Road Cycling - Aluminum + carbon frames: better ride?

Seems a lot of the new bikes coming out for 2004 (even Lemond) are offering frames that are composites of AL and carbon or steel and carbon (really don't get the purpose of that one). Just wondering if any of you have ridden some of these and experienced any significant differences in the ride quality, say. of an AL with no carbon or AL with a carbon seatstay, for example.

Is it more comfortable on longer rides than just a pure AL frame? Is it all hype? Is it detrimental? Etc.

I'm also wondering about the longevity of this "bonding" between the two parts of the frame and actually how it is achieved. Will it break down over time or break easily?

Any thoughts on any of this?

I honestly think it is all marketing hype. In 2002 Robbie McEwen rode an Titanium Litespeed with a carbon fibre rear triangle, in 2003 he rode a Mercyx steel frame bike. Two completely different bikes. Jan Ulrich rode an Aluminium Bianchi this year, next year a full carbon Giant. I don't believe a Pro would change teams if they thought the bike they're riding could cost them race victories. In reality the bike material makes no difference to performance.

CHEERS.

Mark

It could be true that bike frame material does not affect performance among pro riders today. Having ridden pro many years ago I will say I did liked some bikes more then others.

At my current level of training and doing 1 or 2 mens masters races a year I do have the same feel for a bike.

I currently ride a Orbea made in Spain. It uses the new Alu/carbon mix in the frame design. The rear seat stay and chain stay are carbon. The frame I ride is also used by 2 professional teams as well.

I do not heave information as to the long term reliability of this frame design. What I do know is many of the worlds best frame builders are using this new Alu/carbon design. I would have to assume that they do enough R/D before they put such a frame on the market. If it was only entry level frames and manufactures I would think there is reason to pause. But look at all the top Italian manufactures and they all use this design.

I rode and raced Bianchi for years and they at this time to my knowledge do not make the duel material frames. I swiched from Bianchi to Orbea this year and went from a professional racing steel frame to a professional level Alu/Magnesium/Zinc/carbon frame. I also wondered about the reliability of this design but didn't see any evidence that there were problems. Orbea also has a lifetime warranty on the frame so I didn't have a reason to worry unless they went out of business. They have been around for almost 100 years so I figured I am safe.

The ride of this new construction I find to be amazing in several areas. I had raced all Alu frame bikes in my days and found they beat me to death. I am a large rider by racing standards at 6'2" and 175 lb. I went with a team that raced Bianchi and they had a pro level steel frame and I opted for it for the ride. Over a long course and many hours in the saddle the steel would not beat me to death. I will say my Orbea provides the same ride comfort for me as the steel frame did. I also use a carbon seat post. So with this new design I get 1. A lighter frame. 2. A ride quality equal to my steel frame. 3. Do to the carbon rear triangle when I put the hammer down on a climb I get more direct power to the wheel, thus it climbs like a dream.

It's possible that these improvments are in my head, after all I need to justify the expense of a new bike. But I do record my average speed on every training ride and have seen an improvment in speed. This holds most true on long hill climb rides. So if it's all in my mind I will take it because the body feels good and the numbers don't lie.

There are many pro teams that use these designs in there frames. I wouldn't be conserned about the reliability providing your looking at a manufacture you are familiar with.

My final thought. I like the new design, and would not hesitate to recommend them. Having ridden for years I find them to be a big improvment over the old solid Alum frames.

I don't think that the differences are performanced oriented in terms of being faster as a result of having multiple materials in a frame. I, too, have an Orbea, but a very different frame than jchet has. Mine is one of the steel/carbon frames out there. The benefit that I perceive from having carbon in the rear of the bike (it's just the seatstays) is in stiffening up the rear triangle a bit over a traditional steel frame. I must say that the ride quality of this frame is absolutely incredible, smoother than any steel bike I've ridden. However, I'm not about to credit the carbon with that, as the quality of steel tubing is a bit better than I have experience with.

With aluminum bikes, carbon can make a difference. IMHO, aluminum frames are the only ones where it makes a justifiable difference. Aluminum can be a bit harsh, which is why alu frames are so much fun to ride (that stiffness that pounds your crotch means the bottom bracket doesn't move when you pedal). So, the bike makers decided to look for ways to take the edge off of the ride without sacrificing BB stiffness. Enter carbon, which does make a difference. A noticeable one. However, there are also alu builders that build all alu bikes that ride nice and smooth, so you don't have to use another material to pull it off. My guess is that it's trick enough that it outsells smooth riding all alu frames.

