Got a question today which made me wonder.
Question was, have you not considered a titanium frame?

I have never tried a titanium frame, anyone here who has compared carbon frames and titanium?
I got so curious and realized at the same time i just never even bothered, but i don't know why.

Anyone care to explain how these two is different in ride feel?

I have one of each. They feel different. The ti feels springy. The carbon feels like it absorbs the bumps and is smoother. I don't know if this is generally how the materials differ or just happens to be my 2 bikes. I've used the same wheelset on both.

I had a Seven Axiom and a Merlin Extralight. Neither is as stiff as any of the modern carbon frames, e.g. Cervelo RS/R3. For touring, they are great. The rides were. actually very supple, and looks good too.

dalava, did you have a carbon fork on your Ti bikes?

i have an old merlin road and I think the fork is aluminum. It's like the worst of all worlds. I ended up abandoning it for a carbon frame because the BB on those old Ti frames was decidedly noodly. I got significant chainrub every time I got out of the saddle. newer models should have a beefier BB so it probably isn't a concern.

I love my carbon bike. i did enjoy my Ti bike, even with its flaws.

I moved from carbon to Titanium actually. Carbon feels dead to me, where steel and Ti feel alive. My boss made the same discovery himself and is in the process of craigslisting his carbon bikes in favor of replacing with Ti, both mountain and road. Not to say carbon is bad, I just don't feel as in tune with the road when I ride on it. My Tarmac was a fantastic bike still, but one ride on my steel and I knew I didn't need carbon anymore. Ti is even better... lighter and springier than steel.

I have both. You can't go by frame material alone: a carbon frame can be a plush enduro bike, a Ti bike with oversized tubes can be an unforgivingly stiff racer. Carbon can be very robust and durable, but assembly generally requires a bit more care with items like clamp-on FDs, cages, stems, seatposts and the like. Ti is generally much more tolerant of gorillas. Ti bikes generally feel a bike "springy" and "twangy" with a pleasant smoothness (hard to explain), similar to older steel bikes. Carbon in generally stiffer and damped. Ti frames "ping" over bumps, carbon frames "clunk".


I see upsides to both. If you're not going to do the work on it yourself, pick based on ride not materials.

I have a 15.5 lb carbon racing bike and a 21 pound gravel/winter/cross etc Ti bike. The latter is nice, and absolutely terrific for its intended use, but the added weight really makes it feel comparatively sluggish. I've also got a 19lb carbon bike that stills feels snappier than the Ti bike.

I'll preface this with the comment that there's more to it than frame material. A Lynskey Helix rides very differently from a Litespeed ghisallo, and a Cervelo S5 rides very differently from a Trek Domane.

That said, IMHO CF has passed Ti by as a building material, with the possible exception of longevity.

I've owned a number of steel bikes, two ti bikes, two aluminum bikes, and 3 CF bikes.

You can make a CF frame substantially lighter than a comparably stiff Ti frame. You can also make a stiffer frame with CF, than typical Ti frames. More importantly, you can dial in stiffness and flex where you want it and in the degree you want with CF composite frame, moreso than with a Ti frame.

I like my Merlinextralight, and still use it for travel (adding S&S Couplers) but it doesn't begin to compare to my Wilier Trestina Zero 7. The Wilier is almost 3 lbs lighter. ( about 1.5 lbs of that is the frame difference.) The Wilier is stiffer in both the BB and the front end, with the latter inspiring more confident handling.

And with the SEI film in the composite layup, the Wilier is as comfortable to ride as the Merlin. The SEI film also allegedly increases resistance to impact damage, which blunts some of the Merlin's advantage there.

For me, the case left for Ti is durability. A Ti frame is arguably less likely be damaged from impacts in crashes, due to its springiness. Although as stated above, modern composite layups are making progress in that regard. Cf is prone to damage from abrasion, whereas, it doesn't much matter if you scratch an unpainted Ti frame, so there'sa bit of an advantage there. In fact, that's the reason my Merlin is the travel bike. I can throw it in an S&S case and not worry about scratching it up. (in fact all I bother to cover in the case with pipe insulation foam is the CF fork.)

I think that's a matter of frame stiffness. The feeling that steel or Ti is alive comes from the frames being flexy, and acting like a spring in returning energy.

If you're used to that, and then ride a very stiff CF frame, you're not going to get that same spring effect.

You can design a CF to be flexy, and give that feel, but the consensus is that most people don't want unecessary flex.

The beauty of CF is desginers have a lot of ability to dial in the flex characteristics of a frame.

I have both - actually two shaped-tube titanium bikes and a custom, lugged ENVE-tubed carbon bike.

I have ridden straight tube and butted titanium bikes as well but prefer the Lynskey shaped-tube bikes - lateral stiffness with a slight vertical compliance and high frequency buzz-absorbing. I have ridden only about 7000 miles on them but love every moment on the bikes.

