Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

In any case I'm about to upgrade my bike to a titanium frame, so I'll soon be able to compare it against my old frame (using the same wheels) on my favourite climbs. I'll let you know how I get on.

PG
I put stiffness down as more hype.
There is a reason they dont build bikes out of H beam.
It would be stiff but it would be crap.
Stiffer BB areas only move the flex somewhere else I would reckon.
And there is at lest one big thread where a very well known US builder basically says that flex at the BB has very little impact on a bike.
Our teams sprinter wins plenty of races on his ti frame with a standard 1&1/8th" steerer and English threaded BB.
The bike looks like an old school dragster with roadie bars.
Also keep in mind that different wheels, bars, cranks, chainrings etc will all have an impact on how a bike "feels".

i tried to cut and polish carbon once...

sumgy wrote:PG
And there is at lest one big thread where a very well known US builder basically says that flex at the BB has very little impact on a bike.
Our teams sprinter wins plenty of races on his ti frame with a standard 1&1/8th" steerer and English threaded BB.
The bike looks like an old school dragster with roadie bars.
Also keep in mind that different wheels, bars, cranks, chainrings etc will all have an impact on how a bike "feels".

I've think I've read the article you are referring too, written by Dave Kirk. He has very similar ideas to Darren Baum, in that pure 'stiffness' is not as important as the use of the metal's inherent elasticity to 'spring back' or 'return'.

Having said that, Darren is very particular about the tube sizes and shapes he uses in order to get the right 'feel' of his frames. He doesn't just pick tube sizes off the shelf that look the same as a 1970's Colnago. Having ridden one of his frames, I'd say he is doing something right.

I'd also say having ridden my bike back-to-back against a Giant Defy, the idea that 'stiffness is just hype' is a bit silly.

__PG__ wrote:

sumgy wrote:PG
And there is at lest one big thread where a very well known US builder basically says that flex at the BB has very little impact on a bike.
Our teams sprinter wins plenty of races on his ti frame with a standard 1&1/8th" steerer and English threaded BB.
The bike looks like an old school dragster with roadie bars.
Also keep in mind that different wheels, bars, cranks, chainrings etc will all have an impact on how a bike "feels".

I've think I've read the article you are referring too, written by Dave Kirk. He has very similar ideas to Darren Baum, in that pure 'stiffness' is not as important as the use of the metal's inherent elasticity to 'spring back' or 'return'.

Having said that, Darren is very particular about the tube sizes and shapes he uses in order to get the right 'feel' of his frames. He doesn't just pick tube sizes off the shelf that look the same as a 1970's Colnago. Having ridden one of his frames, I'd say he is doing something right.

I'd also say having ridden my bike back-to-back against a Giant Defy, the idea that 'stiffness is just hype' is a bit silly.

The builder I am talking about is Walt who owns Waltworks.
Probably not well known over here but very well thought of in the US.
OK to clarify.
It may feel stiffer, but that does not mean that it is also better.
The hype I am talking about is that manufacturers are on the stiffer bandwagon.
But as you have seen with your comparison of a Moots RSL and a Giant Defy, that does not necessarily equate to you being faster or anything else.
In fact I would suggest that in some instances stiffer = less comfortable.
My Blacksheep is noticeably flexy, but it is awesome to ride.
My Moots is solid and I will likely never sell it.
My Koiled was built to be stiffer than the Moots through different tubing. However it is also a much smoother ride than the Moots.
I think for most weekend warriors there is too much emphasis on stiff.
The CF bikes I have ridden dont really feel any stiffer to me and many of them ride "dead" IME.

That being said, I have got a CF race bike coming.
Will be interesting to compare this to what I have ridden before and my ti road bikes.

sumgy wrote: The bike looks like an old school dragster with roadie bars.

Does it have a banana seat and a sissy bar too?

TDC wrote:

sumgy wrote: The bike looks like an old school dragster with roadie bars.

