I really dont think their'll be any Ti frame failures, but all the same. It'll be interesting to see if Al is really as fragile as some people would lead you to beleive, or if steel is really as tough as some would lead you to belive...

I can't vote. Would have been interesting to see how a "none" choice might have fared.

55/Rad

dam, your rignt. well 2 for none...

I've had one steel frame fail but it was because of a rusted out BB shell. I know this is the road cycling forum but also, I've had a steel frame failure due to chainsuck on a MTB.

BTW, would you like me to add an option for "none"?

That would be a good idea. That way I can vote.

I'll wait for the thread owner to speak up first.

yeah, please

Done.

thanx

I voted NONE. I've never had a frame fail on me. Well, except once when I was a kid. I threw an old BMX bike (steel) off the top of our barn (40ft below) to see what would happen. Don't know why, just seemed like the thing to do.

Anyway, it broke.

Makes one wonder what it was doing up there in the first place?

55/Rad

I had a steel frame crack where the seat stay joined the seat tube / top tube lug. It was a design where the seat binder bolt went through the seat stay junction, rather than at a separate tunnel. It seems like it was a poor design that put too much stress on the area. Either that, or it was god's way of telling me to eat less donuts.

I agree that Ti does not fail. I have a late 80's Spectrum Ti that has over 135K miles on it.

Ahhh yes... the indestructable myth of the indestructableness of titanium frames. Perhaps it is time to revisit this past thread.

I voted, but I do want to comment.

I have a Reynolds 531 frame that is in the process of failing due to cracking through the seat tube spigot of the BB shell all the way around the seat tube. It's sitting on the rollers in the garage. No way am I riding that on the road anymore, but it isn't quite broken yet. It appears to be failing in the course of normal use as originally intended by the designers of the tubing and the lugset.

I had a Cannondale that I never cleaned. I mean, why clean a bike that won't rust when you could spend the time riding? One day, though, I had a hilly race coming up, and I was knocking and wiping the dirt off to get it lighter and slipperier, and I found this smudge that wouldn't wipe off......when the frame was built and they ground down the welds, right in front of the seat tube on top of the top tube, the grinder had slipped and took a divot out of the top tube. Oops. Well, no problem, we'll just paint over that....there was a crack across the divot. Given my cleaning habits, there is no telling how long that crack had been there.

I took it down to the shop, and they said, the C'dale rep was just here, and we can't warranty it for crack until he looks at it even if it is obviously a crack, and he won't be back for a month. Oh, by the way, don't ride it...I rode it for another two months until C'dale replaced it.

I don't count the C'dale as an aluminum failure because it was a manufacturing defect, not a design or material defect. I'm STILL amazed that the crack didn't propagate over the next two months while I watched it, consistent with the alleged fragility of the Cannondale frames. I DID have to tell my friends not to ride too close behind me because the frame might blow up.

You have to take people's word for almost everything claimed on the internet that you can't independently confirm, and given that "None" should be the predominantly most common response in a litigious environment, it is a minor quibble, but "None" votes by respondents who do not own bikes does skew the data....and then there's miles ridden, total number of bikes owned, frame material(s) owned, number of miles on frame when it failed, weight/watts of rider, etc., etc.

On the other hand, this is better than no poll, because it does provide some report of claimed qualitative incidence of failure.

frame failure due to chainsuck..? wow

khuon, I don't have the link but there is a website (quite large) completely devoted to chain suck. Pretty extensive, can't imagine how many hours this guy spent on it.

think I possibly got the link off of sheldon's dictionary, under "chain suck".

I've broken 6 steel frames and 2 aluminum. Do I win anything?

2 Nishiki (late '80s)
2 Eisentraut (same frame but repaired and broken twice in different places)
1 Gianni Motta (early '80s)
1 Windsor (early 80s)
1 Aluminum Trek (late 80s)
1 Aluminum Alan Cyclocross (late 80s)

Come to think of it, I haven't broken anything since I quit racing... Hmmmmm...

-Dennis

Have broken a R531 tandem frame twice. Once after 50,000 miles on the odo and the next time @ 56,000 miles. Retired that tandem @ 64,000 miles.
Also broke an experimental R531 fork after 15,000 miles. No crashes or injuries due to the material failures. It pays to check/inspect out your frame and components at regular intervals
Most folks do not put that kind of mileage on frames.
Do personally know of ti tandem with failure in the rear triangle.
Anything can be broken . . . eventually!

I just saw a cf frame break in 3 places at the rear triangle in a crash today...

Just checking up on the results, interesting that double the steel failures of aluminum. Is it just because aluminum frames are only recently popular or is it that aluminum frames with oversized tubes have less of a tendancy to break. Or is it just rust?

Seen it once on an OCLV frame...this guy must have been completely oblivious because when I got my hands on it it was almost all the way through the chainstay.

No personal failures for me, but about half a dozen carbon (OCLV actually) and one Ti failure-that was a funky sort of shearing within the downtube just aft of the headtube. I wish I'd taken a picture of it because it was quite interesting and I can't begin to describe it.

I had expected that posters owned better-than-average equipment, with more AL and CF and TI than steel, so of course there would be fewer steel failures reported....this is not what I expected.

Not necessarily an accurate survey. How many times did post #17 vote, as he broke 6 steel frames?

you can only vote once - the comparison between materials is relatively meaningless anyway.


Steel and alum alloy would be more likely to fail because of age and relative low cost of them. Who uses a composite bike as a beater? Also - because composite materials are relatively newer as a material and the price point higher, greater care is generally taken to ensure they function. The quality control for a 2000 dollar composite frame is ideally going to be higher than a 500 dollar steel frame.

If we wanted to compare because we have some curiousity - why not look at real data of the material's properties? Alum has no fatigue resistance - so the frames have to designed with less flex in mind because flex would shorten the lifespan. Titanium, steel and composites have fatigue resistance so they can be engineered with more flex without sacrificing longevitiy.

Whether the frames fail or not is a matter of manufacturing and design - got lil to do with the material.

Yeah, it's not the most scientific survey, but it's interesting.

Any frame would break if you hit it hard enough with a train or something. I'd be interested in non-crash failures.