I think you're confusing me with the OP. Personally, I already own both a carbon and a Ti bike. I like them both.Which is why I said "I can see benefits to both" in an earlier post and why I own both types of bikes. I'd like to see the physics behind this. Clearly the energy absorbed by the frame when flexing is returned when the frame rebounds. Is anything actually lost to the rider? I'm sure there's a point when yes, the frame is hurting efficiency, but the difference in deflection between an extremely stiff Foil and the noodiliest noodle ever made is probably not great enough to make any real world difference in everyday riding. The stiff frame may indeed "feel" different, but from any objective standpoint I've never seen proof that lack of relative stiffness in a frame will result in a provably inefficient frame. Again, the point of Lemond and co is not that they "chose" to ride noodles, it's that the times they posted in climbs on those noodles are still extremely competitive with times these days. I guess you could take a current day pro rider and send them up the Alpe on a Dogma and then on a 979 and compare, that might actually be pretty interesting.

I already said all of that.
"Top of the line" may mean a Spectrum custom Ti for some people. Also, most people aren't racing. Lastly, fashion clearly plays a role here.

In the end, I agree with your central point: ride what you like, independant of frame material.

Just to brag, I got my brand-new EVO Hi-mod for less than $2k

I think your issue is frame design, not frame material.

The Foil is aero racing bike. It's designed to be fast, with comfort not being the highest priority Most frames designed in that category, by that nature tend to be less vertically compliant, than more traditional carbon fiber frame.

There are a number of CF frames that you would likely find more comfortable, such as a Trek Domane, or a Specialized Roubaix. Een going to just a more traditional designed frame would likely give a more compliant ride.

And there are a number of options now, where CF composite frames have added elements to the layup to add comfort, such as the speed save in the Cdale EVO, and the SEI films in various Wilier's.

And all that said, drop 10lbs of tire pressure and your Foil, and it will make as big of difference as buying a new frame.

If you have the clearance you might consider going to 25mm tires, and dropping pressure.

I'm confused by all of this talk about which frame material yields a faster bike as whenever anyone buys one of these bikes the first thing they face is people saying that the bike won't make them any faster. So bike choice can make you slower but not faster?

Fashion has nothing to do with why virtually all top bicycle makes choose carbon for their flagship bikes.
Carbon bikes can be made stiffer and lighter than Ti bikes and why carbon is prized. Plus the differential stiffness of carbon as I explained earlier can be calibrated for a precise ride and maintain tremendous lateral stiffness.

As to stiffness and speed, this has been debated here before and many side with you and believe that frame flex aka potential energy is restored 100% with each pedal stroke and there is no difference in speed between a stiff and a flexible frame. My view is, stiffer is faster. This is just my opinion having owned many of each. I believe the physics derivation would be the same a spring in the context of the 1st law of thermodynamics. If a spring is excited and left to oscillate it will over time stop. It will not conserve energy...aka is not 100% efficient or it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics and be a perpetual motion machine.

First law of thermodynamics: Heat and work are forms of energy transfer. Energy is invariably conserved, however the internal energy of a closed system may change as heat is transferred into or out of the system or work is done on or by the system. It is a convention to say that the work that is done by the system has a positive sign and connotes a transfer of energy from the system to its surroundings, while work done on the system has a negative sign. For example, changes in molecular energy (potential energy), are generally considered to remain within the system. Similarly, the rotational and vibrational energies of polyatomic molecules remain within the system.
From the above, all the energy associated with a system must be accounted for as heat, work, chemical energy etc., thus perpetual motion machines of the first kind, which would do work without using the energy resources of a system, are impossible.


Lasty, a stiff bike is prized by a pro and good amateur also because of added control throughout the pedal stroke which also relates to bike handling over rough road surfaces.

FWIW most feel the same about wheels...stiffer is faster even though many concede stiffer is less comfortable.

At this moment i am checking two options.

Paduano racing
I have some time to figure on how to get this in correct size (they don't work with stack and reach). As mentioned, i don't get stack and reach and i also am not sure on integrated seatpost mast and cutting this to size.

Next frameset is Bianchi Infinito CV. It is a bit too low in the stack, the larger size is better in this aspect, but it would probably be too large for me.

