Bike Forums

Bike Forums (https://www.bikeforums.net/forum.php)
-   Road Cycling (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/)
-   -   Why Ti (https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycling/424446-why-ti.html)

sced 06-01-08 08:47 AM


Originally Posted by Grambo (Post 6797052)
Ti is hands down the top material for a MTB frame .... light and very tough.

Didn't you mean Al?
Isn't corrosion more of a problem for people that don't properly prep/care for their things?

bac 06-01-08 08:47 AM


Originally Posted by bigtea (Post 6795190)
Why titanium? Durability, strength, low maintenance, sweet ride, polished metal finish, value, feel, confidence, construction, aesthetics, and .. oh...did I mention sweet ride?

Wow -will have to disagree with almost all of above.

Hey, I like Ti frames, but what you state above simply isn't true. Obviously the "value" statement is a joke. What about "low maintenance", "confidence" and "construction"? I mean, what kind of maintenance do you do on a carbon frame? :lol:

Frame material really means next to nothing when it comes to ride and handling. All else being equal ...... wheelsets, tires, and the diameter of the frame tubes mean much, much, much more. :thumb:

... Brad

logdrum 06-01-08 08:54 AM

I saw some old alu Vitus in some of this new mexico centuries. Looks well used. I've seen a cracked and broken welds on Litespeeds and Merlins as well at the LBS. Stainless Steel rules

Nikolai 06-01-08 09:05 AM


Originally Posted by axelwik (Post 6796082)
I've seen poor quality aluminum frames crack in less than a season, and I've also seen great quality frames last for decades (such as Klein). (Lawn chair quaility vs. aerospace quality and build.)

IIRC from my undergrad materials classes, aluminum is problematic in that it does not have a fatigue stress limit, whereas most other metals will plateau after a certain number of cycles. The obvious solution is over-engineering the frame, but at a weight penalty. Interesting case study the prof had told us about, a lot of early passenger jets were high-wing, but passengers would look out the windows and have a panic attack when the wing skin would be cracking under lift load...

I agree with some other points made. Carbon is probably not a good choice for toughness on MTB's. Steel is indeed prone to corossion, but a good powdercoat and the most basic of care is usually more than adequate.

Regarding how well the bike does in a crash...Cars are designed to deform in such a way to absorb as much impact energy as possible, so your body does not have to. Wouldn't that apply somewhat in a bike collision?

Ti does indeed seem to be a good choice (esp for MTB's), based on corossion, strength, durability, fatigue life, etc. But what about stiffness and comfort? Price premium over carbon?

I did go with CF for my first new road bike I should be picking up tomorrow, because I've heard time over time it makes for a relatively comfortable ride, which is important when trying to finish a century or put in big miles. MTB riders aren't in the saddle nearly as much, so comfort probably is not as important?

sced 06-01-08 09:14 AM


Originally Posted by Nikolai (Post 6797134)
IIRC from my undergrad materials classes, aluminum is problematic in that it does not have a fatigue stress limit, whereas most other metals will plateau after a certain number of cycles. The obvious solution is over-engineering the frame, but at a weight penalty. Interesting case study the prof had told us about, a lot of early passenger jets were high-wing, but passengers would look out the windows and have a panic attack when the wing skin would be cracking under lift load...

So is this why they stopped using aluminum in airplanes, especially the high performance types?

Grambo 06-01-08 09:22 AM


Originally Posted by sced (Post 6797171)
So is this why they stopped using aluminum in airplanes, especially the high performance types?

Last time I checked Ti was the material of choice for high performance aircraft (especially military) but it is impracticle to manufacture an entire plane out of Ti (cost prohibitive / Al better suited for certain parts). By the way, how many custom frame builders specialize in Al frames???? CF - yes, Steel - yes, Ti - yes .... Al ......hmmmmm ...... I wonder why?

bigtea 06-01-08 09:24 AM


Originally Posted by SushiJoe (Post 6796968)
If it ain't broke, why fix it? :thumb:

I don't have any delusions that the Seven [edit: OR the Opera] is the last bike I'll own, only that I'll hopefully keep it a very long time. Building bikes in an addiction/hobby-- I'm already researching a new build.

Good point. I'm a special case...I'm fifty eight years old...if I can ride my Litespeed for another twenty years, I'd be quite happy. In other words, the engine is more likely to give out than the chassis.

sced 06-01-08 09:43 AM


Originally Posted by Grambo (Post 6797201)
Last time I checked Ti was the material of choice for high performance aircraft (especially military) but it is impracticle to manufacture an entire plane out of Ti (cost prohibitive / Al better suited for certain parts). By the way, how many custom frame builders specialize in Al frames???? CF - yes, Steel - yes, Ti - yes .... Al ......hmmmmm ...... I wonder why?