I recently got a custom, lugged ENVE-tubed carbon bike and have only ridden about 500 miles on it. It feels worlds apart from the other monocoque carbon bikes that I have ridden - the ride does not feel as brittle or overly stiff. The road feel is not as springy as the Lynskeys but just as nice. However, the custom geometry fits me like a glove so it is hard to separate the material feel of Titanium and ENVE carbon tubes and the custom geometry set-up of the custom, lugged ENVE-tubed carbon bike.

So, as long as you are comparing equally classed titanium bikes and similarly constructed carbon bikes, the difference would be minor and probably only felt after at least 5000 miles and after 3-4 continuous hours on each bike.

Mark

OP, as with a lot of things, it depends on what your intention of use for a bike. I have some experience with steel, aluminum and carbon frames. My aluminum frames were the fastest I owned, but I also got two tooth fillings rattled out of my mouth (they were that stiff, especially my CAAD 8). I have test-rode two Ti bikes, and the BB kept moving on me (the only way I'll ever consider a TI frame is if it were custom-built with appropriately selected tubes). Now, carbon is where I've been in the last six years or so. And I love it. It is perfect for my typical ride, 65-70milers. I come back not beat up after having a fast exercise ride.

The real thing though is that I find myself admiring and ogling Ti and classic steel bikes, but once I remember my experience on those kind of frames and compare it to why I own road bikes (i.e. intended use), the envy instantly disappears.Kinda like the feeling of seeing a truly beautiful and nubile thing, then instantly being told that she has a really terrible and contagious disease.

Just my two cents.

I have to disagree there. The CF bikes I have ridden were a Tarmac SL3 (quite stiff) and a Niner Air 9 carbon (also quite stiff), and both felt dead. I understand the relationship springyness has to "feeling alive", but I don't think carbon can really be "springy". My understanding was that a main reason for the vibration dampening was that carbon DOESN'T spring back as quick, meaning it won't be springy, hence the frames feeling "dead" to me.

Honestly though, I had more of an issue with carbon riding mountain, the bike always felt like I had to wrestle it places, it was light, stiff, and comfortable, but switching with my boss during the ride between that and a seven Ti, I dreaded when he would want to get back on the seven, because neither of us were enjoying the ride of carbon. It does dampen a lot when designed right, sure, but it doesn't feel the same... just my opinion of course. Most people seem to prefer carbon, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Like others have said, frame material doesn't really matter. State what your desire is for the bike and many can suggest the particular bikes that fit that type of riding.

I've had all the common frame materials, aluminum, carbon, steel and Ti and they all rode differently. I've had aluminum that rode like crap and one that rode very, very plush. I've had carbon that rode very harsh and some that were so plush you didn't feel anything. And everywhere in-between. Geometry tends to be the best way to determine how a bike will ride, but carbon it also depends on how they wanted the frame to ride.

That's my point. The CF frames you've ridden are quite stiff. It is that stiffness that makes them feel "dead" compared to more flexible Ti frames. You can design CF to spring and flex back if you want.

Go with Bamboo. After your done riding it you can actually feed your pet Panda. BINGO!

Well, thanks to all of you, all input on this is very appreciated!

But it sure is a can of worms in my head right now.
The bike i looked at is Van Nicholas Astraeus (carbon fork and probably a ti seatpost)
https://www.vannicholas.com/resources...w_AE_dec12.pdf
A 2013 model, don't know if that would matter though.

I have not disliked my Foil, i even feel i'd like a bike accelerating faster, feeling faster.
What i would like less of is the sense it has to transfer road feedback. I could ride with eyes closed and sense difference in asphalt (vibrations, bumps and all .. ).
I don't know, but at times i find this tiresome adding fatigue.
Perhaps this info somewhat put me off titanium.
I did what i could to make my bike fit and feel better.
But something is lacking and perhaps i might have been barking up the wrong tree looking at titanium as the solution!?

I've been checking many framesets out: Bianchi Infinito CV (late 2013), BMC GF01, BH G6 & Ultralight, Litespeed CR 1R (2013), Scott Solace (2014) even Specialized Venge and ofcourse Tarmac, Orbea Orca (performance fit, late 2013), Argonaut, Guru Photon SL (2013) etc etc.

Problem is that it will be more or less impossible to test ride a bike to a degree that i am sure.
I have been talking and searching help from dealers and even manufacturers. But honestly, i am still far from sure.

This is true, but it's extremely hard to find a CF bike with that springyness. Average carbon road frames sold in bike stores are generally extremely rigid. This is because buyers generally look for a high degree of stiffness in their frame, convinced that it's faster. I'm not sure that stiffness=speed. Lemond, Roche, Fignon & co. rode first gen carbon or Ti bikes that were complete noodles by today's standards to very, very fast times up mountains. Sean Kelly was one of the greatest sprinters and classics riders of all time and he won a hell of a lot of races on a Vitus 979, a bonded thin-tubed Al frame famous (infamous?) for its flexibility.

