Titanium...pros and cons please
Mothyman
Posts: 655
Am considering my next bike and whether to get titanium. Current i have all carbon.
Not particularly bothered about status...more the facts re-benefits/problems etc
Any advice?
Not particularly bothered about status...more the facts re-benefits/problems etc
Any advice?
0
Comments
-
Had a 15ft drop/crash on an Airborne Ti road bike. Just a puncture, scrapped gear changer.
Feel Alu, Carbon would have not survived it.
Also had Airborne Ti Mtb. Excellent ride, but bought it too small.
Both were excellent rides. Smooth, light and not at all flexy, just nice...
"Dream" bike probably Ti hardtail, Lefty fork, or light Magura, Thudbuster, and internal type rear hub, XT. Totally weather-proof.
Got Carbon road bike, Alu h/tail and Alu full sus, so can't buy Ti as Mrs will do a "Lance" on me, and I might want more kids one day...0 -
As you have an all carbon set up, I would go for Ti as a second bike/ winter option... That's what I did.
The Ti frame is a lovely smooth ride, not much heavier, and depending on your frame choice, can be as lively as your 'best' bike, or a little softer (geometry), for long winter grinds...Start with a budget, finish with a mortgage!0 -
Also bought Ti for a winter bike (Enigma Etape which takes full guards), and have Carbon for dry use. The Ti is more comfortable, should last forever, and rides superbly. The downside is slightly more weight than carbon (but negligible), and the extra flex could be a negative if you intend to race.Carlsberg don't make cycle clothing, but if they did it would probably still not be as good as Assos0
-
in terms of the benefits of Ti - the material is ultra hard-wearing, and marks/scratches can simply be rubbed down or polished out. In terms of ride quality, it does depend a lot on the design of the frame itself, tube size, etc, but the ride quality of my VN Chinook is simply excellent. I can't compare it to carbon, because I have never ridden a carbon bike - not even for 5 minutes, so I may be missing out on a hugely better carbon experience, but I don't think so, and I wouldn't care anyway. But as a 'real world' ride, I think Ti probably does the job as well - if not better - than anything else - and it will last you a lifetime.0
-
quote]and the extra flex could be a negative if you intend to race[/quote]
But you can always get snappy frames like the Chinook
And don't forget that you can always dial extra stiffness into any bike with your choice of wheels, bars and stem, and that's just to name three parts.
Titanium is very much "steel for the 21st century". Back wheen everyone rode 531 Reynolds bikes there surely wasn't the same notion of having to put your racing bike away for six months, lest a bit of dirt land on the seat tube or a precious label peel off in the wet weather. Well nowadays that's what everyone does with their carbon "racers" - I never see carbon bikes out on the road in anything other than fine weather.
You can always run a titanium bike throughout the year, just with different parts - I've got a winter training wheelset and a summer one with fast tyres and aerodynamic profile rims and spokes, so you also get used to riding in the same cockpit all the time.
And also remember that as good as carbon might be when crashing an F1 car into a wall at 100mph, if it gets knocked at 25mph (as in crashing on a descent during a sportive) you're left praying the weakened fibres don't give way next time they're put under large stresses, as they can delaminate.
This is exactly what caused Roland Ratzenberger's fatal accident at the 1994 Imola F1 race (the day before Senna's crash) because he knocked a front wing on a kerb, but didn't realise that the carbon resins were starting to delaminate as he drove round the track. On the next lap, going at 190mph and approaching a right-hand kink, the weakened front wing was under an enormous strain from aerodynamic loading. You know what happened next
I KNOW no-one is going to crash a bike at 190mph but the point is that carbon constructions are not quite the same after an accident - and they show no visual or audible warning if they delaminate - which is more than possible as I've already described. Of course, not many companies make titanium forks, so if you hit a car head-on (and survive) you'll have to replace the carbon forks, but surely that's better than replacing the whole bike
Just thought I'd put across the practicalities that led me to choose titanium over carbon.0 -
I have only ridden carbon and aluminium, never tried titanium, but thinking about a Planet X Pro Road ti.
