Page 2 of 7

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:47 pm
by biker jk
Do you really need to ask the question? The answer is obvious. Titanium is strong, light and doesn't rust (c.f. steel). No epoxy to go soft like carbon fibre. You can drop it without fear of cracking, unlike carbon fibre. Ride quality is superb.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:32 pm
by TDC

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:32 pm
by sumgy
I am undecided.
I think??

Image

Image

Image

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:35 pm
by jasonc
sumgy wrote:I am undecided.
I think??


nope, no indecision there - your pool needs more water.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:39 pm
by dynamictiger
I have to wonder how you could define this question better.

Manufacturers ultimately need to make profit. To make profit costs must be controlled. In the case of carbon fibre this is done through the engineering of the material modulus (i think, been about 15 years since I did this type of calculation) so manufacturer A may be willing and prepared to accept a lighter material grade than manufacturer B. Similar with titanium, steel and even alloys the thickness of the tube will play a roll in the eventual outcome. For example have a look at stainless steel pipe and then look at stainless steel tube of a similar diameter for a similar pressure rating (something I do know about). You will find the pipe is significantly thicker than the tube. As a rule of thumb you would expect in this instance the tube to fail before the pipe all other things being equal.

As we are not likely privy to the manufacturers calculations and without total destruction not likely to know the thickness of the relevant materials and even then not necessarily know exact lay ups and so on it is unlikely this can ever be resolved to everyones satisfaction and agreement.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:52 pm
by Nobody
Marty Moose wrote: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.
Maybe that is the problem. Too light. Low end frames have thicker tubing and therefore more defect tollerant.

Marty Moose wrote: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.
Well the major manufacturers should stop make their touring frames out of steel then. :)

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:58 pm
by Nobody
dynamictiger wrote:As we are not likely privy to the manufacturers calculations and without total destruction not likely to know the thickness of the relevant materials and even then not necessarily know exact lay ups and so on it is unlikely this can ever be resolved to everyones satisfaction and agreement.
It can for those serious about durability. Just buy a heavy duty bike from one of the few manufacturers that doesn't obsess over weight.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:03 pm
by dynamictiger
Nobody wrote:
dynamictiger wrote:As we are not likely privy to the manufacturers calculations and without total destruction not likely to know the thickness of the relevant materials and even then not necessarily know exact lay ups and so on it is unlikely this can ever be resolved to everyones satisfaction and agreement.
It can for those serious about durability. Just buy a heavy duty bike from one of the few manufacturers that doesn't obsess over weight.


Actually, I was working with glass, carbon is similar I imagine. My experience is thicker is not necessarily better. In fact the opposite turned out to be true with glass and I would be less than surprised if the same were true for carbon and titanium.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:34 pm
by Nobody
dynamictiger wrote:My experience is thicker is not necessarily better.
Better at what specifically?

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:41 pm
by dynamictiger
Better at lasting. Sometimes the ability to flex is a strength. I have seen pressure vessels (what I was engineering) where the thicker is better approach lead to premature failure. Thicker is not necessarily better. Sometimes thinner is actually better.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:07 pm
by Nobody
Thanks for the reply.

I suppose it comes down to the best material and design for the application then. For now I'll stick with overbuilt CrMo frames for what I do. Haven't failed me yet. :)

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:18 am
by sumgy
Steve Hogg has a rant on his blog about CF frames saying that they have found cracks in customer frames across the majority of the major brands with Cervelo being worst for this.
He also states that they have not seen cracks (not talking about breakages from crashing, just cracks from day to day riding) from Pinarello or the high end bonded Colnago's.
His suggestion is because neither of these brands seem to be racing to offer lighter and lighter frames as other manufacturers seem to be.
His belief is that manufacturers have gone down the path of CF over many other materials such as steel or titanium is that once they have made their investment into the molds and design it is cheap to manufacture with no overheads for skilled labour. This sees profit margins high enough to keep replacing the frames that crack :lol: .

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:46 am
by rjk
if you want Hi end TI go see Mr Baum, and money needs to be no object...lol

Image

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:32 am
by human909
sumgy wrote:His belief is that manufacturers have gone down the path of CF over many other materials such as steel or titanium is that once they have made their investment into the molds and design it is cheap to manufacture with no overheads for skilled labour. This sees profit margins high enough to keep replacing the frames that crack :lol: .


