Fifty Plus (50+) - Steel vs Carbon vs: Ti

I'm 60 years old and have ridden custom steel bikes for nearly 40 years - mostly race geometry bikes, but a few longer wheel base bikes as well when comfort rather than speed is important, and at this point in life, that's nearly all the time. I've never ridden carbon or titanium bikes. I've been intrigued by modern materials and gear systems (all of mine are 1970's vintage retro Campy stuff), and am curious what experience this group has - specifically, is it possible to ride fast, efficient, modern materials, at the same time adding comfort of the somewhat harsh race bikes I've had experience with. I really prefer the "go-go" type fast bikes, but would love more vibration dampening. Does carbon or titanium offer that? Is this a fool dream that you can get it both ways?

I'm curious what experience you've all had.

BTW, I'm a small person (weigh 128lbs, 5'6") if that makes any difference to any of you.

R.

Go ride the Cannondale Synapse, all carbon with Ultegra or Dura Ace. Ride it for 50 plus miles, try the roughest chip seal while you're at it. If you don't by one I'll buy you a blueberry pie. I've had mine since 2006, will never go back to anything else. I didn't think it would make that much difference on a long ride, but it does!

Parlee Z5. One bike to rule them all. Comfort and efficiency together in one package. I have the Z4 and it is my most comfortable bike, more so than my Indy Fab Ti and Specialized Roubaix.

I'm 60 years old and have ridden custom steel bikes for nearly 40 years - mostly race geometry bikes, but a few longer wheel base bikes as well when comfort rather than speed is important, and at this point in life, that's nearly all the time. I've never ridden carbon or titanium bikes. I've been intrigued by modern materials and gear systems (all of mine are 1970's vintage retro Campy stuff), and am curious what experience this group has - specifically, is it possible to ride fast, efficient, modern materials, at the same time adding comfort of the somewhat harsh race bikes I've had experience with. I really prefer the "go-go" type fast bikes, but would love more vibration dampening. Does carbon or titanium offer that? Is this a fool dream that you can get it both ways?

I'm curious what experience you've all had.

BTW, I'm a small person (weigh 128lbs, 5'6") if that makes any difference to any of you.

R.

First question: Yes

Second question: No

Get out there and visit as many bike shops as you can. Get as many test rides as they'll let you have. There's nothing like making a choice based on your own experience.

Go-Go fast means racing designs. The Cervelo racing team used the RS once at the Paris Roubaix on the cobblestones. Now they use the R3 or S3. But the RS has the more compliant seat stays. From what most review comments say, the Cervelo RS is a bit quicker than the Specialized Roubaix. I can't comment on which is better because I never tried the Roubaix.

I bought my Cervelo RS form a Specialized Concept Store, if you can imagine that!

Don't fixate on frame material. It's the design not the material. Along with wheelsets and tires. Also, race geometry equates to a stiffer frame. But you get there faster.

For me, carbon is like Motrin- THE painkiller. My hands were getting numb on wimpy 5 mile rides and then I installed a carbon fork, what a difference! I also love the new (to me and my 25 year old steed, at least) Shimano 105 10 speed brifters. What a huge difference in shifting performance, the gear spacings are close, and you don't need a triple anymore. The new stuff is pricey, but it sure works!

In the 50+ forum we tend to avoid talking about some topics. It is easier on the eyes.

An alternative is to go with modern drivetrain on your vintage steel bike. I put nine speed Ultegra on my 1987 Schwinn Prologue (Tange Prestige frameset, built by Panasonic). I personally like the shifting of a brifter bike, combined with a classic steel 1980s bike.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4065/4584516528_1b0b9a19d7_z.jpg

Everything I have is steel: 2003 Colnago Master Lite, 2000 Trek 520, 1995 Fuji Roubaix, 1992 Trek 950, 1987 Schwinn Prologue, and 1984 Lotus Classique. My two main rides right now are the Schwinn (9 speed Ultegra STI) and the Fuji (8 speed Shimano 105 STI)

Unless you really are racing, forget the stiff wheels and get some 32 spoke wheels. I went from 32 spoke to some Shimano 550's and boy, oh boy, did I start feeling all the road buzz. That and a carbon frame will have you cruising much smoother.

