Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

rec riding 200 ks a week. Ti v carbon. Money not an issue. 76 kgs. Lots of hills. 52 years old. Have ridden carbon for 2 years. Used to ride steel. Is carbon That much better or is ti more practical for the everyday hack. My mate is ti obsessive and if had the money would buy ti. The prospect of owning one bike for maybe life appeals big time. Have not even touched a ti bike let alone ridden, but steel was so good to ride. Any help appreciated.

Can someone pass the popcorn....If money is no issue buy both and tell us the results

Edit: the search function is your friend http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... t=titanium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

whitey wrote:Can someone pass the popcorn....If money is no issue buy both and tell us the results

Edit: the search function is your friend http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... t=titanium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

buy me both, and i'll report back

whitey wrote:Can someone pass the popcorn....If money is no issue buy both and tell us the results

I can't say money is no issue, but on the basis of n+1... I now have a couple of old steels, an ally, a carbon and a Ti.

Ti is Van Nicholas Zephyr, built for long cruisey rides. I like it. I'd buy it again. Unlike my old carbon, the frame is pretty much bullet proof (had a cracked frame, not good, but replaced under warranty) and it is comfortable. Not comfortable like a feather mattress, that would be an exaggeration, but has a little more damping than the carbon. It's my Sunday best and I expect to be riding it in another 20 years, if I'm still compos.

At 52 a good quality, lugged steel frame will outlast you and two work hardened Ti frames. The jury is still out on the UV damage a carbon frame can sustain, but steel bikes 100 years old are still rideable. Ti is for showing off, not forever

drubie wrote:At 52 a good quality, lugged steel frame will outlast you and two work hardened Ti frames. The jury is still out on the UV damage a carbon frame can sustain, but steel bikes 100 years old are still rideable. Ti is for showing off, not forever

Why do you say Ti is not forever? Personally I love lugged steel but I do see a good Ti bike as the next step up for those not fiscally constrained.

At the moment I ride lugged aluminium!

CF frames go out of fashion (in terms of the latest styling). Ti frame styling have been pretty constant over time.

There are titanium bikes, carbon fibre bikes, alloy bikes, and even a steel bike in my collection.

They are all good.

I think the attribution of ride characteristics to materials is overstated. It's the construction, not the materials that determine a frame's ride qualities.

And I would never buy a bike on the basis that it's going to be my bike "for the rest of my life". How bloody boring!

Why do you think that it will last a life time? Any frame will fatigue and break in various ways if you ride them long and hard enough.

Ride On wrote:Road racer Ben Douglas told Ride On the common understanding among competitive riders is that after two years averaging 20-25,000km per annum racing and training, a carbon fibre bike will lose some of its stiffness due to the epoxy resin softening. It makes the bike less suitable for high-end racing, but still more than adequate as a road bike.

http://rideons.wordpress.com/2012/04/19 ... nd-repair/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TDC wrote:Why do you think that it will last a life time? Any frame will fatigue and break in various ways if you ride them long and hard enough.

From what I've read, metals with a fatigue limit like Ti and steel need to have the repeated stresses less than half the yield strength to last indefinitely. To me that means these frames will only last a lifetime if the frame is built strong enough and you are light enough. Many these days have the opposite combination.

TDC wrote:Why do you think that it will last a life time? Any frame will fatigue and break in various ways if you ride them long and hard enough.

Many materials including steel and titanium don't exhibit fatigue behaviour under normal loading. A steel bike frame should last a lifetime unless you break in a crash or other extreme event.

Nobody wrote:From what I've read, metals with a fatigue limit like Ti and steel need to have the repeated stresses less than half the yield strength to last indefinitely. To me that means these frames will only last a lifetime if the frame is built strong enough and you are light enough. Many these days have the opposite combination.

EDIT: My confidence in steel fatigue is probably misplaced judging by the comments below.
I doubt this is the case except in extreme cases. Cyclical loading on bicycle frames would be well less than 10% of yield strength. (I've happily loaded up my bicycles with 3 adults before. Bicycles frames are EXTREMELY strong!)

I have two dead steel frames hanging in the shed with fatigue cracks. I know someone who killed two Gios steel frames with fatigue cracks, and his brothers Lwellyn separated at the head tube in a big way.


Sent from my iThingy...

I bought an Abeni Tri A (Columbus SL) in 1988. Over a period of about 10 years the bottom bracket cracked, the fork crown cracked, and the head tube cracked. I has the BB and fork repaired but gave up when the HT went. I did not have any crashes on this bike. Just normal riding/training and about 20 races.

human909 wrote:I doubt this is the case except in extreme cases. Cyclical loading on bicycle frames would be well less than 10% of yield strength.

(I've happily loaded up my bicycles with 3 adults before. Bicycles frames are EXTREMELY strong!)