That all makes sense. Profit comes from sales. Costs of the incremental frame manufacture would likely be 10% or less of actual frame RRP.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:38 am
by sumgy
human909 wrote:
sumgy wrote:His belief is that manufacturers have gone down the path of CF over many other materials such as steel or titanium is that once they have made their investment into the molds and design it is cheap to manufacture with no overheads for skilled labour. This sees profit margins high enough to keep replacing the frames that crack :lol: .


That all makes sense. Profit comes from sales. Costs of the incremental frame manufacture would likely be 10% or less of actual frame RRP.


Consider the cost of a generic Chinese frame.
Even me buying a single frame and fork works out at around $500 shipped.
Add some pretty paint and you end up around $700.
A high end "manufacturer" will have significant discount on this cost sp there is huge "meat" in their margins.
Often these "manufacturers" are rebranding generic "open mould" frames as their own so there is no R&D costs from their side either.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:31 pm
by __PG__
sumgy wrote:Steve Hogg has a rant on his blog about CF frames saying that they have found cracks in customer frames across the majority of the major brands with Cervelo being worst for this.

Link? EDIT : I think I found it but you need to subscribe.
sumgy wrote:He also states that they have not seen cracks (not talking about breakages from crashing, just cracks from day to day riding) from Pinarello or the high end bonded Colnago's.
His suggestion is because neither of these brands seem to be racing to offer lighter and lighter frames as other manufacturers seem to be.
His belief is that manufacturers have gone down the path of CF over many other materials such as steel or titanium is that once they have made their investment into the molds and design it is cheap to manufacture with no overheads for skilled labour. This sees profit margins high enough to keep replacing the frames that crack :lol: .

Does Cervelo have a lifetime warranty?
I know a few friends that race Cannondales. They crack them..they get new ones. They are happy with their warranty support.

I also know recreational riders that crack Pinarellos..they are out of their (2-3?) year warranty and go and buy new ones.

Pinarellos are regarded as rather 'heavy' frames compared to Colnagos and Pinarellos. I'm not surprised that many people crack Cervelos, Cannondales and other sub 1kg carbon frames.

It's worth noting that the pros do not ride bog-standard frames. Bikeradar weighed Mark Cavendish's Specialized McLaren Venge race bike at 7.65 kg. I've been told that the big sprinting pros have essentially 'double wrapped' carbon frames.

His new bike (with SRAM Red instead of Dura-Ace Di2) weighs 6.89kg with Zipp 404 wheels.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:13 pm
by ajgool
geez this is an emotive subject. If my mate had not p$$ed down my earhole about how he wished he'd bought ti instead of carbon, I probably would have just kept riding my carbon bike and not given it a second thought. Looking at the pictures of ti bikes put up here i've gotta say they (in my opinion) look a hell of a lot better than CF frames. Maybe thats because I come from old school steel. All the comments on costs weighed up against strength etc make good sense. I suppose it gets back to preference. That baum pictured looks awesome.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:03 pm
by sumgy
__PG__ wrote:
sumgy wrote:Steve Hogg has a rant on his blog about CF frames saying that they have found cracks in customer frames across the majority of the major brands with Cervelo being worst for this.

Link? EDIT : I think I found it but you need to subscribe.
sumgy wrote:He also states that they have not seen cracks (not talking about breakages from crashing, just cracks from day to day riding) from Pinarello or the high end bonded Colnago's.
His suggestion is because neither of these brands seem to be racing to offer lighter and lighter frames as other manufacturers seem to be.
His belief is that manufacturers have gone down the path of CF over many other materials such as steel or titanium is that once they have made their investment into the molds and design it is cheap to manufacture with no overheads for skilled labour. This sees profit margins high enough to keep replacing the frames that crack :lol: .

Does Cervelo have a lifetime warranty?
I know a few friends that race Cannondales. They crack them..they get new ones. They are happy with their warranty support.

I also know recreational riders that crack Pinarellos..they are out of their (2-3?) year warranty and go and buy new ones.