I take people's points about the crashing aspect, carbon doesn't do well in an impact, I don't think it's supposed to as a material quite honestly, but for ride quality imo it doesn't have any competition. But there again, I haven't tried ti. So I might go for that Planet X and hope I don't regret it ride wise.
Carbon bikes do vary a lot in feel and handling, they're not all the same which seems to be the general consensus. Having had two carbon frames myself and tried out a handful of others, each one has it's own characteristics and price tag of course. The ones that are more expensive are that for a reason.
And I don't entirely agree with Pianoman's comments. Using carbon fibre in the motorsport industry is totally different, I don't think much could put up with being slammed into a barrier at 150mph somehow, utilising carbon for bike frames is much 'safer' so to speak, and as such is a great material for construction imo.0 -
giant mancp wrote:I have only ridden carbon and aluminium, never tried titanium, but thinking about a Planet X Pro Road ti.
.....
I just went down the same route, the Pro Road Ti frame was just too good an offer to miss IMO.
I don't know how it's going to pan out, but it will replace my ally/carbon summer frame. Pretty much first time out on that I unshipped the chain off the inner ring and it tore a chunk of carbon out of the chainstay. Patched it with epoxy and I've had a couple of years life out of the frame, so not a total disaster. I'd never buy an expensive carbon frame after that experience though :?
Neil--
"Because the cycling is pain. The cycling is soul crushing pain."0 -
Alloy/carbon frames are probably the weakest ones in that regard and most prone to something cracking - the alloy and carbon are "bonded" (or should that be glued) together at the seat stays.
That said, there are some carbon frames out there which ARE stronger than others - monocoque frames such as the Trek OCLV's have far fewer "weak points" in them than something like a Dolan Mythos, which apparently is a great bike to ride but is just a few tubes bonded together (or at least it used to be). So while the Trek could still delaminate after a crash, it would need a much harder impact to weaken it than an entry level machine would.
It's just that I love the ride and feel of TItanium - and it feels reassuring to know how strong it is. After all, it's used in hip replacements, so no notion of NHS cost cutting!0 -
Come on PianoMan you have no experience of carbon frames you have said that, the Trek OCLV frame ain't all that believe me, had one years ago. You don't know about bonding of the tubes on a Dolan Mythos from experience, only hearsay. Carbon frames don't just come unbonded for heaven's sake, or at least I've never heard of that. In the majority of 'cracking' it's the paint not the carbon itself.
Carbon frames come in all shapes and sizes, and of course the lugs vs monocoque construction is a hot one amongst carbon owners, which type of construction gives the best feeling, which one is strongest etc. So two different types of carbon construction there. To me the strength isn't the important thing, the way the bike feels and handles is the most important thing. And this is the one thing discerning carbon buyers are looking for.
I have no experience of two materials ie carbon and alloy being constructed together, I'm talking about purely all carbon frames here.0 -
I have two Ti bikes: a Sabbath Monday's Child (very stiff, light and fast - used for racing) and a Sabbath Silk Road (still quite light but less stiff and a 'plusher' ride - my winter steed). I love 'em both.
After returning to cycling after many many years, I was looking for bike that gave sublime ride quality of the best steel frames but lighter and stiffer with it.Tried quite a few carbon frames; some were very nice (eg Giant TCR Advanced and SL) and some not so nice - just felt a bit 'wooden' and 'dead'. However, none I tried matched the almost magical ride quality of Ti, which is why I chose how I did. Also, the thought of causing potential long-term damage by catching a carbon frame on a sharp edge just didn't instill confidence. With Ti, I know the frames will outlive me!0 -
PianoMan wrote:Alloy/carbon frames are probably the weakest ones in that regard and most prone to something cracking - the alloy and carbon are "bonded" (or should that be glued) together at the seat stays.
What's wrong with Alloy/CFRP glued joints? There's quite a few joints like in aerospace these days.0 -
With Ti, I know the frames will outlive me!
Or to put it another way, if you crashed it REALLY hard, you'd probably be dead or seriously injured before the bike was.