As for marketing, well, most stuff in retail comes back to marketing to a large extent. Making a frame out of steel or ti and carbon makes little sense practically to those that haven't ridden such a frame. But I maintain, based on my experience, that having a little carbon in a steel frame does make it ride differently (better, with my frame) than an all steel bike. Besides, it's damn cool. (See, marketing works.)

Your right, marketing does work. I didn't want to be the only kid on the block that had a bike without a carbon seat and chain stay. :(

How expensive of a crash was this?

http://blackisle.lcs.mit.edu/arielh/2003_nationals/amh_crit2/images/1C2T2506_crop_m1.jpg

all of the above...sure marketing has something to do with it! But as Greg LeMond use to say, start the season on a steel bike, go to Ti mid season, and get on carbon for the Tour.

Bianchi does make bikes with duel materials...
http://www.bianchi.it/

so here I am I have a steel bike and carbon bike...what do I get next, a ti bike? a steel/carbon bike? a alu/carbon or ti/carbon bike? :rolleyes:

^
A better site for Bianchi would be www.bianchiusa.com. As was stated, they offer a couple of the trendy alu bikes with the carbon rear end.
The idea with the steel/carbon Lemonds is that you get the vibration dampening from the carbon seatstays, plus the weight savings with the additional use of carbon in the rest of the "cockpit." Having seen a new Buenos Aires up close and personal, it is an awesome bike. The fabrication is excellent in terms of the joining of the carbon cockpit and the steel spine, and they're using True Temper OX Platinum steel (the stuff Waterford used to make the first sub-3 lb. steel frame). Those that have ridden it said it is awesome; I can't wait to try it for myself.

I'm a couple of rides into my first AL + carbon stays bike, and I'm noticing some minor creaking where I never heard it before from previous steel and all AL bikes; is this normal, should I worry, will the noises settle down as the bike gets broken in?

^
It depends on the method of construction of your frame, but here's a fix I've used on a couple bikes with carbon rears. If the carbon stays have AL plugs that are bolted into (or near the rest of the frame at) the dropouts, unscrew those bolts and coat liberally with a light lube such as Tri Flow, Shimano Slippery Spit, etc. Reinstall and marvel at how quiet your ride is (or curse the time you wasted listening to some guy's advice from the internet).

I Jan Ulrich rode an Aluminium Bianchi this year, next year a full carbon Giant. I don't believe a Pro would change teams if they thought the bike they're riding could cost them race victories.
CHEERS.

Mark

I don't think Jan left Bianchi because the bikes couldn't win. Pros change teams alot.

I did a lot of reading before I settled on a carbon bike. The big difference between carbon and say steel is that carbon is directional. This means you can allow carbon to flex in one direction, but not in another. With this in mind you can make a carbon bike, or part of a bike, that absorbs road vibration better than steel yet remains more solid than ti in the directions you need. No other material, no matter how well crafted, can do this to the extent carbon can. Add all of this to the fact that carbon weighs less than alu, ti or steel and it makes an awesome material for bikes, or just about anything. The only serious downsides are that carbon really isnt repairable and it costs more to manufacture.

See, new can be better sometimes!

Allan

WHAT JCHET SAID.
I ride GIANT ALU frame with carbon firbre seat post, stem & forks and i seem to get the best of both worlds. I don't have any problems with my machine.
YOU GET WHAT U PAY FOR MOST OF THE TIME

i dont get steel with carbon. the woman at my lbs was telling me how awesome the lemond steel/carbon rode and how "dead" the 5200/5500 trek felt. i want to get a 5200 frameset next year maybe, i like the orbea frames too.

i dont get steel with carbon. the woman at my lbs was telling me how awesome the lemond steel/carbon rode and how "dead" the 5200/5500 trek felt. i want to get a 5200 frameset next year maybe, i like the orbea frames too.

She is absolutely correct, the 5200 is very "dead" feeling. Of course we are using the meaning of "dead" that only the people who dont own/sell 5200s use, which translated into english means it doesnt beat you to death on rough roads.

I just dont understand the whole steel/whatever thing. Steel rusts, is much rougher than carbon, not as strong as titanuim and not as light as any of them including aluminum. Maybe its a nostalgia thing.

