Road Cycling - Titanium or Steel?

I currently have an aluminum frame Bianchi and am considering another bike. I'm 6'1" 200 lbs, so not a jockey and not a racer. I'm looking for a bike primarily for century rides and am considering either steel (colnago classic, fondriest) or titanium (airborne, entry litespeed) - not really interested in carbon fiber. I'm not sure I can tell the differnence in a 1-2 mile test ride. Assuming fit is fine, any opinions on material?

Steel-is-real! a well made steel frame will be a great, dependable ride that will outlive you. Much more economical too.

I vote for Ti. Yes, it costs more. But, it has a great ride and will last forever. Plus, it won't rust and it is light.

I just did my first century. I am so happy that I stretched the wallet a little for Ti.

Simple - get both. I "had" to have a full carbon and still wasn't satisfied. So I "had" to get a steelie.

It's great to have a choice depending on which way the wind is blowing.That is, until I "have" to have a Ti or aluminum....

55/Rad

I've said this often, and will continue to repeat it: A poorly trained monkey can keep a steel bike from rusting. Not an issue, unless you're less able than a poorly trained monkey.

I went from Alu to steel and love it. Ti was too expensive for what you got, and the weight penalty with steel is becoming less and less. Check out the Orbea Ultrafoco Carbon. I love mine.

I've said this often, and will continue to repeat it: A poorly trained monkey can keep a steel bike from rusting. Not an issue, unless you're less able than a poorly trained monkey.


Amen.

And as you said, the cost to weight savings ratio for Ti isn't that great.

I currently have an aluminum frame Bianchi and am considering another bike. I'm 6'1" 200 lbs, so not a jockey and not a racer. I'm looking for a bike primarily for century rides and am considering either steel (colnago classic, fondriest) or titanium (airborne, entry litespeed) - not really interested in carbon fiber. I'm not sure I can tell the differnence in a 1-2 mile test ride. Assuming fit is fine, any opinions on material?
The proof is not so much in the material used as much as it is the fit and feel of the bike to you. You need to ride everything you can lay your butt on. A crappy bike made of any material is just that, a crappy bike. I've got steel, Ti and carbon bikes and I like them all. Each is different is some way. I like to do primarily long-distance rides, usually centuries, and I spec my bikes accordingly, so they are all pretty similar in their fit and geometry. Some of the bikes that you have mentioned are more suited to short rides/racing. Primarily by virtue of geometry.

So I guess my short answer is; the material is not the key consideration. Fit, feel and geometry will be what's important.

if the difference is speding 1200 bucks on a great steel frame or the same price on an average titanium, you'd be insane to get the titanium. But, if you have the cash to get a good titanium frame, then I'd say 'go for it'.

The weight difference between steel and Ti is about .25 of a lb, rust is a non issue, and both will outlast any Aluminium or carbon bike out there.
What you get for your extra dollars buying Ti, is a slight decrease in weight, corrosion resistance, and a ride that is a little less springy or lively than steel.

Whether its worth the cost is a personal preference. One thing for sure though - ti still retains it's mystique, it's still a pain to machine, the raw tubes cost a packet, and it welds up like a dream ( assuming you follow the rules ).

thylacine writes:
[QUOTE]The weight difference between steel and Ti is about .25 of a lb

Sorry thylacine, the engineer in me asks - is a lb of steel .25 heavier than a lb of Ti? (GRIN)
I believe you mean weight density, if so I believe you are in error. Ti is about half as light.
Thus an equal volume of steel = twice as heavy as an equal volume of Ti, at least Archimedes would say so. And I bet he would have chosen a litespeed!

Good site to visit:
http://www.caree.org/bike101framematerials.htm

thylacine writes:
[QUOTE]The weight difference between steel and Ti is about .25 of a lb

Sorry thylacine, the engineer in me asks - is a lb of steel .25 heavier than a lb of Ti? (GRIN)
I believe you mean weight density, if so I believe you are in error. Ti is about half as light.
Thus an equal volume of steel = twice as heavy as an equal volume of Ti, at least Archimedes would say so. And I bet he would have chosen a litespeed!