Does it have a banana seat and a sissy bar too?

He would still win if it did along with a 3 speed top tuube mounted shifter.

sumgy wrote:

TDC wrote:

sumgy wrote: The bike looks like an old school dragster with roadie bars.

Does it have a banana seat and a sissy bar too?

He would still win if it did along with a 3 speed top tuube mounted shifter.

are you suggesting the rider is the greatest factor in performance?? Heresy!!

TDC wrote: are you suggesting the rider is the greatest factor in performance?? Heresy!!

How stupid would that be??

sumgy wrote:The CF bikes I have ridden don't really feel any stiffer to me and many of them ride "dead" IME.

I got the same feeling from my Giant CFR2 I had in the '90s. That's one reason why I didn't buy another CF bike.

Nobody wrote:

sumgy wrote:The CF bikes I have ridden don't really feel any stiffer to me and many of them ride "dead" IME.

I got the same feeling from my Giant CFR2 I had in the '90s. That's one reason why I didn't buy another CF bike.

Know as a heavy dead cf bike if you made a decision based on a cfr2 then you are stuck in the past.

To the op of you want a performance frame and I assume you do looking at carbon or ti get the one you like the best either will work.
If you want the latest fastest cf is the way to go at top level track road etc all the bikes are carbon because they are chasing every possible advantage, if steel or even ti were better they would be on it.

As mentioned before its the legs that make the real difference and either of those materials will work fine. Cf will handle your weight fine too regardless of the semantics posted on here, I ride with people at your weight they are not having to stop all the time to replace a broken light frames. I'm talking performance not a water piped steel framed touring bike.

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2

Nobody wrote:

sumgy wrote:The CF bikes I have ridden don't really feel any stiffer to me and many of them ride "dead" IME.

I got the same feeling from my Giant CFR2 I had in the '90s. That's one reason why I didn't buy another CF bike.

I got the same feeling from my Surly Long haul Trucker I had in the '00s. That's one reason why I didn't by another steel bike.

Marty Moose wrote:
To the op of you want a performance frame and I assume you do looking at carbon or ti get the one you like the best either will work.
If you want the latest fastest cf is the way to go at top level track road etc all the bikes are carbon because they are chasing every possible advantage, if steel or even ti were better they would be on it.

Having been through this discussion previously on Road Bike Review, I would suggest that they would not.
Basically it would be too expensive for them in comparison to CF and that is about the only reason they dont.

Marty Moose wrote: To the op of you want a performance frame and I assume you do looking at carbon or ti get the one you like the best either will work.
If you want the latest fastest cf is the way to go at top level track road etc all the bikes are carbon because they are chasing every possible advantage, if steel or even ti were better they would be on it.

The pros ride what they are paid to ride. If Lynksey stumped up the $$$'s to sponsor a pro team they'd all be riding Helix OS frames in Le Tour.

Lampre switched from Wilier to Merida this year. Is Merida a better frame? Or do they just have deeper pockets than Wilier?

A better example would be the carbon bike built for the British Olympic cycling team. Note that this bike (carbon frame) ignored many of the latest engineering 'advances' eschewed by the manufacturers, and it used a 1" steerer tube and a standard bottom bracket.

Carbon still gives you the best performance for your $, IMO there is no argument about this. And a 'mid-range' carbon frame (e.g. Trek 5-series, Giant TCR/Advanced) is an awesome bike that is more than most riders will ever need.

My personal opinion is that I'd be wary of spending lot's of money on a carbon frame (unless you were very confident with their warranty support, or you've got lots of money). Remember, the pros don't buy their super-duper carbon frames with their own money. If it gets dinged they just chuck it out and get a new one.

__PG__ wrote:A better example would be the carbon bike built for the British Olympic cycling team. Note that this bike (carbon frame) ignored many of the latest engineering 'advances' eschewed by the manufacturers, and it used a 1" steerer tube and a standard bottom bracket.