With my 5200 I can feel all the road I need to. It tells me when I have traction, when to back off some, how hard I can corner, yet it remains supple, fast, light, strong and ooooohhhhhhh so sweet :-)

Allan

as I've said, I ride both steel and carbon...true, carbon is light a stiff, and is a rocket on sprints. But the steel bike has a rhythum on climbs that the carbon does not have...even though its heavier, I feel more comfortable climbing on steel. I think I decend better on the carbon bike and I think the steel bike with steel fork beats me up on long rides (more than 60 miles). :rolleyes:

... Orbea made ... Alu/carbon mix in the frame design. The rear seat stay and chain stay are carbon.

... all Alu frame bikes ... beat me to death. I am a large rider by racing standards at 6'2" and 175 lb. ... Having ridden for years I find them to be a big improvment over the old solid Alum frames.

I use Ambrosio Alu/carbon seat stays and forks, billed at 1.3kg in my size and retailed £700; I am 185 80-84kg depending (6'1'' 176-185 roughly). Frame's absolutely brilliant, but I'm not sure if you can still get it. I have ridden in Majorca on fairly rough roads without getting jellied.

I just dont understand the whole steel/whatever thing. Steel rusts, is much rougher than carbon, not as strong as titanuim and not as light as any of them including aluminum. Maybe its a nostalgia thing.

Allan

Obviously, you have never ridden a Serotta. Colorado III, steel, unbelievable ride. But I think other companies make their bikes out of the steel that Serotta rejects.

But I think other companies make their bikes out of the steel that Serotta rejects.

I think some of the people here:

http://www.lvrc.org/lnfr01.htm

(click 'custom builders') might object.

She is absolutely correct, the 5200 is very "dead" feeling. Of course we are using the meaning of "dead" that only the people who dont own/sell 5200s use, which translated into english means it doesnt beat you to death on rough roads.

I just dont understand the whole steel/whatever thing. Steel rusts, is much rougher than carbon, not as strong as titanuim and not as light as any of them including aluminum. Maybe its a nostalgia thing.

With my 5200 I can feel all the road I need to. It tells me when I have traction, when to back off some, how hard I can corner, yet it remains supple, fast, light, strong and ooooohhhhhhh so sweet :-)

Allan

If more people at this site did more research and reading, the threads and questions/replies would drop dramatically. But then, we'd miss out on so much of the humor. Check this out and pass it on: http://sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html

If more people at this site did more research ...

Well said. Try also

http://www.bohemianbicycles.com/materials%20science.htm

Well said. Try also

http://www.bohemianbicycles.com/materials%20science.htm

Thanks Roy. I'll check it out. Here's another I'll share that I keep bookmarked.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cycling/frames1.html

Holy crap, flea. Talk about ignorance. Steel rusts? Yes, but a poorly trained monkey can prevent this. Steel's rougher than carbon? I'm sure that there is a carbon frame somewhere that rides smoother than steel, but I've never been introduced. Strength? Man, you need to read a lot more. And weight? My steel frame weighs less than the aluminum frame it replaced. I rode a 5500 for a year and sold it because it didn't have any feel. In other words, I've ridden OCLV and it felt dead. At least I speak from experience and not from my butt.

oh dear another (im)material arguement........


design






design























design























and just incase you forgot























design

My steel frame weighs less than the aluminum frame it replaced.

My alloy/carbon frame quoted at 1.3kg my size. Waterford are the only ones to my knowledge claiming steel at under 3lb. So what replaced what, and what were the weights?

Just out of interest, of course. The lightest carbon racing frame at 2lb and the heaviest steel racing frame at 4lb differ by about 1/8th of the amount of weight I could happily lose from my own well padded frame, and I suspect there's very few here within 2lb of their ideal weight.

Roy, nail on the head. Weight isn't the issue, I didn't get my bike due to it's weight (though I'm not complaining). I was simply dispelling the myth that steel bikes are tanks.

My Orbea replaced a Cannondale CAAD3. When I speak of the frame, I also take into account the fork and headset.

Obviously, you have never ridden a Serotta. Colorado III, steel, unbelievable ride. But I think other companies make their bikes out of the steel that Serotta rejects.

Wow!!...so much has been said...I know there are those out there that believe that certain builders are the best. hands down, no questions; all others are a tier down. Some claim it of Seven, Serotta, Colnago, Marinroni just to name a few. There is no doubt, they make great bikes! But depending on your riding style, they may not make the right bike for you. There are many builders out there that make great bikes and different ways and different materials to get to the ride you want.

I recommend trying as many different bikes as possible before buying a bike...and once you have it, don't worry about whats today's flavor of the month and enjoy your ride.

On Saturday, I was on my Kestrel with egro shifting and I kept reaching down to shift at my downtube...go figure.

