Road Cycling - Titanium vs. Carbon Fiber

What is the difference between titanium and carbon fiber? I'm looking to buy a frame and was wondering what the principal differences are from a riding perspective. I currently ride aluminum and like the responsiveness...

Carbon fiber has been described as having a passive road feel while having wonderful road shock absorbing characteristics. Titanium has been described as having a lively feel similar to that of steel, while still retaining a supple responsive ride.

Titanium is a metal.
Carbon fibre is a composite.

Originally posted by D*Alex
Titanium is a metal.
Carbon fiber is a composite.


Everybody's a comedian.... :p

Yeah,maybe so,but at least he is more correct than your generalizations.:rolleyes:

I love the feel of Ti. and dont' fully trust riding on a plastic material yet.. that's me though. If you do get a Ti bike you will get alot of ohhh and ahhhs.. :-D from me atleast ;)

Originally posted by pokey
Yeah,maybe so,but at least he is more correct than your generalizations.:rolleyes:

OK, so your buying a bike. It will be Ti or carbon fiber... Does his obvious statements clue you into making any kind of educated decision on which frame to buy?!?

I want to know the overall ride characteristics of these materials compared to steel, aluminum, and each other.

Originally posted by flyefisher
I want to know the overall ride characteristics of these materials compared to steel, aluminum, and each other.

Cipher is essentially correct. Carbon fibre although being laminated cloth can be made much lighter than steel, ti or aluminum. Each have their own feel, obviously. i would advise if ossible to ride bikes, made from the two materials you are interested and decide for yourself.
Cipher don't try to argue with D* Alex his above answer is typicalI doubt if he has any experience with ti and carbon or he could have answered the actual question. Also pokey is the same way, rarely any good advice just sarcasm.

Since ti is expensive and you are considering the purchase of this expensive material, I would suggest you visit the Seven Cycles website and use their link to talk to them about the characteristics of the different tubes. They are very knowledgeable, and wonderful people to talk with. No, you don't have to purchase a Seven, but they will tell you as much about titanium as anyone else can. Here is their website:

SevenCycles.com

You are looking at two exotic and expensive materials, both of which are light and make great bike frames. My roadie is carbon, my MTB is a titanium hardtail.

Carbon fiber frames are sometimes described as feeling "dead" I suppose it depends on the lay-up. My carbon frame is stiff. It eats road shock for lunch. Carbon fiber can be molded into wonderful swoopy shapes and makes pretty frames. When carbon fiber frames break, they fail catastrophically which worries some folks. Most of the worry is needless.

Titanium is livlier feeling. Under a heavy rider it might get downright whippy, though I guess that 6/4 titanium is stiffer. A well-made titanium frame can be a lifetime investment...you can leave it to your kids. The ride quality is magical and I love it for my mountain bike.

What do you want in a frame? Either material may meet your needs. You won't go far wrong with either. Try to ride them both if you can...

...but, no, you can't ride my bikes!

It isn't the frigin material,it's how it's built.Either could suitable or unsuitable depending on your size, weight, riding style and what you are looking for. The only generalization that is worth .02 is that CF is less resonate than Ti and therefore is less transmissive of small vibrations. Ti and steel are about equally resonate and Al is by far the most resonate.That's physical properties.....How dat Hunter?? Having a hard time with sarcasm Hunter? Get use to it.It's my game.Don't like what I say? Don't read it. Fair enough? Having ridden them all, I prefer steel.That's subjective.Best advice,go ride some and decide for yourself. You can find vast differences even in the same material, from one Brand to another.

You really can't make any generalisations, other than the ones which I made (of course, nobody here seems to understand sarcasm..), and one other:
Carbon Fibre is not as durable. Moisture, UV radiation, and chemical cleaners will all degrade CF. Also, CF doesn't take being hit well, either.
As far as how they ride-well, that depends on how it is built.
Of course, all these drawbacks may not amount to much, depending on the type of riding you do. CF frames tend to be quite light, so maybe CF is for you. On the other hand, if you are going to be riding every day, in all types of weather, and leaving it chained to an outdoor rack, maybe not...

