to love on modern bikes.
Yes it is rust-proof, but CroMo steel bikes just about never rust through either and of course, aluminium is equally corrosion proof (except for seatposts, but that happens with Ti too).
To make everyone realize you have a ti bike, you have to leave it unpainted, otherwise no-one will know. It smacks a bit of the Rolex syndrome to me.
Titanium bikes are not light - not that I mind, but I do not like the way they attempt to control the weight by fitting carbon forks.

In summary, it is expensive, solves no known problem and applied to the job at hand purely for its mystical iron-curtain military connotations.

Then, as for its shock-absorption properties. Those are non-existent. A double-diamond frame bike is essentially an inflexible truss that does not absorb shock due to it's shape. It cannot be distorted (not enough to soak up bumps in anyway), so that is a myth. Most shock absorption properties of bikes and tyres are a psychological by-product of the acoustic feedback from the bike/tyres.

Trusses are laterally flexible but that's not how a bike absorbs shock and vibration.

Sorry Pale Rider.

But....years ago I lusted after a Merlin ti/carbon hybrid bike where the lugs were ti and the tubes carbon.




* I am loosely basing my "co-efficient of strength" on a combination of tensile and compressive strengths of an average alloy of all the materials.

No worries, I didn't post on here for a vindication of an almost made buying decision.

It was the style of the bike that drew me to it originally.

I like the sloping top tube, which has little practical benefit because the bit you stand over - near the head tube - is just as high as on a horizontal top tube frame.

Plenty of clearance for biggish tyres and mudguards is another plus point.

As is more bosses than you can shake a stick at.

I've no plans at present to do tours involving overnight stays, but one thing I've learnt during my relatively recent return to cycling is that my requirements change over time.

I also like Spa as a retailer because they build the bike for you which allows a choice of component spec - I'm looking at slightly wider bars and hydraulic activated brakes, and possibly one or two other things.

The ride of the titanium frame did impress me.

I like to think that impression was genuine, not just a case of the emperor's new clothes.

 

[Andy_R]

Do you really want me to explain why it may be appropriate for airoplanes but not bicycles?
Why don't you save the blaah's for when you look in the mirror first thing in the morning. Critique my statements on their content and contribute to the debate.

Someone doesnt like to be told they might not be right!


sooo....airframes need a light strong structure that can cope with stresses during normal expected use (landing and taking off for example, along with rotational forces in excess of 2-3G during flight - average rotational forces during turning in flight, not to mention 6-10G in military aircraft). So demonstratably, TI is a suitable material for airframes. Why does this differ for bicycle frames? Is it too weak, too soft, too heavy when properly formed? Or do you just have an opinion based on nowt but bias?

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I'm not in a position to comment on the benefits of Titanium from a bike sense having not owned a Ti frame, but kind of agree with @Yellow Saddle in some ways, I do however know that I prefer the ride and feel of steel over Ally mainly in the way that steel appears to take the harshness out of the road surface so suspect that there must be some flex in the frame build to allow for this (in fact I know there is as you can feel the flex when you put the power down or try to flex the frame). As such I would suspect that knowing how Ti behaves in a aerospace way that utilising these properties in a frame must be possible and you should end up with a frame that takes the harshness out of the road in the same way that steel does but is slightly lighter. Having never owned a carbon bike I cannot comment there, but again know full well that it is possible to design just about any property you wish into a composite lay up by varying materials so suspect that that could be even better than Ti.

I have however dealt with Spa and have been mightily impressed with their products and would not hesitate to recommend them, however please be warned that they are not your run of the mill supplier (as you are no doubt aware having been there) and whilst you will get the best bike you have probably ever owned you may end up waiting a bit longer than they promised

Frame flex is present in all frames. If it wasn't, you would not be able to make the chainring grind when pedaling hard and you would not need FD trim. All of the popular frame materials can be configured to more, or less flexible. Flexibility comes at a price. With steel, you can still design the structure to be durable even though it has lots of flex. With aluminium and titanium you can't, there being no minimum fatigue limit.

"Road harshness" is often mentioned but never quite explained, basically because it can't. Remember, a bicycle frame is NOT compliant in the vertical axis. Not a steel one, not an aluminium one, not a carbon one. This means that NONE of these materials can absorb shock transmitted to the seat or handlebars via the fork or seatpost. Think about it, what part to do think flexes in order to absorb that shock?

 

[Yellow Saddle]

No worries, I didn't post on here for a vindication of an almost made buying decision.

It was the style of the bike that drew me to it originally.

I like the sloping top tube, which has little practical benefit because the bit you stand over - near the head tube - is just as high as on a horizontal top tube frame.

Plenty of clearance for biggish tyres and mudguards is another plus point.

As is more bosses than you can shake a stick at.

I've no plans at present to do tours involving overnight stays, but one thing I've learnt during my relatively recent return to cycling is that my requirements change over time.

I also like Spa as a retailer because they build the bike for you which allows a choice of component spec - I'm looking at slightly wider bars and hydraulic activated brakes, and possibly one or two other things.

The ride of the titanium frame did impress me.

I like to think that impression was genuine, not just a case of the emperor's new clothes.

It sounds like a nice bike.
As for the "titanium ride". That was purely due to the particular bike configuration. An aluminium, steel or carbon frame with the same wheels, tyres and other components would have felt the same.

 

[Pale Rider]

I'm not in a position to comment on the benefits of Titanium from a bike sense having not owned a Ti frame, but kind of agree with @Yellow Saddle in some ways, I do however know that I prefer the ride and feel of steel over Ally mainly in the way that steel appears to take the harshness out of the road surface so suspect that there must be some flex in the frame build to allow for this (in fact I know there is as you can feel the flex when you put the power down or try to flex the frame). As such I would suspect that knowing how Ti behaves in a aerospace way that utilising these properties in a frame must be possible and you should end up with a frame that takes the harshness out of the road in the same way that steel does but is slightly lighter. Having never owned a carbon bike I cannot comment there, but again know full well that it is possible to design just about any property you wish into a composite lay up by varying materials so suspect that that could be even better than Ti.

I have however dealt with Spa and have been mightily impressed with their products and would not hesitate to recommend them, however please be warned that they are not your run of the mill supplier (as you are no doubt aware having been there) and whilst you will get the best bike you have probably ever owned you may end up waiting a bit longer than they promised

Thanks Dan.

I am aware that Spa can be a bit, er, eccentric, when it comes to customer service.

A couple of remarks made to me today could have been taken the wrong way by a different customer.

At the moment, we are getting on fine, but we shall see what we shall see.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

Someone doesnt like to be told they might not be right!


sooo....airframes need a light strong structure that can cope with stresses during normal expected use (landing and taking off for example, along with rotational forces in excess of 2-3G during flight - average rotational forces during turning in flight, not to mention 6-10G in military aircraft). So demonstratably, TI is a suitable material for airframes. Why does this differ for bicycle frames? Is it too weak, too soft, too heavy when properly formed? Or do you just have an opinion based on nowt but bias?

Rotational forces in excess of 2-3Gs hey? There are lots of big words in that sentence of yours, but lets stick to the questions you ask.

Weakness? Strong enough is strong enough. Aluminium is 100 times cheaper but still strong enough. Therefore it is more appropriate. For instance, you could make your yellow Bic pen from ti insteak of yellow plastic - it would be much, much stronger. but why? By asking why strong is not better, you first have to point out where the other materials are not strong enough for their application in bicycles.
Too soft? Who mentioned material hardness? Where did you get that from. Red herring.
Too heavy when formed? Who mentioned a weight penalty when formed? Red herring.

Your argument is weak and your hostility exposes your ignorance of the topic.