Don't fixate on frame material. It's the design not the material. Along with wheelsets and tires. Also, race geometry equates to a stiffer frame. But you get there faster.

Have to agree. 2nd road bike I got was a lighweight aluminium race geometry bike. Ultegra wheels that were stiff and I ride on 23 tyres at 120 to 140 psi.

167539

That bike is comfortable but next bike and I went to C.F. in a Giant TCR-C. Mavic Aksium wheels that were stiff. That bike was uncontrollable at speed over bad road surfaces. It jumped all over the place and ride was not good. I was beginning to think I had made a big mistake but put on the handbuilt wheels as a final resort. Mavic CXP33 rims with 36 spokes laced with a cross pattern by 2 onto 105 hubs. These wheels are stiff laterally but they have a bit of give vertically. They transformed the bike into something that works and gives a good ride.

There is a lot to a comfortable bike and I would say that the frame material is only one part of that. Wheels and tyres have a greater role in comfort than most would give credit and The frame material will vary so much that within that material you can get a compliant ride or something that is rock solid. But don't dismiss the race geometry bikes- They can be really comfortable.

Radial pliability makes no sense in a bicycle wheel. Tires are softer than wheels, by a heck of a lot. You can't tell the difference in radial compliance from one wheel to the next.

But I agree that a racing bike can be comfortable. It depends on what you're used to and your riding style.

Radial pliability makes no sense in a bicycle wheel. Tires are softer than wheels, by a heck of a lot. You can't tell the difference in radial compliance from one wheel to the next.
But I agree that a racing bike can be comfortable. It depends on what you're used to and your riding style.

Radially spoked wheels- And I am not talking the Cheaper wheels that are built to look better than they are- Are stiff in the vertical plane. They are very stiff. Get a lacing pattern where the spokes cross each other and there is some give to the wheel. This does not mean that you have a "Flexible" wheel but you do get a more compliant ride.

First Road bike I bought had cheap radially spoked wheels. They were not good- gave horizontal flex on cornering and were slow. (Mainly downhill where I had to slow down) Replaced them with the handbuilt wheels and the bike was transformed. X2 lacing and they cornered well with no flex. Ride was comfy and are still the wheels for a Century ride where the body cannot take continual jarring. And tyres will make a difference to a ride along with tyre presures- But I only ride 23's with high pressures so have nothing to compare with.

You can have it both ways. I have a Cervelo R3 which gives some shock absorption on bumpy roads but is laterally stiff. Carbon can be made into shapes for better aerodynamics and strengthened by adding extra layers of carbon where needed. I ride Williams wheels, as well as others, and the typical setup is radial spoking on the front and cross on the rear. Example,,, http://www.williamscycling.com/sys19/sys19.html

There are very few custom carbon frame makers and the only one I know of is Calfee. Carbon frames need a mold and require more labor such that Asia low cost manufacturing is typically used by bicycle manufactures / assemblers. Steel and titanium can be made into frames by smaller custom shops in small quantities or one at a time. The frame sets can be drawn to thin the walls to lighten the frame and change the ride but cannot be manipulated as extensively as carbon can.

High quality well designed carbon frames require significant engineering and testing and represent a high first cost to the manufacturer to produce a complete line of frames in different sizes.

I owned Klein aluminums back in the 90's as well as an entry level welded steel Fuji. Then I went to Lemomd titanium as well as owning a Heron steel and a Miyata steel tourer.

My current go fast bike is a Tomasso carbon mail order, which rides better then any bike I've owned since the Kleins. I'm a heavy guy and can flex a b-bracket, which was prominent on the titanium and the old Fuji. The carbon has no b-bracket flex that's noticeable, or at least no chainring rub, and is simply better at transferring power to forward motion, while still being as comfortable a ride as any steel or titanium I've owned.

The one major thing I liked about the Heron (which was a size too large) was the clearance for tires larger then a 23 and is something I cannot put on the carbon and titanium, thus am looking at selling the Ti and buying a Surly Pacer frame.

