Steel v Aluminum v Carbon v Titanium Frames...

The Northern Monkey

What is that actually difference between the above materials for the use in building bike frames?

Strength?
Weight?
Shock absorbance?
Easier/stronger forming?
Price of the metal?

Just wondering as there's a few different types out there.

Titanium seems to be the priciest but is there a reason? or is it just "rare" and "exclusive" type of thing for the people with a bigger wad of cash to burn?

B

nicklouse

often it is because they can, or it allows something different to be made.

Ti and carbon can reduce Buzz.

LoUiS1985

i think titanium is so expensive not because of the price of the actual materials but the cost of manufacture of it i.e welding etc..

Whytepeak

All of these materials have slightly different properties, but any can be manufactured to pruduce an effect. I've ridden rock solid steel frames and flexy alu frames. It all depends on how the tubes are shaped.

Carbon is a very strong material, in that it has a high strength to weight ratio, GT makes a carbon XC bike, an alu XC bike. It also makes am alu DH bike, and a carbon DH bike.

The weights of bikes and their ride qualities are very noticeable to the rider, but the material used to make bikes vary very little in their strength and weight, but they are built differently.

keeko

Whytepeak wrote:

All of these materials have slightly different properties, but any can be manufactured to pruduce an effect. I've ridden rock solid steel frames and flexy alu frames. It all depends on how the tubes are shaped.

Carbon is a very strong material, in that it has a high strength to weight ratio, GT makes a carbon XC bike, an alu XC bike. It also makes am alu DH bike, and a carbon DH bike.

The weights of bikes and their ride qualities are very noticeable to the rider, but the material used to make bikes vary very little in their strength and weight, but they are built differently.

Good post.
I`d rather have a frame made well by a good frame builder made out of anything rather than a frame made of top materials and poorly assembled.
I had a Fat Chance Yo Eddy years ago that was 4130 chromoly. It rode like no other steel bike I`ve ever sat my arse on. Reason? The way it was conceived/built.
My Zaskar carbon hardtail arrived this morning. Cant ride it properly as I have a broken hand on the mend but first impressions are excellent.
I`ve had alloy framed bikes that shook the teeth from your head and were harsh as hell but I had an Ibis Alibi that was surprisingly compliant.
I`ve rode a cheapo Ti framed bike and found it too flexy but I blagged a short run on a Litespeed. Different ball game all together.
You pays your money you takes your choice.

The Northern Monkey

so basically its...

Bragging rights.
Better frame construction if you pay more (doesn't really matter what material though).
Negligible differences in frame "feel" which coud also depend on the quality of the build.


Hmm... I always thought Ti was a super stiff, super light metal.
Carbon was light, strong and absorbed some buzz.
Steel was verrrryy strong, smaller tubes, lightish.
Alu was light, but not as strong unless it was gusseted/thick tubes which defys the point of it being light.

John Moore

I wouldn't ride a carbon frame, don't want one of them cracking and stabbing me as it falls to pieces.

Ali - rubbish
Steel - flexi (er) and very nice
Ti - the best I won't go back

Steve_b77

Frames with different material can be made to what ever characterisitcs the manufacturer likes (within reason)

The Ti Cove Hummer is renowned for being stiff as you like where as the Cotic Sola is quite flexy.

Alu GT's can be very stiff due to the triangulate tube junction, others can be flexy.

Steel can have a "zing" but it can also be cheap & heavy crap.

rwalworth

John Moore wrote:

I wouldn't ride a carbon frame, don't want one of them cracking and stabbing me as it falls to pieces.

Ali - rubbish
Steel - flexi (er) and very nice
Ti - the best I won't go back

Well that just sounds like generalised crap, how do you explain that aluminium is rubbish?

Also carbon isn't just going to snap and stab you, it can take some serius abuse hence being used in top end DH and 4X bikes. Don't be so narrow minded

jamsop

Interesting thread.

If Ti material doesnt really cost that much more material wise. I dont understand why does Ti really cost that much more to manfacture than the new Alu frames?

Welding is welding right?!?!....... but Alu in some cases have special hydroforming together with smooth welding like on the Boardaman for example. I would've thought this cost more to make?


Mmm the sums dont seem to add up...

alfablue

I understand that Ti requires welding in a vacuum chamber or in argon gas, and the tubes require microscopic attention to detail in preparation for the weld.

Mickey Eye

I have a Alu Stumpy hardtail, it's large tubes make it quite stiff but if you actually look and pay attention you can see it flexing. On the other hand I have a rigid forked steel GT frame from the mid 90s, very thin tubes but due to the design it is also pretty stiff at the rear, a lot more flex at the front (which is pretty much what I want out of it).

Surf-Matt

bigbenj_08 wrote:

What is that actually difference between the above materials for the use in building bike frames?

Strength?
Weight?
Shock absorbance?
Easier/stronger forming?
Price of the metal?

Just wondering as there's a few different types out there.

Titanium seems to be the priciest but is there a reason? or is it just "rare" and "exclusive" type of thing for the people with a bigger wad of cash to burn?

B

Time to try and remember my degree content now (Materials Engineering).

Alu - strength medium, weight - can be low, easy to form, cheapish depending on grade. Needs large tubes/hydroforming so ends up feeling stiff, can fatigue over time
Steel - strength high, weight - usually highish, easy to weld but hard to shape (usually comes in plain tube form), prices are odd - low for cack steel, high for high grade, usually has a bit of inbuilt spring.
Carbon - strength high (impact resistance low), weight - almost always very low, hard to lay up properly, hard to repair, can be stiff or springy depending on how it's shaped, resin can fatigue over time, too often used innappropriatley.
Titanium - strength high, weight low, easyish but pricey to weld/repair, good "spring" (liek steel), always expensive.

