Ti v. Carbon
Road Red
Posts: 232
OK, I know there are long threads going on carbon-steel etc
But what is the difference between ti & carbon?
What I want is a bike that will carry my large frame for long rides in supreme comfort.
But what is the difference between ti & carbon?
What I want is a bike that will carry my large frame for long rides in supreme comfort.
0
Comments
-
-
Road Red wrote:OK, I know there are long threads going on carbon-steel etc
But what is the difference between ti & carbon?
What I want is a bike that will carry my large frame for long rides in supreme comfort.
Supreme comfort over long distances??? Steel! No brainer...take a look at a company like enigma..although I do not know what your budget is, but if you are looking at carbon and Ti then I guess you could afford an excellent custom fit steel bike that would fit the "supreme comfort" request
0 -
Seems like nobody is able to answer the OP, so I'll have a go - though I'm not an authority on the subject.
Carbon - Can be formed to resist flexing in the wrong direction (i.e. the bottom bracket will not flex sideways - much). A good carbon frame will have some compliance in the vertical, so theoretically, they can be comfortable and still put your pedalling efforts into forward motion.
Carbon can suffer quite badly from impact damage, though carbon is still very strong, it wouldn't stand up to being hit with a sharp firm object in a crash.
Obviously, carbon will not suffer from corrosion.
Titainium - In the hands of a talented frame designer, can be compliance in the vertical and still be fairly efficient in getting the bike going forward for a given power input at teh cranks. They don't suffer from corrosion. Received wisdom says they give an extremely comfortable ride with only a slight loss in efficiency.
In my own experience I find my carbon Dolan more 'zippy' and responsive than my Planet X (Lynskey) titanium sportive. The Planet X feels great on bad roads (like we have a lot of at the moment!), in the first few days of ownership I was checking for non-existent punctures.
I'm really not sure which I would choose if i was forced to pick only one bike!
You can get back to your smart arse replies now 0 -
I would say the Ti frame would be more comfortable/forgiving...Start with a budget, finish with a mortgage!0
-
I guess the general concesus on comfort starting with the most comfortable:
1 - Steel
2 - Titanium
3 - Carbon
4 - Aluminium
Excluding extremes, general price rank starting with most expensive:
1 - Titanium
2 - Carbon
3 - Steel
4 - Aluminium
Although steel is very hard to place in the price rank as steel bikes aren't really mass produced any more. If you get a steel bike, the chances are it will be custom built to your body shape. Obviously some builders will charge more, some will charge less.0 -
Thanks for those mostly informed responses guys.
Question was a bit vague, I reckon on spending up to £2k (as long as the war office doesnt find out), I was looking at the Enigma site as a possibility for a titanium option on a friends recommendation.
On the carbon front the options are the mass produced brands, every brand has their own fans, or looking at smaller producers like Pearsons. Again on a friends recommendation.
I guess the Enigma/Pearson route offers the benefit of a customised fit, which I feel should be a critical decider.
I'm a fairly recent convert to cycling, sorry I didnt start years ago. I'm probably too old to ever consider racing, and body shape is more designed to endurance rather than speed. But despite my size and lack of speed I like climbing and hope to be doing sportivs and climbing mountains for many years to come.0 -
Road Red, sounds like we've come from fairly similar places. I'm a (relatively) recent convert to road cycling - about 1.5 years now. I'm 36 this year and am thinking about racing this year - ok so I'm not going to set the world alight, but I'm sure it will be fun. Better to try and fail than not try.
I too have the 'next bike' dilemma and am a bit confused about which type frame / material to go for. I am also better at endurance than extreme speed. But I want something that is a 'luxury' bike and that can go fast when needed, but will see me good for UK and Euro sportives for a few years to come for about 2k. Something that compromises a little on comfort in favour of speed when (if) I decide to try to hang off the back at a cat 4 race but also not too harsh geometry to give me arse/bone ache over a long sportive.
Something that doesn't seem to have been mentioned her in favour of carbon is that I believed it to have good dampening qualities over rough roads. I maybe misinformed.
Anyhow, swinging strongly towards a Focus Cayo Pro for what it's worth!0 -
I don't agree with steel frames being most comfortable - some of the harshest riding bikes I've ridden were steel - this is an entirely subjective question as there are many other parameters to consider. I don't have an aluminium alloy bike at present,but I've got 2 of each of the others - yes my ti frames are more compliant, but it can come at the expense of stiffness. Carbon can be a good compromise, but likewise, both my carbon frames are extremly stiff race frames with little give. Steel, provided the tubing is selected for the weight of the rider is good too and it's the cheapest option of you want custom. I'd suggest you try testing riding a few bikes, because there's only one person who knows what you're looking for - that's you.Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
The Planet X feels great on bad roads (like we have a lot of at the moment!), in the first few days of ownership I was checking for non-existent punctures.