I guess carbon has also become popular because of just how many bikes people tend to have these days. The stiff ones are probably sublime for racing on and if you have one of them, PLUS a winter trainer, PLUS a TT machine, PLUS a sportive bike, PLUS a tourer (ok I could go on) then good luck to you, enjoy using your Pinarello or Trek in races. I just think that in the real world of everyday riding (and especially in winter) there really isn't the same practicality with carbon as there is with titanium.0 -
The reasons why I got a Ti bike:
1. Ability to fit a proper headset and not one of those silly integrated headsets in frame that was reasonably priced. (I would have liked an Extreme Power, but they are loads more than I could have afforded)
2. Ti fashion largely stops the same, so a 7yr old frame will still look OK, but a 7yr old carbon frame will look a bit dated.
3. Less susceptible to scratches/gouges, that make a carbon bike look crap.0 -
I have a Specialized Allez Epic which I bought in 1991. It's a carbon tubed aluminium lugged frame with a bonded aluminium fork. I've ridden through the Arenberg forest twice on this bike and it's still in one piece.
I don't really see why people are so scared of carbon. Other materials do fail, titanium included.0 -
I've owned Al alloy frames, Steel, CFRP and Ti (just for you Red
) frames/bikes.
My two current road bikes are a 2008/09 Trek Madone and a Sabbath Silk Road.
As ReddDraggon has said, a Carbon frame ages fairly quickly (unless it's a Colnago), so the residual values are not the best. As far as ride quality, it there is significant variation between designs, as mention before by the other Sabbath owner. Each particular frame has it's purpose, just decide which really does suit you. An extra few hundred grammes of frame weight is a small penalty to pay for a robust frame that will last as long as you want to ride it.
I think you really can look at a Ti frames as one for life, find a design that will suit your needs and I guarantee you will never look back.0 -
Just to reiterate, you CAN build a very light Ti bike (although it costs a bit more). My Monday's Child weigh's in at a feathery 15.5lbs 0
-
All valid points about carbon frames but I think some people leave theirs at home during winter due to paranoia as you're just as likely to crash as you are in a car. However that doesn't stop people from getting in their cars when it's snowing and driving safely to work.
It's funny how companies wax lyrical about how absorbent stainless and titanium is but this is mainly due to design constraints set by the market and material itself. To give you some idea the table below shows the basic properties of the bike materials currently used today:
..........................Density........Modulus of Elasticity
..........................(kg/m³).........(N/m²)
12K Carbon.....~1500..........2.00E+11 to 6.00E+11
Aluminium..........2700............7.00E+10
Titanium.............4500............1.00E+11
Stainless Steel.8900...........1.90E+11
There's a very good reason carbon is so widely used and that is because bikes (or racing bikes at least) are stiffness/mass driven. In this respect carbon is massively stiff and extremely lightweight (in fact 1/3 the mass of titanium).
With this being the case it is not difficult to see that it is extremely difficult to design a bike using stainless/titanium as most bikes need to fall within a narrow mass band these days. Thus if you consider a single tube, all things being equal i.e. dimensions, then the titanium tube will be 3x the mass and a lot less stiff than the carbon equivalent. In order to get round this tube sections have to be increased and wall thicknesses reduced but there's a limit on this too as no-one wants a bike with huge sections. This is most likely why titanium/stainless steel bikes are relatively flexible as it probably isn't possible to make a comparitively stiff bike whilst keeping the mass down.
As good as titanium is it's no wonder material and is actually relatively brittle compared to other metals (so can fail quite abruptly). If anything stainless steel is better but has a weight problem so has become unpopular.0 -
Speaking of Titanium, I believe Van Nicholas have just launched a complete road bike for £1400. This seems a bit of a bargain, or am I missing something?
http://www.fatbirds.co.uk/detail.asp/sk ... _Road_Bike0 -
escargot - does your table represent the qualities of 'pure' aluminium and titanium metals, or the alloys which are more commonly used in frame construction. 'Brittleness' can often be blended out depending on how the alloy is composed....0
-
Escargot wrote:All valid points about carbon frames but I think some people leave theirs at home during winter due to paranoia as you're just as likely to crash as you are in a car. However that doesn't stop people from getting in their cars when it's snowing and driving safely to work.