Good site to visit:
http://www.caree.org/bike101framematerials.htm
An any case, Ti bike tubes are thicker than steel bike tubes to achieve the necessary strength. Ti bikes therefore usually weigh only slightly less than the equivalent steel bikes. Ti has it's own characteristics that make for a different ride than steel. A well made steel and a well made Ti bike will ride similarly with some differences. Some riders like the ride qualities of one over the other. Both (of the well-made bikes) will last much longer than an owner will most likely keep it. So it's really a personal value/judgment call as to which is better.

I currently own a CF road bike and a TI mtb. I love them both and found both to have similar characteristics (absorption and stiffness). I had a aluminum mtb and felt every pebble I rolled over. Years ago (almost 30) I had a steel Raleigh. Great bike, great ride, except in corners. Now granted steel has come a long way in 30 years but I just remember the flex in that frame, and the couple of crashes it caused, to make me shy away from steel.
The only two materials I would own a bike made from at this point are CF or TI

Nitanium Chromoly steel tubing.

Ti over steel any day for me.
btw, in a 3-up test of the Litespeed Firenze, Lemond and Airborne Zepplin from Cycle Sport the Firenze beat out the other two.

I like the Tuscany for a great 3.25 frame.

Ride both materials. Let your rump and hands decide. If one dosen't just scream out to to to buy it, then you haven't test ridden the right bike yet. When I test rode the right bike (for me), I knew it right away.

Davet writes:
[/QUOTE]An any case, Ti bike tubes are thicker than steel bike tubes to achieve the necessary strength. Ti bikes therefore usually weigh only slightly less than the equivalent steel bikes.

I admit its been a long time. But I thought tubes were made Bigger in Diameter(s) ONLY(Volume=2*pi*(Radii:outside-Radii:inside)squared x length).Thus a small increase in Diameter -both outer and inner dia. delta remaining constant- yields a big increase in strength, with a relatively low volume increase. This would be the better design.
If you meant THICKER meaning (outer Diameter minus Inner Diameter is larger) than I believe you are correct sir!(due to the squared part of the equation) But I did not think that is the case, or at least not an optimum design. BTW- that's why Alum tubes are even bigger in Circumference.
But- I could be wrong.

Eureka! Think I'll go take a bath ( sorry- a little archimedian joke)

Love my non-rusting steel bike but if i had the bucks,i'd get ti.

My suggestion would be to contact Carl Strong at www.strongframes.com. For your price range you could get a custom steel frame that will be made especially to provide you with the riding characteristics you want.
Plus, their headbadge is amazing :beer:
He can also do ti for a slightly higher price. Either way, just make sure you ride it.

Good luck in whatever decision you make.

Hard to test ride a custom is'nt it?

Provided, you can't test ride a custom, that is why Strong Frame has a 100% money back guaranty based on your satisfaction.

thylacine writes - "The weight difference between steel and Ti is about .25 of a lb"

Sorry thylacine, the engineer in me asks - is a lb of steel .25 heavier than a lb of Ti? (GRIN) I believe you mean weight density, if so I believe you are in error. Ti is about half as light. Thus an equal volume of steel = twice as heavy as an equal volume of Ti, at least Archimedes would say so. And I bet he would have chosen a litespeed!

Good to see they finally began teaching physics and chemisty in Kentucky! Who woulda guessed! :p

Pity you didn't opt to take "Real World Humour for the Sciences 101" though.

Mwuhuhuhuhuha! :D

Here are two frames. Both are the same size, tubing selection is geared to make them both perform roughly the same. Oh look at that! The steel one is about a quarter of a pound heavier! :rolleyes:

And no, Archemedes would not have chosen a Litespeed....but he probably would if he was a member of this BBS.

*Makes sheep sounds*

Afeter reading all of this I hope you are compleatly confused, I know I am!!

I have aluminium and Steel. I could never see spending the money for Ti and the full carbon Giant TCR1 I rode didn't impress me all that much.

In my humble opinion, "Steel is Real!!" it is like riding on a cloud and iff you are looking for long distance riding, I don't think you can beat it. Look for Reynolds 853 and you will have a Steel bike with much the same ride charictoristics of Ti (strength, weight etc.) AND the comfort (flex) of steel (at least according to one of the fram builders in my area and he should know since he works in both).