I second the post for test riding a C-Dale Synapse. I buddy owns a 2007 and I've ridden this bike a bit and can testify that they are great riding bikes.

SB

I am curious about why your vintage steel bikes feel uncomfortable to you.

I am guessing it is:
- tight geometry (short chainstays, steep angles), and
- small tire size (do you ride on 23c's or smaller)?

You can replicate those problems in any modern material and end up with a harsh-riding bike.

Or you can fix them with an off-the-shelf carbon bike, or a custom steel or ti bike.

I don't think the frame material matters as much as the geometry of the frame, your fit on the bike, and tire size.

OP, I concede that the majority here are correct, in that it is possible to build a bike that rides well and is comfortable out of any of the mainstream materials. However, materials do matter. I don't care what anyone says, aluminium bikes with aluminium forks tend to offer a harsher ride. I wouldn't have one, personally.

As for the rest, I'd strongly suggest you stay away from titanium. It is expensive, if you maximise the weight advantage it can be noodly, and if built to give you the rigidity of steel some of the weight advantage is lost. Nowhere near enough advantage over steel to justify the expense imo.

Carbon is a different matter. Now pretty much as cheap as a decent steel frame, light, tough (everyone will tell you it breaks if you crash it. Yeah, well, my car breaks if you crash it.) and resilient to vibration. I ride steel (fixie and touring bike) and carbon (two road bikes). If you've never tried one, I'd suggest you go and test ride a few of the newer carbon frames. You don't mention money, but a Focus Cayo, (http://s.wiggle.co.uk/images/focus-cayo-ltd-zoom.jpg)for example, delivers quite a lot of bang for the buck, and if you want to spend a lot more, the sky's the limit.

And if you're finished with them, I'd love to take your vintage steel racers off your hands. Unfortunately I'm nearly twice your size. LOL

As for the rest, I'd strongly suggest you stay away from titanium. It is expensive, if you maximise the weight advantage it can be noodly, and if built to give you the rigidity of steel some of the weight advantage is lost. Nowhere near enough advantage over steel to justify the expense imo.

I 100% agree! Nothing to see here in the Titanium aisle folks. Just move along, now -- pay no attention to that bike behind the curtain....


http://i34.tinypic.com/spyzax.jpg

I will second the Cervelo RS, a slightly more upright position and longer chain stays, but still a go-go bike.

167572

I 100% agree! Nothing to see here in the Titanium aisle folks. Just move along, now -- pay no attention to that bike behind the curtain....

:beer: :lol: :lol:

I was just about to post wondering if my Indy Fab Crown Jewel Ti, recently ordered, was something I should stay away from when it arrives (hopefully in the next ten days).

:beer: :lol: :lol:

I was just about to post wondering if my Indy Fab Crown Jewel Ti, recently ordered, was something I should stay away from when it arrives (hopefully in the next ten days).

Nah, you'll love it. I still love mine. It just has a different feel than my carbon bikes. One thing I notice, on climbs it has a certain spring to it that when spinning seems to enhance my effort. My carbon bikes tend to leap forward more but then slow faster while the Ti bike seems to have less of a dead spot.

I usually try to stay out of "frame material" debates because I don't think I've ridden enough *identically equipped and designed bikes in different materials* to isolate the differences I see to the material itself. If you really are looking for a go-fast bike, with tire clearance up to 25c, at reasonable prices, in relaxed/comfortable geometry, there are lots of great CF options on the market.

But separate from how the bikes ride, there are also differences in what bikes *exist* in the different materials, at least at reasonable prices. Steel and ti have two advantages over carbon fiber: you can acquire a custom-made steel or ti frame for substantially less than the price of a custom-made carbon fiber frame (Crumpton, Parlee, Calfee, etc.)

That being said, why go w/custom steel or ti?

A:
- You have a unique set of design requirements not met on the market (say, lots of tire and fender clearance in a go fast bike, something few CF frames offer)
- You are hard to fit
- You want a bike built with S&S couplers so you can travel with it easier
- You just want something "different"

So, if you are going with custom steel or Ti, how would you choose between them?

