titanium v carbon.

open topic, for anything cycling related.

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby __PG__ » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:22 pm

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.

Yes. The 'stiffness' in the bottom bracket area comes from frame shape. The choice of BB30 gives some small advantages, such as weight (swap a 24mm axle for a 30mm aluminium one). You also get to use standard sized bearings (which can be cheaper). The cranks have a better Q-factor.

Team GB probably went with a standard bottom bracket because Wiggins and Cavendish wanted a Dura-Ace crankset.

I still think that the true benefits of carbon are not being used effectively. Unfortunately the UCI has too much influence on the design of bikes and the market is driven by 'what the pros ride'. IMO there is a huge market out there for true carbon monocoque superbikes (a la Chris Boardman's Lotus) that could really create a huge leap in bicycle frame performance. But because these bikes can't be 'raced' anymore, they aren't made. Instead we are stuck with semi-monocoque designs that still have to resemble 'two triangles'.

But I wonder if they'd be absolutely awesome for recreational riders.
Image
1994 Cecil Walker custom steel frame with Shimano Ultegra STi
2013 Baum Corretto custom titanium frame with SRAM Force
__PG__
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:30 am
Location: Melbourne

by BNA » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:28 pm

BNA
 

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby sumgy » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:28 pm

Marty Moose wrote:
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.


Good to see that reading and comprehension is still alive and well on BNA.
I never said anything about racing bikes or racing teams or specially built bikes for pro's.
I was talking about production of mass produced bikes which would be significantly more expensive if hand built from ti.
And yes Marty Moose, IF I was talking about race bikes and race teams and bikes custom built for pro's your comments would be somewhat relevant.
But I was not.
I can only imagine that you have somehow thought that someone elses comment was actually mine.
So I will await your apology.
User avatar
sumgy
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:58 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby sumgy » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:31 pm

Never mind.
Misunderstanding.
Last edited by sumgy on Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
sumgy
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:58 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby Marty Moose » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:51 pm

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.


It was in relation to this post refer above. I maybe wrong if I am please correct me (with out the personal mocking) What I was saying is that a Carbon or Ti frame will work for the op. I then said if you want the latest and fastest then Carbon would be the way to go, at top level they are chasing every possible advantage carbon is used. I then said if steel or even Ti were better they would be on it!!!!

You then said "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."


This statement was with a quote from my post. I assumed you were referring to it as you quoted it. If I'm wrong I'm sorry, but I fail to see why you quoted my post if you were not referring to it. Please explain why you quoted my post am I missing something! Would seem others also saw your post the same way. If I'm wrong I'll be happy to say sorry my name is not Lance ;)

MM
Marty Moose
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: W.A

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby sumgy » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:02 pm

OK. Thanks for the clarification.
Seems I owe you an apology as I have read your post as discussing top end frames in general and not just top end frames for pro's.

Misunderstandings have then escalated from there.
Sorry MM.
User avatar
sumgy
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:58 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby warthog1 » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:20 pm

At the end of the day who gives a rats. Just buy what you like and then come on here and crap on about how good it is like the rest of us do. :lol:
Apart from supermarket BSO's you probably are hard pressed to find a truly bad bike these days.
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby Marty Moose » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:00 am

sumgy wrote:OK. Thanks for the clarification.
Seems I owe you an apology as I have read your post as discussing top end frames in general and not just top end frames for pro's.

Misunderstandings have then escalated from there.
Sorry MM.


Cheers apology accepted its the internet its easy to get it wrong we all do. I'm still confused though :) I didn't mention pro's at all in any of these posts. I was referring to top end frames in general.Many pro's ride std bikes like you can buy in the shop, some get ones off's but the riders I know of are on std bikes. You may see the odd mag report with a one off but they make a point of it as this is not the norm.

I know for a fact pro's chase what is best if Ti ,steel or any other material was better they would use it the teams would demand it. As I said earlier I know of a top pro who refused to ride a team bike and rode another manufactures bike de badged as he was faster on it.

Its cheaper to get a one off personal frame made in steel or TI than in carbon, as noted in another post the CF mould is worth a fortune so why wouldn't they. TLL said if the GB track team could get a 1/10 improvement with a TI frame they would have it built and ride one. Do I dislike Ti frames? No not at all but weight for strength they are not in the same league as carbon even at std production level. I'm referring to performance frames which I think the OP is talking about because of the two materials he is asking about.

MM

ps hope your as confused as me now :) :)
Marty Moose
 
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:00 pm
Location: W.A

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby Comedian » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:38 am

warthog1 wrote:At the end of the day who gives a rats. Just buy what you like and then come on here and crap on about how good it is like the rest of us do. :lol:
Apart from supermarket BSO's you probably are hard pressed to find a truly bad bike these days.


