I am looking at buying a road bike for training and possibly racing purposes, and have been presented with several options in frame material. Primarily I am interested in titanium and aluminum frames, however I am not sure about the benefits/drawbacks of these materials, and I'm reluctant to take only the salesman's word for it.
I anyone could give me a quick run down of their experiences with these two materials, I would greatly appreciate it. I haven't got any experience with road bikes myself, and thus am not well equipped to make a purchasing decision without more info.

Thanks.
Sly

I don't have any first hand experience with Al, currently ride Ti (Litespeed Classic).

Titanium is "springy," and supposedly transmits less road vibration, etc., to the rider than Al. I've heard that this has been improved somewhat in Al frames by altering the tubing diameter, etc. Al frames cost less than Ti. Ti is not prone to corrosion.

Al supposedly suffers from fatigue, which ultimately causes the frame to break, since it is not a resilient metal like steel or Ti. However, I don't know of anyone that has had a frame break after years of normal use. Every once in a while, every company lets a bad frame slip past their QC department, no matter what the material.

Several years ago Scot Nicol wrote an excellent article for Velonews, "Metallurgy for cyclists". There's a copy still online at:
https://www.sjsu.edu/orgs/asmtms/artcle/articl.htm

Bicycling Magazine's taken the position that the differences between frame materials aren't as relevant now as they used to be. Build techniques, frame geometry, etc., have certainly narrowed the differences to the point that designers can "dial-in" a certain type of handling and feel with almost any material. The prevalence of carbon forks has also made a big difference.
That said, I agree with everything "newtbob" wrote. With all else being equal (which it never is!) titanium is probably the most enjoyable "feel" of presently available materials. It's livelier than carbon, lighter than steel (usually), and fore forgiving than aluminum.
My basic position is: If you ride to win races, and that's all that matters, go with aluminum (or carbon). If you ride for pleasure and personal training go with steel or titanium. If you're over 200lb, steel is probably the way to go. If you can afford it and weigh less, titanium has a wonderful feel and won't rust!
(By the way, inexpensive titanium frames do exist, and many still have that magical ride...)

Al frames are "harsh" becauase Al tubes are fat, because AL will fatigue if bent, so designers make tubes that are stiff enough not to bend. The low density of the material ensures that the weight penalty of the extra metal is not significant.

High-end Al frame-builders like Principia make frame that are a little more comfortable and finely tuned. They seem to be the frame of choice for European pros who have to buy their own bike.

There are some great Ti frames around, like Airborne, that wont break the bank. How they last compared to a Merlin or Lightspeed, we can only wait and see.

Can't anyone say "STEEL" anymore?
It has a great ride, lasts a long time, is fixable, can be bent back if " tweaked" and very competitive price wise.
So what if some steel frames are a bit heavier, just eat less. So what if the pros use the other stuff, pro teams can go through over 50 frames a year. Do you think maybe the sponsors supply the other stuff beacause they want to sell more products because the other materials will break easier or need to be replaced more often?

There's nothing wrong with steel, Pat. There's also nothing wrong with titanium, carbon, or aluminum. And there's nothing wrong with cruisers, hybrids, mountain bikes, or bmxs. But there are differences, and that's a good thing. My last bike was a steel Italian thoroughbred and I loved it. My present bike is an American ti, and I love it too. But I'd be lying if I said there wasn't a difference.
By the way, a lot of people say the new Cannondale CAAD 6 is as comfortable as any steel or titanium...

I'm with you, Pat. When it comes to ride quality, a good steel frame wins hands down, and they aren't really that much heavier. But Sly asked specifically about Al & Ti, and indicated an interest in racing, where grams do count.

My choice involved a number of factors, including weight, corrosion resistance, riding style, and bargains too good to pass up.

P.S. Ever hear of Moses Lake? I lived there for 4 years a looong time ago.

Bob (aging military brat)

Newtbob,
Oh yeah, I know Moses Lake. I'm 100 apx. miles east.

