Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:35 am**

grasshopper wrote:Another ti v C debate? Hopefully it's been pointed out somewhere that ti's reputation comes partly from its use by master, custom framebuilders tailoring tubing and geo to rider weight and shape and handling preferences - so it's quite different to mass-produced ti or C. Material and geo maketh the bike. Custom rocks.

Not entirely - there are plenty of off the shelf ti options available now, and at relatively affordable prices.

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2013 11:53 am**

RonK wrote:
grasshopper wrote:Another ti v C debate? Hopefully it's been pointed out somewhere that ti's reputation comes partly from its use by master, custom framebuilders tailoring tubing and geo to rider weight and shape and handling preferences - so it's quite different to mass-produced ti or C. Material and geo maketh the bike. Custom rocks.
Not entirely - there are plenty of off the shelf ti options available now, and at relatively affordable prices.

That's correct. I have a Lynskey and didn't need custom geometry given my height, reach, inseam, etc. The welds, etc. are no different to a custom frame, but the price a lot lower.

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:03 pm**

biker jk wrote:
RonK wrote:
grasshopper wrote:Another ti v C debate? Hopefully it's been pointed out somewhere that ti's reputation comes partly from its use by master, custom framebuilders tailoring tubing and geo to rider weight and shape and handling preferences - so it's quite different to mass-produced ti or C. Material and geo maketh the bike. Custom rocks.
Not entirely - there are plenty of off the shelf ti options available now, and at relatively affordable prices.
That's correct. I have a Lynskey and didn't need custom geometry given my height, reach, inseam, etc. The welds, etc. are no different to a custom frame, but the price a lot lower.

+1

My Lynskey was off the shelf and was much cheaper than many CF options. I chose Ti because of the punishment it can take as a commuter bike. I broke two alloy frames in two years due to fatigue in the tubing. I was looking at steel but was able to get Ti at the same price, and that came with bonus of no rusting. As an all weather bike that was an important consideration.

Posted: **Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:50 pm**

I will pile in.
My Moots is off the shelf and my Koiled is basically the same geometry as an off the shelf Vamoots but tweeked for a 43mm offset fork and with a 10mm longer head tube.
Both were no more expensive than a CF frame of similar quality.
The Moots is nearly 5 years old now.
Cannot imagine I would still be riding around on a 5 year old CF frame.

Posted: **Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:57 pm**

Comedian wrote:My very first roadbike is a Giant Defy Advanced. It's got great components on it... Things like Durace C24 wheels etc. So last week I got talked into another bike by a bike shop on a very strong recommendation that a particular model they had at the moment was excellent - the Scott CR1. Before you know it... I'd stumped up.

Anyway.. the point to this is that the componentry the that matters for performance is of similar quality to the Giant - Fulcrum Racing 0's with high quality bearings and good tyres. The bike itself is a little over a kg lighter which is nice. The Scott is obviously a carbon frame too... in all likelyhood manufactured by Giant. However out on the road the difference left me gobsmacked. It sails up hills appreciably faster and is noticeably faster on the flat. So how can two bikes that would appear virtually identical to even trained observers be so different? Got me?

Interesting

But there are a lot of differences - different wheels and (maybe?) tyres. And a brand new drivetrain vs a used one (new chains are much better than old ones). Can you repeat with the wheels switched over? And again when you've got some km (and dirt!) on/in the drivetrain?

Not being picky, I really would like to know!

Posted: **Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:27 pm**

InTheWoods wrote:Not being picky, I really would like to know!

ignore him. he IS picky

Posted: **Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:30 pm**

jasonc wrote:
InTheWoods wrote:Not being picky, I really would like to know!
ignore him. he IS picky

That's just the way I roll. No, really, I do want to know though

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 12:09 am**

ajgool wrote: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.

I've got an XACD Ti frame and I love it. For about 30 yrs I rode on a Reynolds 531 frame which rode nicely. The Ti frame IMHO is better. When I first built up the Ti bike I put a CF fork on it which was OK but then I put a Ti fork and the Ti fork gives a LOT softer ride than the CF fork. XACD are great. And their frame was dirt cheap. The welds are beautiful.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:16 am**

boss wrote:With the extra weight you're probably going to end up pushing a lower cadence and get into the hurt zone far quicker.

Even with a compact and 28t rear you'll likely run out of gears fast up a 10% avg grade, assuming we are talking a 'real world' 10% grade hill which would include a few tough spikes.

In that case as I said, FAR, FAR more performance gain will be had by getting appropriate gearing! If you are riding STEEP hills regularly and you are not a top class rider then you will probably need lower gears than top class riders!

So before fighting over the last 500g or 200g get poper gearing! If that means going to a triple or an ever bigger rear cassette then do so! There is so much ego associated with triples it is laughable. If you are hitting the low gear limit then getting a triple will help you with hills FAR more than dropping a few grams or titanium vs carbon.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:04 am**

human909 wrote:If you are hitting the low gear limit then getting a triple will help you with hills FAR more than dropping a few grams or titanium vs carbon.