Well there are a few on here like TLL and Twizzle who will proudly tell you they have cracked steel frames. It's no surprise to many here that I have a bias toward steel, but I still can't deny the reality. The steel frame has to be build strong enough for the person it is going to carry to last. Many lighter frames aren't IMO. Either that, or they are poorly built.

http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 34&t=51878" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Edit: Wow, you have to quick around here.

human909 wrote: I doubt this is the case except in extreme cases. Cyclical loading on bicycle frames would be well less than 10% of yield strength. (I've happily loaded up my bicycles with 3 adults before. Bicycles frames are EXTREMELY strong!)

This pseudo-science justification is akin to one Ti bike company that advertised their bike strength by running a few Ti tubes with a 4WD, all forgetting that the tubes still needed to be welded together and other manufacturing steps. The resulting frame will fail at the weakest point or a point of stress concentration. Fact is, all frames fail.

I've not been the type who tends to keep bikes for a "life time", but my longest relationship has been about 6 years (Specialized Tarmac S-Works). That was my first serious carbon fibre race bike which withstood thousands of km's without a hitch. I sold the Tarmac & purchased a hand built Ti Blacksheep compact frame with the intention of being a "very long term" investment.

To date the Blacksheep is the only bike I've ever owned that has cracked (vertical head tube crack under top headset cup) It also suffered a cable lug failure which cracked off. Not good for a $5000 custom frame.

I'm now riding a carbon fibre Parlee Z4 which has a life time warranty & to date is the best bike I've ever owned/ridden. So far it's withstood a good 10 thousand km's over 12 months & is looking as good as the day I purchased it. All going well I will replace my Cannondale Super Six with another Parlee in the next 2-3 years.

Noooooooooooooooooo

All frames fail, sure, but the tig welded Ti frames seem to be overly dependent on the skill of the welder, whereas just about any numpty with a brazing rod can make a long lasting steel lugged frame. There is one thread on this very forum showing a very expensive, very broken Ti frame due to poor welding. Its not just about the material, its about how forgiving that material is.

Back to the original post - with Titanium a custom frame is more accessible i.e. more common to get a custom Ti bike than a custom CF, (which however doesn't make it custom Ti common).

I agree on the lifespans - technically Carbon Fibre has the longest lifespan however is still an unknown factor, depends on construction (faults or flaws), riding, impacts and material degradation over time, as suggest UV is a potential factor.

The bike that won't fail is the bike that isn't ridden, otherwise it could perform well for a long time or there could be something that affects it such as an imperfection which facilitates failure or fatigue.

--

In making a decision, a titanium custom bike will be special bike, you will (should) have tailored geometry to suit. It may not necessarily be a bike for life however is more timeless than carbon fibre - Carbon fibre is still evolving realatively fast and is improving in technology, design and layup.

Darren of Baum Cycles in Geelong is very well regarded for custom titanium bikes and is also local.

it seems I drank too many reds last night otherwise I would have checked that there was already a thread on this subject. Thanks for all the advice.

sogood wrote:This pseudo-science justification is akin to one Ti bike company that advertised their bike strength by running a few Ti tubes with a 4WD, all forgetting that the tubes still needed to be welded together and other manufacturing steps. The resulting frame will fail at the weakest point or a point of stress concentration. Fact is, all frames fail.

Pseudo science? Hardly.

The notion that all frames fail is plainly false. Design a frame with sufficient strength and it wont fail. But I would now seem to agree with Mr "Nobody" that many times manufacturers are pushing the limits and thus the resulting fatigue failures even of many steel bikes. (Until reading this thread I didn't realise BB failures were some common in steel bikes.)

AUbicycles wrote:I agree on the lifespans - technically Carbon Fibre has the longest lifespan however is still an unknown factor, depends on construction (faults or flaws), riding, impacts and material degradation over time, as suggest UV is a potential factor.

Steel has shown itself to last centuries as long as it is adequately protected from rust. Short of materials with no miniumum fatigue limit, you cant really say one material out lasts the other.

Also it is quite common for Dutch bikes to last 50 years of riding everyday. My sister is rides her Oma Fiets everyday and that bike is 35 years old!

And then there is this:

Funny I hear steel this steel that, from personal experience steel breaks all my steel bikes broke some several times and they were not low end machines. Ti not sure never had one. Ally all broke except my Merckx never had it long enough Carbon none have broken not even hinted at breaking and they are mid level bikes. I guess at the end of the day we choose what we ride but steel is certainly not indestructible it breaks, it should not be pushed as a long lasting frame material for a bike that gets ridden lots and firmly.

MM

whitey wrote:Can someone pass the popcorn....If money is no issue buy both and tell us the results

Edit: the search function is your friend http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... t=titanium" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm going to do the experiment. Will report back in a few months.

Find a carbon frame repairer and ask them about carbon frames.
Titanium has some brilliant qualities.