I found this to be interesting:
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/787...gramfacts.html

IMHO custom framebuilders simply go where the money is. Most people that want custom psychologically NEED to spend a lot of money on themselves. These buyers cannot justify the high labor costs of custom Al when the OEM costs of high quality, mass-produced Al frames out of Asia is <$50.

Nikolai 06-01-08 09:54 AM


Originally Posted by Grambo (Post 6797201)
Last time I checked Ti was the material of choice for high performance aircraft (especially military) but it is impracticle to manufacture an entire plane out of Ti (cost prohibitive / Al better suited for certain parts). By the way, how many custom frame builders specialize in Al frames???? CF - yes, Steel - yes, Ti - yes .... Al ......hmmmmm ...... I wonder why?

We do a lot of work for Lockheed here in FW, and to hear it from them, most new aircraft designs are using much more composites. Possibly moving to Ti from Al in some places, but I'm hearing a lot more about CF:

JSF - Lean Manufacturing

Nikolai 06-01-08 09:59 AM


Originally Posted by sced (Post 6797284)

Nice find. So even for commercial vs. miliatary apps, lots more composites and less aluminum, a bit more Ti.

BillyD 06-01-08 10:09 AM


Originally Posted by bigtea (Post 6795190)
It's unfortunate that labor costs have made ti bikes so expensive. There's a whole new generation of cyclists who have never ridden a metal frame. Marketing campaigns overwhelm with a message that carbon is the choice of pros, and that we should all ride what the pros ride. For those of you who are thinking about the next dream bike from Asia with Euro decals, remember that the best bike you can buy is the one can ride for the rest of your life.

Most (much?) of that generation doesn't want to ride metal. They want what's trendy, what's the latest . . . they shun metal because they see it as old fashioned, like mom & pop. And like you said, they want what the pros ride.

Personally I think they're being suckered, durability-wise, but it's their choice . . . and their money.

sced 06-01-08 10:13 AM


Originally Posted by Nikolai (Post 6797339)
....a bit more Ti.

The article doesn't say this. When at Alcoa one area that I worked in was Al and Ti structural forgings and extrusions for various types of aircraft. Ti was only used for high temp applications, such as bulkheads around the engines of fighters, and I don't think it was because the military was being cost-conscious. Ti is also used extensively in jet engines.

Nikolai 06-01-08 10:33 AM


Originally Posted by sced (Post 6797386)
The article doesn't say this. When at Alcoa one area that I worked in was Al and Ti structural forgings and extrusions for various types of aircraft. Ti was only used for high temp applications, such as bulkheads around the engines of fighters, and I don't think it was because the military was being cost-conscious. Ti is also used extensively in jet engines.

You are correct. My intuition led me to make that statement. Found another article, but the aluminum #'s don't line up with the previously-referenced Boeing website. It does state Ti only accounts for 7% by weight on the 777, however (vs. 15% in the 787).

http://www.asminternational.org/imag...enten_1003.pdf

Grambo 06-01-08 10:37 AM


Originally Posted by sced (Post 6797386)
The article doesn't say this. When at Alcoa one area that I worked in was Al and Ti structural forgings and extrusions for various types of aircraft. Ti was only used for high temp applications, such as bulkheads around the engines of fighters, and I don't think it was because the military was being cost-conscious. Ti is also used extensively in jet engines.

Found the attached article interesting. Ti and composites are the future of the aerospace industry,

http://www.industrialheating.com/Art...00000000198869

logdrum 06-01-08 10:45 AM

I've done more centuries in a short amount of time in my aluminum orbea, this I just assembled (not built as everyone likes to say) about 2.5 months ago. I am older and fatter and I should have been more uncomfortable. My 1996-7 specialized alu hardtail MTB is still going and I take it almost every year down the ski area for some downhill fun. It should have cracked by now. I have also attached bike trailers unto it, run over logs, fallen and crashed more than I can remember. XTR shifts so fine as well.... The US made answer fork still absorbs like day1 Maybe I had been lucky or just

logdrum 06-01-08 10:47 AM

If Russia becomes upfront KGB again -- Ti prices would shoot up and we will be going back to aluminum!

FlashUNC 06-01-08 11:33 AM


Originally Posted by BillyD (Post 6797376)
Most (much?) of that generation doesn't want to ride metal. They want what's trendy, what's the latest . . . they shun metal because they see it as old fashioned, like mom & pop. And like you said, they want what the pros ride.

Personally I think they're being suckered, durability-wise, but it's their choice . . . and their money.

As time goes by with my Trek 5200, I'm less and less sold on the "durability" argument as a knock against CF. In the last eight years, its survived thousands of miles and a couple crashes, and keeps on trucking.