Personally, I like both the "rocket", immediate response feeling of a stiff CF frame and the springy, "alive" feeling of a more compliant Ti frame. I'm unconvinced there's any real proof that energy is "lost" in using a flexy frame.

I would take a top end carbon frame (custom Parlee/Crumpton or at least Cervelo RCA lol) over a top end Titanium frame.
In addition to being much lighter and stiffer typically, you can have far more complex shaping with carbon. I feel that gives it a design capability advantage.

Titanium looks amazing, rides great, and is durable (at least the non superlight ones).

But I need that weight savings where I live since I'm way overweight in the hills.

Yes, I had a carbon fork. It was a good ride, just a bit noodly.

This is exactly my experience too.

I sold my last ti bike last week on eBay, but I still have an IF steel bike (18 lbs) which has a ride quality I like better for touring.

Your comments are frought with counterdictions and likely why you can't make a decision. There is no better...but there is different. If speed is your goal, you will be fastest on a stiff carbon frame. Forget the argument about frame stiffness and speed. Lets call it irrelevant. But those that ride an uber stiff frame like a Foil or even a Tarmac will say each accelerates like a rocket. Most don't say the same thing about any Ti frame. As to Lemond and others of his era riding noodly frames. It was the fashion because that was what was available. If you wanted stiff in that era, it would add weight which is worse than greater flex. A fast rider on a flexy bike will be faster than an average racer on the best racing frame on the planet.

So you can't decide what you want. Not all carbon bikes are uber stiff. My Roubaix SL3 which is the best bike I have ever owned feels like a high end snappy ski. To me there has never been a better bike and I have ridden most of them out there and currently own a Ti bike as well.
This stuff is preference at the end of the day. Some like a particular feel which maybe Ti or steel. I get that having owned several. But I want the lightest, fastest most comfortable bike that allows me to keep up on long fast group rides and my choice is carbon.
If you want to know the most 'favorable' racing bike material, look no further than what all top of line road bikes are made from. Specialized, Trek, Giant, Look, Cervelo, Scott...all of them are carbon fiber both on and off road.

I have both CF and Ti bikes set up similarly for racing (a vanity, I never do it) with same groups and similarly light cockpits, wheels and tires. The Giant TCR Advanced CF weighs 13.9 lb while the Everti Falcon Ti weighs 14.2 lb. Yes, Ti frames will weigh more at similar stiffness. And yes, Ti frames cannot be fine tuned to the extent CF can, an extent which to me is overkill. But there is no way that modern Ti frames can be considered noodly. They are very stiff. Besides those two factors Ti is a marvelous frame material. Beautiful, comfortable, stiff yet resilient, and durable. I love both bikes, and don't believe an accomplished racer could turn in different results on the two bikes. There is no reason both Ti and CF bikes can't be your only bike. Also no reason either shouldn't be your second bike. After all is said and done, it is whatever you want. The performance differences are imaginary.

Why aren't you riding bamboo?

With pedals?

Let's say, I'm skeptical of the 14.2lbs on the Everti, unless it's an extreme weight weenie build. The claimed weight for that frame is 1375 grams. It's hard to build up a 3+lb frame to 14lbs.

My Wilier Zero 7, which has a frame that's 576 grams lighter than the Everti, built up with Zipp 303 tubulars (1150 grams or so) and New Red, weighs 13lbs 14 ounces.

Hey skepticism is healthy, and I appreciate both your candor and your tact, but I am positive of my results. No, I quote weights as done in a catalog, no pedals, cages, computers or mounts. I call it showroom weight. I understand if you include more in your weight, I just feel my method is the lowest common denominator, the equipment that every rider will have the same for a given bicycle model. Yes, every rider will have pedals, but not necessarily the same ones. What good is knowing how much a bike weighs equipped for someone else? What is important is how much it would weigh if I (or you) were riding it. Best way to get there is to know the showroom weight and the weight of your standard add-on stuff, the pedals, cages, bottles, computer, mounts, etc., that you carry. Then the sum is the real weight of the bike. So it is best to know the weight of your add-ons so you can add it to standard showroom weights.

All that aside, I agree with your frame weight assessment on the Falcon at 1,375g. Fork is the Ritchey PRO at a respectable 350g as cut. My wheels are self-built clinchers based on Kinlin XR200 rims and BHS lightest hubs and come in at about 1,270 for the pair.

GP4000 tires and Performance Lunar Light 52g tubes (now in short supply). Cockpit is very light, 150g post, FSA OS98 stem and Kestrel PRO SL bar. Saddle is moderate, the Terry Falcon Y at 227g.

Most important is the comparison between the two bikes, both weighed by me the same way. And by the way, my Giant frame is a disappointing 1,207g. I was expecting about 900 based on reviews, and was really bummed when I saw the true weight. But with my parts choices (and method of weighing) I was able to get the 13.9 lb total.

Sorry I can't post photos on a scale right now. I am on vacation for quite a while.

By the way, are you sure of your Willier's weight? I mean did you verify it. As I said, my Giant was very disappointing!