Don't try to be clever, it makes you look foolish; and an annoying, foolish know-it-all isn't a good combination.

Me generalize? I don't reacall ever overloading the manure spreader with that type of unfounded, baseless ,regurgated ,mind numbing malarkey.

You are right .It is not good. My bad.There are worse. I have been derelict.Must try harder. BTW,is that a subjective opinion,or baseless generalization?:confused: Maybe it would help if you stayed on topic?

Yeah, the one thing you're good at.
mind numbing malarkey

So I take it you guys have made a habit out of arguing?

I will add this all three mentioned materials used in frame building hold various ride characteristics. Ti and steel are completely different alloys and therefore will have different ride characteristics to them inherently. Carbon fibre whatever the weave, particles impregnated in it etc will feel totally different than steel or ti. Since no two frames will feel exactly the same they do not share generalaztions of equality. I do however appreciate you agreeing with me though.

:rolleyes:
The only generalization? You mean in your opinion. which you are right and everyone else is wrong because you know everything right? I don't have a hard time with sarcasm I have a hard time understanding you. This forum and peoples questions are not a game. They are seriously inquisitive and need help or advice. Not to be toyed, insulted, and made fun of by the likes of you.
I also have a problem with your apparent know it all attitude. the reason for this is of course is that you do not. Like a few others here, you trample on others ignorance to bicycles in general.
Here is a small but easy test for you. The Rock Shox mag 21 came stock with a inherent static load. Although this worked well in cornering there was a way to work the forks internals to make it fully active, with no static properties how was this accomplished?

Nice one. :D

I'll 2nd that! ;)

Thanks for the great responses. Please cease also with the bickering. Start another thread and call it such. I'm happy in this thread to hear about frame materials and their differences.

I ride 125-150 miles a week and would like to do crits. I like going fast. I like cornering, acceleration. It's like if I could pick a car to do my leisure driving it would be a BMW M3, rigged out to go like hell.

It is not opinion.It's fact. I you knew anything you would not be calling it an opinion.I am not playing games. It is not an aparent know it all attitde.I do know it. You and others continually demonstrate how little you do know.I am here to help. I provide factual real info, not hype ,drivel and make it up as you go along nonsense or shoving rainbows.Get use to it.I have never seen so much misimformation on a so called forum. Imagine if you will a guy with over 1650 posts that did not know threading deirction on an english BB. I shudder to think of the nonsense he has dished up,during that tenure.No attempt to answer your question.Don't do mtbikey suspension stuff on a regular basis.See,no BS. How do ya like that.

Out of respect for flyefisher this will be my last post on this thread.
pokey how can you say you know "it," when you cannot answer a fork question? There have also been on several occasions myself and others have corrected you. I know more about bikes than you can imagine since you do not know me or what I can do with various bikes inclusive thereof MTB's, you have no space claiming all knowledge of bikes. Also you were the one who said, "it is my game," so now you say it isn't so which is it? Also because I call you on a opinion has nothing to do with my capacity of bike knowledge. If you cannot comprehend this then simply ceast and desist from here. There are people here with as much and more knowledge on bicycles not just road bikes. So if you include the full gambit on bikes, and considering your ignorance to MTB I would say your knowledge is limited to a personal basis.
So get used to it kiddo, you are not as smart as you think.

reading the above thread, has made me think twice, if I will try to answer the question, or just continue reading the thread... and try not to notice the insults flying around on this thread.....

I think it has become my job to say this "can't we all just be friends guys"

Not really. Materials arguments always bring out the 'best' in everyone.This is actually pretty tame compared to what one might find elsewhere.Don't think anyone has been actually called(but maybe implied) a moron or a$$hole have they?:p

inciting abrasiveness suggests insecurity

flyefisher- I'd stick with aluminum because of my personal taste. It matches well with the type of riding you're doing. But, I understand the desire for something new. You've read posts that pretty much describe differences inherent in each of the materials you're looking at, now you need to go to a shop or the rest of the web and see what kind of stiffness you're getting in the bottom bracket of each bike you're interested in.

Good luck!

You might rethink the durability of Carbon frames... If, as you say, CF doesn't take being hit very well. I would differ... Why would so many formula race cars, race in the rain, and have composites frames and components. Nobody that I know uses chemicals to clean their frames anyway. Who leaves their high end carbon, TI, AL or Steel frame outside setting in the sun for days on end??? ;)

CF race car parts can be and are replaced at will.It's a poor analogy. Hit a CF frame tube with a ball peen hammer and see what happens to the matrix.Things deteriorate from there.CF is durable enough if one does not do the wrong things to it.It's used in lots of tough applications,one I think being the rear springs in new corvettes. D*alex got in over his head on that one.Typical when one starts to generalize too liberally.

And flyefisher, I think today's carbon frames are pretty durable, too. The problems that arose when it was still a newer material were in bonding lugs, whether they be aluminum or carbon, to the frame's tubes. The tubes themselves have a virtually infinite fatigue life, and are pretty strong, (read: as strong as any other material.) When you talk bicycle frame strength, I really think that all the materials are pretty even. You get different methods of failure from one material to another, but each will take about the same amount of force as the other in today's frame market.

Well, F1 cars are completely built from scratch at least every year so the carbon structure doesn't have to last for much longer than that.
I can't remember the technical terms but carbon fiber is better than metal for fatigue? but not for impact.
Carbon can become damaged internally with no visible damage and fail. Water has no effect on carbon unless there is an "opening" where moisture can enter into the weave.
It makes for a really strong, light chassis and that helps F1 for the same reasons it helps cycles- but would you buy a car with a carbon chassis and use it for 10-20 years? One fender bender and the chassis could be totalled.
For cycling applications, I think carbon is great as there usually isn't the high impact type of damage going on.

F1 chassis and bicycle frame is not a poor analogy. As with a bike, I don't see many people hitting F1 cars with a hammer.
Both are used for high performance applications, sport and are replaced at will. Both are used with the same intentions and application- a strong, light chassis for racing.
What is a poor analogy is with corvette springs. You can catagorize that under "who cares" but I guess that's what happens when you generalize too liberally.

What do you think happens when a part gets hit in a crash?

You aparently don't know the difference between a statement of fact,an unfounded generalization and well, maybe a pile of stinky applesauce?

Read one post above, genius.