Steel is real and so is titanium. LOL!

So ... are my Al and CF bikes fake, or imaginary?

Just imaginary>>>

No, they have the CF sheet laid in by hand.
And that's not the only issue; the other part is the engineering for making a distinctive product from every other big-name company.

Yea, that's true--but then,,,,, why use it at all?

Typical titanium alloy metal costs roughly ten times what steel and aluminum do, plus the machining and welding costs are higher as well.

It's main notable characteristics that it can flex a LOT without cracking and breaking,
and that it is highly resistant to corrosion that eats up a lot of other metals.
In other industries it isn't used unless at least one of those two conditions requires it.

There is no corrosive chemicals involved in bicycling, but there is some instances where a thinner, lighter -yet-more-dependable spring would be advantageous.

[MENTION=423651]Maelochs[/MENTION] nailed it - use the right tool for the job. I love my 14-lb CF bike when it's a wicked fast ride with lots of climbing and I'm trying to keep up with the kids. Sunny summer Sunday afternoon? I take out one of the steel bikes glittering with chrome and polished bits all over. Winter conditions (salt, grit, ice, rain, etc.)? Time for Ti. And since I live in CO, I spend 4 months every year on my Litespeed and love every mile.

This has become, predictably enough, a frame material debate. There's probably not a way around that.

Really, I was after something more nebulous, maybe phrased as how fashionable or not Ti is now, since it seems to be populating the BD and Nashbar markets pretty heavily now. The cycling press (yes, I know...) reserve their most ecstatic writing for CF and steel, depending on the publication and readership.

This forum doesn't allow "likes", so I'll just concur with Roadrash3's comment on Maeloch's post: well put.

No, they're complex. And if you multiply them, they're negative.

Laid by hand by Asian workers in a mould that can be re-used over and over with hundreds of frames a day being able to be made. Not sure about distinctive either.

Well I guess it would not be as exclusive if everyone could afford it and buy a ti frame from the LBS?

That is not necessarily true, the top end bikes are laid by hand, but the mid to low level ones use a mold, see: https://cyclingtips.com/2011/08/are-...created-equal/ This is what that site says:

Open Mold Frames

"An “open mold frame” is a mold which the factory owns. They can sell that frame to anyone they choose. The brands who buy these open mold frames don’t own or control the design, engineering, or material selection for the products they’re marketing. Generally, they specify the paint and logos. You’ll see some of the smaller brands with identical frames from one to the next. This is often what you’ll be getting when you select an inexpensive carbon frame or component. These might be perfectly good, and they might not be. You just don’t know.

Many name-brands will purchase the molds they use and own them. That is the brand’s IP and the factory cannot sell that frame to anyone else."

And this video at 3:35 into it shows a mold: and this video:
Keep in mind to that regardless of how much hand work is involved most CF frames are made in China who employs workers with an average wage of $27.50 a day, so really any hand labor being done is being done dirt cheap.

Ummm ... as far as I know, ALL CF is built in molds ... usually vacuumed to suck the epoxy thoroughly through the weave, and then baked.

Really high-end bikes have better pre-production engineering---more care goes into exactly how many layers of what weave in what orientation will give the widely varied frame characteristics each separate section can potentially offer---and the initial design is more complicated---or at least more heavily researched and engineered.

The open-mold frames are basically reverse-engineered copies, and not necessarily laid up with the same precision or the same weaves in the same directions, because the reverse-engineer wouldn't necessarily know what the original engineer intended.

Not true either.
Open Mould frames are just that.
Designed by a factory and then licenced for other companies to use and brand as their own.
A number of companies can use that same mould so long as they pay the licence fee.

LOL, and this thread has digressed into a fight over what open mold means in the carbon fiber world.

I guess that's what killed Titanium---it was so simple and basic, there was nothing for BF posters to fight over. We all lost interest, and moved on to more controversial frame materials.

LOL, and we finally have the winning answer.

Although this is important to the discussion to some extent.
Part of the reason why there is a proliferation of CF frames and a small number of Ti frames is that you can punch out considerably more CF frames in the time taken to build one ti frame.

I have mine.

Don't care if it has "cachet" or not.

For me it was a pragmatic choice, not a matter of style. I have purchased and built-up two used Moots frames, a Psychlo X and a Vamoots CR. Both are great bikes and fill the need they were intended for, a gravel grinder and a speedy exercise bike. Style is perception not reality, for the OP titanium seems to be a dated material, it's not, it still has all the benefits and drawbacks as a bike building material that it had a decade ago.