It's funny how companies wax lyrical about how absorbent stainless and titanium is but this is mainly due to design constraints set by the market and material itself. To give you some idea the table below shows the basic properties of the bike materials currently used today:
..........................Density........Modulus of Elasticity
..........................(kg/m³).........(N/m²)
12K Carbon.....~1500..........2.00E+11 to 6.00E+11
Aluminium..........2700............7.00E+10
Titanium.............4500............1.00E+11
Stainless Steel.8900...........1.90E+11
There's a very good reason carbon is so widely used and that is because bikes (or racing bikes at least) are stiffness/mass driven. In this respect carbon is massively stiff and extremely lightweight (in fact 1/3 the mass of titanium).
With this being the case it is not difficult to see that it is extremely difficult to design a bike using stainless/titanium as most bikes need to fall within a narrow mass band these days. Thus if you consider a single tube, all things being equal i.e. dimensions, then the titanium tube will be 3x the mass and a lot less stiff than the carbon equivalent. In order to get round this tube sections have to be increased and wall thicknesses reduced but there's a limit on this too as no-one wants a bike with huge sections. This is most likely why titanium/stainless steel bikes are relatively flexible as it probably isn't possible to make a comparitively stiff bike whilst keeping the mass down.
As good as titanium is it's no wonder material and is actually relatively brittle compared to other metals (so can fail quite abruptly). If anything stainless steel is better but has a weight problem so has become unpopular.
Why does my Nero Corsa frame weight more than my Ti one, but there's no discernable difference in stiffness?0 -
Titanium as a material is only a small part of the deciding factor on how a Ti bike will feel and handle. There are cheap Ti bikes with plain gauge tubes and pretty basic design, that are not going to give the same ride as a well designed frame with custom drawn tubes, profiles etc.
Ti, as with any material, can be made into a great bike or a pretty basic bike. I feel that people expect this amazingly lively, spritely, ride from a Ti frame purely on the fact it is made of Ti.
I have ridden quite a few Ti bikes, and some have been great, and some quite dead and uninteresting. The same applies to carbon, steel and aluminium, etc, the quality of the basic material, the skill in it's fabrication, design and build will all have as much, if not more influence on the final ride than just it's base material.
The main advantages of Ti as a material for a bike are it's corrosion resistance, ability to be repaired, and ease of which scratches and marks can be buffed out. After that it's down to design and build rather than just the material.Complicating matters since 19650 -
softlad wrote:escargot - does your table represent the qualities of 'pure' aluminium and titanium metals, or the alloys which are more commonly used in frame construction. 'Brittleness' can often be blended out depending on how the alloy is composed....
The values are roughly correct, roughly in the middle of the rangle of values expected for the alloys. Althought I'd say that the Ti and Al for bikes should be towards the top of the range rather than the middle.0 -
softlad wrote:escargot - does your table represent the qualities of 'pure' aluminium and titanium metals, or the alloys which are more commonly used in frame construction. 'Brittleness' can often be blended out depending on how the alloy is composed....
I've used material values for the most commonly used. So the titanium values are for 3Al/2.5v. I've never used this grade (mostly 6Al/4v) but the difference in modulus is 1.0E+11 compared with 1.1E+11 so is not dissimilar.
The aluminium is for 6061 but does not change massively either.
The brittleness comes with the high stiffness properties (for titanium). However there's no real reason to be alarmed as theres a fair amount of 'give' with titanium.0 -
"redddraggon wrote:Why does my Nero Corsa frame weight more than my Ti one, but there's no discernable difference in stiffness?
Hard to say really as designs are so variable and I'm sure a really well designed Ti bike will not be a million miles away. It'd be interesting to check both designs out to see (maybe I'll have a look on the web later).
I think a lot of carbon bikes appear to have much larger sections than Ti bikes too and I'm not 100% why this is altough it may well be down to durability and safety factors i.e. designers ensuring that their carbon frames don't snap at the first knock.0 -
Escargot wrote:Hard to say really as designs are so variable and I'm sure a really well designed Ti bike will not be a million miles away. It'd be interesting to check both designs out to see (maybe I'll have a look on the web later).
