titanium v carbon.
-
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:30 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby __PG__ » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:48 am
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby sumgy » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:59 am
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".
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:33 am
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby njc » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:04 am
-
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:30 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby __PG__ » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:09 am
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'.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".
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.
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby sumgy » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:19 am
The builder I am talking about is Walt who owns Waltworks.__PG__ wrote: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'.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".
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:37 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby TDC » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:30 am
Does it have a banana seat and a sissy bar too?sumgy wrote: The bike looks like an old school dragster with roadie bars.
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby sumgy » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:35 am
He would still win if it did along with a 3 speed top tuube mounted shifter.TDC wrote:Does it have a banana seat and a sissy bar too?sumgy wrote: The bike looks like an old school dragster with roadie bars.
-
- Posts: 587
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 8:37 pm
- Location: Adelaide
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby TDC » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:33 pm
are you suggesting the rider is the greatest factor in performance?? Heresy!!sumgy wrote:He would still win if it did along with a 3 speed top tuube mounted shifter.TDC wrote:Does it have a banana seat and a sissy bar too?sumgy wrote: The bike looks like an old school dragster with roadie bars.
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby sumgy » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:43 pm
How stupid would that be??TDC wrote: are you suggesting the rider is the greatest factor in performance?? Heresy!!
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Nobody » Fri Jan 18, 2013 12:58 pm
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.sumgy wrote:The CF bikes I have ridden don't really feel any stiffer to me and many of them ride "dead" IME.
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:00 pm
- Location: W.A
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Marty Moose » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:29 pm
Know as a heavy dead cf bike if you made a decision based on a cfr2 then you are stuck in the past.Nobody wrote: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.sumgy wrote:The CF bikes I have ridden don't really feel any stiffer to me and many of them ride "dead" IME.
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
- 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 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:39 pm
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.Nobody wrote: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.sumgy wrote:The CF bikes I have ridden don't really feel any stiffer to me and many of them ride "dead" IME.
- sumgy
- Posts: 1487
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 10:58 pm
- Contact:
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby sumgy » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:44 pm
Having been through this discussion previously on Road Bike Review, I would suggest that they would not.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.
Basically it would be too expensive for them in comparison to CF and that is about the only reason they dont.
-
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:30 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby __PG__ » Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:48 pm
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.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Nobody » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:29 pm
Thanks for posting. Helps with a previous post about the reality of what is fastest versus the perception.__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.
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 50#p909121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
-
- Posts: 14311
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby warthog1 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:44 pm
Sorry I'm down in Melb and on the iPhone Nobody.Nobody wrote:Thanks for posting. Helps with a previous post about the reality of what is fastest versus the perception.__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.
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 50#p909121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
-
- Posts: 14311
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby warthog1 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:52 pm
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.__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.
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:00 pm
- Location: W.A
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Marty Moose » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:06 pm
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:Sorry I'm down in Melb and on the iPhone Nobody.Nobody wrote:Thanks for posting. Helps with a previous post about the reality of what is fastest versus the perception.__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.
http://www.bicycles.net.au/forums/viewt ... 50#p909121" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
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.
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:00 pm
- Location: W.A
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Marty Moose » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:23 pm
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 .......................warthog1 wrote: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.__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.
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:08 pm
- Location: Victoria Park, WA
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby dynamictiger » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:23 pm
At work so couldn't respond earlier to this, sorry if dragging back up same topic.human909 wrote: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?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.
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;
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.
-
- Posts: 14311
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm
- Location: Bendigo
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby warthog1 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:49 pm
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.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.
- toolonglegs
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
- Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby toolonglegs » Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:05 pm
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.sumgy wrote:Having been through this discussion previously on Road Bike Review, I would suggest that they would not.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.
Basically it would be too expensive for them in comparison to CF and that is about the only reason they dont.
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?.
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:00 pm
- Location: W.A
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby Marty Moose » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:12 pm
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.toolonglegs wrote: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.sumgy wrote:Having been through this discussion previously on Road Bike Review, I would suggest that they would not.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.
Basically it would be too expensive for them in comparison to CF and that is about the only reason they dont.
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?.
-
- Posts: 12172
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:40 pm
- Location: Brisbane
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby jasonc » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:45 pm
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.
-
- Posts: 844
- Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 11:30 am
- Location: Melbourne
Re: titanium v carbon.
Postby __PG__ » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:10 pm
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.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.
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: grt046
- All times are UTC+11:00
- 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.