Must be the current environment, but the first time I read that I saw "a triple will help you with hills FAR more than doping a few grams"...

Cheers,
Simon.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:15 am**

Pfft CF vs. Ti

Wood is where it's at.

http://www.renovobikes.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:38 am**

Budget not an issue you say?

I'd definitely look at BAUM. They make custom made Ti frames.

I think there's nothing wrong with a properly made Carbon frame with decent fibres, however I still feel the mold process hasn't been quite perfected yet. I like the idea of keeping things simple from a longevity point of view. Ti gives an exceptional ride quals.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:52 pm**

cooperplace wrote:
I've got an XACD Ti frame and I love it. For about 30 yrs I rode on a Reynolds 531 frame which rode nicely. The Ti frame IMHO is better. When I first built up the Ti bike I put a CF fork on it which was OK but then I put a Ti fork and the Ti fork gives a LOT softer ride than the CF fork. XACD are great. And their frame was dirt cheap. The welds are beautiful.

How did you buy it though? I can find no geometry and not much information on their web site.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:20 pm**

I commuted on burnt plastic instead of beer can today, just because. Do I win a prize?

That Baum track has UGLY bars...

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 8:40 pm**

Mulger bill wrote:I commuted on burnt plastic instead of beer can today, just because. Do I win a prize?

That Baum track has UGLY bars...

it's a fixie/single speed. baum make much nicer (and more functional) bikes than that. though i love the colour scheme

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:24 pm**

Mulger bill wrote:
That Baum track has UGLY bars...

Why do some people seem to find them abhorrent? I really like them. They look modern and every bit as functional. I like it when someone steps out of the classical motifs now and then.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:15 pm**

warthog1 wrote:
cooperplace wrote:
I've got an XACD Ti frame and I love it. For about 30 yrs I rode on a Reynolds 531 frame which rode nicely. The Ti frame IMHO is better. When I first built up the Ti bike I put a CF fork on it which was OK but then I put a Ti fork and the Ti fork gives a LOT softer ride than the CF fork. XACD are great. And their frame was dirt cheap. The welds are beautiful.
How did you buy it though? I can find no geometry and not much information on their web site.

I dealt with them directly. Email them.

Posted: **Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:22 pm**

jasonc wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:I commuted on burnt plastic instead of beer can today, just because. Do I win a prize?

That Baum track has UGLY bars...
it's a fixie/single speed. baum make much nicer (and more functional) bikes than that. though i love the colour scheme

Don't get me wrong, from the upper headset race back and down it's an amazing kinetic sculpture and yes, I love the stealth livery too.

Shpox, I don't see function in a fixed bar/stem combo unless it is custom built for the rider. I'm also trying hard not to wonder what that sharp trailing edge might do to the riders legs in an OTB situation.

Shaun

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 2:30 am**

cooperplace wrote: I dealt with them directly. Email them.

No worries thanks. I'm just window shopping for a new commuter frame with no money at the moment. Was just after some photos and geometry to help me dream.

Posted: **Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:17 am**

warthog1 wrote:
cooperplace wrote:
I've got an XACD Ti frame and I love it. For about 30 yrs I rode on a Reynolds 531 frame which rode nicely. The Ti frame IMHO is better. When I first built up the Ti bike I put a CF fork on it which was OK but then I put a Ti fork and the Ti fork gives a LOT softer ride than the CF fork. XACD are great. And their frame was dirt cheap. The welds are beautiful.
How did you buy it though? I can find no geometry and not much information on their web site.

Obviously they have improved their customer service since this occurred some time ago. XACD - obnoxious?

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:51 pm**

greyhoundtom wrote:
Obviously they have improved their customer service since this occurred some time ago. XACD - obnoxious?

I hope they have improved their product, going by that.
Be nice if they improved their rubbish website too.

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:40 pm**

warthog1 wrote:
cooperplace wrote:I've got an XACD Ti frame and I love it.
How did you buy it though? I can find no geometry and not much information on their web site.

Full engineering drawings are available to anybody who asks.

You tell them what to change, they send revised drawings, rinse and repeat until you're ready to pull the trigger.

"What to change" can be as minor or as radical as you want. But if you want to go radical, you'd better be sure you know what you're asking for

tim
who has been riding XACD titanium (custom geo disc-braked roadie) since Christmas

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:50 pm**

Shpox wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:
That Baum track has UGLY bars...
Why do some people seem to find them abhorrent? I really like them. They look modern and every bit as functional. I like it when someone steps out of the classical motifs now and then.

Hang on, I didn't realize that you really like them. Hard to believe that some people like different stuff to you

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:08 pm**

Shpox wrote:
Mulger bill wrote:
That Baum track has UGLY bars...
Why do some people seem to find them abhorrent? I really like them. They look modern and every bit as functional. I like it when someone steps out of the classical motifs now and then.

I like them too - on that bike...

Posted: **Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:50 pm**

I see the Op still hasn't ordered a Ti bike yet ! I think this mate needs to piss in his ear a bit more!

Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Re: titanium v carbon.