Fully aware in the fact that these are two different bikes. I love the looks of the Paduano. Basically ti lugs and ti rear with carbon tubes and fork. I have mailed some with Francesco so i have faith in longivity and quality. Weight however most surely will be higher than Infinito CV.

The Infinito CV has been tested by a few riders here. They say it is incredibly much better than 2013 Infinito (non CV).
This seems to be techically advanced and as good as carbon gets now.
Paduano is handmade to be stiff, handle well but to be about comfort. It's not made to be a coffee shop ride.
It has external wiring and seatpost mast is perhaps also not as easy.

I can't go to Italy, so this is much more difficult. Not all is logic when i do things, feelings tend to overwhelm and win.

Yes, the Foil is to prone to be harsh and vibrate. I ride FSA K-wing carbon with Fizik gel inlays and bar tape, i use 25mm tires with lower psi.
Saddle is sized accordingly, for sit bones width and have a cut out (Selle Italia Super Flow 145), saddle to handlebar drop is too large even though i use flipped stem and full stack of spacers.
Primary cause for change of frameset is comfort. Aswell as be able to ride as long as possible and as fast as possible.

Too much princess and the pea here.

Carbon frames have come along way since the earlier OCLV(TREK) for example. That bike was like a big pillow. My newer Giant Advanced is a lot more responsive. They can manipulate carbon to do pretty much whatever they want. Back a few years ago I worked at a Cervelo dealer. We hade to tongue depressor looking pieces of carbon fiber. One you could bend and not twist at all, the other you could twist but not bend. Pretty cool.

This is what i had in mind!
https://www.paduanoracing.com/

You can't go wrong with a quality frame of either Ti or carbon....

Well, i got my bike built up and i have been riding it for a few times. Maybe it's the custom fitting, maybe it is the mix of carbon and titanium!? I could say alot of how this bike rides compared to my previous. But some things is just so difficult to dress with words. All in all it feels so good. I had another thread on this subject, but out of some reason it went a bit far with rudeness for my taste. I have no experience with other brands success or failure. For me it is a win win situation this bike. So don't be scared trying a blend frame. From what i have understood from discussion with the builder, titanium can't be too thinned wall at certain key areas, there seems to be bikes that flex too much or feeling too soft. I also went for some specific carbon tubes to get a lighter weight and the bike being as stiff as possible (where needed) but also damping vibrations to a degree the bike feels nice to ride. Perhaps with my choice of geometry etc, it can be summed up as a gran fondo kind of race bike. I don't feel any of those downsides i've heard of titanium and i know how carbon bikes ride. But this is something i would guess, is just like the materials, a blend/ mix of two worlds.

I'm sure it's been said plenty. It's the rider.. the engine. Ti and carbon with equal equipment same (engine). I'd like to see that comparison.

Not all carbon feels dead. My Calfee is very lively and it is not noodley. The Dragonfly is a light, stiff and lively frame but it cost 4k.

Calfee was among the top on my list. My confusion when they stated that Manta was only for high end electronic and simply not for mech. I even asked for mech version but it was a no no. There are no best bikes. I don't think it is that easy to unworthy any way of build. I am sure i could ride a Calfee, or Guru, Argonaut or carbon and love it. I just fell in love with Paduano.. What matters is the there is no regrets. Had i more money i would probably try a another bike with Campy gearing just for the sake of having different bikes.

Cool. Congrats on the bike Avispa and glad you like it. When worlds collide, carbon meets Ti.
Only wildcard, and this is unknowable at the consumer level without seeing any test data is...and why I personally wouldn't opt for a combination frame material frame build....is what is the life of the 'connection' of the two materials? It maybe fine and no problem at all, but not common to the industry. No doubt the union of carbon and Ti is glued, so I would be curious about any stress corrosion or fatigue life issue...or loss of bonding strength due to stress over time.
This concern maybe completely unfounded but a reservation I would have.
Enjoy your new bike.