I don't necessarily see carbon fiber, for road applications, as any more or less durable than the other frame materials out there. As a couple other folks have mentioned, I think it matters more what a builder does with those materials, than necessarily the materials themselves.
If two cooks both make breakfast, and one makes Waffle House esque scrambled eggs, and one makes Eggs Benedict, we don't run around saying eggs are a crappy ingredient for a meal.

patentcad 06-01-08 11:50 AM


Originally Posted by sced (Post 6796871)
As a material for bike frames, Ti offers absolutely no advantages over CF, steel, or Al

This is a profoundly ignorant statement. NOTHING feels like Ti. Whether it's marketable in this day and age is another matter. All the big Ti bike companies from Lynnskey to Litespeed are hurting. But that has more to do with pricing and perceived value than anything else. I've been riding Ti for 20 years. Very unique. I prefer it for longer rides, and I go back and forth between CF and Ti daily.

SushiJoe 06-01-08 11:55 AM


Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 6797739)
...NOTHING feels like Ti. Whether it's marketable in this day and age is another matter. All the big Ti bike companies from Lynnskey to Litespeed are hurting. But that has more to do with pricing and perceived value than anything else. I've been riding Ti for 20 years. Very unique. I prefer it for longer rides, and I go back and forth between CF and Ti daily.

Agreed, circle gets the square.
I have a Ti bike, Ti/CF and full CF bike and go between all 3 frequently. My all Ti bike is my favorite but when I'm racing, my CF bikes wins out-- it's 3 lbs. lighter [18.6 lbs. vs 15.68 lbs.]
On longer rides, I always go for Ti. My back thanks me. :thumb:

Nikolai 06-01-08 12:06 PM

Interesting, I had not heard it was more comfortable for longer rides. Is this a fairly agreeable concensus?

patentcad 06-01-08 12:08 PM


Originally Posted by Nikolai (Post 6797819)
Interesting, I had not heard it was more comfortable for longer rides.

Somebody shoot me. Ti or CF bullets only please, as usual. In this case, try to make them Ti.

SushiJoe 06-01-08 12:12 PM


Originally Posted by Nikolai (Post 6797819)
Interesting, I had not heard it was more comfortable for longer rides. Is this a fairly agreeable concensus?

Yes.

bac 06-01-08 12:16 PM


Originally Posted by Nikolai (Post 6797819)
Interesting, I had not heard it was more comfortable for longer rides. Is this a fairly agreeable concensus?

Yup ... all things being equal ... Ti has the ride characteristics of a steel frame. Steel and Ti feel the same (again, everything being equal - which the never are) due to the fact that both materials can be practically shaped into small diameter tubes, hence the somewhat more cushy ride quality.

... Brad

Nikolai 06-01-08 12:18 PM


Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 6797828)
Somebody shoot me. Ti or CF bullets only please, as usual. In this case, try to make them Ti.

Another captain ******* post from patentcad, go figure... Guess a new enthusiast should look to other forums for good cycling info? :rolleyes:

Nikolai 06-01-08 12:20 PM


Originally Posted by bac (Post 6797867)
Yup ... all things being equal ... Ti has the ride characteristics of a steel frame. Steel and Ti feel the same (again, everything being equal - which the never are) due to the fact that both materials can be practically shaped into small diameter tubes, hence the somewhat more cushy ride quality.

... Brad

Makes sense, thanks for the input.

brians647 06-01-08 12:58 PM


Originally Posted by Nikolai (Post 6797883)
Another captain ******* post from patentcad, go figure... Guess a new enthusiast should look to other forums for good cycling info? :rolleyes:

Come on now, Nikolai. While new to the forums, surely you've picked up on Pcad's style, haven't you? It's not like he doesn't post once every 45 seconds with either a self-deprecating or sarcastic remark! :twitchy:

Hang in there, do a search of Pcad's responses, and then check back. It's all good.

bigtea 06-01-08 01:03 PM


Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 6797739)
This is a profoundly ignorant statement. NOTHING feels like Ti. Whether it's marketable in this day and age is another matter. All the big Ti bike companies from Lynnskey to Litespeed are hurting. But that has more to do with pricing and perceived value than anything else. I've been riding Ti for 20 years. Very unique. I prefer it for longer rides, and I go back and forth between CF and Ti daily.

Oh...another footnote regarding WHY I had to buy a new bike. I was rear-ended by a car and my bike was totaled. Fortunately I wasn't, but I did sustain two vertebrae fractures. And yes, ti provides Lexus-like comfort in comparison to anything else I considered. (Please, save the "it depends on how a bike is built" lectures..it's a Litespeed for heaven's sake). My back thanks me every every day I ride.

Nikolai 06-01-08 01:06 PM

True, I definitely do appreciate the limitless dry humor on this forum... And Pcad does contribute in that regard significantly!

patentcad 06-01-08 01:12 PM


Originally Posted by Nikolai (Post 6797883)
Another captain ******* post from patentcad, go figure... Guess a new enthusiast should look to other forums for good cycling info? :rolleyes:

Better yet, give up the sport.

botto 06-01-08 01:17 PM


Originally Posted by patentcad (Post 6798147)
Better yet, give up the sport.

+1


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:26 PM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.