Holy crap, flea. Talk about ignorance. Steel rusts? Yes, but a poorly trained monkey can prevent this. Steel's rougher than carbon? I'm sure that there is a carbon frame somewhere that rides smoother than steel, but I've never been introduced. Strength? Man, you need to read a lot more. And weight? My steel frame weighs less than the aluminum frame it replaced. I rode a 5500 for a year and sold it because it didn't have any feel. In other words, I've ridden OCLV and it felt dead. At least I speak from experience and not from my butt.


So, when someone specifically states that they dont understand something, and points out why, you feel it necessary to assert your supposed intelligence by insulting them? Trust me, that makes everything else you say very suspect.

So a poorly trained monkey can show me how to prevent rust on the inside of a steel frame caused by condensation on an older uncoated frame? Please send the monkey over, this I have to see. Strength? Evidently I am not the one who needs to read more. Carbon can be, when designed correctly, so much stronger than steel it isnt even funny. For example:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142acsn.html

from which I quote: "Steel has a tensile strength of 1–2 gigapascals (GPa) and a Young's modulus of 200 GPa; Bacon's fibers (carbon fiber) were measured at 20 GPa and 700 GPa, respectively."

Or maybe: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/v33_3_00/carbon.htm

"carbon-fiber composites, which form the structure of U.S. fighter jets. Carbon-fiber composites weigh about one-fifth as much as steel, but can be comparable or better in terms of stiffness and strength, depending on fiber grade and orientation. These composites do not rust or corrode like steel or aluminum."

I tried many bikes before I bought my 5200, and on the ones I tried were generally rougher riding, in my opinion, than the carbon bikes (including steel, alu and ti bikes). I will freely admit that some of this difference was likely due to differences in wheels etc, but there was a distinct ride quality to the carbon bikes that I liked and FELT less harsh to me. Besides, the less harsh ride of the 5200 was on 120psi tires and pretty stiff rims (Bontrager Race Lite).

I would honestly like for you to define "dead" and "didnt have any feel". Do you mean that when you hit a six inch pothole you didnt notice? Do you mean that riding on smooth asphalt and chip & seal felt the same? Or do you mean that the ride was not harsh enough?

As for me, my 5200 feels anything but dead, but that is me. And regardless of your frame material of choice, the main thing is that you are happy with it. I am, so there!

Allan

I think some of the people here:

http://www.lvrc.org/lnfr01.htm

(click 'custom builders') might object.


It starts with the fit and goes from there. You can't custom build a bike with a tape measure.

Serotta's Custom Fit Cycle program (www.serotta.com/pages/size.html)

Our fitter had to go to be certified to be able to fit riders. We have a competely adjustable fitting cycle (see picture at the bottom of the page on the link) that allows us to "build" the bike in the store and get the exact measurements,tube angles, and proper crank lengths for the indivudual rider.

I picked Seven off your list as I know them best. They use a tape measure and have a number of measurements they want the shop owner to complete.

Seven fitting program (www.sevencycles.com/building/sevensfitmethodology.html)

It's a great bike. But why buy a Porsche when you can have a Ferarri?

In your area, try Cyclefit Ltd, 11 Macklin, Covent Garden, London..www.cyclefit.co.uk Their website is tremendous and has a lot of info on fitting. Very well done.

I owned a custom bike when I lived in Belgium, built by a shop owner for me. He put the tape measure on me and away we went. It was a great bike. It takes up two hours to do a complete fitting for a Serotta.

Serotta developed this fitting system in the early seventies. Fortunately, I guess he patented his fitting cycle...It takes fitting to a whole different level, and the ride goes with it. And the frame and fork materials are proprietary to Serotta.

BTW...the Ottrott was selected Bike of the Year at Interbike. Having ridden one of their frames, it's the cycling equivalent of a Formula One car. And I've ridden the Madone, the new Giant carbon, Cannondale Optimo CAAD7, etc..

It starts with the fit... Hmm, all I did was to point out - gently, I thought - that joking that all other manufacturers use Serrota's rejects was a little tough. I didn't say anything about fit.

You can't custom build a bike with a tape measure.
Serotta's Custom Fit Cycle program (www.serotta.com/pages/size.html)
Seven fitting program (www.sevencycles.com/building/sevensfitmethodology.html)

But the people at Seven seem to be saying that not only can you but it's better. So of two companies - each, if you read their sites, claiming to be the seminal experts - which do you believe?

Allan - from now on, you will be known as the forum's Carbon Nazi. :D

So, when someone specifically states that they dont understand something, and points out why, you feel it necessary to assert your supposed intelligence by insulting them? Trust me, that makes everything else you say very suspect.

