titanium v carbon.
- biker jk
- Posts: 7012
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby biker jk » Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:47 pm
-
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:37 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby TDC » Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:32 pm
http://www.ibiscycles.com/support/techn ... _cyclists/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 12225
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby jasonc » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:35 pm
nope, no indecision there - your pool needs more water.sumgy wrote:I am undecided.
I think??
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Victoria Park, WA
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby dynamictiger » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:39 pm
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.
-
- Posts: 10332
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Nobody » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:52 pm
Maybe that is the problem. Too light. Low end frames have thicker tubing and therefore more defect tollerant.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.
Well the major manufacturers should stop make their touring frames out of steel then.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.
-
- Posts: 10332
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Nobody » Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:58 pm
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.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.
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Victoria Park, WA
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby dynamictiger » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:03 pm
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.Nobody wrote: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.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.
-
- Posts: 10332
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Nobody » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:34 pm
Better at what specifically?dynamictiger wrote:My experience is thicker is not necessarily better.
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Victoria Park, WA
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby dynamictiger » Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:41 pm
-
- Posts: 10332
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Nobody » Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:07 pm
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.
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby sumgy » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:18 am
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 .
-
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:11 pm
- Location: Melbourne
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby rjk » Thu Jan 17, 2013 8:46 am
-
- Posts: 9810
- Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:48 am
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby human909 » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:32 am
That all makes sense. Profit comes from sales. Costs of the incremental frame manufacture would likely be 10% or less of actual frame RRP.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 .
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby sumgy » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:38 am
Consider the cost of a generic Chinese frame.human909 wrote:That all makes sense. Profit comes from sales. Costs of the incremental frame manufacture would likely be 10% or less of actual frame RRP.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 .
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.
-
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:30 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby __PG__ » Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:31 pm
Link? EDIT : I think I found it but you need to subscribe.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.
Does Cervelo have a lifetime warranty?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 .
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.
-
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 9:13 pm
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby ajgool » Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:13 pm
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby sumgy » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:03 pm
Not sure what happened to my last reply.__PG__ wrote:Link? EDIT : I think I found it but you need to subscribe.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.Does Cervelo have a lifetime warranty?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 .
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.
That is one of his two rants about CF frames.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby RonK » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:17 pm
Yep - even my titanium tourers look fantastic. (What's that? Titanium tourers you say!)ajgool wrote:geez this is an emotive subject. If my mate had not p$$ed down my earhole about how he wished he'd bought ti instead of carbon, I probably would have just kept riding my carbon bike and not given it a second thought. Looking at the pictures of ti bikes put up here i've gotta say they (in my opinion) look a hell of a lot better than CF frames. Maybe thats because I come from old school steel. All the comments on costs weighed up against strength etc make good sense. I suppose it gets back to preference. That baum pictured looks awesome.
Enlarge
Enlarge
-
- Posts: 2531
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 2:28 pm
- Location: Flagstaff Hill, Adelaide SA 5159
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Dr_Mutley » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:18 pm
Yeah, lifetime for original purchaser... And they are pretty good, with a no questions asked policy it seems. If your LBS is decent, I haven't heard any issues getting frames exchanged, and often upgraded.sumgy wrote: Does Cervelo have a lifetime warranty?
I know a few friends that race Cannondales. They crack them..they get new ones. They are happy with their warranty support.
The most common cracking issue with the cervelos, was a 3 year period of R3/RS models, that developed superficial cracking around the BB shell. The are little, if any, of these cracks actually failing and giving way (that I know of)... The warranty that comes with cervelo is the main reason I buy it... Once there is reports of the warranty process declining then that will be my main motivation for looking at other manufacturers...
-
- Posts: 12225
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby jasonc » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:21 pm
were you getting in trouble at the law courts?RonK wrote:Yep - even my titanium tourers look fantastic. (What's that? Titanium tourers you say!)ajgool wrote:geez this is an emotive subject. If my mate had not p$$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.
Enlarge
Enlarge
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby RonK » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:28 pm
Hehe, I live in Tank Street, across the road.jasonc wrote:were you getting in trouble at the law courts?
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby sumgy » Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:37 pm
Not doubting that they are "pretty good".Dr_Mutley wrote: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.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.
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...
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.
- ZepinAtor
- Posts: 1558
- Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:46 pm
- Location: Brizzzzbane Everton Hillzzzz
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby ZepinAtor » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:25 pm
sumgy wrote:I am undecided.
I think??
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 ?
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby sumgy » Thu Jan 17, 2013 6:55 pm
Now ti.
Return to “General Cycling Discussion”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+10:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.