Strolling thru the Ti pics thread got me thinking.

Would a weekend rider/racer be better off with a Ti frame then high end carbon one?

Yes,





(Said the guy who just ordered a Lynskey R230)

Maybe. My personal opinion is that if you are going to get a new bike every 3 years, get a carbon fiber, they are lighter. If you are going to get a new bike every 25 years, get a Titanium.

I just got my first new road bike in 25 years, it is Ti.

After quite a few hours of research and thought, I decided on a Ti bike (Lynskey R330). Carbon is probably a bit better because it can be stiffened in many different ways. But, I felt better with metal underneath me.

If I were racing, I'd almost certainly have carbon in order to get every small advantage possible.

A good Ti frame will last virtually forever.

Don't be such a Johnny Lunchpail. Do what your Uncle Pcad did.

Get both.

I don't think anything is sacred. My brother-in-law just discovered a huge crack on the back of the head tube on his Litespeed Ultimate. I think a true high-end Ti frame like a Moots would be a real career-long machine. I just don't have faith in any of the light stuff lasting that long when you have Trek Madones falling apart from pedaling.

Thanks Pcad, might be leaning that way (SCARY), I all ready have a pretty nice carbon bike. I wasn't sure if I should shoot for the moon and upgrade that, or go in a different direction. The more I look at Ti- the more i like it!! Plus, I can keep the carbon bike.

I think the real question is why would you buy high end carbon or high end Ti when lowish end in either will get the job done just as well?

https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...0_frameset.htm

https://cgi.ebay.com/2009-Planet-X-Pr...item3355b4ca7a

Actually that isn't the question or I would have asked it. Busch Light does the job, that doesn't mean I want to drink it.

No, CF frames don't explode to smithereens out of the blue as evident from the millions of bikers that already own them and ride them everyday (If CF frames are indeed "dangerous", all the litigation that would have resulted from them would have wiped them off the market already), but Ti frames WILL outlast most (like cockroaches in a post nuclear war world), if not all other frame types because of the super tough nature of the material and it's fantastic resistance to damage from the elements. So IMO Ti wins overall compared to all other frame types regardless of cost.
JMOs

Chombi

Well, in my family, we have a dead Madone and a dead Litespeed, both made in the same year. Ti is not more durable than carbon. It comes down to frame design. You could make a durable frame out of paper and a frail frame out of iron. It depends on how it's built with the material. When companies cut corners to get weight down or to get the welds done faster, it can reduce durability.

Cheap carbon and cheap Ti are hardly the answer because quality control will be much less (quality costs more money on the mfgr side of the equation, passed on to us). Cheap bikes are not more durable just because they weigh more.

Ti will pass the longevity test, what is the difference in the ride?

Uninformed analogy. It's old hat, but it is a fact that in this case the relationships between quality, performance, and cost are indeterminate. The only thing you guarantee by paying more is that you paid more...silly.

Does any protour team ride a non-carbon frame anymore?

I understand that pro racers ride what the sponsors give them but if there was a competitive advantage to Ti, you can bet they would end up in the peloton. Instead, they are nowhere to be seen.

fail

+1

<sigh> it's not the material, it's the engineering. Ti can be the greatest ride around, or it can rattle your fillings out. Ride some bikes and see, but bring your own wheels so you're not feeling tire pressure and wheel stiffness differences.

Oh for the love of gawd ...................

I have both. A Lynskey ti creation for Performance/Scattante which I firmly believe to be a Lysnkey Cooper and a carbon Raleigh team frame that weighs 936 grams.

I ride the ti more because without the decals, it is really a stealth bike, like an ugly aluminum, and as far as straight tubing goes inspite of the MTB look, Lynskey designed a good frame. It weighs 1280 g for my small sized frame.

For me this is an everyday bike and good enough for racing too. The non descript look, great geometry and relatively light weight makes for comfortable rides. However the carbon bike is much more comfortable if the rides exceed 75 miles and beats the ti in climbs and full out sprints as well.The ti bike is practical for commuting, errands and I have peace of mind on solo rides where I may have to leave it out by itself for a minute or 2. I do feel dated when I ride it. It is not a hot looking bike by any means. Tall tubes look ugly to me but I am not GQ material either, so...

You didn't show the picture of your sink. Go ahead, it's a good time to do it.

I also ride both, a Lemond Victoire Ti '04 and a cheap carbon Tomasso Team Carbon '09. I have those 6 years on the Ti as my weekend warrior bike as opposed to about 700 miles on a Tomasso Agriazzato that was replaced with a TC under warranty, which now has 200 miles on it. Both bikes have identical fit in terms of reach, h-bar vs. saddle height, with the geometry being very similar. Saddles, wheels and tires are the same as well, though the Lemond has a wider h-bar. I've also owned 2 Klein Quantums as well as a Fuji steel and a Heron Road steel.

The carbon is faster, no doubt about it. Takes less effort to get up to speed, climbs better and is stiffer in the b-bracket. The TC is just as smooth and comfortable as the Ti, and when I ride the Lemond, it feels like I'm riding into a headwind, it's just not as responsive to power input. The Lemond is still a great bike and as it has the triple, is my vacation bike. I suspect the Lemond will be in my stable longer, though I'm toying with the idea of selling it as I'm lusting after a Surly Pacer to replace a too large Heron that I gave to my nephew.

Bottom line is I prefer riding the carbon over the titanium.

Sigh. So many bikes, so little money.....

SB

I think I stumbled when reading "weekend rider/racer". If you are "racing" with only weekends on the bike, you're not going to be competitive. So it doesn't matter what you get...pick up a Scat on sale and wreck it if needed.

If you ride a ga-jillion miles during the week to be a competitive racer on weekends, then get a rig that is appropriately competitive for your highly competitive engine. So that answer would be a tricked out and expensive CF bike.

If you simply enjoy riding during the week and on weekends, get a ti and don't look back. It will look brand new for the rest of your life, be adequately light for club rides, and will offer a pleasurable ride.

sced you really seem to like that bd stuff and post allot about it.

+1

I bought my first new road bike in 35 years last Spring. I expect it will be my road bike for the next 35. Spectrum Ti.

I've ridden carbon for years...then I discovered scandium. I also have a serotta ti legend. I agree that engineering plays a big part to the longevity and ride quality but material does has inherent qualities. I also agree that weight is important, but it just depends. if you're going to commute 5 miles, will an extra couple of pounds matter? if you're going on a lunch time training ride, don't you want an extra weight to get you into shape? I think it was Greg Lemond that said to start the season on a steel bike, transfer to a ti bike and get on a carbon frame for the tour.

I love it when people tell me how important it is to have a lightweight carbon bike and then slap on a hug seat bag.

as for the ti vs carbon question, I still have a bike with a steel fork, but how many of you ride on carbon forks? just about every high end bike has a carbon fork! carbon is great!