Titanium vs. Steel in 2015?
 

I'd like to hear from folks that have owned/ridden both materials.

I'm now somewhat familiar with Reynolds 520 and 853 steel bikes and I'm sold. I dig them. So much so, I'd like to build one that is "mine."

Every time I talk to a bike business about building a custom steel bike, I keep hearing over and over unanimously, "If you like steel, you'll love titanium."

Essentially saying, if you are in the process of building a really nice bike, you should go with titanium over steel.

Of course, there a very few (as in no) opportunities to ride a bunch of titanium bikes to see for myself.

For those that have experience with both (of the modern variety) do you agree? Is titanium just simply better than steel?

Tough call, but I can try to help. I had a Lynskey R230 that I loved (had to sell because I needed some funds) and a custom steel bike. I don't know what the steel bike is specifically made from, I didn't ask. I just specified compliant, and narrow tubing (for the look).

Both bikes are of similar geometry, the Ti had an Enve fork, steel a steel fork. Identical components, with the steel being quite a bit heavier as weight wasn't the goal.

So, the ride... honestly, I think the Lynskey rode better, but the steel frame had far more sentimental value, so I sold the Lynskey knowing I could always easily order another. I never actually noticed myself having faster times on either bike more often than the other, and my favorite climb PR was set on the heavier steel. In the end, I do not think you can go wrong, but starting from scratch, I would say I did prefer the ride of Titanium, with Steel as a VERY close second.

I would guess that like most "X vs Y" threads on here, people's personal preference or what they currently are riding will prejudice them too much to be able to give you a subjective reading of the real differences. That and unless you're riding two bikes from the same manufacturer with the same geometry, you're not going to see a valid comparison.

I would suggest that a if you have a good frame designer and builder, you're not going to find that Steel vs Ti is not going to give you a significantly different ride quality. Unlike Aluminum where the frames have to be built stiff to avoid fatigue, the characteristics of Ti and Steel are not staggeringly different. Not to say they aren't different of course, Ti bikes typically have wider tubing for example.

What you will find however is that a custom Ti frame is going to cost you a lot more money than a comparable steel one.

The upside of course is that they are relatively bombproof, don't have corrosion issues like steel can, and if you like that sort of thing, can have that cool unpainted Ti look.

EDIT: Salsa make some bikes in both Steel and Ti (like the Colossal), perhaps test ride of both will give you a better idea?

Good question and i hear the same thing about titanium over steel as well. Hope to learn from peoples responses.

Every steel frame I have used since I was a teenager has broken, including several Taiwanese frames made from Tange MTB tubing, a custom road bike made from True Temper tubing, and others.

My current mountain bike has a robust (not super light) Ti frame which is the only MTB frame I have ever had last more than two years.

Someone gave me an 853 mtb frame (Nashbar) and I have thus far hesitated to build it up because it is so pretty and I don't want to break it, although on paper a bike made from 853 should be stronger than the other bikes.

The ride difference isn't huge. I now have two ti frames, with a triple and fixed. Both have steel forks. My other bikes and all but one before these were steel with steel forks. The various steel bikes varied quite a lot for handling and comfort on rough roads but all were always ride-able. Both steel and ti have road vibration on rough surfaces. With ti it is less jarring and tiring but it is only a matter of degrees. (But I do have to periodically squelch the urge to ride that really bad pavement just for fun.)

Ti bikes are not all the same for road vibrations. Mine are solid, stiff bikes and transmit a fair amount. The Merlin I took a spin on decades ago, far less. (That bike also had steel forks, that being pre-carbon.)

Ben

My 2004 IF steel frame has a potentially fatal rust issue. That won't be an issue with my new Engin Ti. That's good enough for me.

The softest, most noodly bike I ever had was steel. The stiffest, most harsh bike I ever had was steel.
I rode (briefly) a ti Moots and it felt like a spring. I own a ti Seven Axiom Race and it is similar to a Cannondale I used to have in terms of stiffness.

There is a lot more to the ride than the material.

I own both a Merlin Ti and a Bridgestone steel and have ridden many steels. I like steel considerably better than Ti. In my experience I would rate the Ti ride similar to a CF ride, just ok, acceptable. The Bridgestone ride is rather fabulous.

The modern high end steel and titanium frames are both simply awesome. You can't go wrong. Made to order custom frame- even better.

Both steel and Ti can be tuned or designed to be soft and compliant or stiff. Ti has the benefit of corrosion resistance and better fatigue resistance but steel is no slouch with fatigue. I like the look of raw brushed Ti and like the idea of a forever frame, so I chose Ti but considered steel.