A:
- Ti is about $800 to $1,000 more
- Fewer custom builders work in Ti (though there are many)
- Ti doesn't rust
- You can get an "unfinished" Ti frame that doesn't suffer from chips
- The builder whose work you trust recommends one vs. the other

There also are some great lightweight stock or semi-stock steel options in modern lightweight steels that weren't available years ago -- some examples would include Gunnar, or the new line from Chris King, the Cielo Sportif.

I personally think we live in a golden age of bicycling with tons of more options accessible to people than ever before in the history of the world.

:beer: :lol: :lol:

I was just about to post wondering if my Indy Fab Crown Jewel Ti, recently ordered, was something I should stay away from when it arrives (hopefully in the next ten days).

Get Out! You Dog!

Threads like this are frustrating for me. I can't just decide I'll go with "Brand X, Model Y" because I need such a big (like ~68cm big) frame. I'd love to try an all carbon frame, but if I did that, the bike would be too small, and that would of course influence the ride. And chances are the LBS isn't going to even have the largest size of "Brand X" on the floor. I have a custom steel bike. To do that in carbon, I'm looking at brands like Serotta, which combine carbon tubes with Ti lugs. Not quite the same as full molded carbon, and really expensive. I'd love to try a Specialized Roubaix , or Cervelo RS, or BMC, or Caad 9 (etc etc) in the right size, but such a thing just does not exist. They aren't going to invest in the design and molds to fit those few of us that feel like we live in Lilliput. Grrrr!

Threads like this are frustrating for me. I can't just decide I'll go with "Brand X, Model Y" because I need such a big (like ~68cm big) frame. I'd love to try an all carbon frame, but if I did that, the bike would be too small, and that would of course influence the ride. And chances are the LBS isn't going to even have the largest size of "Brand X" on the floor. I have a custom steel bike. To do that in carbon, I'm looking at brands like Serotta, which combine carbon tubes with Ti lugs. Not quite the same as full molded carbon, and really expensive. I'd love to try a Specialized Roubaix , or Cervelo RS, or BMC, or Caad 9 (etc etc) in the right size, but such a thing just does not exist. They aren't going to invest in the design and molds to fit those few of us that feel like we live in Lilliput. Grrrr!

What are the dimensions of your current steel bike? The Roubaix comes in a size 64 with a 260mm HT length.

http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/SBCBkModel.jsp?spid=52870&eid=6064&menuItemId=14881

Current bike has 290mm HT, but that 260mm is a lot closer than I thought I could get from Specialized. Last I checked I thought the longest HT was 220. Definately has me thinking about seeing if I can find one to ride.

I stay out of frame material debates because they are pretty pointless.

What the BBoy says is the Word. If you are committed to riding and want something "just for you" a custom bike is the cat's ass. If you want a sweet ride "off the rack" today's carbon frames can deliver for not a terribly high price.

I've had several lugged steel bikes and avoided aluminum because of the harsh ride. I changed my mind when I rode this:

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab280/ahsposo/BikesforCraigslist01202010010.jpg

It's a single speed but I use it for the flat terrain I'm currently calling home. Carbon fork helps take some of the buzz off the hands. Compact frame design works for a variety of physiques.

I replaced my last steel Bianchi with this:

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab280/ahsposo/Bianchi92808252010forBF-1.jpg

Campy 10sp, light stiff Fulcrum wheels quick, nimble and yet very plush. Great ride. Got it new but two seasons old for $2100. Couple of minor fit tweaks and now it fits me perfect. I'm 5'8" and weigh, well, more than you.

Current bike has 290mm HT, but that 260mm is a lot closer than I thought I could get from Specialized. Last I checked I thought the longest HT was 220. Definately has me thinking about seeing if I can find one to ride.

Your bike probably has a standard headset which will make the difference even greater but all you can do is ride one and see. Finding that size in a shop might be a problem though.

