There was a thread on that topic on a framebuilder's forum I frequent. I searched and couldn't find it.
From the best of my recollection, there are several reasons:

• No Ti tubing maker makes fork-ready tubes. Custom builders who make their own forks, can order steel tubing from Reynolds, Columbus et. al. ready-made that just need final touches, bending, and adjustments before final assembly.
• No Ti lugs or fork crowns available.
• People looking for a Ti bike aren't generally interested in lugs or big fork crowns anyway.
• There would be little difference in weight between a Ti fork and a steel one, for reasons cyccommute relates above.
• Product Liability insurance. It's tough to get it for making forks, even tougher if you don't use steel.

There was a separate discussion regarding custom forks vs "fork as SKU". That part of it seems to be market-driven with some customers wanting a custom steel fork, and others preferring off-the-rack carbon. Naturally, builders who prefer custom, don't like the restrictions placed on frame geometry by off-the-rack forks. Yet others don't seem to mind and treat it like any other part of the process.

As for age, on my bike above, the 14-year-old Ti frame came with a 14-year-old Time carbon fork. The fork is not damaged in any way I can see, so I'm unconcerned.

The only thing new in carbon fiber technology is the carbon fiber itself. The techniques and epoxies used to construct products with it are all the same as fiberglass, and there are plenty of old fiberglass boats and Corvettes around.

I think a lot of it is scare-mongering by both people who don't like carbon fiber, and by those who sell it, but want to sell more of it--much like helmet manufacturer's scare tactics about about needing to buy a replacement helmet every three years. What they're really interested in is selling more helmets.

Yeah, the difference in fork weight is around 300 grams.

Back to the original question, I have a Ti bike as well as a CF one. Both have almost identical geometries and with the same wheels, the rides are close. However the CF weighs less, has a snapier feel to it under sprints and hard accelerations, and feels quicker on steep climbs. So if someone were buying a new bike, assuming you don't need racks, CF pretty much has the edge if you are looking for weight, performance, and the latest in technology.

As far as durability and lasting a lifetime, Ti might have the edge but who knows. CF might surprise everyone. We'll have to wait another ten years to see.

yeah, that "$1000 more" was the 1,000 bucks that i didn't have, so..........


as for whether titanium stacks up to carbon or not, i wouldn't really know, nor would i care. i have way too strong of an affinity for metal to ever ride a frame of any non-metal material. at some point down the line i will switch out the carbon fork that came with my bike for something metal. weight is important, but metal is even more important to me, because i'm a commuter, not a racer, so i'm not terribly obsessed with shaving every sinlge last ounce off my bike. metal trumps weight for me.

While what you say is technically true, any good welder will do this for any metal they weld. It may not be essential for steel or aluminium, but it makes the weld stronger (and often prettier as well).

I don't believe that's true The reason you don't see rack mounts on carbon bikes is because carbon is used for lightweight, racy bikes, where for whatever reason they don't put racks mounts (like apparently the latest Specialized Allez, an aluminum bike, doesn't have the rack mounts). I could theorize - they don't want to add any additional weight that they mounting point might take, they think if they put rack mounts on it "won't look racy enough", the lower frames wouldn't be a direct trickle-down geometry from the higher frames if they added rack mounts, etc.

Take a look at the top-end carbon Specialized Tricross -
https://www.specialized.com/us/en/bc/...1&menuItemId=0

From the description on the front page - "rack and fender fittings".

If you look at the pic you can the attachment screws for a rack.


In addition, there are several racks that are designed for bikes without rack mounts that go on the bike in positions designed to take weight for other reasons - they attach through the wheel skewer (designed to carry the weight of the rider) and either the brake bridge (designed to handle the force of stopping that same rider bombing downhill) or with a replacement seatpost clamp.

The Axiom streamliner comes to mind as the first rack I know of, I know there's a couple of Tubus racks that are designed for this as well, plus you can get adapters for their other racks.

Titanium got replaced by carbon, because carbon is
- cheaper (compared to titanium, which was hugely expensive)
- lighter
- stiffer
- better ride quality

...all together (with a well designed carbon bike).