That certainly is true. Some of us realist know the truth about CF bikes. They are actually plastic bikes. They are carbon fiber reinforced plastic. Like all plastics they deteriorate in the sun, and after time.

If you were to set a CF frame and a Ti out side for 10 years, there would be almost no visible change in the Ti frame but the CF frame would show a great deal of weathering.

A majority of people are just going to buy what's at the bike shop, and what's at the bike shop is carbon fiber. I imagine the big bike retailers have a lot to do with what's trendy. At the highest level carbon bikes are faster, but how many of us are at the highest level? Carbon at the highest level reminds of this...


"1. A racing car has only ONE objective: to WIN motor races. If it does not do this it is nothing but a waste of time, money, and effort.

This may sound obvious but remember it does not matter how clever it is, or how inexpensive, or how easy to maintain, or even how safe, if it does not consistantly win it is NOTHING!"

-Colin Chapman

Can't we all just get along?

I had one of those once.. every time I hit a bump though, the little diamond CF bits would pop out. Had to keep gluing them back in.

I owned a ti Eddy Merckx AX for a number of years, and it was favorite bike for a long time. It was my go-to bike for long rides. I eventually sold it because I bought a Waterford that fit me better and rode even nicer, which became my preferred bike for long rides. I originally bought the Merckx used and sold it for a little more than I paid for it after riding it for about 5 years, 15,000+ miles. Not a bad investment.

To me the main advantages of ti frames are that they doesn't rust and you don't have to paint them. That is also one of its main disadvantages because most ti bike look the same and frankly are quite boring (unless you like dull gray). The ride quality for steel and ti frames, assuming similar geometries, is nearly identical. During the period that I owned my Merckx AX, I also owned a Merckx Corsa 01 (steel) in the same size with nearly identical geometry. Both bikes were equipped with the same wheels, saddle and other relevant parts. They rode and handled virtually the same.

IMHO, the main reason why custom steel frames outsell custom ti frames is the way they look. Most people buying a custom frame want to put their personal stamp on the bike with regard to frame color, design and decals. Although you can paint a ti frame, it defeats one of the main advantages of owning one -- that is, not having to worry about chipping or scratching the paint. So, most people with ti bikes end up with a rather boring, generic looking gray frame. There is nothing wrong with that if you happen to like that particular look, and some people who buy custom steel frames have them painted gray or silver.

And not necessarily made by a bicycle technician with extensive training and years of experience under their belt either. The assembler could just as easily have been working in a rice paddy the week before. That's the great Chinese economic miracle.

I have a BD Ti bike, a CF bike, a steel bike and several aluminum bikes. I don't race now, but I used to. I ride a fair amount and I like to go reasonably fast.

My opinions:
- this business about Ti "soaking up buzz" and Ti's "magical ride feel" is misleading. This is entirely driven by the stiffness of the frame (and tires being used), not the material of the frame. Generally Ti frames are a bit less stiff than CF frames but that's more driven by frame design than intrinsic properties of the material. That makes an average Ti frame feel different (less stiff) than an average CF frame. I happen to feel the obsession with stiffness in frames is silly and counterproductive, maybe other people also like less stiff frames but don't want to say it that way and so talk about "soaking up buzz" or similar. Regardless tires and tire pressure make a much bigger difference than frame material in "soaking up buzz".

- I like Ti because it always looks new, it's really tough to ding in a crash, I like the unpainted aesthetics and it's easier to work on a Ti frame without having to fret about clamping forces excessively. I really like CF but I put impact resistance, toughness and durability above everything else and in my experience CF simply can't touch steel and Ti in this regard. Note that none of these factors are related to "ride quality". Note that steel has a lot of these same qualities.

- From a practical perspective, for me there's little reason to prefer Ti to steel. Steel is equally tough if not tougher, steel is a lot cheaper, steel is a lot easier to source. I bought Ti because the BD Ti bike is an incredible deal in my opinion (and a frame I've enjoyed very, very much). Every other frame I was looking at was steel. I understand why people buy steel much more frequently than Ti.

- One of my dream bike is a custom anodized Firefly Ti. This has little to do with performance and a lot to do with the aesthetic of their bikes, them being from my home city and that they seem like good guys in interviews. My other dream bike is a Richard Sachs steel because he was really nice to me once when I was a kid and he's rightly very famous. These bikes are both extremely expensive and the RS is basically impossible to get. As the sole wage earner in my family with two kids getting close to college... maybe next year. I'll readily admit that the appeal of these bikes is much more of an emotional decision than a logical decision.