Titanium ????

[StuAff]

..and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Indeed so.

 

[airborneal]

I can remember Lotto Adecco riding Litespeed Vortex bikes in 2002, interesting reads below. Rob McKewan won the TDF green jersey on one.
I've got two Airborne frames, one Lancer & Zeppelin. Love Titanium myself. Not sure which frameset to build and which to sell

http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/comment/icons-cycling-litespeed-vortex-311140

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/2002/features/probikes/lotto.shtml

 

[PpPete]

Are you casting nasturtiums on the knowledge of posters on this thread?.

Not all - It was a back handed 'dig' at the individual you quoted in one of your posts....

Paul Smith's CV says he has been heavily into titanium frames and selling them to riders for the last 17 years. But he's still riding steel..

Paul may well own a steel bike, but he certainly has at least two Ti bikes.... that's his own Van Nic Yukon in the pictures on the page you link to.

I'm quite prepared to believe that some of the bespoke high-spec steel frames are better than mass-produced titanium, but that's not really comparing apples with apples. I love riding both my 531 bikes, but at the risk of repeating myself, neither is as comfortable nor as quick as the titanium.

 

[bigjim]

I don't think it is possible to catergorically state one frame material is better than another. There are just so many variables to affect ones decision. Tyres, wheels, saddle, frame design and of course rider weight. People talk about smoothness. How does one define that? All my bikes are steel. I've stayed away from aluminium because of it's reputation for harshness. Recently I bought for silly money a as new Aluminium framed bike. I bought it for the parts. I thought I would ride it around for a while. Hell! It is so smooth! I really enjoy it. It's good fun, very responsive and I've used it all through the winter for local and all day club rides. Maybe my almost 15 stone frame smooths things out. My steel bikes feel softer not smoother. Hard to describe. I ride full carbon in Mallorca which are great, but no better IMO, than my 531 steel road bikes. Anyway my bottom of the range smooth cheapo even has Ali forks. Ridiculous! Why isn't it a bone-jarring mess?

 

[Paul_Smith SRCC]

The saying "the sum of the parts" springs to mind.

Aluminium Alloy, Steel, Carbon and Titanium frames can all be designed for different types of bikes; get that design correct and finish it with the appropriate component choice then they should perform adequately in each role. Many will argue that Aluminium Alloy framed bikes can result in a harsh ride, but you can tune the frame geometry to offer more comfort, tube shapes, tube profiles and design features like Trek's Iso Speed decoupler can influence comfort, as can larger tyres and a more conservative bike fit, all are valid considerations. Focusing on the riding experience, how much difference each frame material makes for many is down to 'perception'; 'no difference' to one rider maybe a 'deal breaking difference' to another. As an analogy give me the highest quality tennis racket, snooker cue or set of darts and then a more budget but quality version of each and to me they'd probably feel all the same as their higher quality counterparts; I would not have the experience to tell the difference.

As referenced up thread I have two 10 year old Titanium bikes and four steel all aged between 20-30 years old. I like them all for different reasons, as all achieve what they are set up to do. My Titanium Van Nicholas Yukon and my winter steel fixed are the two I use the most, the latter simply because it's my commute bike, the former as it is by far my favourite bike to ride. My Yukon offers the perfect blend of super smooth comfortable ride, performance and light luggage carrying capabilities that suit my type of cycling. The riding experience is not the only consideration, for me personally I am influenced by robustness, aesthetics, price, and desire to name but four. I use my Titanium Yukon for touring and yes the riding experience played a massive part in why I chose it, but it doesn't lead a precious life, so the robustness was an attraction, as was having no paint to chip!

Referencing 'desire' to quote 'Hedgemonkey' "A titanium purchase will more than likely be made with very unscientific reasons, I just think it will be nice to own one"; for many a bicycle is not just a tool to go cycling on it's something they find pleasure in owning; something they buy with their heart as well as their head. I am someone who doesn't 'treat' myself very much on every level, as you can see from how long I've had them that includes my bicycles! But, this was an occasion my desire for wanting them was so great that I indulged and treated myself. In someways the fact that I do that so rarely makes it more special when I actually do. My Yukon reminds me of holidays and the life affirming memories that often go with them. I adore how it looks, I adore how it performs and I adore how it makes me feel.