So a poorly trained monkey can show me how to prevent rust on the inside of a steel frame caused by condensation on an older uncoated frame? Please send the monkey over, this I have to see. Strength? Evidently I am not the one who needs to read more. Carbon can be, when designed correctly, so much stronger than steel it isnt even funny. For example:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142acsn.html

from which I quote: "Steel has a tensile strength of 1–2 gigapascals (GPa) and a Young's modulus of 200 GPa; Bacon's fibers (carbon fiber) were measured at 20 GPa and 700 GPa, respectively."

Or maybe: http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/v33_3_00/carbon.htm

"carbon-fiber composites, which form the structure of U.S. fighter jets. Carbon-fiber composites weigh about one-fifth as much as steel, but can be comparable or better in terms of stiffness and strength, depending on fiber grade and orientation. These composites do not rust or corrode like steel or aluminum."

I tried many bikes before I bought my 5200, and on the ones I tried were generally rougher riding, in my opinion, than the carbon bikes (including steel, alu and ti bikes). I will freely admit that some of this difference was likely due to differences in wheels etc, but there was a distinct ride quality to the carbon bikes that I liked and FELT less harsh to me. Besides, the less harsh ride of the 5200 was on 120psi tires and pretty stiff rims (Bontrager Race Lite).

I would honestly like for you to define "dead" and "didnt have any feel". Do you mean that when you hit a six inch pothole you didnt notice? Do you mean that riding on smooth asphalt and chip & seal felt the same? Or do you mean that the ride was not harsh enough?

As for me, my 5200 feels anything but dead, but that is me. And regardless of your frame material of choice, the main thing is that you are happy with it. I am, so there!

Allan

Flea77, I made no comments about monkeys helping you maintain your bikes. And, I take no exception to your enthusiasm for carbon fibre frames. The material is simply miraculous. I did take exception to what I intrepeted as your trashing of steel alloy material as a frame material. Then to compound your general insult of anyone riding a steel frame, you made these statements which are objectively incorrect: titanium is stronger than steel (not true), steel is rougher than carbon (the material properties of steel belie this statement), steel is heavier, and finally steel rusts. The last statement is at least partially true. A neglected low alloy steel without protective coatings will succumb to rust, unless we send out the trained monkey. But I will point out that I know at least two people I've ridden with that have replaced aluminum frames with stress cracks. You don't hear me trashing aluminum. I will confess to having four steel frame bikes in my garage and one aluminum. The steels range in age from about 28 years old (a Raleigh), a lugged steel frame Trek, a columbus cromoly Italian frame from late 80's, and a four year old Reynolds 853 frame. I have had to do some minor cosmetic rust removal from the 853. It's probably the one I ride the most and I don't always properly clean the persperation off the bike after a ride. The rust usually shows up around the top tube cable guides. I brush it off and touch up the paint. Simply saying that steel is a heavier material than some other material is like saying big people are heavier than little people. "So what"? What does it mean? Does it mean I won't enjoy the bicycle? I can't go as far? Everyone on a bike made of a lighter material will have more fun? Go faster? Further? Let's all take a deep breath, and GET REAL!

Well, if what I say is suspect, ignore this.

Alright, fine, carbon can be made stronger than steel. Lemme ask you this: How many steel frame failures are you aware of that stemmed from a situation that would not have ruined a carbon or aluminum or ti bike? Generally, in my experience with bicycles and not fighter jets or F1 cars, frame materials are rarely a tremendous amount stronger from one to the next. The likes of Trek's carbon used in the 5500 did not withstand the impact of another rider in the Tour this year. Neither would any other bike.

What does dead feel like in a bike? Difficult to quantify. Less road feel. More buzz than smooth. Nothing to do with potholes. I like your suggestion that the ride was not harsh enough, though. What was that about someone sounding suspect?

And please add more qualifiers to your argument about steel rusting as we go. Trained monkeys can keep a frame from rusting from the outset. If your monkey isn't bright enough to do this from the start with its frame, it gets what it deserves.

Sorry if I ruffled your feathers there, flea. But when anyone starts making wholesale generalizations, I like to do the same. It's a self degrading way to make the point that generalizations about frames are pointless.

HOLY CRAP!