Aluminium is not at all "rubbish" - depends on the grade, how it's worked and a load of other factors. To call is rubbish is a bit like saying any food containing flour is rubbish...

Uncle Peter

alfablue wrote:

I understand that Ti requires welding in a vacuum chamber or in argon gas, and the tubes require microscopic attention to detail in preparation for the weld.

That's right becuase Ti actually burns at around 1400degC and melts at around 1600degC in a normal atmosphere.

Chaz.Harding

But Surf-Matt - you overlooked a vital fact here... Any food containing flour IS rubbish!

Seriously though, good summary of materials. Carbon and Ti are generally pricier than steel and alu frames, because of the material cost itself, the complexities of forming the tubes / chassis with the materials, and partly because the manufacturers 'can'.

As you well know, alot of mountainbiking is about the 'bling' factor nowadays. So a shiny Ti frame, or a cool monocoque (sp??) frame will demand more money for kudo's, if all other costs were the same.

But again, it's about how well made, how though-out, and how 'revised' the frame is, and where it's made... British, American, German (etc, etc) constructed frames will ALWAYS be more expensive than their Taiwanese counterparts. Curtis are a prime example. They use T45 steel, British designed and made, and some of their HARDTAIL frames are in excess of £750! But it's what you pay for. They are VERY well made, VERY well thought out, but need to be more expensive to support the British workers who make them. Same for Orange, Intese, Foes, Yeti etc etc. All 'boutique' brands who (mostly) use aluminium, but are more expensive partly because they are all VERY well though out and designed, partly because of the country they were made in...

whydoesitalwaysrainonme

IMHO i think that titanium is the best material to make MTBs out of, it is not the most practical due to the price but it is very very light (only a tiny bit behind carbon), and is probably the strongest (i think steel could be stronger but not sure).

Chaz.Harding

I'm pretty sure steel is one of (if not the) strongest material you can construct a bike from. But as above, it's all in the construction. If you have a sh1t steel bike, and an awesome toffee bike, the toffee bike may be stronger (ok, maybe not toffee, but you get my point!).

passout

Other materials include Bamboo and whatever Kirk Precisions were made of - what was it again? Anybody know?

Chaz.Harding

passout wrote:

Other materials include Bamboo and whatever Kirk Precisions were made of - what was it again? Anybody know?

I think it was a ''Magnesium Alloy''. But yeah, there's loads! If it's a material, chances are someone has (or tried to atleast) make a bike out of it!

EDIT - Even 100% (including chain!) wood. This is a real, working bicycle!

cheehee

http://www.calfeedesign.com/bamboo.htm

These guys are building bamboo framed bikes..............

.blitz

bigbenj_08 wrote:

so basically its...Bragging rights

That's pretty much it. Bike manufacturers are using materials and techniques that the aerospace industry was using 20 years ago. The company I work for has been making aircraft parts out of titanium for as long as I can remember. The technology filters down and ends up in a...bicycle.

keeko

bigbenj_08 wrote:

so basically its...

Bragging rights.
Better frame construction if you pay more (doesn't really matter what material though).
Negligible differences in frame "feel" which coud also depend on the quality of the build.


Hmm... I always thought Ti was a super stiff, super light metal.
Carbon was light, strong and absorbed some buzz.
Steel was verrrryy strong, smaller tubes, lightish.
Alu was light, but not as strong unless it was gusseted/thick tubes which defys the point of it being light.

Nope. Not bragging rights. Not for me, but to some people it can be. Thats like saying I have a Porsche GT3 and you have a Focus ST. I`m better than you. No I`m not. I`ve spent more money. I have a superior car though, doesn`t make me any more skilled or better.
You read that all wrong. Oh and Titanium could never be called super `stiff`.

keeko

.blitz wrote:

bigbenj_08 wrote:

so basically its...Bragging rights

That's pretty much it.
The technology filters down and ends up in a...bicycle.

You said that like this element is a no no for for a `common bike`. Why not? When I started mountain biking all bikes were steel. Companies started experimenting with different materials and we`ve got where we`ve got today because of those advances.
20 years ago there was probably a guy like you working away in making aluminium products saying "I can`t believe they`re using this great metal to make bicycles

:roll:

Anonymous

remember that outright "strength" is not as important in a mountain bike frame as "strength to weight". The same is not commonly true for large scale things such as bridges.

What I mean is, you can make a frame out of Aluminium that is equal in strength to a steel frame, but it will be lighter.

.blitz

keeko wrote:

You said that like this element is a no no for for a `common bike`.

Just trying to put things in perspective, that's all.

ride_whenever

Whoever said carbon has cack all impact resistance hasn't seen the video of the taurine frame vs. a hammer and a steel frame vs. the same hammer!

Anonymous

ride_whenever wrote:

Whoever said carbon has cack all impact resistance hasn't seen the video of the taurine frame vs. a hammer and a steel frame vs. the same hammer!

link please.

im always amazed when some company knocks out 1000 quid hard tail bike frames, no matter what they're made from, its just nine pipes!!

the same applies anywhere in any industry, put a high price on it and someone will buy it

gcwebbyuk

Where does scandium fit into the grand scheme of things?

supersonic

'Scandium' is an aluminium alloy, with very small amounts of scandium added. It improves certain properties of the material ie fatigue levels and tensile strength.

I have wrote quite extensively on the differences between the main materials, so might be worth to some to search them out. The design and construction is a huge factor on how they feel, not to mention other components.

Taurine frame getting smashed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lsDXEEUlRE

Further reading:

http://spokesmanbicycles.com/page.cfm?PageID=328

Uncle Peter

Isn't Scandium an element?

supersonic

Yep. But scandium tubes are usually less than 2% scandium lol.