BillyD

I think the answer is simple. People like to look for complex reasons many times for the mental exercise. Or they love to hear/see themselves talk. Whatever.

The fact of the matter is that Ti and steel have very similar plush riding qualities. Yet Ti commands a higher ticket price. And although overall Ti might have an edge in durability, if you don't keep your steel out in the rain it should last as long as any Ti.

Non-racing consumers are probably having difficulty justifying the extra expense of Ti, and are choosing steel instead, losing nothing in the tradeoff. Bike merchants probably benefit similarly, moving more product with lower-priced steel than Ti. Seems pretty simple to me, steel really IS real.

Marcus_Ti

I pick those, as those are the sort you're likely to run into at a bike shop to buy. The big companies.

You reference Calfee and Parlee...which are sweet bikes (and top shelf)...but I've never seen one in a shop, and think of them along the same lines as Seven or Moots. Small outfits that you have to hunt down a local dealer for. Calfee only has 7 dealer-cities in the USA according to their website, and I'd have to drive 6 hours (at Interstate speeds) to find one. Parlee is a bit more common, but I'd have to drive 8+ hours at Interstate speeds to see one on a floor. Smaller boutique outfits, tend to have smaller boutique pricing.


Although granted, Calfee/Parlee are similar in top-tier frameset pricing as the Big Boy brandings. So much for my assertion about boutique pricing being inflated LOL.

shelbyfv

Billy and I don't always agree, but he has a point here. When I bought my ti frame, I couldn't find an off the shelf steel bike of comparable weight and geometry. My dream bike would be filet brazed steel, color of my choice with the weight and geometry of my Lynskey.

Phloom

I am building a pure as possible titanium bicycle. I ordered a custom Marinoni Sportivo Ti frame. I acquired a titanium seat post and headset. The groupset, Campagnolo Super Record EPS Titanium is somewhat titanium. I even got a Brooks Swift titanium saddle and some titanium Crank Brothers eggbeaters. But alas, the handlebars and wheels are aluminium. And the forks are carbon fibre. I am looking for non-carbon fibre forks. I know I can't get titanium handle bars because titanium does not bend like aluminium. Bicycle wheels are consumables. I did get the Campagnolo Neutron Ultra clinchers.

My obsession with titanium is I didn't want my high end bicycle to be made out of plastic which is what carbon fibre is. Titanium is a very beautiful metal and it doesn't rust. My frame is not painted. I will post some pictures when I get it all put together. This bike is testing my mechanical skills and why I haven't posted any pictures of my new 1963 Gitane. The Gitane cost $200 CDN, the Marinoni with the unassembled parts almost $10,000 CDN. Which bike am I going to fuss over first?

sumgy

i have a friend who broke 2 Treks in a season.
He got 6,000km out of each.
He is not BS'ing and is not an idiot.
Steve Hogg (who is one of Australia's best bike fitters, and in fact well known globally) has posted on his blog about the huge numbers of broken frames that he uncovers when people show up to him for their bike fits.
In many cases the owners themselves do not know.

sumgy

I actually think my 80's Concorde made from PRX steel is a far better ride than my Moots.

sumgy

Blacksheep does (or did) make a ti fork and ti bars.
Ti can be bent just like aluminium:

Phloom

Not drop handle bars. I have searched and researched. But I will check them up for forks. Thank you very much for the info.

Banzai

Good discussion here. Please keep in mind that this was not meant as a "steel is better than ti" thread, or whatever. Really, given some of the conditions I ride through, Ti has an appeal for its corrosion resistance alone, even if it were just as heavy as steel. But, I'm starting to derail my own thread.

It's just been a cultural observation of mine, that at the stratospheric levels of race bikes, CF is written about, lusted after, etc., and in the world of upper-end boutique bikes, steel seems to be the glamorous material now, with more "classic" touches to the design increasing it's desirability.

BillyD

I like the ride of my Bridgestone RB-1more than that of my Merlin Cyrene. I will never part with either of them.

BillyD

@Banzai consumers are fickle. What's hot today starts to cool down tomorrow as people get bored and seek something new. For example, I believe the "latest and greatest" phenomenon is responsible for much of carbon's popularity outside of racing. I think we can already see evidence of many buyers returning to the latest steel offerings.

Banzai

Certainly they are. But I'm a bike geek, so it's interesting for me to observe and discuss the shifting winds of trends in the cycling world. That's half of what this forum does, anyway.

