OK – So in 2003 I purchased my first really nice (expensive) bike. Before then, I rode and raced steel and alum for over (10) years. My new bike was Ti with a CF rear triangle and fork, it was sweet and in 2004 the bike cost an obscene $6000 (Full Campy Record Carbon).

In 2004 both me and my newish bike were destroyed in a head on collision with an SUV. I stepped away from riding for over (10) years. Not so much as because I wanted to, but more because I could not ride anywhere near as fast or well and, for the longest time, my injuries made it very uncomfortable.

Come 2014 and I decide to get back into biking after a couple of brief but positive bike encounters. I was shocked at the escalation of bikes costs and even more at the costs of a wheelset. A bike comparable to my 2004 was easily $12-$14k. Of course, since everyone in 2014 was riding CF and ti was nearly entirely absent from the local scene, getting CF seemed prudent more than it did succumbing to the marketing. Thus, I purchased a BMC SLR02 (full 9070) off ebay. It was so fantastic to be back on the bike I hardly noticed the ride, but over time I did. I found myself longing for the ride of my old bike and ended up back on ebay and wound up with a 2015 Moots, RSL (Full 9070). It is wonderful ride.

While the cycling world around us has gone CF there is certainly love and room for Ti. CF's popularity is heavily biased toward being "the newest" and/or the "bestest". For those two reasons alone, Ti has suffered. Remarkably, my BMC weights in a 14.72 lbs and the Moots is 14.89 lbs. I still ride the BMC once in a while and it is fun to have an alternative ride when you want. This bike market really reflects how public perception, marketing, hype and group think can change the course of an entire industry even when there is no clear advantage in following said course. It is not only too bad that Ti has suffered, it is a mistake for the populous. Setting aside personal and subjective preferences, my bikes are equal. Including personal and subjective preferences, the Ti rides like buttah and the BMC is noisy, creaky and can rattle my teeth on longer rides, but I am not going to sell it just yet...

BTW - I am 54 and love the fact I no longer have to concede to the peloton pressure of what I ride, wear or how high my sock are...though I love the 6" trend and I typically look pretty cool behind my shades....:thumb::thumb:

One thing with CF versus Ti ... CF can be made by any mildly trained and careful worker. Ti can only be welded by a tremendously talented human welder with a great deal of care.

And your example aside, it is very hard to build a frame as light of CF out of anything except CF.

I would love a Ti bike, but at the price I can afford, I would be just getting a basic frame---no shaping, no butting .... just "Ti." I wonder if it would even be worth it .... I cannot imagine that cheap Ti would ride a lot better than shaped, triple-butted steel.

To quote Kish....The difference between butted and straight-gauge Ti frame is....about 4 ounces and $300USD.

The decline of Ti is not because people don't like the material, but because the current trend in bike fashion is sculpted carbon fiber. The sexy curves and molded in lines cannot be duplicated in titanium, and if both are priced at the same level, the carbon frame is more likely to sell.

Steel still sells because it is easy to obtain, work with, and is inexpensive.

I love titanium, I replaced all the hardware on my bikes with titanium (because it doesn't corrode), and I love my Oakley Juliets, but I haven't gotten ti-framed bike yet, I still prefer steel. I have been looking for a good ti frame recently, but much to my surprise, a few I have looked at had damage (cracks) that I didn't expect to find.

I am not enamored of the swoops and curves of carbon-framed bikes, and like the clean lines and simple geometry of metal tubes. So, for the time being, I will stick with steel.

Perhaps there's now a higher amount of desire by the populace for the sculpted CF look, but I'd say that this was a preference built by the bike industry and how they presented their lineups and executed product placement within the pro pelotons. In turn, the reason CF was heavily promoted, is that (as numerous posters have pointed out), the profit margins producing and selling CF bikes is much higher than Ti; besides lower material costs, it lends itself more easily to mass production and requires lower worker skillset to produce.

Titanium and Steel
 

I am fortunate to have a 2010 Moots Vamoots and a more recent Gunnar Sport (steel) bikes. The Gunnar has fenders and a rack. I love both bikes, I guess I am a metal bike person. The Moots frame set is now selling for about $3,900 I believe, and the Gunnar would be under $1,500 depending on fork and paint options.
Both frames were built to order (not custom sized) in the US. I enjoy riding both bikes. The Gunnar is surprisingly nice to ride, would probably pick the Moots as the more enjoyable, but not by much (probably partly due to the perceived quality/price). If I could only have one bike, either would make me happy. As a note, I am in my late 60's and ride 2,500 to 3,000 miles per year.

You may be on to something there. However, more and more Al bikes are "hydroformed" into those swoopy shapes. I wonder if that's not used on Ti because Ti is not as easy to work, or because Ti bikes don't have the volume to justify the making dies or molds or whatever is used.

I have carbon fiber, steel and aluminum bikes. I need a titanium and probably one day will own one. I wish they weren't so expensive because the premium pricing over excellent CF and steel offerings - let alone aluminum! - is so beyond the functional value, and not worth it to anyone except the most hard core anti-CF or aluminum person. Note I'm not saying that titanium owners are silly or ignorant (although I think a lot of them point that finger at CF and aluminum). I'm just saying you have to have a pretty unusual aesthetic to be willing to pay the premium.

I'm currently building up a Lynskey Cooper CX that I bought at 66% factory discount. A price like that brings titanium into the reasonable price zone.

I think for a lot of us sub-pro cyclists it boils down to the love affair with our bikes which is why we are so passionate about what we have. 25 years ago I fell for a then vintage McLeod (Canadian I believe) lugged frame with campy that I destroyed in a bad crash. Life moved on and I was away from serious cycling until I saw a CF bike in a shop window that had to come home with me. Then this year I bought an oldish steel frame and built it up over the winter.
I am a truck driver and I LOVE the 'look' of raw steel, aluminum or Ti but I think TI is the only real choice as it is low maintenance (as far as finish is concerned) I saw a TI Opera frame on ebay but I am concerned that it would not be as comfortable as what I have now. I am getting close to 50 years old and I find the CF bike quite stiff and not very comfortable compared to the steel Opera I am now riding (swapping the same wheelset), so I would say my preferences might be changing.
To a pro the bike is disposable, to me it is a affair.

if I could find a really good Ti frame with fork for $500 I would be hard-pressed not to sell my wife to buy it. $700, $900, $1300 .... that is a Lot of money for me. I can buy a Really nice bike for $1300 ... or at least, a bike I would enjoy riding a lot for the next 20 years.

For $500 I could buy four CL steel bikes and build them slowly over the next couple years and have four nice bikes with modern components eventually. And they would all ride pretty much like a Ti bike, especially if I used wide 290 tpi tires.

Ti remains a wealthy person's playground in most cases.