If you haven't already ridden a modern road bike, do so. Only you can decide if they meet your requirements and if they are worth their price. But pay special attention to wheels, tires and air pressure. They make a huge difference on the same frame, even your existing frame. I have a Ti Lynskey R230 that had a bit of road buzz with 700x23 tires. Changed to 25s and lowered the air pressure. No more road buzz without compromising performance.

I see plenty of people riding old bikes. They all seem happy. Me, I like new toys and can afford them. Remember, whoever dies with the most toys wins.

An alternative is to go with modern drivetrain on your vintage steel bike.

My 'Go Fast' bike is a custom steel frame (modern, high tech steel, with gorgeous lugs and a gorgeous paint job), with a modern Campy drive train and Mavic Ksyrium wheelset. I don't think that the frame material has that much to do with the final weight or performance of the bike, what I feel is much more important is the geometry and fit. Steel is a great material to allow a custom builder to dial in the fit of the bike to be exactly what you need for what you are going to be using that bike for. Titanium is probably also able to do this, but there are fewer good custom builders who work in Titanium, and pretty much all carbon bikes are going to come in stock sizes and geometries.

As you note, your size does not fall within the middle of the 'normal distribution', so my guess is that you would have even more to gain by going to a custom builder to get a bike to fit you - and chances are, it will be steel.

I'm 60 years old and have ridden custom steel bikes for nearly 40 years - mostly race geometry bikes, but a few longer wheel base bikes as well when comfort rather than speed is important, and at this point in life, that's nearly all the time. I've never ridden carbon or titanium bikes. I've been intrigued by modern materials and gear systems (all of mine are 1970's vintage retro Campy stuff), and am curious what experience this group has - specifically, is it possible to ride fast, efficient, modern materials, at the same time adding comfort of the somewhat harsh race bikes I've had experience with. I really prefer the "go-go" type fast bikes, but would love more vibration dampening. Does carbon or titanium offer that? Is this a fool dream that you can get it both ways?
I'm curious what experience you've all had.
BTW, I'm a small person (weigh 128lbs, 5'6") if that makes any difference to any of you.
R.

exxcept for height and weight (i'm 5' 11" and shrinkin, 165lbs), 61, we're pretty similar on other stuff, been racin bikes since '71, still have my '74 Fuji 'The Ace', '76 Limongi, '80 Colnago Super, '83 Colnago Master and 4 other steel roadies up to a '99 (not including the scores of bikes owned and since sold...).
Also have ridden Alu since the 1st Gen Cannondales (R900) and have a newer Marin Argenta Alu.
The Marin Argenta gets ride time, every tuesday, on my hill climb day - because - its the only frame which won;t get corroded by the deadly and caustic sweat I produce, in gallons, on Hillcllimb Tuesday (....and itz a descending arrow...)
Carbon - Have Specialized S-works Tarmac and Spec. Roubaix Elite triple.

S-Works is great fun for the hammerfests, but the Roubaix has become my goto bike for all rides over 60 mi (and some shorter, climby kinda rides).
The Roubaix is a nice race type bike for fun cruisin.
I still ride all the steels regular, but prefer not to be found on any of them on rides over 40 mi. (2+ hrs) - EXCEPT my Marin Treviso - steel and about as comfy as the Roubaix.
I hear tell TI is really nice also, but have never had more than a few miles on one.

My guess you'll luv the ride of carbon, although not as much to yak about as tellin tales about your Old Iron...
which one?
well that'll be the fun part, won;t it...
:-)

oooh! just ordered a set of SPINERGY Xaero Lites with PBO Fiber Spokes! hear tell its like ridin the jetstream on a cloud... can't wait!

I bought my first new bike in many years this summer -- a Bianchi Infinito. I love it! I wanted to get a sportier bike while I was still young enough to enjoy it. It's more responsive than the Trek 720 I had been riding since 1983, but not as harsh as some of the other carbon frame bikes I took on test rides. I still have the 720, but the Infinito has been getting all my attention of late. If you have the opportunity, take a ride on an Infinito.