All forementioned points are well taken... However;

Food for thought, an alien but related product (sailplanes; i.e. those aircraft used in soaring) share a common bond with the bicycle. Great need for material with the maximum strength to weight ratio that has excellent resistance to failure. The progression of materials of choice for sailplanes has been initially wood/fabric; then Aluminum; and now fiberglass composites dominate.

Sometimes it is a good thing to step back and view issues from afar, least the forest becomes obscure for all the trees. Think carefully about this, Darwinian Section while only theory is now widely accepted as a valid outcome of competition for species (materials?) survival.

Cheers;

Originally posted by faith
All forementioned points are well taken... However;

Food for thought, an alien but related product (sailplanes; i.e. those aircraft used in soaring) share a common bond with the bicycle. Great need for material with the maximum strength to weight ratio that has excellent resistance to failure. The progression of materials of choice for sailplanes has been initially wood/fabric; then Aluminum; and now fiberglass composites dominate.

Sometimes it is a good thing to step back and view issues from afar, least the forest becomes obscure for all the trees. Think carefully about this, Darwinian Section while only theory is now widely accepted as a valid outcome of competition for species (materials?) survival.

Cheers;

Actually look at lots of different areas and look at the materials used. Planes have been using Al for a long long time, that last flight you took on vacation/business was made from a whole lot of Al. Military planes have been using Ti for 40+ years. Ever take a pleasure boat ride on a smaller boat (say under 80ft), then it was made out of composite, most likely just plain old fiberglass. Ever race a sail/motor boat, the higher end models are made out of carbon fiber. Take a peek at the mast on a racing sailboat, they'll be carbon fiber as well. All of the above place incredible amounts of stress on it's materials, in all kinds of enviroments (including wet ones with lots of UV exposure) with minimal cons to them (past the monetary value).

So yes, beyond all the advice above about riding examples of each, also educate yourself about the pro's and con's of each from information that isn't biased one way or the other.

Andrew

Back to the original question, (and a step away from trying to show off what I know that no one else does), I'll give you my subjective opinion of ti v. carbon.

Typically, carbon will give you a stiffer and more responsive ride when it comes to your pedalling input. It's a little more like aluminum in that respect, but the carbon bikes I've ridden do not feel as lively as a good aluminum frame.

Ti, on the other hand, tends to be a softer ride, more akin to steel than aluminum. If you prefer the feel of aluminum, you might be somewhat more drawn to carbon. However, in fairness to ti builders around the world, a good enough ti frame will give you the ride you want and more character than carbon.

As for comparing the durability of the two in bike frames, it's basically a draw depending on the manufacturer. Builders have gotten to a point where they can build a bike from either material that will last quite a while. Remember, though, that a high end bike of any material is typically not built to be a good 10 year bike, though they may be capable of just such a life span. If you're like me, you'll be replacing the frame in about 5 years anyway, and lifespan isn't that important. If you want a lifetime bike, I would look carefully at the frame builder's warranty information and talk to some people that already ride that bike to see how long they've had it, how it's held up, etc.

You're set either way. flyefisher, why get away from aluminum, if you don't mind my asking?

That's a boat load of generaliaities too.Ever heard of different Ti alloys and tubing diameters ,butting and shaping.Ti can be fabricated to ride almost any way one wants, and CF can be manipulated even more. It's how it's built and rider size and weight too.Does not anyone get that part? Aluminum can and has been made too wimpy.Generalities don't fly and do the reader a disservice.And, for the part about a high end bike not being a 10 year bike.....WHAT A LOAD!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: Why don't you check with Grant Petersen at Rivendell, or Richard Sachs, among many others on that one bub.

Aluminum does not absorb shock well. But I love the responsiveness it has. But some Ti bikes now are made with oval tubes such as the Colnago OvalMaster and supposedly are pretty responsive....

Originally posted by pokey
Generalities don't fly and do the reader a disservice.And, for the part about a high end bike not being a 10 year bike.....WHAT A LOAD!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

BWAHAHAHA! And you know what you're talking about so you can :rolleyes: on every post because, of course it's so obvious that you know better?

flye fisher....did you ever say what you weigh and what size you ride and what your riding intent is? Don't dismiss a Litespeed uptimate or Vortex either among onters.