Thanks for posting. Helps with a previous post about the reality of what is fastest versus the perception.
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 50#p909121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nobody wrote:

__PG__ wrote:A better example would be the carbon bike built for the British Olympic cycling team. Note that this bike (carbon frame) ignored many of the latest engineering 'advances' eschewed by the manufacturers, and it used a 1" steerer tube and a standard bottom bracket.

Thanks for posting. Helps with a previous post about the reality of what is fastest versus the perception.
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 50#p909121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry I'm down in Melb and on the iPhone Nobody.

The S5 is faster on all my strava segments than the Azzurri. The difference is not huge, however when you are at your limit recovering to take another turn, incremental improvements seem to make a big difference in the ability to recover between efforts.
The difference between bikes is similar to the lift carbon wheels make in a flat race.

I've had both bikes on the trainer and on a big gear with high resistance the Azzurri bb is swinging from side to side when looking from above. The S5 is rock solid and doesn't appear to deviate.

__PG__ wrote:
A better example would be the carbon bike built for the British Olympic cycling team. Note that this bike (carbon frame) ignored many of the latest engineering 'advances' eschewed by the manufacturers, and it used a 1" steerer tube and a standard bottom bracket.

It didn't ignore a large cross section bb and downtube though. Damn sight larger than old school material cross sections. Aerodynamics and stiffness engineered in. Allowed by the use of CF. They had the choice of any frame material but they chose cf.

warthog1 wrote:

Nobody wrote:

__PG__ wrote:A better example would be the carbon bike built for the British Olympic cycling team. Note that this bike (carbon frame) ignored many of the latest engineering 'advances' eschewed by the manufacturers, and it used a 1" steerer tube and a standard bottom bracket.

Thanks for posting. Helps with a previous post about the reality of what is fastest versus the perception.
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 50#p909121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry I'm down in Melb and on the iPhone Nobody.

The S5 is faster on all my strava segments than the Azzurri. The difference is not huge, however when you are at your limit recovering to take another turn, incremental improvements seem to make a big difference in the ability to recover between efforts.
The difference between bikes is similar to the lift carbon wheels make in a flat race.

I've had both bikes on the trainer and on a big gear with high resistance the Azzurri bb is swinging from side to side when looking from above. The S5 is rock solid and doesn't appear to deviate.

The Azzurri must be realy flexible as the S5 from jig testing both ride and cycle tour is a flexible bike. Its aero yes but far less rigid than the R series equivalent on jigs.

warthog1 wrote:

__PG__ wrote:
A better example would be the carbon bike built for the British Olympic cycling team. Note that this bike (carbon frame) ignored many of the latest engineering 'advances' eschewed by the manufacturers, and it used a 1" steerer tube and a standard bottom bracket.

It didn't ignore a large cross section bb and downtube though. Damn sight larger than old school material cross sections. Aerodynamics and stiffness engineered in. Allowed by the use of CF. They had the choice of any frame material but they chose cf.

What you mean they didn't simply take of the 5sp non indexed down tube shifters and the 52/42 chain rings and win, how come ???? Surely those big burly track riders would break any frame that was not a long haul tracker or a Baum .......................

human909 wrote:

dynamictiger wrote:My interest in this thread is however a result of my weight and fear of a carbon frame breaking under me against a titanium frame and whether it will break or not.

Neither. If you main goal is about strength then don't mess with bling-bling materials trying to save weight. Get a durable steel frame. It is as simple as that. Seriously when absolutely durable frames are still under 2.5kg does weight really matter for much else than pose value?

If you want a frame you can absolutely trust with heavy use get a frame from a company which DOESN'T consider weight a priority. I would feel pretty damn comfortable going with Surly! True, our frames are not the lightest out there, but then they’re not supposed to be. Instead, they’re a balance of excellent ride quality and durability.