Thanks all for the help.
Based on what I've heard from you and some further independant research I'll prob'ly go for an aluminum frame coupled with a carbon fork. I'm only 19, and at my age I'm more concerned about the price (still have to pay for school) than the smoother ride, besides.... I can prob'ly take the bumps that you old geezers can't! Still open to suggestions of course, but this bike will probably be a training machine for the fall rowing season than for racing (never tried bike racing before).
Anyways... thanks again for the help, I'll let you know how it turns out.

Sly

Good luck biking & rowing. You're probably right about the geezer factor. A website that might help you in choosing a ride:
https://www.roadbikereview.com/
Mind you, most people give high marks to whatever they've purchased, so the reviews aren't really unbiased. Still there's some good info there about lots of bikes and the components they come with.

Sly
The specs for a training machine on a limited budget are quite different from an ultra-light race machine. The aim of training is to work your body, not go as fast as possible.

Ti frames just dont make sense for that role. Carbon forks are generally over-priced. Nice if you have the money, but a high qualuty steel fork (eg Reynolds 531c) works very well, and weighs as much as the cheapest carbon fork.

The real choice is between an Al frame with steel forks and an all steel bike, either will do the job, and the difference in weight is less than you might imagine. For a training bike, try and get one with more clearance for wider tyres, and with threaded eyelets for fenders. Fall training on wet roads is much more comfortable when your butt is dry.

Most serious well educated racers have a special training machine, so they dont wreck their racing steed in bad conditions.

I remember during my younger racing days I would prefer to train in a ragtag Bike the heavier they are the better, coz' if your on a heavy bike you would be pounding the bike really hard, now on the time you will be riding your competition bike you will be pounding the competition bike just as hard as when you where training.

Ti for sure

well how did it turn out?

When you posted, where you aware the thread was over 10 years old?

are you aware that you just ruined the joke?

Wasn't aware that randomly bumping a 10 year old thread was considered funny.

well now you are.!

Nick, since you ask

I bought an Al Trek 10 years ago that I just retired with 24,000 miles on it. I was so tired of having my kidneys beaten out after hours in the saddle that I was ready to buy a new bike. Not that there was any thing wrong with the bike mind you, not cracked, dented, or corroded, I just wanted something different. I bought a Lynskey sportive, love the ride, and hope to live long enough to wear out the Ti frame!

****

good cover

I ride both. My titanium IF feels very similar to my aluminum de Rosa, and actually the de Rosa is slightly lighter. It is not "quite" as smooth as the IF, but it is close which is impressive for aluminum. Both are built by master builders, so that probably has a lot to do with how great they ride.

As other posters have indicated, any of the current frame materials, if properly constructed, provide a comfortable and efficient ride. I've built and ridden a number of Al frames, including a Masi Gran Criterium (CF seat and chain stays), Specialized E5 and Principia Evolution SX. Only the Principia provided me with a ride that was comfortable enough for 5+ hour rides. I ride the Principia regularly. Although I really enjoy the ride quality of my Tommaso Ti frame, it is a bit "noodly" as compared to my other CF, Al, steel and Mg frames. But, my Tommaso is definitely not a high end Ti frame. As long as you purchase a high quality frame, in a size that fits well, with good components and appropriate wheel/tire combination for your style of riding, you will find it meets the requirements of all but the highest level racers. In my case, it has never been the machine that determined race results.

In your 20's, ride alu.
30's and 40's, ride carbon
50's and above, ride Ti

And when you are done with those, go give steel a try. We'll wait.

I did it backwards!

Age 13 to 53, rode and raced steel (Reynolds 531 and 853, Columbus SL and SP).

Age 54 to (now) 59, aluminum all the way (Motobecane Le Champion SL, Felt TK2) for my (average) 15 hours of hard riding/week.

The Reynolds 853 steel bike has been relegated to commuting. Skipped carbon and Ti; since all the steel and aluminum racing-geometry bikes I've ever ridden have felt pretty much the same to me (except for the lightness of the aluminum bikes for climbing, of course), I assume that carbon and Ti bikes would feel about the same, too, so what's the point?

And yes, I know that Ti is lighter than steel and stronger than aluminum. However, it's also heavier than aluminum and weaker than steel.