RacerX... Just always wound too tite? or maybe too much caffeine late in the day?:rolleyes: :eek: :roflmao:

Originally posted by pokey
RacerX... Just alwaqys would to tite? or maybe too much caffeine late in the day?:rolleyes: :eek: :roflmao:


What???

I own a 2001 Litespeed Tuscany (titanium) with a carbon fork. Great ride! :thumbup:

If it isn't out of your price range I'd recommend a look at their 2003 line of bikes. They are combining carbon and titanium to make a bike that rides really well.
The Siena (http://www.litespeed.com/english/bikes/siena.html) has carbon seat stays and a carbon fork. The information on their site makes it sound like an awesome bike.

Lemond similarly is coming out with a Ti/Carbon frame like the Siena, Fork and rear triangle will be carbon. His Tete de Course. Bucu $$$$.

I'm not sure that you'll get the same ride out of ti that you do aluminum, regardless. But, what kind of bike are you on now? I've definately ridden aluminum bikes that are flexy as hell. I would go for a metal bike because they tend to have more feel to them, as I mentioned a little before. Some carbon bikes do ride pretty well, but a fan of aluminum will probably lean towards staying in the metal family.

It has also been pointed out that the frame you get should reflect the type of riding you're doing. Road racing, crits, charity rides, etc. Factor those in.

And pokey, bite me. Don't be a hypocrite. Generalities coming from you are still generalities, "bub".

Originally posted by pokey
RacerX... Just always wound too tite? or maybe too much caffeine late in the day?:rolleyes: :eek: :roflmao:
Don't try to be clever, it makes you look foolish; and an annoying, foolish know-it-all isn't a good combination.

Originally posted by ImprezaDrvr


And pokey, bite me. Don't be a hypocrite. Generalities coming from you are still generalities, "bub". Me generalize? I don't reacall ever overloading the manure spreader with that type of unfounded, baseless ,regurgated ,mind numbing malarkey.

Originally posted by RacerX

... and an annoying, foolish know-it-all isn't a good combination. You are right .It is not good. My bad.There are worse. I have been derelict.Must try harder. BTW,is that a subjective opinion,or baseless generalization?:confused: Maybe it would help if you stayed on topic?

Originally posted by pokey
Me generalize? I don't reacall ever overloading the manure spreader with that type of unfounded, baseless ,regurgated ,mind numbing malarkey.
Yeah, the one thing you're good at.
mind numbing malarkey (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16272)

So I take it you guys have made a habit out of arguing?

Originally posted by pokey
It isn't the frigin material,it's how it's built.Either could suitable or unsuitable depending on your size, weight, riding style and what you are looking for. The only generalization that is worth .02 is that CF is less resonate than Ti and therefore is less transmissive of small vibrations. Ti and steel are about equally resonate and Al is by far the most resonate.That's physical properties.....How dat Hunter?? Having a hard time with sarcasm Hunter? Get use to it.It's my game.Don't like what I say? Don't read it. Fair enough? Having ridden them all, I prefer steel.That's subjective.Best advice,go ride some and decide for yourself. You can find vast differences even in the same material, from one Brand to another.


I will add this all three mentioned materials used in frame building hold various ride characteristics. Ti and steel are completely different alloys and therefore will have different ride characteristics to them inherently. Carbon fibre whatever the weave, particles impregnated in it etc will feel totally different than steel or ti. Since no two frames will feel exactly the same they do not share generalaztions of equality. I do however appreciate you agreeing with me though.

Originally posted by pokey
The only generalization that is worth .02 is that CF is less resonate than Ti and therefore is less transmissive of small vibrations. Ti and steel are about equally resonate and Al is by far the most resonate.That's physical properties.....How dat Hunter?? Having a hard time with sarcasm Hunter? Get use to it.It's my game.Don't like what I say? Don't read it. Fair enough?