I keep my two Titanium bikes in my bedroom, I love cycling and I love bicycles, they are my two wheeled friends, I smile every time I look at them and every time I ride them. So in conclusion 'Hedgemonkey' when I take into consideration the sum of their parts, "Is Titanium really worth the extra cost over a nice good steel frame", for me personally; yes it was.

 

[froze]

are you less than 11 stone? then yes.

that is a nonsense answer, 154 pounds is what you think a titanium bike maximum rider weight limit is? get real man, I've seen clydesdales riding titanium, in fact titanium will hold up better with a heavy rider then CF will! There was only one titanium bike that had a low rider weight that was made and that was back in the early 80's with small tubed titanium, which I think the weight limit was 180 not 154, modern TI bikes are rated far greater than that, in fact the current lightest weight TI bike made is the Everti Eagle which has a 200 pound rider limit and that's for a 11.4 pound bike fully loaded, but what I don't know is if that rider limit is based on the frame or the Enve Composite wheels.

Moving on. Titanium is an excellent life long lasting frame material, it can out last CF and AL, and maybe even steel assuming no steel rust. It's also very comfortable to ride on, the TI tubing takes harsh road impacts and mutes it down better than steel or CF does, and smaller road imperfections that causes buzz is also muted similar to what CF does with the small stuff. TI does not corrode or rust, if you scratch it you can buff the scratch out, it's very durable, watch this video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0eP-6j8d6s
The problem with TI is finding a competent frame builder, in the hands of a poor one and TI can break, but most of that have been resolved over the years even the low costing TI bikes out of ORA (they make the Motobecane TI frames) are made really well. I personally like Lynskey the best, it's what I got after much studying, Lynskey was the original owner of Litespeed and he pioneered a lot of manufacturing firsts that are now used by almost every TI builder in the world, so I put his experience up on a higher level than anyone else.

 

[greenmark]

that is a nonsense answer, 154 pounds is what you think a titanium bike maximum rider weight limit is? get real man, I've seen clydesdales riding titanium, in fact titanium will hold up better with a heavy rider then CF will! There was only one titanium bike that had a low rider weight that was made and that was back in the early 80's with small tubed titanium, which I think the weight limit was 180 not 154, modern TI bikes are rated far greater than that, in fact the current lightest weight TI bike made is the Everti Eagle which has a 200 pound rider limit and that's for a 11.4 pound bike fully loaded, but what I don't know is if that rider limit is based on the frame or the Enve Composite wheels.

Moving on. Titanium is an excellent life long lasting frame material, it can out last CF and AL, and maybe even steel assuming no steel rust. It's also very comfortable to ride on, the TI tubing takes harsh road impacts and mutes it down better than steel or CF does, and smaller road imperfections that causes buzz is also muted similar to what CF does with the small stuff. TI does not corrode or rust, if you scratch it you can buff the scratch out, it's very durable, watch this video:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0eP-6j8d6s
The problem with TI is finding a competent frame builder, in the hands of a poor one and TI can break, but most of that have been resolved over the years even the low costing TI bikes out of ORA (they make the Motobecane TI frames) are made really well. I personally like Lynskey the best, it's what I got after much studying, Lynskey was the original owner of Litespeed and he pioneered a lot of manufacturing firsts that are now used by almost every TI builder in the world, so I put his experience up on a higher level than anyone else.

I think that the durability of Ti is overstated. A lot of the myth of titanium’s lifespan came from when Ti frames were being sold as indestructible back in the 90s. Since then they’re no longer being sold as such.


If well-made then Ti frames have excellent fatigue life. But the problem is that it’s difficult to tell if they are made well and issues might only arise much much later, by which time it is difficult to prove that cracks came from a manufacturing defect.


Manufacturers now realise Ti has a limited lifespan and so don’t offer lifetime warranties for fatigue. Enigma only does 10 years. Kinesis is only 3 years. Moots and Seven cycles specifically excludes fatigue from their warranty. Van Nicholas, Litespeed and Lynskey say their warranties are for the “lifetime of the frame” – that means warranty is valid until the frame breaks.


Ti frames tend to be better than other materials on impact resistance and in letting you buff out scratches. But as for fatigue, don’t assume that Ti is a bike for life.


Disclaimer: My only bike is a Lynskey.