Scarbo

Do you really think so? I think that a good quality CF frame offers really nice, distinctive riding characteristics. They're incomparably responsive due to their lightness. It is hard for me to imagine giving up my CF ride. So, I think the attraction is due to more than mere marketing, or the "latest and greatest" phenomenon. On the other hand--and especially now that I've really gotten into fixing up vintage steel framed bikes--I think that steel bikes are just as distinctive. I've ridden titanium bikes and, personally, I don't see what they offer in the same way as either CF or steel.

sumgy

I would argue that responsiveness is more about geometry than weight. My Moots was only 6.8kg with its race wheels on anyway which is pretty good for a 58cm frame.
And I can say the same about seeing any benefit at all from Carbon Fibre. But that does not mean I have ridden great Carbon Fibre frames to actually know.
I know plenty of people who will swear by their CÀAD aluminium frames as being the ultimate too.

Maelochs

I think most people do buy CF for the "latest/greatest/that's what the pros ride" motive.

Until you have actually tried one, how do you know its characteristics? And if you just ride on the few streets behind the bike shop for a few minutes, how can you really know about the material ... particularly if you were already riding a decent bike?

As you note, every frame material offers its own desirable characteristics.

I think the main reason people try CF ... and go to the bike shop specifically to look at CF, with the idea of buying CF--is marketing (including the "marketing" we do here (and don't get paid for. I am going on strike after this thread.))

CF seems to be generally considered to be the Next Step Up--not many people I have heard about went to a bike shop looking to replace their lightweight Al with more lightweight Al and suddenly fell in love with some CF bike they saw (and I know as I post this, at least two contrarians will say "That's what happened to me." I am sure it happens (I think I have read a few tales) ... but we are speaking in generalities.)

It seems people have been told CF is better, so they want it. Then, they find that in some ways, it really is "better" for some of the things they want it to do.

I bought CF because I knew it would be light and stiff and still not beat my up like cheap aluminum. I cannot say my CF bike is better than really good aluminum (based on personal experience, similar)... but for low weight and stiffness and a decent ride at a reasonable price, it is the balls. But ... I didn't test a bunch of CF and Al frames and carefully weigh the characteristics of each. I knew that CF was Likely to give me the lightest frame I could comfortably ride within my budget.

So in a way ... even I bought the hype ...though luckily I bought the true aspects of the hype.

I think the other reason people buy CF is that mostly-in-the-mind "competitive edge" (even for and maybe especially for people who don't formally compete.) Same reason middle-aged men buy Porsches and Corvettes ... some of them. The middle-aged guy who wants a new Vette isn't going to shop and compare and eventually realize that he can get equivalent Usable performance at a much lower price from a turbocharged Ford Focus or something .... he wants to be Seen Driving a Corvette. he want to Feel himself Driving a Corvette. He wants to Know he has a Corvette.

Guys who want to go faster (and not necessarily have to work harder) as well as guys who actually compete, are going to buy CF even if the built weight is only three grams less than the other guy's CAAD 12 ... for the Mental boost.

simplybao

I think there is probably a lot of factors that make Ti less favorable than others. The hipsters all want "vintage" or vintage like steel bikes (that's what I notice around my college town). Then you have the group that seems to think Carbon is better. A friend of mine looked at my bike vs. my partners bike and he asked me when I was going to get an expensive racy bike, LOL. I ride a Lynskey Viale and my partner a Cannondale Synapse. Just based on price, mine was more expensive. His is probably faster given the same riding conditions and same rider.

But us together, we ride about the same speed. I have a Madone, I hate it. Maybe it's the riding position, the stiffness I don't like, or something else. I just don't connect with the bike. I have a Surly Pacer because well, steel is real :-)....I still like my Lynskey more.

The argument that Ti is lighter doesn't hold up between my Surly and my Lynskey. They both come in around 21 lbs. Although, I am running heavy wheels on my Lynskey so I could probably take some weight off.

And I think that people just don't like the look of just bare metal. It seems as if there isn't some sort of racy paint job, they equate that to "cheap". IDK...just my opinion.

Currmudge

I looked at ti years ago; being an off-roader, I zeroed in on the Litespeed Kitsuma hardtail MTB frame. $2200, frame only. I figured, being ti, it'd last as long as my riding life.

Since they're no longer made, and what WERE made are not on the market, I'll never know how it rode. And given my present 'structural' health, a hardtail frame would have been left behind a decade ago.

I've broken three FS MTB frames in this new millennium, all aluminum. But I'll have to stick with them, because FS is a requirement now.