:rolleyes:
The only generalization? You mean in your opinion. which you are right and everyone else is wrong because you know everything right? I don't have a hard time with sarcasm I have a hard time understanding you. This forum and peoples questions are not a game. They are seriously inquisitive and need help or advice. Not to be toyed, insulted, and made fun of by the likes of you.
I also have a problem with your apparent know it all attitude. the reason for this is of course is that you do not. Like a few others here, you trample on others ignorance to bicycles in general.
Here is a small but easy test for you. The Rock Shox mag 21 came stock with a inherent static load. Although this worked well in cornering there was a way to work the forks internals to make it fully active, with no static properties how was this accomplished?

Here is a small but easy test for you. The Rock Shox mag 21 came stock with a inherent static load. Although this worked well in cornering there was a way to work the forks internals to make it fully active, with no static properties how was this accomplished?


Nice one. :D

Originally posted by kewlrunningz



Nice one. :D



I'll 2nd that! ;)

Thanks for the great responses. Please cease also with the bickering. Start another thread and call it such. I'm happy in this thread to hear about frame materials and their differences.

I ride 125-150 miles a week and would like to do crits. I like going fast. I like cornering, acceleration. It's like if I could pick a car to do my leisure driving it would be a BMW M3, rigged out to go like hell.

Originally posted by Hunter


:rolleyes:
The only generalization? You mean in your opinion. which you are right and everyone else is wrong because you know everything right? I don't have a hard time with sarcasm I have a hard time understanding you. This forum and peoples questions are not a game. They are seriously inquisitive and need help or advice. Not to be toyed, insulted, and made fun of by the likes of you.
I also have a problem with your apparent know it all attitude. the reason for this is of course is that you do not. Like a few others here, you trample on others ignorance to bicycles in general.
Here is a small but easy test for you. The Rock Shox mag 21 came stock with a inherent static load. Although this worked well in cornering there was a way to work the forks internals to make it fully active, with no static properties how was this accomplished? It is not opinion.It's fact. I you knew anything you would not be calling it an opinion.I am not playing games. It is not an aparent know it all attitde.I do know it. You and others continually demonstrate how little you do know.I am here to help. I provide factual real info, not hype ,drivel and make it up as you go along nonsense or shoving rainbows.Get use to it.I have never seen so much misimformation on a so called forum. Imagine if you will a guy with over 1650 posts that did not know threading deirction on an english BB. I shudder to think of the nonsense he has dished up,during that tenure.No attempt to answer your question.Don't do mtbikey suspension stuff on a regular basis.See,no BS. How do ya like that.

Out of respect for flyefisher this will be my last post on this thread.
pokey how can you say you know "it," when you cannot answer a fork question? There have also been on several occasions myself and others have corrected you. I know more about bikes than you can imagine since you do not know me or what I can do with various bikes inclusive thereof MTB's, you have no space claiming all knowledge of bikes. Also you were the one who said, "it is my game," so now you say it isn't so which is it? Also because I call you on a opinion has nothing to do with my capacity of bike knowledge. If you cannot comprehend this then simply ceast and desist from here. There are people here with as much and more knowledge on bicycles not just road bikes. So if you include the full gambit on bikes, and considering your ignorance to MTB I would say your knowledge is limited to a personal basis.
So get used to it kiddo, you are not as smart as you think.

reading the above thread, has made me think twice, if I will try to answer the question, or just continue reading the thread... and try not to notice the insults flying around on this thread.....

I think it has become my job to say this "can't we all just be friends guys"

Originally posted by kewlrunningz
So I take it you guys have made a habit out of arguing? Not really. Materials arguments always bring out the 'best' in everyone.This is actually pretty tame compared to what one might find elsewhere.Don't think anyone has been actually called(but maybe implied) a moron or a$$hole have they?:p

inciting abrasiveness suggests insecurity

flyefisher- I'd stick with aluminum because of my personal taste. It matches well with the type of riding you're doing. But, I understand the desire for something new. You've read posts that pretty much describe differences inherent in each of the materials you're looking at, now you need to go to a shop or the rest of the web and see what kind of stiffness you're getting in the bottom bracket of each bike you're interested in.

Good luck!

