Mercedes Benz has a 30 year warranty in the UK if you have all of the service done at the dealership.

As a material for bike frames, Ti offers absolutely no advantages over CF, steel, or Al unless one rides under water at temperatures above about 800F. As for a car, compare a $15k Honda Civic to any $5K-$15K bicycle. Technologically in all respects the bikes are primitive, but stupidly overpriced ego-ornamentation in comparison - unless (maybe) you're a Pro. A well maintained Civic will carry 4 passengers 300k miles or more in comfort and safety at - name a speed.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

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.

Fashion and weight.

IMO CF will never be serious material for MTB's or Cyclocross. It can not take the abuse typically dished out by an intermediate rider let alone an advanced rider. Rocks, logs etc. do not mix well with CF. High end steel MTB / Cyclocross frames are nice but corrosion can be problematic (I know ... my favorite hardtail rusted out at the bottom of the seat tube. Ti is hands down the top material for a MTB frame .... light and very tough. I smirk everytime I see a CF MTB frame (typically on a fire road) along with the average weenie riding full suspension (which in the vast majority of MTB applications is not needed!!).

I'm sure someone will post a Pro. MTB rider on a CF frame but it is a little different when a Pro. rider hits a rock pile with his BB and he / she is handed a new frame from his / her sponsor vs. the average rider who needs a frame that will last for years.

For pure road applications CF has it's place as does high end Ti, Steel and AL.

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

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?

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.

... Brad

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

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?

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?

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.

I found this to be interesting:
https://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.

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

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

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.

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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