When buying used, Ti seems like a great option, no worry about cracks, fatigue or hidden corrosion as with other materials.

I agree with the above post. I've had both including a Seven Ti and a Waterford. Both ride great. I also test rode multiple Ti frames and didn't like them. The same with steel including others I owned. Both materials can be made to ride just about anyway someone wants.

Titanium is prettier than steel; I can tell you that much.

They're both great materials for bicycle frames and both can be tuned for desired stiffness/flexibility/rider weight and power by choosing appropriate tube diameters, wall thickness, and butting. The stainless steel tubes from Reynolds, Columbus, and KVA virtually eliminate rust as an issue with steel, and for a given size and geometry frame, the weight is a wash.

This 61cm Reynolds 953 polished stainless Waterford RS-22 frame weighs 1650g.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7...RS-22whmed.jpg

I don't know about that "weight is a wash" thing. My Merlin 54 cm Works CR weighs a scant 1,207 g sans fork, of course.

I don't doubt that, but a 61cm frame has more material than a 54cm frame; a better comparison would be 54cm to 54cm or 61cm to 61cm with the same geometry (specifically traditional level top tube or compact, chainstay length, etc.).

Sure, but we are talking about a whole pound. As for geometry and frame style, well you have to use the one that you think optimizes you favored material, not the one that justifies your weight concept. Just sayin'.

Gotta go bamboo, bro. It's a known fact that bamboo is true.

IMO, the price premium for Ti isn't worth it. The ride is not much (if any) better and modern steels are even pretty competitive from a weight standpoint.

Stainless can still rust.

Via BSNYC:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-OzvxapqMaO...s1600/rust.jpg

Bike Snob NYC: Tai A Yellow Jersey Round The Old Oak Chi

Not enough chromium and nickel...or too much salt or acid. Sweat I bet.

Too much rust.

True that, but the resistance to corrosion varies a lot with the specific alloy. This is a 2007 frame with around eight thousand miles on it in all kinds of weather and based about a mile from the Pacific, but hasn't a hint of rust anywhere.

Both are viable. If you are looking custom, more choices with steel. If you already have a builder in mind, talk to them directly. I have both custom steel and Ti frames btw.

That's because they would LOVE to sell you a custom Ti frame for double or triple the price.

I have both steel and titanium bikes. For ride quality, both are great.

Titanium wins out in weight and longevity. If you want a lighter bike that will last forever, go with titanium.

Me too. I have two steel bikes but no titanium. I have a Firefly frame on order but it will take another 13 months to get it (unbelievable!). Then I'll know.

I think you missed my point, which is that given the same frame geometry, dimensions, and tubing chosen to make the frame equally stiff, a frame made of either 3Al-2.5V or 6Al-4V titanium and a similar frame made of Reynolds 953 stainless steel will weigh essentially the same. It doesn't matter what the geometry and frame style are, if they're the same they'll weigh pretty much the same.

Most all of you materials engineers here already know this stuff, but let's take a minute to review it.

Titanium alloys and steel alloys differ greatly in physical properties.

Ti 3Al-2.5V has a density of 4.48 grams per cubic centimeter
Ti 6Al-4V has a density of 4.43 grams per cubic centimeter
Reynolds 953 has a density of 7.8 grams per centimeter, or a little less than twice that of titanium

Ti 3Al-2.5V has a Young's modulus, or stiffness (E) of 100 GPa
Ti 6Al-4V has a Young's modulus, or stiffness (E) of 113.8 GPa
Reynolds 953 has a Young's modulus, or stiffness (E) of 207 GPa, or about twice that of titanium

Ti 3Al-2.5V has an Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) of 620 MPa
Ti 6Al-4V has an Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) of 950 MPa
Reynolds 953 has an Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) of 2,000 MPa, or more than twice the UTS of titanium

Ti 3Al-2.5V has a Yield Strength (YS) of 500 MPa
Ti 6Al-4V has a Yield Strength (YS) of 880 MPa
Reynolds 953 a Yield Strength (YS) of 1,800 MPa, or three times the YS of 3Al-2.5V and more than twice the YS of 6Al-4V

Ti 3Al-2.5V has a Rockwell Hardness of 24 HRc
Ti 6Al-4V has a Rockwell Hardness of 36 HRc
Reynolds 953 has a Rockwell Hardness of 44 HRc, significantly higher than titanium

Ti 3Al-2.5V has an elongation (measure of brittleness/ductility) of 15%
Ti 6Al-4V has an elongation (measure of brittleness/ductility) of 14%
Reynolds 953 has an elongation (measure of brittleness/ductility) of 14%, so Ti and 953 all are relatively ductile (they bend rather than break when the yield strength is exceeded). In comparison, carbon fiber composites have elongation in the 2% - 5% range and are more brittle.