Originally posted by D*Alex
You really can't make any generalisations, other than the ones which I made (of course, nobody here seems to understand sarcasm..), and one other:
Carbon Fibre is not as durable. Moisture, UV radiation, and chemical cleaners will all degrade CF. Also, CF doesn't take being hit well, either.
As far as how they ride-well, that depends on how it is built.
Of course, all these drawbacks may not amount to much, depending on the type of riding you do. CF frames tend to be quite light, so maybe CF is for you. On the other hand, if you are going to be riding every day, in all types of weather, and leaving it chained to an outdoor rack, maybe not...

You might rethink the durability of Carbon frames... If, as you say, CF doesn't take being hit very well. I would differ... Why would so many formula race cars, race in the rain, and have composites frames and components. Nobody that I know uses chemicals to clean their frames anyway. Who leaves their high end carbon, TI, AL or Steel frame outside setting in the sun for days on end??? ;)

Originally posted by Garbear


You might rethink the durability of Carbon frames... If, as you say, CF doesn't take being hit very well. I would differ... Why would so many formula race cars, race in the rain, and have composites frames and components. Nobody that I know uses chemicals to clean their frames anyway. Who leaves their high end carbon, TI, AL or Steel frame outside setting in the sun for days on end??? ;) CF race car parts can be and are replaced at will.It's a poor analogy. Hit a CF frame tube with a ball peen hammer and see what happens to the matrix.Things deteriorate from there.CF is durable enough if one does not do the wrong things to it.It's used in lots of tough applications,one I think being the rear springs in new corvettes. D*alex got in over his head on that one.Typical when one starts to generalize too liberally.

And flyefisher, I think today's carbon frames are pretty durable, too. The problems that arose when it was still a newer material were in bonding lugs, whether they be aluminum or carbon, to the frame's tubes. The tubes themselves have a virtually infinite fatigue life, and are pretty strong, (read: as strong as any other material.) When you talk bicycle frame strength, I really think that all the materials are pretty even. You get different methods of failure from one material to another, but each will take about the same amount of force as the other in today's frame market.

Originally posted by Garbear


You might rethink the durability of Carbon frames... If, as you say, CF doesn't take being hit very well. I would differ... Why would so many formula race cars, race in the rain, and have composites frames and components. Nobody that I know uses chemicals to clean their frames anyway. Who leaves their high end carbon, TI, AL or Steel frame outside setting in the sun for days on end??? ;)

Well, F1 cars are completely built from scratch at least every year so the carbon structure doesn't have to last for much longer than that.
I can't remember the technical terms but carbon fiber is better than metal for fatigue? but not for impact.
Carbon can become damaged internally with no visible damage and fail. Water has no effect on carbon unless there is an "opening" where moisture can enter into the weave.
It makes for a really strong, light chassis and that helps F1 for the same reasons it helps cycles- but would you buy a car with a carbon chassis and use it for 10-20 years? One fender bender and the chassis could be totalled.
For cycling applications, I think carbon is great as there usually isn't the high impact type of damage going on.

Originally posted by pokey
CF race car parts can be and are replaced at will.It's a poor analogy. Hit a CF frame tube with a ball peen hammer and see what happens to the matrix.Things deteriorate from there.CF is durable enough if one does not do the wrong things to it.It's used in lots of tough applications,one I think being the rear springs in new corvettes. D*alex got in over his head on that one.Typical when one starts to generalize too liberally.

F1 chassis and bicycle frame is not a poor analogy. As with a bike, I don't see many people hitting F1 cars with a hammer.
Both are used for high performance applications, sport and are replaced at will. Both are used with the same intentions and application- a strong, light chassis for racing.
What is a poor analogy is with corvette springs. You can catagorize that under "who cares" but I guess that's what happens when you generalize too liberally.

Originally posted by RacerX


F1 chassis and bicycle frame is not a poor analogy. As with a bike, I don't see many people hitting F1 cars with a hammer.
. What do you think happens when a part gets hit in a crash?

Originally posted by RacerX
You can catagorize that under "who cares" but I guess that's what happens when you generalize too liberally. You aparently don't know the difference between a statement of fact,an unfounded generalization and well, maybe a pile of stinky applesauce?

Originally posted by pokey
What do you think happens when a part gets hit in a crash?
Read one post above, genius.