Duo

the hipsters are wising up!!!

vintage steel and touring steel bikes of any age are great for the recreational rider...eh, prolly the 98% of us. many of my road bikes are steel bikes from 20 to 30 years old.

should i really care if a plastic bike/ti or whatever will let me go 2 or 5 miles faster? and that is being generous. well if i am still around in 20 years, perhaps i will check in and let you know how these steel bikes are doing at 50 years.

excuse me, better go out and check my bikes for frame cracks...LOL.

79pmooney

I don't want to derail this thread, but one reason I will not own a CF frame is that I don't care for three characteristics of CF, all related to failure modes. One, real damage can remain completely hidden. Two, ultimate failure from that hidden damage is often very sudden, without warning and a complete fracture. The last is the fact that it absorbs very little energy in crashes, quite possibly meaning that my body has to make up the difference.

I have lived through a material failure that checked all the boxes. It was completely life changing and not for the better. I will now only ride ti or steel bikes and forks. I like the ride of ti over rough roads a lot more and see little downside outside cost. (After I had my eyes opened to ti's ride, it was 15 years before i was in a place where I could justify the expense. I may never be able to again. But I have two that should last my lifetime. (Both have steel forks, a really nice match for ti's ride.) I have had five steel forks fail on me. Three in hard crashes (from other causes) where they absorbed a good deal of energy while bending to unusable. Two failures from cracks. One was used fork of unknown history. Blade broke midway while riding. I rode it home (since I had already ridden it an unknown distance and the bike rode fine). The other was scary and a lesson in metallurgy. A Columbus SL fork cracked around the crown, both blades, because it was nickle plated and the plater failed to heat treat the fork after plating. (He knew but chose not to say up front that the heat treating was required and that there was a $30 fee for it.) After that fork started to shudder from the front brake, I nursed the bike home 5 miles. Scary, but box two did not get checked.

Ben

Sy Reene

Sacrilege!

jbucky1

The cachet of titanium for me is that it feels handcrafted quality while providing high performance characteristics.

jbucky
https://www.buckyrides.com

JanMM

My RANS V3 long wheelbase recumbent is too long to easily fit inside either of our cars. Since I replaced the original steel frame with a titanium frame last February, it's much easier to lift up onto the roof rack. And to remove, too.
Oh, yeah, and I really like the way it rides now. Feels like a bit of built-in suspension but not too flexy. And lighter is always better for climbing and getting up to speed.

jamesdak 

Well, I don't know if my experience is typical or not or explains anything but...

After years of wanting to try a Ti bike I finally had my "dream bike" built up for me by Lynskey. Mainly I was after a fast ride that would be comfortable of the long distance. Now a little over a year after getting I'm trying to sell it locally. It's a great bike but it really doesn't offer me anything I can't get from many of my steel rides. I even did some experimenting this summer with various bikes to find out which I prefered for centuries by riding centuries on several of them one after another. The Lynskey was pretty good but I actually was more comfortable on my old 1989 Greg Lemond Ventoux. For me I just don't know that Ti is worth it. I know feel like I wasted a whole lot of money on mine. I mean it truly is a great bike but for the same amount of money you can have a house full of quality old steel rides that offer everything the Ti does except for maybe saving a pound or two of weight.

sumgy

That has nothing to do with the material at all.
I will just about guarantee that your Lemond and your Lynskey are completely different geometry and quite probably set up differently as well (bars, saddle, lever position etc).
My Concorde rides smoother than my Moots too.
That does not mean that the Moots is better or worse.
Moots is worth probably $10k+.
Concorde probably cost me $1k.

Then again I love riding my $600 Pompino too.

jamesdak 

LOL, of course the geometry is different. But the wheels, tires, same Brooks Saddle, seatpost, etc were used on the LeMond after moving them from the Lynskey (except the bars, same width and drop).

The Lynskey was actually purchased and setup to match the fit on my Trek Madone 5.9 which is the one I had my "pro fit" done on.

My point ( if there is one) is just that maybe other's like me have discovered that there really is nothing magical about the material, even if it is Ti.

To be honest, of everything I've got right now I think the most enjoyable bike is the $50 Prologue I found this year. It' needs some work but for whatever reason it's just plain fun to ride. A bike may be worth $10k but if it doesn't offer you anything special and sits, what is it really worth? For me that means the Ti goes....

Oh and like the OP said originally, "This isn't necessarily yet another "which frame material is better?" thread, per se." So yeah, it's not about the material, LOL! If I could really fit my Conti GP4000s II tires on the Lynskey I might view if differently but they do fit on the Lemond and make it pretty damn nice.