Ok, here goes my turn... This might seem a little irrelevant but I think it goes to the topic that there will be good and bad bikes make from all materials and so comparing the outcomes of one material to another is a dangerous one.

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. :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

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?

I concede that the actual percentage difference would likely be small, but as the ex olympian cyclist I was talking to about it explained.. just those little bits here and there help you operate better in a fast pack and leave you with more for when you need it.

Maybe it's not so important what your frame is made from - more that it's the best frame that suits your needs.
Once you can climb hills on a bike it's all downhill. :mrgreen:

Hopefully I'll know what that's like..... one day. :shock: :lol:

Image
User avatar
Comedian
 
Posts: 4401
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:35 pm
Location: Brisbane

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby Nobody » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:18 am

dynamictiger wrote: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.
The real problem with bike frames today regardless of what they're made of, is they are often built too light for the material to have long term durability. 909 is mainly pointing to a manufacturer who builds with durability in mind. Surly framesets have a 3 year warranty and they claim a < 1% warranty repair/replacement. Many owners would expect their Surly framesets to last 20+ years. I've still got a Giant CrMo MTB frame which I bought ~22 years ago.
Nobody
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby Nobody » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:25 am

Question from OP:
ajgool wrote:Is carbon That much better or is ti more practical for the everyday hack.
I find it interesting that we started with a question about what is better for "the everyday hack" and we ended up with a discussion about racing and gaining 1/10 of a second.
Nobody
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby sumgy » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:09 am

Marty Moose wrote:
sumgy wrote:OK. Thanks for the clarification.
Seems I owe you an apology as I have read your post as discussing top end frames in general and not just top end frames for pro's.

Misunderstandings have then escalated from there.
Sorry MM.


Cheers apology accepted its the internet its easy to get it wrong we all do. I'm still confused though :) I didn't mention pro's at all in any of these posts. I was referring to top end frames in general.Many pro's ride std bikes like you can buy in the shop, some get ones off's but the riders I know of are on std bikes. You may see the odd mag report with a one off but they make a point of it as this is not the norm.

I know for a fact pro's chase what is best if Ti ,steel or any other material was better they would use it the teams would demand it. As I said earlier I know of a top pro who refused to ride a team bike and rode another manufactures bike de badged as he was faster on it.

Its cheaper to get a one off personal frame made in steel or TI than in carbon, as noted in another post the CF mould is worth a fortune so why wouldn't they. TLL said if the GB track team could get a 1/10 improvement with a TI frame they would have it built and ride one. Do I dislike Ti frames? No not at all but weight for strength they are not in the same league as carbon even at std production level. I'm referring to performance frames which I think the OP is talking about because of the two materials he is asking about.

MM

ps hope your as confused as me now :) :)


I guess you and I are talking about 2 very different things.
My point is that they will not mass produce top end frames from ti as this is too cost prohibitive versus CF production.
Aluminium and steel can be machine welded so this continues to be an option for bike companies but few big manufacturers seem to be making these at what is considered the high end.
I agree that teams can and will arrange custom builds for their riders either through their sponsors or elsewhere and have read of our own Baum and Teschner being called upon to do so.
From my experience in this area, I agree that as far as custom goes ti and steel are the best known and most easily accessible options, especially in Australia.
But yes custom CF is available at a premium to the price of ti or steel.

I hope that this better explains the context what I am saying.
User avatar
sumgy
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:58 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby sumgy » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:17 am

Nobody wrote:Question from OP:
ajgool wrote:Is carbon That much better or is ti more practical for the everyday hack.
I find it interesting that we started with a question about what is better for "the everyday hack" and we ended up with a discussion about racing and gaining 1/10 of a second.


Yep, definitely well off track.
My best answer to the OP is whatever floats your boat.
Also think about whetehr you plan to upgrade every few years to the latest greatest or whether you are looking for a "lifetime" frame.
I fully expect to be riding my Moots for many years to come.
It will probably get an updated groupset along the way and I will change out the CF fork in 3 - 4 years but the frame will still be going.
I cannot imagine I could say the same about any CF bike.
User avatar
sumgy
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:58 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby RonK » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:32 am

Is carbon That much better or is ti more practical for the everyday hack.

What is your concept of an "everyday hack"? It must be different to mine.

Titanium is to me, firmly in the "best bike" category.

I might correlate "hack" with something older that has been replaced and is now relegated to a training bike, or wet weather bike.
Cycle touring blog and tour journals: whispering wheels...
User avatar
RonK
 
Posts: 5238
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby warthog1 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:56 am

Comedian wrote:
I concede that the actual percentage difference would likely be small, but as the ex olympian cyclist I was talking to about it explained.. just those little bits here and there help you operate better in a fast pack and leave you with more for when you need it.