If i am not wrong, aeroplanes and some materials and components use bonding/ glue also. You know, ti tubes joints welded in: seatstays to seatmast, to top tube i was told are prone to crack, that is why this brand bond that joint when they use a seatmast of titanium. This concerns ISP when you use ti, i might say! I understand the concerns you mentioned, i asked this before my order. They claim i need not worry. In any case, i have a life time warranty. I know it is uncommon, but it feels good to ride and not to heavy either. Looking at this size of this frame suggests that the options in carbon might not had comn in any lighter.

Would you expect the adhesive bonded joints to be any less secure at a carbon-titanium interface than at an aluminum-aluminum interface? Glued aluminum bikes had lots of faults back in the day, but debonding wasn't one of them as far as I know. The Trek 1000, 1200, 1400, and 2000 were all pretty reliably put together. Same for Vitus and Alan. I know that aluminum-carbon bonds were prone to electrolytic issues, but I would think the titanium-carbon interfaces would be much more inert. And even with the electrolytic issues, am I mistaken, or wasn't aluminum bonded to carbon the construction of the Trek 2300s? What's your take on this in light of the history?

I don't think its knowable without seeing test data. I have concern about boutique companies putting out niche products to carve their fraction of the market. There maybe no R&D predicate for what they create and release to the public. I would feel more comfortable if a company like Specialized, Trek and Cannondale put out such a bike because of PhD material experts and engineers on staff to make these decisions which affect failure versus not.
I personally see no virtue of merging the two materials with the downside of joining two heterogeneous materials versus the benefit to performance. Ti really represents no upside to bike performance....but its a fine material for a bike...I own one and like the bike.

C4life, i think Ti is to costly to work with and is not offering so much as carbon does. It might seem more problem than what the gains using it in conjunction with carbon. There had been alot more hassle and cost to supply teams racing with mixed material bikes.
Now so much is built in Asia. I guess cost had been even higher for high end bikes if they were made with both ti and carbon.

Legend bikes still holds Queen Ti as their best frame. It has a carbon seat mast. Personally, i'd rather have seen top tube and down tube in carbon that is stiffer.
Perhaps the seatmast tube in titanium. But again, there is this idea of a long ti tube that flex and crack in weld joints. A bonding would have made this easier.
Legend has also built rebadged bikes for team riders. So teams has used bikes with logos, but not really made from those companies.
Which bikes and extent, we will never now.
All those is of carbon.

The beauty of titanium and carbon together with no paint is really something. It also feels like taking a classical approach together with the custom fit.
There is just a sense i like about it. It will never be one of those leaf among the other leafs. I don't think bonding will be an issue really.
It would perhaps seem so, if a company was all new and the technique was without any years on it's neck for them.

But when they sponsor race teams running Mtb races on bikes made like this, it would simply not work if bikes did not stand the test of time.
All new and the latest, is more unsafe and there is really nothing of proof other than theoretical data.
Data is great, but usage over time is also a truth.

Good post Avispa. Interesting bike and thanks for sharing it here. You make many good points.
Best regards

From a performance point of view I agree with you completely. What's the point except to enable a small builder without the financial resources to fully engage in monocoque construction to offer some CF and to wrap his bikes in a false aura of technical complexity/superiority. This allows him to extract a higher price than the market would bear for simple brazed or welded metal.

But if you are bound and determined to build a mixed-material bike, I always say that Ti lugs and carbon tubes are the wrong way around. If you have to merge the two materials, it should be the opposite. Carbon in the connections where it's unique capacity for being fine tuned will have its greatest effect (e.g. BB and head tube stiffness/compliance), and titanium in the tubes where its limited capacity for fine tuning will also have its greatest realization. Titanium tubes can be worked and shaped while the connecting parts are generally cast or machined. Not that carbon in the tubes of monocoques isn't fine tuned directionally to a greater extent than possible with titanium. It certainly is. But I don't think carbon tubes for bonded mixed-material assemblies are nearly as complex as in monocoques. They might just as well be butted, shaped, curved, etc. titanium. If the best I could do were a mixed-material bike, that is what I would want, carbon connections and titanium tubes. Or even hydroformed aluminum tubes assuming the electrolytic issues can be effectively resolved.

Getting back to the bond integrity question, yes, I agree with you there too. Without the design and testing resources of a major manufacturer, although the risk may be small, it is better not taken.