As for custom versus off the shelf, I think custom is rarely, rarely warranted. It's warranted for AzTallRide, and others, but not even for someone like me with an unusually long torso and short legs and arms. I'm 5'9" and shrinking, and all I need is high handlebars with a long stem extension. I like my handlebars far out but not low. My bikes' seat tubes range in length from 54cm to 58cm. All my bikes are off the shelf and some of them fit like gloves. Some of them needed some tweaking.

I'm the OP. I want to thank everyone for taking the time to respond. I also thought it might be helpful to describe what I've been riding . . . My fast "go-go" bike is a custom bike made by Jeff Bock in Iowa. Incredible bike, but somewhat harsh. Fabulous builder. I also have Motobecane Grand Record from 1974 which I've re-geared with old man equipment - i.e 38 X 48 chainrings, Nitto Technomic tall stem (I have a bad back). This bike is comfortable, but not fast. My 3rd bike I built in 1976 - it's a little faster than the Moto, and quite comfortable, but I haven't updated it to gearing suitable for me now. so don't ride it, and I really like faster bikes anyway since I don't tour anymore. It's made with French Vitus tubing. I was in the bike business for 21 years so I fundamentally understand all the comments about geometry being more important than the material. Maybe what I really should do is have Bock build a custom steel bike designed to transmit energy efficiently, but still able to absorb vertical vibration . . .

Thanks again for all the good input. This is a great forum.

I think it's easier and more suitable to use tires to absorb vertical vibration than to pay for a custom frame. There are some terrific tires out there. Technology in bikes moves very slowly compared with other things, but the advances in tires are appreciable. Ask Zaphod about Grand Bois tires.

I haven't been impressed with the overall ride quality of any of the carbon fiber or aluminum bikes I've tried, but to be fair all I've ever ridden (other than brief test rides) are lightweight steel (Reynolds 531 & and Columbus SL) frames. To me, CF bikes feel overly stiff and aluminum (i.e., Klein and Cannondale) felt "dead". Then again, I prefer beer to wine and harder spirits, so to each his own. I would like to try a Ti frame because Ti seems to combine the best qualities of all frame materials.

I'm the OP. I want to thank everyone for taking the time to respond. Maybe what I really should do is have Bock build a custom steel bike designed to transmit energy efficiently, but still able to absorb vertical vibration . . .

Thanks again for all the good input. This is a great forum.

I just put down a deposit for a Hans Schneider custom steel frame - Hans lives 50 miles away in Huntsville, TX. Have been upsizing 64 cm bikes to the proper 66.5 cm for 5 years and averaging around 3000 miles per year... and decided that a custom bike would be a worthwhile investment. Now if my wife doesn't read this forum to discover that I'm getting yet another bike, all will be well. Am looking forward to going over and spending an afternoon with him as we discuss what kind of riding I do and what kind of frame he will make for me. At 6'5" and nearly 250 lbs, I don't know that I would feel comfortable on CF. I know that I DON'T feel comfortable particularly on the aluminum frame bikes that I ride each summer in Germany. So custom steel it will be....
BTW, thanks for allowing me to share the news and I'll post pics in 6 months or so when the bike becomes a reality...

R, While Ti has a reputation for being flexy (deserved or not) I think that as the frame size shrinks, the less of a problem that becomes. Try some test rides over some of the worst conditions and see how it goes. CF has come a long way since I rode one, but a rider on one (brand not remembered) I teamed up with for a short distance gave off a 'hollow' type of sound over expansion joints... not objectionable, just different. That said, if something happened to one of my bikes and I was compelled to replace it I'd look very hard at the Eddy Merckx carbon line up.

Brad

There is a reason they still use more than one material to make bikes. Some materials meet the riders needs better than others.

Have pedaled bicycles for 300,000+ miles. Singles and tandems.
Have ridden/owned steel, alu, ti, bamboo and carbon.
Currently have over 40,000 miles on c/f. C/f has better shock absorbancy, weight, tube strength than others and is equal to bamboo..
At age 78, 135 lbs I ride what suits me best.
What am I gonna do, wait 'til I get older?
Do lotsa test riding and then decide.