The only holdout was concerns over longevity, which despite the fear mongering doesn't seem to have played out - after a decade or two, well made carbon frames haven't seem to be an less durable than their previous non-carbon counterparts. Frankly, the topic of carbon durability has been discussed 3 times this week, so I have no intention on posting about it a 4th time. Someone always has an anecdotal story about some carbon component breaking, someone comes back with an ancedotal story about a steel/aluminum component doing the same thing. There's always some sort of fearmongering about how the frame won't last more than 5 years, but frankly last year I was searching on the topic and found a thread on bikeforums saying the same thing - except about steel vs aluminum. A bunch of people arguing your aluminum frame is never going to last more than 5 years, it's going to fail suddenly and catastrophically, etc etc etc. Nowadays aluminum is supposedly long lasting, but carbon won't last...you get the idea. If another material comes out in 20 years, then carbon will be durable but that new material won't last.

In the range of bikes from $2000 to $3000, that's not that much of a difference. With some different choices, I could have easily been close to $2000...even with the Dean frame.

I still have mine, and love it. As for ride quality... to each their own I guess, but I prefer the ride of my Ti bike to my Carbon bike. Both are very nice high end bikes, but my Vortex has a lively feel to it that I've yet to feel in a carbon frame.

Looks like Sibex Sports went under, they were working with a RU Aerospace company for the production, and there is no site when I used a previous bookmark..

Too bad they with the tooling of their Russian sources had nicely tapered tubes to use to build nice looking Ti Cross Fork.

we all live within different economic realities and to me A 50% increase is a significant difference when we're talking about dollar figures in the 1,000s. if that's not a significant difference to you, then that's awesome, you're quite fortunate.

Thanks for the explanations of the fork issue cyccommute and tsl, that does make sense (though I'd still rather have the Ti fork...) I'm sure the Dean fork is tough as nails, but it's ghastly!

BS. Aircraft with intended service lives of 25-30 years are designed with carbon fiber in major structures.

People like to say this, but there's little in the way of solid support for it. Lots of old CF bikes around that are holding up fine.

And give it a bit of thought - most broken frames are older. Frames subjected to harsh enough fatigue cycles and big hits will break eventually, no matter what they're made of. There are now enough old frames that happen to be CF that, yes, you'll start to see more broken CF bikes. That's exactly what you would expect to see.

Titanium is much picker than steel about being welded. Most steel welds are done with CO2 shielding gas or a CO2/argon mix; argon is less commonly used because of the cost, although it's sometimes used to help control overpenetration in thin sections. Titanium, as you point out, requires argon or helium, and also requires better joint preparation and a very clean work environment. Also, since titanium requires shielding down to around 800 degrees F, the power source must be equipped with a secondary contactor so that the shielding gas can be maintained around the weld zone as the weld cools - you can't simply pull the TIG torch away, as the weld will oxidize.

Steel frames are typically TIG welded because of the precise heat control that's possible with TIG, allowing thin sections to be welded well with a minimum of filler metal. MIG welding tends to be more economical for larger weld sections due to its much higher metal deposition rate. With care, SMAW (stick) and FCAW (flux-core wirefeed) processes can be used on frames, although these aren't used by any commercial framebuilders that I'm aware of.

FWIW, one of the principal advantages that carbon has over other materials is the ability to adjust the stiffness in different directions separately. With a good layup schedule, you can build a frame that's laterally stiff but vertically compliant by varying the directions of the fibers in various areas of the layup. Steel and titanium have the same stiffness in every direction, so the framebuilder is kind of stuck with trying to make the frame laterally rigid without giving up all the vertical compliance that everyone wants.

I always chuckle when I see comments about CF not lasting on bikes, knowing that the aircraft industry is the biggest user. Bikes barely put a dent in compared to what aircraft go through.

As for failures, I always believe it is the workmanship (or lack thereof) at the joints or internal lugs that are prone to failure, not the carbon itself. I speak from experience on this point. I crashed my first carbon frame and it cracked where the internal lug pressed into the top tube.

"What happened to Titanium bikes?"

Steel framed bikes ruled in professional racing until maybe the early 90s. There was an aluminum era in the mid-90s, then the carbon fiber era began.

There never really was a titanium era, although a few Ti bikes have been used now and again.

tcs

Thanks for the laugh!

tcs

With twisted hemp tires.

And of course aircraft components are designed by professional aerospace engineers and bicycle frames are designed by???

I don't really have a dog in this race, and I don't think my LBS owner does either. He will happily sell you a CF bike and he won't try to scare you away from them. I've listened to him selling CF bikes to other customers, he engages in no fear mongering. In fact, when I bought my Fuji I asked him about the durability of its CF fork because I know that CF is subject to shattering under some stresses and he told me that it is fine. And it does include the necessary lugs for mounting fenders and racks. If you want a high end CF bike there is no particular reason to be afraid of it as an owner. They have and do last long enough to satisfy most owners and most owners of high end bikes are probably not lifetime owners, they tend to buy a new high end bike every time their current ride has become "obsolete". It's more a problem for the industry precisely because CF is relatively cheap, margins are relatively low, and failure rates that do not seem "high" to the community of owners can be a problem for the industry itself. That is my LBS owner's position, for anyone who cares to listen carefully rather than emotionally. I'd still buy Ti, Al, or Fe for a lifetime bike though and at my age and with my performance goals CF is no advantage to me.