I knew that as soon as I bought my bike, some new fangled configuration would come out! I bought a Trek 2000 last year and have only put 2800 miles on it this year. I weigh 240lbs, OMG! Do I need to dump it quick and get something else? :rolleyes:

This was what I could afford at the time, I think it rides great, and I pass others riding carbon all the time, (I don't think they put there 2800 miles in)! I think it rides fine, although I notice more ride differences when I change tires than anything else I do. If any bike is abused or neglected it will fail, just like anything else! I have an old Huffy cruser out back just setting in the weather that I can get on and ride if I want. It's made of steel, I think maby leftover steam pipes or some such stuff, but it hasn't rusted away in years of just setting beside my shed!

I will say that the next bike I buy will be a good quality steel bike, just to try it out for myself, but I just can't see buying a bike made of steel and carbon. I think it would be a better match between carbon and Al, but that is just my $0.02!

I love these kind of discussions, BTW!

Yeah, there's nothing like a bunch of guys arguing about stuff that really doesn't impact the world in the least. Nice suspension from reality.

Bottom line: Ride what you want to ride and enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, get off the road and find something you do like. Life's too short, right?

But why buy a Porsche when you can have a Ferarri?

Why is that a rhetorical question? Is Ferarri obviously better than Porsche?

Is the same principle applicable to bikes?

Flea77, I made no comments about monkeys helping you maintain your bikes. And, I take no exception to your enthusiasm for carbon fibre frames. The material is simply miraculous. I did take exception to what I intrepeted as your trashing of steel alloy material as a frame material. Then to compound your general insult of anyone riding a steel frame, you made these statements which are objectively incorrect: titanium is stronger than steel (not true), steel is rougher than carbon (the material properties of steel belie this statement), steel is heavier, and finally steel rusts. The last statement is at least partially true. A neglected low alloy steel without protective coatings will succumb to rust, unless we send out the trained monkey. But I will point out that I know at least two people I've ridden with that have replaced aluminum frames with stress cracks. You don't hear me trashing aluminum. I will confess to having four steel frame bikes in my garage and one aluminum. The steels range in age from about 28 years old (a Raleigh), a lugged steel frame Trek, a columbus cromoly Italian frame from late 80's, and a four year old Reynolds 853 frame. I have had to do some minor cosmetic rust removal from the 853. It's probably the one I ride the most and I don't always properly clean the persperation off the bike after a ride. The rust usually shows up around the top tube cable guides. I brush it off and touch up the paint. Simply saying that steel is a heavier material than some other material is like saying big people are heavier than little people. "So what"? What does it mean? Does it mean I won't enjoy the bicycle? I can't go as far? Everyone on a bike made of a lighter material will have more fun? Go faster? Further? Let's all take a deep breath, and GET REAL!

I was not trashing steel frames, or the people who like them. I stated that I did not understand why they liked them, and still do not.

Titanium is not stronger and lighter than steel? Please check out:
http://www.parabolicgolf.com/timyths.htm
http://www.ushba.com/tifacts.html
http://www.xpmods.com/maingear/titaniumqa.asp
http://www.evilrobotics.net/design_tips.htm

And here are a few excerpts: "In fact, Ti-6Al-4V (90% titanium, 6% aluminium, 4% vanadium) ... highest strength-to-weight ratio of any of today's structural metals." and "On average (depending on the specific alloy), Ti is as strong as steel, yet 40% lighter." and "Because it (titanium) is corrosion resistant and doesn't fatigue like steel." and lastly "Think of titanium as 50% heavier than 6061 Aluminum and significantly stronger than steel".

So I stand by my statements about the properties of steel. Titanium can be lighter and stronger than steel. Aluminum is lighter but weaker. Carbon is stronger and lighter and less prone to rust or corrosion. Because of the design of carbon, it can indeed ride smoother (deader some would argue) than steel. Of course steel is more likely to survive stresses that are not specific to cycling, such as a wreck than carbon.

Stress cracks can happen on any frame that is abused or poorly designed, regardless of materials or which monkeys are taking care of it, heh.

Hope this helps clear things up.

Allan

disclaimer: There are no intended or insiuated insults in this message towards any frame, material, person or group.

Well, if what I say is suspect, ignore this.
What does dead feel like in a bike? Difficult to quantify. Less road feel. More buzz than smooth. Nothing to do with potholes. I like your suggestion that the ride was not harsh enough, though. What was that about someone sounding suspect?
-snip!-
Sorry if I ruffled your feathers there, flea.

I honestly do not feel any buzz in my 5200, unless I am on fresh paved chip and seal and then even my caddy feels that buzz. So I guess I still do not understand the dead feeling you refer to. Not saying it isnt there, just that I dont know what you mean and I think the bike feels like gliding on air when on smooth asphalt. Quiet and smooth as silk.