A 65" wheelbase 4130 frame can do an exceptional job of vibration dampening:

http://i189.photobucket.com/albums/z284/JanMM/IMG_0913.jpg

Have pedaled bicycles for 300,000+ miles. Singles and tandems.
Have ridden/owned steel, alu, ti, bamboo and carbon.
Currently have over 40,000 miles on c/f. C/f has better shock absorbancy, weight, tube strength than others and is equal to bamboo..
At age 78, 135 lbs I ride what suits me best.
What am I gonna do, wait 'til I get older?
Do lotsa test riding and then decide.

I would like to test ride a bamboo bicycle. I think they are beyond my budget.

I've ridden a relative's Specialized Sequoia, an aluminum bike. I took it on some longish rides over various terrain. It's very responsive and not uncomfortable whatsoever. I think it's more comfortable than my road bikes, which are steel. I haven't analyzed why this is.

I must have a very high tolerance for road vibration, as I am fine with narrow tires and all that. I've never found a bike -- any bike -- to ride too harshly. The only thing I don't like is tricky handling.

My bikes, in order, have been steel, aluminum, CF and Ti. I owned each successive one longer and rode it farther than the previous one. That being said I just ordered a Lynskey R230(Ti), which is the first time I have repeated frame material.

It appears that the development and engineering of all frame materials has continued to evolve while I have owned my Litespeed.

I agree with noglider's comments about tires. I am running Vredesteins that are capable of 175psi, but I have them at 110 on 23mm wide rims, and plan on moving them to the Lynskey when it arrives.

Beautiful bike

I have riden a 70's Colnago for 40 years , Four years I decided to upgrade to a modern bike with modern technology. I settled for a Merlin Lunaris Ti with carbon and Campy Record with Zipp wheels. I could not be happier, light, responsive and the most comfortable ride ever.

I've ridden a relative's Specialized Sequoia, an aluminum bike. I took it on some longish rides over various terrain. It's very responsive and not uncomfortable whatsoever. I think it's more comfortable than my road bikes, which are steel. I haven't analyzed why this is.

I must have a very high tolerance for road vibration, as I am fine with narrow tires and all that. I've never found a bike -- any bike -- to ride too harshly. The only thing I don't like is tricky handling.

Please direct your attention to the picture of my Langster above. It is a very comfortable bike. Yet quick and lively. It would benefit from a better wheelset.

Very similar geometry. Also the carbon fork in common.

It appears the Sequoia adds the carbon seat stay and the damping inserts.

Looks like I'm going to get sucked in anyway. And this is not directed at Tom

Frame material is just a part of the ride quality package. Geometry, wheels, tires, seatpost and fork all contribute to the final product. Wheelbase, seat tube angle, fork angle and the rake and trail are far more important than build material.

To claim "xxxx" material is superior is naive. To continue maintaining "xxxx" is superior shows a lack of real grasp of the subject and a certain mental inflexibility.

All good quality frame materials - bamboo to steel, well designed and executed and coupled with good components can produce ride qualities that may have superior performance potentials in certain applications.

It all depends on what you want to do with the bike and what you're willing to pay.

I rode with a guy a few years ago and he had a Lightspeed Classic. I had been admiring the advertising and lusting after it so I was curious to know how he liked it.

"Well," he replied "compared to my old Cannondale aluminum bike it's kind of squishy"

Turns out he liked the bike for its long distance ride but for a fast criterium ride he preferred the old bike and regretted parting company with it. Said the first time he dove into a corner with the Lightspeed the flex spooked him. He was a big guy.

^^^ I should add the Langster is Aluminum and not an expensive bike.

I have riden a 70's Colnago for 40 years , Four years I decided to upgrade to a modern bike with modern technology. I settled for a Merlin Lunaris Ti with carbon and Campy Record with Zipp wheels. I could not be happier, light, responsive and the most comfortable ride ever.

I'll bet you've got about $7000 wrapped up in it.

It should be all you've said.

^^^ I should add the Langster is Aluminum and not an expensive bike.

I have two Langster fixed geared bikes. One has more track geometry and the other has the same angles as a Tarmac. I need a new wheelset for the street bike, something more aero. Both are Aluminum.