Then again if you are a "gram freak" you might want to consider Ti or full carbon to get the majical sub 16 lb. bike. But then you can ask yourself if the extra pound of weight saving was worth it! Just think of all the other bike stuff you could get with the $$$!!! My Buenos Aires weighs 20 lbs with everything on it (computer, HRM, bag [loaded with stuff including a rediculusly heavy Topeak Alian] and water bottle cages). It is Ultegra and rides like a dream!!

Just my humble opinion

I'd like to know which ti's are sub 16? You know they asked the pro's what they like to ride if given a chice and most said ti. They said it has the best of everything except low cost. It will start getting cheaper,look at the $1999 litespeed.

Pros don't pay for their bikes. They also have needs and requirements that 99% of us don't.

I currently own a CF road bike and a TI mtb. I love them both and found both to have similar characteristics (absorption and stiffness). I had a aluminum mtb and felt every pebble I rolled over. Years ago (almost 30) I had a steel Raleigh. Great bike, great ride, except in corners. Now granted steel has come a long way in 30 years but I just remember the flex in that frame, and the couple of crashes it caused, to make me shy away from steel.
The only two materials I would own a bike made from at this point are CF or TI

If you haven't been on a steel bike in 30 years, you don't have any idea what they're like today. Hell, they've come a long ways in the last 10 years. Your paranoia is completely unfounded.

I've never ridden Ti, but I'd love to...Anyhow, my ride is steel...I've rode aluminum and carbon fiber, and although they are lighter, I wouldn't trade by $400 ride for a $2000 ride (might sell it..but wouldn't trade it...then again, I could sell the CF/AL ride....???)

Anyhow, a good steel bike probably won't flex like that one fella said...I'm 220 and I can STOMP on mine and it just goes...

Around here, there are quite a few tar&gravel roads that I ride that my AL-ridin' buds won't...cause it vibrates their arms from their shoulders...I'm not saying it's plush, but it's not painful...and I get some new scenery...

If I had the dough, which would I choose?? the Ti...simply cause of the satisfaction of knowing you got something wicked...it's a little lighter, and most companies that put these things together are doing custom jobs...not just fitting you on what they got sittin' there...

Impreza, I still have scars from one of the cornering crashes. I do not even know what kind of steel was used back then but probably something on the order of a 5 series steel or lower. When I was looking for a road bike I almost bought a steel LeMond. Then I thought back and ended up with a CF Trek. Cost a few bucks more but it gave me peace of mind.

Pros don't pay for their bikes. They also have needs and requirements that 99% of us don't.
They were asked if they could choose,what would it be. I know they have to ride what the team is using.
Must be something to ti if thats what most would ride if they could,dont you think?

I've ridden alum (CDale CAAD 4), CF (Trek OCLV), and steel (Lemond Zurich).The C'Dale was agile but quite rough, the Trek was comfortable and muted out the higher frequency raod buzz. The Lemond seems to me actually more comfortable in absorbing the larger road bumps than the the OCLV Trek.I believe this is due to the fore-aft frame flex; this hasn't affected cornering stability...perhaps tire selection plays a role there. Don't think a ti bike is in my future unless I win the lottery, but would love to try one out.

weight of material: Ti is heavier-ie; it is more dense than steel.
That is true but show me a 100% ti bike. Show me a 100% steel bike or 100% aluminum bike.

Most ti bikes are Ti3Al2.5V. 6/4 or some other combination.

from Cycling Weekly:
"Ti has an inherent dampingn effect on vibration... Like steel, ti has a fatigue limit; a level of repeated stress below which it offers an indefinite fatigue life. In another decade of similar use, the same frame could reasonably be expected to perform to precisely the same standard. Not least because it is inherently less susceptible to the kind of damage that can spoil carbon fibre, steel or aluminum. Whether caused by a crash or the activities of air baggabe handlers, and inpact can dent or bend a steel or aluminum frame much more easily than a ti example of comparable weight.
Composite frames may not dent or bend in the same way as metal, but a sharp object may make a potentially hazardous indent compromising the integrity of the frame. Even without visible damage, a crashed composites frame may be structurally weakened...
it willl take alot more abuse for the same reason that the metal is difficult to work in the first place. all told, it is hard to find a bad word to say about a good ti frame..."