I think a lot of carbon bikes appear to have much larger sections than Ti bikes too and I'm not 100% why this is altough it may well be down to durability and safety factors i.e. designers ensuring that their carbon frames don't snap at the first knock.
BTW Are you a materials scientist/engineer?0 -
Escargot wrote:"redddraggon wrote:I think a lot of carbon bikes appear to have much larger sections than Ti bikes too and I'm not 100% why this is altough it may well be down to durability and safety factors i.e. designers ensuring that their carbon frames don't snap at the first knock.
And herein lies one of the potential downsides of carbon - if a titanium frame gets a knock or gash, you set about polishing it out. If a carbon frame gets a knock or gash, you worry perpetually about whether if will fail unexpectedly at some point in the future.0 -
redddraggon wrote:Escargot wrote:Hard to say really as designs are so variable and I'm sure a really well designed Ti bike will not be a million miles away. It'd be interesting to check both designs out to see (maybe I'll have a look on the web later).
I think a lot of carbon bikes appear to have much larger sections than Ti bikes too and I'm not 100% why this is altough it may well be down to durability and safety factors i.e. designers ensuring that their carbon frames don't snap at the first knock.
BTW Are you a materials scientist/engineer?
Not a materials scientist like yourself but a stressman so have studied metallurgy/failure to a reasonable level. I guess there's some overlap between the two (hence I'm an expert on corrosion ) but I come from it with a bias to structures/failure. 0 -
[/quote]Lunar Tick wrote:Escargot wrote:"redddraggon wrote:I think a lot of carbon bikes appear to have much larger sections than Ti bikes too and I'm not 100% why this is altough it may well be down to durability and safety factors i.e. designers ensuring that their carbon frames don't snap at the first knock.
And herein lies one of the potential downsides of carbon - if a titanium frame gets a knock or gash, you set about polishing it out. If a carbon frame gets a knock or gash, you worry perpetually about whether if will fail unexpectedly at some point in the future.
Agreed, it was something I thought about when I bought mine but the pros ultimately outweighed the cons. I will see how ownership goes but am hoping my faith in the material is rewarded with happy days
It's not for everyone though so it's a good job there's some very good alternatives out there. Don't get me wrong I love titanium as a material but thought I'd try and highlight some basic compromises between materials.
Please bear in mind though that titanium is not indestructable so is still prone to the usual failure modes. It's just that it will be better at taking the knocks.0 -
Escargot wrote:redddraggon wrote:Escargot wrote:Hard to say really as designs are so variable and I'm sure a really well designed Ti bike will not be a million miles away. It'd be interesting to check both designs out to see (maybe I'll have a look on the web later).
I think a lot of carbon bikes appear to have much larger sections than Ti bikes too and I'm not 100% why this is altough it may well be down to durability and safety factors i.e. designers ensuring that their carbon frames don't snap at the first knock.
BTW Are you a materials scientist/engineer?
Not a materials scientist like yourself but a stressman so have studied metallurgy/failure to a reasonable level. I guess there's some overlap between the two (hence I'm an expert on corrosion ) but I come from it with a bias to structures/failure.
I do functional ceramics now really But I did all the composites and metallurgy stuff as an undergrad. 0 -
redddraggon wrote:I do functional ceramics now really But I did all the composites and metallurgy stuff as an undergrad.
Interesting. I guess I know where to come when I need a new one of these
(sorry, I didn't have a clue what functional ceramics was and this was the first thing that popped up on Google).
I had a look at your bikes on your flikr page and to be honest I don't know why your carbon Nero Corsa weighs more and is as stiff :? Are you comparing it with the other Ribble Nero as I couldn't see a Ti bike there (I thought that was an alu frame).
Anyhoo the winter bike is a good example as it's extremely compact at the head tube area due to the horizontal top, whilst the carbon frame is quite angled leaving a wide open space up front. This will definitely affect the stiffness of the frame (esp when out of the saddle) and will also add some mass. As for the rest of the frame I'm not so sure.
As before it'd be interesting to compare two lugged/butted frames with identical geometry as the material differences would be much more apparent.
Nice bikes BTW 0