I think it is the owner of Rivendell (if not him one of the other small builders online) who is rabidly anti-carbon. He has a friend who is now in a wheelchair because his CF fork shattered and he took a header. It's only an anecdotal story until you end up in the wheelchair yourself. I keep an eye on my CF fork, it makes me a little nervous to have a component prone to shattering in such a critical location. It did survive a crash that gave me a concussion and broken ribs so it isn't a guaranteed death trap by any means. It is just that when metal does fail it often (not always) fails more gracefully. And don't kid yourselves, even highly engineered aerospace composite components have failed.

Ken

I've seen one in the flesh. It's even worse. I think I could make something nicer looking from plumbing parts at my local hardware store. They kind of remind me of mufflermen

I've wondered about the fork thing too, since IMO the proportions of a carbon fiber fork don't really match a Ti frame.

And a svelte steel fork with a pretty head crown might be ~$150?

tcs

You seem to be missing some points here. The reason that there never really was an 'titanium age' in bicycling has more to do with costs than any other factor. Titanium is an expensive metal and not all that easy to work with. It requires lots of specialized tools and equipment to form a frame from the stuff. So, of course, bikes made of the stuff are more expensive. Because it's difficult to work with, small boutique builders use it more than large companies. Trek, Giant, Specialized, Cannondale, etc don't make titanium frames because they just can't make enough money on them.

For most riders of titanium, cost isn't at the top of the list when considering buying a titanium frame. That's why a $1000 difference in the cost of a titanium bike isn't really all that large. If you are buying a titanium bike, you aren't buying it because you want a cheap bike. You are buying it for other, less concrete reasons. It's more about passion then economics. I could get 5 entry level bikes for what I paid for my Dean. I've had many more than 5 entry level bikes in my bicycling life and I don't need another one. I've reached a point where life is too short to spend it on cheap bikes anymore...there's that passion thing again

I don't drive fast cars. I don't really drive my car all that much anyway. I ride bikes. I'm amazed at what people will spend on cars where $1000 is a drop in the bucket but make a statement like I did and stand back. You'll be ridiculed for spending that much on a bicycle...as you just did

A steel fork won't match either. They have to be painted to keep them from rusting. A clear coated unpainted fork would be ugly as sin...even uglier than the Ti forks. Chrome plating would be far too shiny for that beautiful gray metal color of Titanium. And most of the steel forks I've seen aren't proportioned right. If you made the blades large enough to look good with the larger diameter tubes of Titanium, the fork would be so stiff that you couldn't ride it.

And, again, it's not about cost.

No. When I was hit by a Pontiac last year and bent the CroMoly fork on one of my bikes, $150 bought a big, fat, ugly Surly fork that would have looked better on a Big Dummy than a road bike. I about puked when the LBS doing the repairs showed it to me. I added a few of my own bucks to the insurance settlement and got carbon instead.

While there are several steel forks in the QBP catalog, svelte steel forks with pretty head crowns don't seem to be available off-the-shelf. You're looking at custom, and around $400 and up.

Interestingly, the carbon fork I bought was custom made and also cost about $400. It only whetted my appetite for a full custom bike.

Thank you all for another excuse to post a picture of my bike. You were discussing what kind of forks are used w/TI bikes -- It's not hard to combine a Ti frame w/a custom steel fork, which is what I did.

There was not a carbon fork that would (a) fit this long headtube and (b) provide clearance for 28c's with fenders (one of my requirements).

This bike rides great, but I felt I had to put some paint on the frame to go w/the painted steel fork. The downside is I'm accumulating the expected number of chips in the paint after 3 years of riding. Some day I'll probably refinish this bike and take the frame down to bare metal while keeping the fork painted. Will put on S&S couplers at the same time.

I'd forego the S&S couplers. Get a travel case instead. You'll need the space for other stuff anyway. Looking at your bike though, maybe it won't fit. The one I used to get to Seattle wouldn't fit one much bigger than mine.

Sure, more space in a full size case, but the airlines are charging up to $200 each way for the full size bike cases these days.