The proof is not so much in the material used as much as it is the fit and feel of the bike to you. You need to ride everything you can lay your butt on. A crappy bike made of any material is just that, a crappy bike. I've got steel, Ti and carbon bikes and I like them all. Each is different is some way. I like to do primarily long-distance rides, usually centuries, and I spec my bikes accordingly, so they are all pretty similar in their fit and geometry. Some of the bikes that you have mentioned are more suited to short rides/racing. Primarily by virtue of geometry.

So I guess my short answer is; the material is not the key consideration. Fit, feel and geometry will be what's important.


Davet,
Yes, very good feedback which is why I posted the type of riding I do. Can you give me any insight on what I should look for with regards to geometry - I don't know enough to interrupt the data.
Thanks

My opinion (and that is just what it is because there will be others with valid arguments for other ways to look at it) is that the more "traditional" geomitry (as in my Lemond) is best. I ride with the intent to race and kick some A, so I am looking for a different kind of bike than you. That said, I think steel with a "traditional gemoitry" as opposed to the "compact geomitry" is better. The latter relys a lot more on adjusting this and that to get the "fit" where as the more traditional approach fits the FRAME and then adjusts components etc. I tried out a Giant TCR1 (essentially the same bike as T- Mobile is using this year) and didn't like the feel of it. Yes it was quick and yes it was lite, but I didn't feel as much stability. At 5'11" I was on the same frame a 5'6" rider would use (they come Small, Medium and Large). The more traditional sizing is usually in one or two centemeter increments!!

Don't be fooled by the "ride the smallest frame that fits" hype! You have to be comfortable and in your case 100 miles worth of comfort!!

Like I said, that is MY opinion and I am sure you will get other opposing ones that are just as compelling. What is MOST important is Fit, Fit, Fit!! You are the one who is going to ride the bike not the guy selling it!! Buy what you can afford and make sure you are comfortable on it. Hopefully you will be able to do more than take a spin around a parking lot!!

Bill

george, you've never seen a carbon frame snap in two?

Geometry with respect to road bikes, if you don't mine me interjecting a brief point, is very individual. That's why it's key to test ride many different bikes made by many different manufacturers. If you want to go custom, this will give you a starting point to work with a framebuilder. Unless you're looking at a bike with a dramatically different geometry, like a time trial bike, the numbers will be similar on paper. But different manufacturers' bikes will certainly ride differently. I've known folks that prefer one geometry over another even when it's not best suited to their riding style, though. It's like buying shoes, what fits me won't fit you and vice versa.

My opinion (and that is just what it is because there will be others with valid arguments for other ways to look at it) is that the more "traditional" geomitry (as in my Lemond) is best. I ride with the intent to race and kick some A, so I am looking for a different kind of bike than you. That said, I think steel with a "traditional gemoitry" as opposed to the "compact geomitry" is better. The latter relys a lot more on adjusting this and that to get the "fit" where as the more traditional approach fits the FRAME and then adjusts components etc. I tried out a Giant TCR1 (essentially the same bike as T- Mobile is using this year) and didn't like the feel of it. Yes it was quick and yes it was lite, but I didn't feel as much stability. At 5'11" I was on the same frame a 5'6" rider would use (they come Small, Medium and Large). The more traditional sizing is usually in one or two centemeter increments!!

Don't be fooled by the "ride the smallest frame that fits" hype! You have to be comfortable and in your case 100 miles worth of comfort!!

Like I said, that is MY opinion and I am sure you will get other opposing ones that are just as compelling. What is MOST important is Fit, Fit, Fit!! You are the one who is going to ride the bike not the guy selling it!! Buy what you can afford and make sure you are comfortable on it. Hopefully you will be able to do more than take a spin around a parking lot!!