The cross-check is a classic at 2.2kg. -There’s a reason we still offer the Cross-Check after all these years. The frame is comfy and tough as nails. Though for ultimate durability the Long Haul Trucker has got to be up there. (2.35kg)

Review by AusHiker of the Long Haul Trucker is here.
http://aushiker.com/surly-long-haul-trucker/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At work so couldn't respond earlier to this, sorry if dragging back up same topic.

There is no reason i am aware of, having engineered steel pressure and fiberglass pressure vessels, carbon should have less strength than steel. In fact in many instances the opposite is true as the glass fibres can flex more than steel and are less prone to fail as a result. Still interesting comments none the less.

Marty Moose wrote:
The Azzurri must be realy flexible as the S5 from jig testing both ride and cycle tour is a flexible bike. Its aero yes but far less rigid than the R series equivalent on jigs.

I haven't seen those tests. The rear end is very rigid. The front end less so. I can't sprint to save my life though so that doesn't worry me.

sumgy wrote:

Marty Moose wrote:
To the op of you want a performance frame and I assume you do looking at carbon or ti get the one you like the best either will work.
If you want the latest fastest cf is the way to go at top level track road etc all the bikes are carbon because they are chasing every possible advantage, if steel or even ti were better they would be on it.

Having been through this discussion previously on Road Bike Review, I would suggest that they would not.
Basically it would be too expensive for them in comparison to CF and that is about the only reason they dont.

Really?... your trying to say that if Team GB thought they would make a 1/10th of a sec improvement by running a Ti bike that they wouldn't do it because of costs, even if that ran into the millions ... yeah don't think so.
Tom Boonen didn't like his Specialized a few years back... cost them about 500,000 Euros to make a new mold to run off a couple of frames just for him... you could probably run off 100 top end Ti frames for that no?.

toolonglegs wrote:

sumgy wrote:

Marty Moose wrote:
To the op of you want a performance frame and I assume you do looking at carbon or ti get the one you like the best either will work.
If you want the latest fastest cf is the way to go at top level track road etc all the bikes are carbon because they are chasing every possible advantage, if steel or even ti were better they would be on it.

Having been through this discussion previously on Road Bike Review, I would suggest that they would not.
Basically it would be too expensive for them in comparison to CF and that is about the only reason they dont.

Really?... your trying to say that if Team GB thought they would make a 1/10th of a sec improvement by running a Ti bike that they wouldn't do it because of costs, even if that ran into the millions ... yeah don't think so.
Tom Boonen didn't like his Specialized a few years back... cost them about 500,000 Euros to make a new mold to run off a couple of frames just for him... you could probably run off 100 top end Ti frames for that no?.

Absolute poppycock Sumgy you have obviously never been around the top end of sport. I can assure you first hand that they would. I've even seen a top end pro ride a non sponsors bike de badged as he was fractionally faster on it. They don't go to all that effort to be second best in any area.

titanium and racing. how about steel:

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/arti ... ook-36202/

It's built from Reynolds 953 steel tubing, which Reynolds say has a much greater ultimate tensile strength than grade five Ti-6Al-4V titanium for no weight penalty. That said, the claimed weight of a 54cm frame is 1,600-1,700g – about 400-500g heavier than a decent carbon fibre frame.

warthog1 wrote: The S5 is faster on all my strava segments than the Azzurri. The difference is not huge, however when you are at your limit recovering to take another turn, incremental improvements seem to make a big difference in the ability to recover between efforts.
The difference between bikes is similar to the lift carbon wheels make in a flat race.

I've had both bikes on the trainer and on a big gear with high resistance the Azzurri bb is swinging from side to side when looking from above. The S5 is rock solid and doesn't appear to deviate.

I'm not surprised! The S5 is a very expensive and well engineered piece of sports carbon engineering. The Azzuri is a cookie-cutter commodity frame probably sourced from a generic open mould manufacturer in China. Ye get what ye pay for.