SheldonBrown.com has a fairly interesting comparison of the 3 frame metals (Fe, Al, Ti) and how tubing diameter and thickness relates them to one another. I think its linked to in the steel vs carbon thread thats currently ongoing.

The resultant answer was what a lot of people have said. It doesnt matter as much what its made of as who makes it and which of the materials characteristics are you more/less willing to pay for.

Steel is proven and often repairable, but to be lightweight it has to be thin which makes it fragile and expensive, not to mention the risk of rust.
Al and Ti come out very similar in the article, with the exception that Ti is just a lighter more expensive version of Al. These two also have the issue of metal fatigue from repetitive strain.

I'm a great believer in the idea of Steel being the best all-round metal ever engineered by man, but my last bike purchase was Al for this reason:

I figure in 5 years I'll either need a better bike or be bored with cycling; in a garage, all frame materials gather dust equally well.

I don't believe that's accurate. Ti , like steel, has a fatigue limit. Thus repetitive strain below the fatigue limit will not cause fialure from metal fatigue.

Al, on the other hand does not have a fatigue limit, and will eventually fail from repetitive stress.

See: http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tabl...e/Fatigue.html

I'm very interested in a Lynskey, now that they know how to weld. In the early '90s when Litespeed was mostly a southern brand they were known for crap ass welds as big as the ones you see on some aluminum bikes.

It's better to say MRI.. NMR.. can you imagine being called over the PA to prep someone for a NMR? What does that sound like?

Would you then be traveling at Lite-speed ?

I had to read that a couple of times, but I finally got it.:roflmao:

It means you get sucked into a mini black hole and your atoms get scattered around the mulitvers. Once you get there you get to meet Steven Hawking. :D

It also means that you should do this during the day, as riding a light speed makes your headlamps useless.

(well, not really, if you believe that Einstein guy)

Steel tube comes in a variety of diameters and thicknesses. Titanium much less so. Thus, a titanium custom builder has fewer choices of his raw material (tubes) from which to customize. This may, or may not, make a difference in any individual case. Depends. But you can be sure the that the Ti maker will make no mention of it.

The whole thing about non-round Ti tubes (rejected by most steel frame makers several decades ago) is a jury-rig to get around the lack of tube selection.

Kind of like the straight jacket that lugs present compared to welded tubes. I know some point to strength issues but, ignoring or disagreeing with that, lugs do put one's geometry in a straight jacket compared to welding custom steel frames.

For the record, I have both steel and titanium frames (but none of my steel frames have lugs), all of which have nifty carbon parts like forks and such.

BTY, I conducted an extensive internet review of all opinions on steel vs. titantium about two years ago from people who rode both.

What I learned from this exercise was that:

1. They almost universally perferred titanium;
2. Almost all claimed that titanium offered a smoother ride;
3. About 80% claimed that steel was stiffer for doing hills.

Now, we know that these results will be different if changes are made in tubes size, thickness, geometry, and so forth. But I thought that these results were interesting in terms of how the bikes were actually built, and not just some hypothetical build.

Given that the typical primary design parameter for titanium is light weight, the results are as I would expect. Obviously, it is possible to make a titanium frame stiffer than steel, but apparently that it is not actually being done most of the time--according to people who ride both.

Having Steel and Ti bikes, I'd have to say I pretty much agree with the second post above. However, regarding No. 34 while the selection of tubing for Ti builders may be somewhat more limited, shaped, oversized, variable thickness and ovalized tubing is available in Ti if you pay for it, e.g. Merlin Extralight, Litespeed Vortex.

Speaking as a chemist who used to work with NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) and now works in healthcare administration, currently, NMR is the proper term referring to scientific research or the lab environment, while MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) is the proper term referring to the imaging technology used in the healthcare environment. Although they share the basic underlying scientific principles, you cannot perform a MRI using a NMR and vice versa. I would hate to try and load a patient into the NMR spectrometer!

In the 'old' days, MRI was sometimes referred to as NMR or MRT (Magnetic Resonance Tomography), but if you use those terms nowadays instead of MRI, almost nobody will know what you are talking about.

It's called a joke. 2manybikes got it, read it over a few times, you'll get it too. Haw haw haw. :)

It helps to say it out loud. :)

If you are trying to equate 'NMR' with 'enema', I'd say that your threshold for amusement is much lower than mine. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Hahahahaha you said enema!!!

The reason why steel frame have not had oval shapes for decades (although they did at one time) is because anything other than a round cross-section offers either less torsional rigidity or more weight for the same stiffness.

Oval tubes are not ideal as they weigh more per unit of strength. But you can't always get round tubes of the correct diameter and/or thickness in titanium, hence the need for oval tubes.

The irony is that the oval tubes are marketed as if they are something special. In a way they are: a very expensive and less-than-ideal fix for the Achilles heal of titanium. This amounts to another example in the cycling industry where the marketing department turns science on its head--and cyclists buy it hook, line, and sinker. This is a theme I see repeated a lot.

I have a Waterford 2200 and a Seven Aerios. The Seven has a sloping tope tube (similar to compact) but both bikes have very similar geometry. I also had the Seven built with thicker walled tubing in the rear, epsecially the stays. The ride is very similar between the two and both have the same CF fork, although the Wtareford has a 1" diameter steerer. About the only difference is the Seven doesn't flez much at all on steep clims and sprints, but that's due to the way I had the rear built. I assume Waterford could do the same thing.

Bottom line is I don't feel much difference at all between the two except for what I mentioned above. In my opinion, steel and Ti can be built so the two are virtually the same.