So what does all of this mean?

Density: Steel, with almost twice the density of titanium, is clearly density challenged. Density is steel's Achilles heel.

Young's Modulus: Reynolds 953 steel is about twice as stiff as titanium.

Ultimate Tensile Strength and Yield Strength: Reynolds 953 steel is more than twice as strong as titanium.

Hardness: gouge and dent resistance for Reynolds 953 steel is significantly greater than titanium for a given tube wall thickness.

Brittleness/Ductility: Titanium and Reynolds 953 are similarly ductile.

Even though a given volume of titanium material weighs about half of what steel weighs (all steels have virtually the same density), its greater strength means that Reynolds 953 steel tubing can be drawn with thinner walls (as low as 0.3mm in the top tube, for example). The thinner walls mean less weight; titanium, because of its lower strength and Young's Modulus has to have thicker walled tubing which means added material and weight. But wait, thinner walls mean flexier, right? Yes, but because the Young's Modulus (stiffness) is twice titanium's and the tubing diameter can be increased to make it even stiffer with only minimal added weight, the net result is that frames made of Reynolds 953 (or other new high strength steel alloys) are very competitive with titanium frames similar in size, geometry, and stiffness.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d7...onChartxsm.jpg

There's a great series of articles called Metallurgy for Cyclists by Scot Nicol, president of Ibis, that's an excellent read, even though it was originally circa 1994 (long before 953 was introduced). It's a great way to gain a fundamental understanding of materials used to make bicycle frames.

Never mind once you start varying tires (20 tubulars, 25 clinchers, 28 clinchers tubeless...)

After 30 years of riding primarily one steel bike, I have rust everywhere. I found a cheap Litespeed 26" MTB frame that I built as a 700c Road bike. Probably a bit stiffer than the equivalent road frame.

The two bikes are very different in fit, but I wouldn't say the "ride" is that different from one to the other with the exception of the lower bars on the Litespeed build.

However, the Titanium bike does make a nice "rain bike" for the winter. Just wipe off and no rust. Hopefully in the next month or two, I'll do a second budget Litespeed build, this time with a road frame for the base.

Your material property comparison of Ti and Reynolds 953 was informative.

To put a finer point on what you wrote above, Ti has a lower modulus of elasticity...its more flexible than steel. Ti is also lighter based upon volume of material. This proportionality allows a frame designer to use a greater volume of Ti compared to steel for comparable weight and by adjustment to tube cross section and wall thickness, the same level of stiffness can be achieved compared to steel at close to the same weight. I believe in general depending on frame geometry that a Ti bike may in fact end up marginally lighter than a Steel bike for the same level of stiffness but I do believe what you wrote is pretty accurate and what I wrote explains why.

And there is a corollary with Aluminum. Many that ride Al bikes...not so much any more....notice immediately how stiff they are. This has changed with hydroforming and more asymmetric Al tube sections. This is Aluminum's ace in the hole compared to Steel and Ti and why for me, Aluminum has moved to the front of the class for metal bikes...and of course the big brands agree with this. Almost no Ti or Steel bikes produced by top brand makers. But in the case of Al, its material properties belie how the bike ends up feeling. As it turns out, Al by a fair margin is the most flexible metal for bikes. And yet Al bikes are considered among the stiffness...so why? The reason is Al has a lower density compared to Ti and Steel as well. So a greater volume and larger tubing cross section can be utilized to gain the overall same strength as Ti and Steel. To make Al behave with the equivalent strength of Ti and Steel since Al is a relatively weak material, a greater volume of Al has to be used. This greater volume of Al is what gives an Al bike its stiffness. The reason why more Al can be used to gain stiffness and strength as Al is low on both metrics...is because Aluminum is so light weight.

The thing that has moved Al to the front of the class isn't its material properties. The Ti versus Steel comparison proves that each material can be made close to the same performance level...stiffness and weight for a bike frame and yet their material properties are notably different. Same thing with Aluminum as it turns out...again very different material properties...but with one major difference...because Al is so natively flexible and relatively weak, it can be made to perform well because its tube sections can be formed with greater asymmetry than either Steel or Ti which can't be molded as effectively. Al bikes can me made to look similar to carbon bikes which are molded of course whereas Ti and and Steel can not. A the end of the day...yes material properties matter but there are some relatively extreme differences. It is the forming difference that makes Al stand out...Aluminum can by hydroformed because of its lower yield strength compared to Ti and Steel.