Yep that sums it up for me too. I need all the little bits I can get as I find myself near the limit quite often :oops: :lol:
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby Nobody » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:03 am

warthog1 wrote: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.
This is a problem with being taller. Tests have shown that frame size has more to do with frame flex than material. So taller people (the poor dears :P) see this more. My BB hardly moves on the trainer, but then my frame is a 46 with a 53 ETT. :D
Nobody
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby warthog1 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:06 am

Nobody wrote:The real problem with bike frames today regardless of what they're made of, is they are often built too light for the material to have long term durability. 909 is mainly pointing to a manufacturer who builds with durability in mind. Surly framesets have a 3 year warranty and they claim a < 1% warranty repair/replacement. Many owners would expect their Surly framesets to last 20+ years. I've still got a Giant CrMo MTB frame which I bought ~22 years ago.


I've got a roadmaster BSO mountain bike thingy that I ride with the kids. One of my work colleagues was throwing it out so I grabbed it. Found some alloy wheels with reasonable hubs in some kerbside hard rubbish. That bike is more than 20 years old also. Weighs a tonne
As far as frames go its probably a bit sad, but the cheaper they are you could almost say the more durable thay are, more material in there what ever it is made of as you've been saying.
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby warthog1 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:10 am

Nobody wrote:This is a problem with being taller. Tests have shown that frame size has more to do with frame flex than material. So taller people (the poor dears :P) see this more. My BB hardly moves on the trainer, but then my frame is a 46 with a 53 ETT. :D

Yeah and with those short cranks and shot knees you're probably not generating enough torque to pull the skin off a cold rice custard :P
Only joking of course, when the big Nobody pistons get wound up you need that welded and gusseted water pipe thick frame to hold it all together 8)
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby Nobody » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:15 am

warthog1 wrote: Yeah and with those short cranks and shot knees you're probably not generating enough torque to pull the skin off a cold rice custard :P
Only joking of course, when the big Nobody pistons get wound up you need that welded and gusseted water pipe thick frame to hold it all together 8)
Probably more the former, but that's a problem with also having a real life to live and being middle aged. :)
Nobody
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby warthog1 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:20 am

Nobody wrote: but that's a problem with also having a real life to live and being middle aged. :)


That's why I've done so many k's this year so far, I'm on holidays and its a break from the nagging :x .
I'm in denial about the middle aged bit though :roll: :lol:
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby Nobody » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:22 am

warthog1 wrote:As far as frames go its probably a bit sad, but the cheaper they are you could almost say the more durable they are, more material in there what ever it is made of as you've been saying.
Probably right. Haven't seen any cracked BSOs that I remember. But then maybe they don't get ridden enough to get a chance to crack.
Nobody
 
Posts: 6626
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Sydney

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby warthog1 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:28 am

Oops, its actually a Malvern Star Renegade.
I did a google search and the only photo that came up on the search that was as ugly, was this;

Image

:? :lol:
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby sumgy » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:31 am

I thought that this was an interesting weight comparison of high end CF vs ti from the Bike Gallery thread:

sumgy wrote:
Fresh wrote:Steerer tube to be cut in the next week or so...

Image

7.4 Kgs, 59cm frame.


Nice bike.
Always been a sucker for black bikes.
Interesting to see the weight.
People often bang on about how much lighter CF bikes are over steel or ti.
My 58cm ti Moots weighs 7.2kg as pictured here so very little difference (mind you my wheels weigh just over a kg for the pair).
Would be interesting to see the weight of yours minus wheels vs mine.

Image
User avatar
sumgy
 
Posts: 1393
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:58 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby warthog1 » Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:38 am

That is a very nice bike. I'd love one but the minister would not :(
User avatar
warthog1
 
Posts: 2728
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 4:40 pm

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby __PG__ » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:27 pm

'everyday hack' = someone who buys their bike with their own money
Image
1994 Cecil Walker custom steel frame with Shimano Ultegra STi
2013 Baum Corretto custom titanium frame with SRAM Force
__PG__
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2012 10:30 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: titanium v carbon.

Postby grasshopper » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:57 am

Another ti v C debate? :lol: 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.
User avatar
grasshopper
 
Posts: 331
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:04 pm
Location: Melbourne

PreviousNext

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], duncan16v, earlybird, feral grasshopper, herzog, jasonc



Popular Bike Shops
Torpedo 7 Torpedo7 AU
Ground Effect Ground Effect NZ
Chain Reaction Cycles CRC UK
Wiggle Wiggle UK
Ebay Ebay AU



InTouch with BNA
“Bicycles BNA Twitter
“Bicycles BNA Facebook
“Google+ BNA Google+
“Bicycles BNA Newsletter