I honestly meant it about it not being "harsh enough". Many people like beds I would call stiff as plywood and they call "firm", but that is their choice. If you like what I would call a "harsh ride" then there is nothing wrong with that at all, just two different people with different tastes.

Apology accepted, and sorry if I ruffled yours.

Allan

i just bought a steel-carbon bike...tommasini

i like it alot....rides great...not the lightest mind you

i preferred it over an all steel frame. just felt better (same maker/same dimensions)

also test rode some nice ti-carbon bikes, alu-carbon...both very nice ...just not right for me.

also rode a trek 5200 (only carbon)... still have a soft spot in my heart for treks since the early 80s .... it was a different feel though...not what i was looking for...doesnt make it a wrong choice for someone else though

Hi guys,
I loved Jchet's post. I still have this little doubt about durablity with some of these new designs; but he makes a great case for them. One of the things I have noticed is there is so much good stuff no one can keep track of it. That OX Platinum alloy, that is really cool, I had no idea. Carbon rear ends.....to be honest, that was a complete surprise for me. Didn't like it the first time I saw it; I had visions of those dainty looking carbon bits snapping like my old Orvis 4 weight flyrod. When I was younger titanium had the nickname 'unobtainium'. It used to be very, very expensive, not sure why. Bikes these days are crazy good.

ImprezaDrvr:

Are you saying the monkey's training was poor or that the monkey itself is lacking and hence could never fully appreciate a satisfactory training plan?

yo guys are monkeyists!!
I reporting you to the Animal Cruelty League

Croak,
experience counts. In the decades I have spent in the gym, I have seen protein fads come and go, At the same time I have seen guys get big using almost any kind of supplememtation. And annoyingly for us slow gainers, just showing up was enough for some kids. I got my first bike about 1956, it was a hand me down. It was my Uncle's first bike when he was a kid. I remember seeing it in the late Seventies when we were settling the estate. No special treatment was done, I can assure you that much. It was just a kids bike. But some kid got it, and rode it, 40 years after it was made. It would not surprise me in the least if a kid somewhere rode it today. It was a rugged bike. With a coating of FrameSaver, a bike ought to last as long or longer. Steel is durable stuff.

I was not trashing steel frames, or the people who like them. I stated that I did not understand why they liked them, and still do not.

Titanium is not stronger and lighter than steel? Please check out:
http://www.parabolicgolf.com/timyths.htm
http://www.ushba.com/tifacts.html
http://www.xpmods.com/maingear/titaniumqa.asp
http://www.evilrobotics.net/design_tips.htm

And here are a few excerpts: "In fact, Ti-6Al-4V (90% titanium, 6% aluminium, 4% vanadium) ... highest strength-to-weight ratio of any of today's structural metals." and "On average (depending on the specific alloy), Ti is as strong as steel, yet 40% lighter." and "Because it (titanium) is corrosion resistant and doesn't fatigue like steel." and lastly "Think of titanium as 50% heavier than 6061 Aluminum and significantly stronger than steel".

So I stand by my statements about the properties of steel. Titanium can be lighter and stronger than steel. Aluminum is lighter but weaker. Carbon is stronger and lighter and less prone to rust or corrosion. Because of the design of carbon, it can indeed ride smoother (deader some would argue) than steel. Of course steel is more likely to survive stresses that are not specific to cycling, such as a wreck than carbon.

Stress cracks can happen on any frame that is abused or poorly designed, regardless of materials or which monkeys are taking care of it, heh.

Hope this helps clear things up.

Allan

disclaimer: There are no intended or insiuated insults in this message towards any frame, material, person or group.

I think that we risk boring our fellow thread readers with our tit for tat exchange regards titanium and steel. I promise this is my last (but I have enjoyed it Flea77).
In your latest reply, you were correct in the statement that titanium is stronger than steel weight for weight. But Flea77, the procedures specified in testing for Young's Modulus require that the specimens be of the same size (not the same weight). Hence, in this standard test, the Young Modulus for steel is 30 million psi, while titanium's is 15.5 million psi. Since steel has twice the density of titanium, the steel specimen will weigh twice as much.