Bill


Thanks Bill. I agree with your geometry observation. What metrics actually define a compact vs. traditional geometry?

w, your observations with regards to compact bikes are on the spot, except in cases where the compact bikes are built in multiple sizes. I was a real compact skeptic, especially since I ride a 60c bike. But I took the plunge with my bike and it fits really well. I had to switch out some parts after the move from the old C-dale to the Orbea, but nothing that I wouldn't have had to change with most other manufacturers.

Compact framesets slope their top tubes down, almost like a mountain bike. Some, like Giant, only offer three or four frame sizes and then try to tweak adjustable stems and such to get the fit right. I can't speak for many others, but I do know that Orbea has about a full size run in their compact bikes, making fit a lot better IMHO.

I think offering a road bike in only 4 or 5 sizes is a travesty. That's not 'Compact Geometry' - thats a bad fitting bike no matter what way you look at it.

My definition of 'Compact geometry' - in fact, it's not even the same thing, because picking one of 5 ill fitting frame sizes and erring on the small side for some reason is totally dumb - is really a simple sloping top tube.

I prefer the look of a sloping top tube and it does help to soften the ride a bit, but apart from that, there is no difference between a level top tube and a sloped one in terms of critical geometry.

Now, also, when people start bantering the term 'traditional geometry' as opposed to the 'new, groovy compact geometry'....i think that's totally misleading. the geometry is either right or wrong for the size of the rider and their intended usage. It either has a sloping top tube or it doesn't.

Now, back on topic *grin* - 3/2.5 titanium is less dense than say Foco, ergo for the same volume it's lighter, however titanium frames have to use larger tubes and thicker wall sections to achieve the same characteristics. One thing RacerX's quote from Cycling Weekly doesn't mention is Titaniums notch failure issues, which can be more of a real world issue than dent resistance in some cases. Funny how they mentioned CF's propensity to notch failure yet not Titaniums. Hrm. A bias perhaps? From a magazine! Who woulda guessed!

You know, steel and titanium are both great materials, but at the end of the day fit and geometry are more important.

Back to titanium vs. steel...

more interesting reading from CW's article
"Thinking of buying a ti bicycle? Then don't let anyone put you off. If you want a frame that is light, resilient, corrosion resistant, good-looking, prestigious, durable and almost indestructible, a top-quality ti framest is the only option. Sure, alum and carbon composites can now beat ti for weight but for the rest, forget it.

The longest-serving frame in any material on CW's test fleet is a Litespeed Vortex sent in at the start of 1998. Six years later, it is in astonishingly good condition...

...In the case of ti, this film [oxide film on exposure to air] is so tenacious that the metal is immune to attack by saltwater or saltwater-laden air and has exceptional resistance to mild acids, organic media and corrosive gases.

...ti is expensive to work, partly because its toughness makes shaping and fabrication difficult and partly because welding must be done in a n inert atmosphere...

...Famously, Ti6Al4V alloy is so intractable that it is usually reserved for dropouts and bb shells; tubes could until recently only be made economically by rolling a flat sheet and welding a join.

Toughness is not the same as hardness; even the strongest ti allys can be cut and filed using conventional hand tools. The stuff is tough because it combines the strenthg of high-tensile steeel with roughly twice the elasticity.

Effectively, twice the eneergy is neeeded to deform a part permanently. "

[picture of Alex Zulle's 1998 Peugeot-badged Litespeed Vortex]

I think offering a road bike in only 4 or 5 sizes is a travesty. That's not 'Compact Geometry' - thats a bad fitting bike no matter what way you look at it.

My definition of 'Compact geometry' - in fact, it's not even the same thing, because picking one of 5 ill fitting frame sizes and erring on the small side for some reason is totally dumb - is really a simple sloping top tube.

I prefer the look of a sloping top tube and it does help to soften the ride a bit, but apart from that, there is no difference between a level top tube and a sloped one in terms of critical geometry.

Now, also, when people start bantering the term 'traditional geometry' as opposed to the 'new, groovy compact geometry'....i think that's totally misleading. the geometry is either right or wrong for the size of the rider and their intended usage. It either has a sloping top tube or it doesn't.