 

[Ajax Bay]

the TI tubing takes harsh road impacts and mutes it down better than steel or CF does

What are the physical characteristics of titanium alloy tubing which "mutes" the "harsh road impacts" (more than any other frame material)? Or is it frame design? If the latter, would a frame made of steel (say) to the same design (geometry) be better or worse; and why?

 

[Heltor Chasca]

Is it me? Or am I without any level of feeling? Two steel bikes, a Ti and an aluminium hardtail. I know I have spent ages fitting them to my size and riding style, but I’ve got to say I would never describe my ali bike as harsh or stiff. I can ride it all day and still feel good.

Geometry these days seems so well thought out that it wouldn’t surprise me if they have designed Ali frames to compensate for the metal’s characteristics to make the ride a pleasure. The science is beyond the likes of me though.

How much of the criticism on ride/material/metal character is based on what ‘the crowd’ says? And not on how it REALLY feels?

 

[Hedgemonkey]

Some fair points there about design and use, and as cyclists i would like to think, that we are a slightly away from " the crowd " and hopefully tend to question mass media indoctrines. But we do seem to order "toasted tea cakes"

 

[PpPete]

What are the physical characteristics of titanium alloy tubing which "mutes" the "harsh road impacts" (more than any other frame material)? Or is it frame design? If the latter, would a frame made of steel (say) to the same design (geometry) be better or worse; and why?

I think I'm right in saying the Young's Modulus of titanium is behind a lot of the difference here. That's to say that for a given size and shape of sample, and a given load, the titanium deflects more than steel or aluminium (but still springs back when the load is removed).
I suspect that if you made a frame out of the most commonly used Titanium alloy (3% Aluminium, 2.5% Vanadium) but with exactly the same tube diameters and wall thicknesses as a good frame builder might use for, say, a Reynolds 531 frame; the titanium frame would be impossibly 'noodley'.
Conversely, a frame made from Reynolds or Columbus tubing, but to the same dimensions as a Ti frame would be very harsh, and if it had the same tubing wall thicknesses would be rather heavy.

 

[Smokin Joe]

There is only one material that matters on a frame, and that's the enamel they slap on the tubes. They can make this fecker out of anything they like and I'd still want one -

 

[Ajax Bay]

the Young's Modulus of titanium is behind a lot of the difference here. That's to say that for a given size and shape of sample, and a given load, the titanium deflects more than steel or aluminium (but still springs back when the load is removed).

The various YMs are: Aluminium = 69 GPa, Titanium = 110 GPa and steel = 210 GPa. So if that's the physical characteristic 'behind a lot of the difference' either Al or steel should be 'better': Ti can't be; well not if amount of deflection is the issue.

When considering the options for frame material I think it's sensible to compare bikes/frames at a similar price point. One may pay more for the frame and accept poorer components (in this context wheels, tyres, seat post and bars) or vice versa. A titanium framed bike will bury more, proportionately, in the frame.

Quoting from the other (2016) thread: "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 its 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." I'd be keen to hear someone explain why this isn't correct, and why. You'd think the cycle industry would have done research and shared it, explaining why some frame materials are better than others, and why. I have looked, but not successfully.
I think we're looking for properties affecting shock-attenuation (rather than absorption) btw (they may be the same) but particularly the damping effect on vibrations of different materials.

 

[Ian H]

Quoting from the other (2016) thread: "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 its 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." I'd be keen to hear someone explain why this isn't correct, and why. You'd think the cycle industry would have done research and shared it, explaining why some frame materials are better than others, and why. I have looked, but not successfully.
I think we're looking for properties affecting shock-attenuation (rather than absorption) btw (they may be the same) but particularly the damping effect on vibrations of different materials.

New materials tend to enter the chain in competition bikes with steep angles, short wheelbases, and narrow tyres on stiff wheels. This may affect perceptions of how they perform in terms of 'comfort'.

 

[PpPete]

The various YMs are: Aluminium = 69 GPa, Titanium = 110 GPa and steel = 210 GPa. So if that's the physical characteristic 'behind a lot of the difference' either Al or steel should be 'better': Ti can't be; well not if amount of deflection is the issue.

That's me remembering it wrong then. Can't find the textbook in which I thought I'd read the supporting evidence.