Now for tensile strength. The tensile strength for the most commonly used titanium alloy (3/2.5) used in building bicycle frames is in the neighborhood of 130ksi. While True Temper's OX3 steel tests at 169ksi. And again, specimens are required to be of the same size and dimensions. Thus the tests are clearly biased in favor of steel since it has twice titanium's density. If these standard tests were reorganized so that the specimens had to weigh the same, the bias would be in favor of titanium. My thoughts are that titanium is generally superior to steel for bicycle frames. But not because it's stiffer or stronger, which I've argued that it's not. But it is strong enough to build a frame somewhat lighter than steel without the risk of frame corosion. And, since titanium is not as stiff as steel, it can be shaped to provide virtually any knd of ride you want. I'm sure I'll own a titanium frame in the future. I just hope that it and the 4 steel frames in the garage learn to get along together.

Croak,
experience counts. In the decades I have spent in the gym, I have seen protein fads come and go, At the same time I have seen guys get big using almost any kind of supplememtation. And annoyingly for us slow gainers, just showing up was enough for some kids. I got my first bike about 1956, it was a hand me down. It was my Uncle's first bike when he was a kid. I remember seeing it in the late Seventies when we were settling the estate. No special treatment was done, I can assure you that much. It was just a kids bike. But some kid got it, and rode it, 40 years after it was made. It would not surprise me in the least if a kid somewhere rode it today. It was a rugged bike. With a coating of FrameSaver, a bike ought to last as long or longer. Steel is durable stuff.


I fear the banality of the thread has crept in and infected my post!

It was facetious ;) Probably should have added a few emoticons here and there, maybe I need a monkey for my typing too? :)

Now, where can you train a monkey to type...?

I think that we risk boring our fellow thread readers with our tit for tat exchange regards titanium and steel. I promise this is my last (but I have enjoyed it Flea77).
In your latest reply, you were correct in the statement that titanium is stronger than steel weight for weight. But Flea77, the procedures specified in testing for Young's Modulus require that the specimens be of the same size (not the same weight). Hence, in this standard test, the Young Modulus for steel is 30 million psi, while titanium's is 15.5 million psi. Since steel has twice the density of titanium, the steel specimen will weigh twice as much.

Now for tensile strength. The tensile strength for the most commonly used titanium alloy (3/2.5) used in building bicycle frames is in the neighborhood of 130ksi. While True Temper's OX3 steel tests at 169ksi. And again, specimens are required to be of the same size and dimensions. Thus the tests are clearly biased in favor of steel since it has twice titanium's density. If these standard tests were reorganized so that the specimens had to weigh the same, the bias would be in favor of titanium. My thoughts are that titanium is generally superior to steel for bicycle frames. But not because it's stiffer or stronger, which I've argued that it's not. But it is strong enough to build a frame somewhat lighter than steel without the risk of frame corosion. And, since titanium is not as stiff as steel, it can be shaped to provide virtually any knd of ride you want. I'm sure I'll own a titanium frame in the future. I just hope that it and the 4 steel frames in the garage learn to get along together.

I too have enjoyed the debate. You are correct in your scientific results from these tests. However what I think of when I say that titanium is stronger and lighter than steel are not tests based on exactly the same size, or weight of material. If you take a top of the line steel frame and get exact measurements including weight you can take titanium and create a frame exactly the same size except it will be stronger and lighter. Allow me to clarify...

If you take the steel tubes and recreate them with titanium but increase the tube's wall thickness 30% you will end up with a frame that weighs slightly less than the steel frame yet has a higher strength, all the while having superior corrosion resistance and fatigue life. At least to the best of my understanding that is correct.

These are the points that have me believing that titanium is a far superior material for a frame than steel. Just like I believe that carbon is far superior to titanium, correctly built.

But science aside most frames built today will all perform their function to reasonable expectations, regardless of frame material. Much of it is preference in looks, ride quality, price, etc. You cant tell me that a natural carbon frame isnt a beautiful sight :-)

Allan

Some people will argue the sky is blue. :)

Some people will argue the sky is blue. :)

Actually the sky is not blue. What you see is the blue light waves that are not blocked by the atmosphere as they....... :-)


Allan

For all the talk of strength and smooth rides, you'd think that everyone on this board was doing weekly Paris-Roubaixs.

For all the talk of strength and smooth rides, you'd think that everyone on this board was doing weekly Paris-Roubaixs.

Pro riders have been training more and racing harder than any of us for a long time and they've done it on steel frames. De Vlaeminck won 4 Roubaixs on a (gasp!) steel frame. Wow.

Flame away.

And Lance could have probably won his Tours on a bike made out of popcicle sticks, but that doesnt mean that popcicle sticks are good frame materials, it means Lance is an awesome rider. Which of course has no bearing on the discussion at hand, but is indeed interesting.

Allan