Now, back on topic *grin* - 3/2.5 titanium is less dense than say Foco, ergo for the same volume it's lighter, however titanium frames have to use larger tubes and thicker wall sections to achieve the same characteristics. One thing RacerX's quote from Cycling Weekly doesn't mention is Titaniums notch failure issues, which can be more of a real world issue than dent resistance in some cases. Funny how they mentioned CF's propensity to notch failure yet not Titaniums. Hrm. A bias perhaps? From a magazine! Who woulda guessed!

You know, steel and titanium are both great materials, but at the end of the day fit and geometry are more important.

48,50,52,54,56,58,60 =7 and 60's are hard to get & xs,s,m,lg,xlg=5 Not much difference at all and how many times do you get a different stem with a "classic frame"? Have you tried a compact? Which tubes wont dent easy. All are so fricken thin.

AS a rider of Steel (bianchi), titanium (litepseed) and aluminium (Dave Quinn custom) i can say that my Ti frame is my favourite.

It's very well designed, stiff, comfortable and did'nt break the house down to acquire.
The others a re also well designed but teh geometry is not as nice.

All this constant opinionating wrt tivs steel is largely irrelevant when measured against the design quality.
By the frame which suits your pocket, either steel or Ti and then spec itout with the wheels and groupset of your choice and viOLA!! a bike!!! :rolleyes: and you can ride.

Wrt which material is actually better, Titanium has been widely regarded as the best material for construction of lightweight, long life, highly stresed space frames. The only thing perventing it's wide spread acceptance has been manufacturing cost. Steel is the next best thing though.

Be aware that, although modern steel frames are light and strong they will not last forever. In fact their lifespan can be similar to Aluminium bikes if weight reduction is the primary design focus.
Bikes designed to last are always heavier than bikes designed to perform, no matter what material is used.

I currently have an aluminum frame Bianchi and am considering another bike. I'm 6'1" 200 lbs, so not a jockey and not a racer. I'm looking for a bike primarily for century rides and am considering either steel (colnago classic, fondriest) or titanium (airborne, entry litespeed) - not really interested in carbon fiber. I'm not sure I can tell the differnence in a 1-2 mile test ride. Assuming fit is fine, any opinions on material?

I had a CSI steel bike, and never really liked the bike, now I have a custom Seven Ti. I love this bike.
What ever you do it is 100% about fit of the bike.

After fit,material.

Get either but make sure you get a c/f fork! Have riddens lots of steel, alum, and have my Merlin Ti up for sale (53 cm @ $1850). Why? Got a custom carbon on order!

The only carbon on my Litespeed is the fork and that is easily replaced. The rest of the bike is raw ti. She will always look like the day I bought her. No paint to mess up. And the ride? Its a ti ride, can't beat it. I've ridden all the frame materials,and yes I do have other bikes, but if I were to only have one bike it would be the Litespeed, she is lively, compliant, and timeless for sure.

Just get out and ride hard!

Yeah.

I've said this often, and will continue to repeat it: A poorly trained monkey can keep a steel bike from rusting. Not an issue, unless you're less able than a poorly trained monkey.

I have a Lemond Zurich, steel/CF hybrid. Can I get by with an untrained monkey?

:D

Hi,
I can be a little compulsive. I drove over a hundred miles to try an Habanero. Nice bike.
Anyway, I tried way too many bikes a couple years ago. I was really impressed by how much steel has improved over the years. A really nice steel frame is the Gunnar Sport. It's a fun bike, so don't expect the BB to be flex-free. But it is one of those bikes you don't want to get off; you want to keep going.I 'd love to own one.But I feel titanium lets a frame builder give you a nicer ride at a given level of performance. That was
what caught my attention when I was shopping. You could have a pleasant ride on a bike that could still scoot. But beyond that, each bike offers a mix of fit, type, and performance; most won't work for you. If I found a steel bike that rocked my world; I'd take it over a Ti bike that I simply liked. Budget jumps in with a vengance here. Look at any catalog, and the Ti will be pricier. Seven makes for a good example of this, since they offer the same frame in both materials. So if you can afford the extra $$$, I say go for it. If you get the chance, try a Tuscany. If you have a $2K budget (for example)....the choice is tougher.