Pinarellos are regarded as rather 'heavy' frames compared to Colnagos and Pinarellos. I'm not surprised that many people crack Cervelos, Cannondales and other sub 1kg carbon frames.

It's worth noting that the pros do not ride bog-standard frames. Bikeradar weighed Mark Cavendish's Specialized McLaren Venge race bike at 7.65 kg. I've been told that the big sprinting pros have essentially 'double wrapped' carbon frames.

His new bike (with SRAM Red instead of Dura-Ace Di2) weighs 6.89kg with Zipp 404 wheels.


Not sure what happened to my last reply.
That is one of his two rants about CF frames.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:17 pm
by RonK
ajgool wrote:geez this is an emotive subject. If my mate had not p$$ed down my earhole about how he wished he'd bought ti instead of carbon, I probably would have just kept riding my carbon bike and not given it a second thought. Looking at the pictures of ti bikes put up here i've gotta say they (in my opinion) look a hell of a lot better than CF frames. Maybe thats because I come from old school steel. All the comments on costs weighed up against strength etc make good sense. I suppose it gets back to preference. That baum pictured looks awesome.

Yep - even my titanium tourers look fantastic. (What's that? Titanium tourers you say!)

Image
Enlarge

Image
Enlarge

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:18 pm
by Dr_Mutley
sumgy wrote:Does Cervelo have a lifetime warranty?
I know a few friends that race Cannondales. They crack them..they get new ones. They are happy with their warranty support.


Yeah, lifetime for original purchaser... And they are pretty good, with a no questions asked policy it seems. If your LBS is decent, I haven't heard any issues getting frames exchanged, and often upgraded.

The most common cracking issue with the cervelos, was a 3 year period of R3/RS models, that developed superficial cracking around the BB shell. The are little, if any, of these cracks actually failing and giving way (that I know of)... The warranty that comes with cervelo is the main reason I buy it... Once there is reports of the warranty process declining then that will be my main motivation for looking at other manufacturers...

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:21 pm
by jasonc
RonK wrote:
ajgool wrote:geez this is an emotive subject. If my mate had not p$$ed down my earhole about how he wished he'd bought ti instead of carbon, I probably would have just kept riding my carbon bike and not given it a second thought. Looking at the pictures of ti bikes put up here i've gotta say they (in my opinion) look a hell of a lot better than CF frames. Maybe thats because I come from old school steel. All the comments on costs weighed up against strength etc make good sense. I suppose it gets back to preference. That baum pictured looks awesome.

Yep - even my titanium tourers look fantastic. (What's that? Titanium tourers you say!)

Image
Enlarge

Image
Enlarge


were you getting in trouble at the law courts?

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:28 pm
by RonK
jasonc wrote:were you getting in trouble at the law courts?

Hehe, I live in Tank Street, across the road. :)

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:37 pm
by sumgy
Dr_Mutley wrote:
sumgy wrote:Does Cervelo have a lifetime warranty?
I know a few friends that race Cannondales. They crack them..they get new ones. They are happy with their warranty support.


Yeah, lifetime for original purchaser... And they are pretty good, with a no questions asked policy it seems. If your LBS is decent, I haven't heard any issues getting frames exchanged, and often upgraded.

The most common cracking issue with the cervelos, was a 3 year period of R3/RS models, that developed superficial cracking around the BB shell. The are little, if any, of these cracks actually failing and giving way (that I know of)... The warranty that comes with cervelo is the main reason I buy it... Once there is reports of the warranty process declining then that will be my main motivation for looking at other manufacturers...


Not doubting that they are "pretty good".
As my original comment said, they can afford to be "pretty good" given the low cost to manufacture what they sell to you for a massive mark-up.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:25 pm
by ZepinAtor
sumgy wrote:I am undecided.
I think??


Image




mmmm?? CF hubs, CF spokes, CF rims, CF crank arms, CF rear derailleur cage, CF seat post, CF levers/shifters, CF fork..................yep you really like your carbon fibre don't you ?

Re: titanium v carbon.

Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:55 pm
by sumgy
Seat post is aluminium in that picture.
Now ti.