You're not the only one...........I thought the same when I first rode my Van Nicholas in its winter config (though the summer one with the racing wheels and Ultremo's doesn't have the "phantom puncture" quirk).
For supreme comfort, you can't really go wrong with Ti, though make sure the fork has a slight curve in it or it'll feel harsh. And you won't be looking for deep wheel rims which can also add to the harshness - something like Mavic Open Pro handbuilts sound like they'd be right up your street if you want a complete "comfort" package. Not that I went down that road with my Chinook, but then again we all have different priorities 0 -
Enigma is a good choice - I bought an Etape just over 12 monts ago for my winter bike, soaks up the bumps, as comfortable as my previous Steel 531c frames. I prefer it for long rides over my (carbon) Kuota, which is more lively but doesn't give as smooth a ride.
Give Jim Walker a ring at Enigma, and he'll sort you out what you need to suit your budget and Mark will size you up for a perfect fit.Carlsberg don't make cycle clothing, but if they did it would probably still not be as good as Assos0 -
Titanium rusts and carbon corrodes, especially in hot weather.0
-
It really depends how the frames are built, the addict is a brutal ride, whereas the CR1 is much softer (an example i've tried 8) ) Ti can be built flexy or brutally stiff as well. You really need to identify the bikes that fit your long-distance ideals and then try to find some to test. Then mail order one you haven't tried at all!0
-
A good frame is a good frame...0
-
Usually threads on carbon vs. Ti degenerate into slanging matches between those who think that certain frame materials have certain universal properties when it comes to how a bike rides, and those who think that the material has absolutely no significance at all and it's all down to geometry and how much your tyres are inflated...
The truth is somewhere in between, you can design frames with a range of properties out of any commonly used material, so you can have flexy carbon frames and stiff steel ones, etc. But a given material imposes certain limitations and defines a multi-dimensional space of possibilities, and the spaces so defined for each material overlap significantly but also have significant non-overlapping areas. Carbon has quite a large space of possibilities, but it doesn't extend into areas of durability in which Ti excels, for example.
In your case, with an infinite budget you could probably find a bike with very similar ideal properties for you in terms of comfort, stiffness, etc, made out of either carbon or Ti, but the Ti one would be just slightly heavier while the carbon one would be more prone to damage over several years (scratches, chips, possible breaking in bad crashes). You could also find a steel one that was much the same, except it would be heavier again (although possibly cheaper) and prone to rust (unless it's v. expensive steel).
When thinking about properties of a bike it is important to separate "comfort", in the sense of simple shock absorption, from the feel of the bike when pedaling, i.e. how it transfers energy from the pedals. For some reason everyone always talks about the comfort thing when discussing frame materials, but the latter aspect is more important I think, and is more likely to be influenced by frame material. I am almost prepared to believe the people who claim that the frame makes no difference at all to comfort compared with things such as tyre choice, inflation, etc. I'm pretty sure from the bikes I have ridden that frame material combined with design has a significant effect on how a bike rides in terms of energy transfer, however. There is a theory that flexy frames don't actually waste energy because the elastic distortion is returned at a different point on the pedal stroke, and a more sophisticated version of this that says that it depends on the degree of flex - the flex needs to be just right for the individual rider to return the energy at the ideal point, but if this is the case it is more efficient in practice than either a stiffer or more flexible frame.
Are you sure you need a custom frame? Unless you are a weird size it should be pretty easy to find one that fits, given appropriate choice of stem, head tube size etc.
disclaimer: everything I know about this subject may be gleaned from popular mythology, b*llshitting on forums and subjective prejudice... 0 -
That waffly paragraph could do with a plain–english translation; but I wouldn't be so sure that CFRP frames are not as durable as titanium:neeb wrote:The truth is somewhere in between, you can design frames with a range of properties out of any commonly used material, so you can have flexy carbon frames and stiff steel ones, etc. But a given material imposes certain limitations and defines a multi-dimensional space of possibilities, and the spaces so defined for each material overlap significantly but also have significant non-overlapping areas. Carbon has quite a large space of possibilities, but it doesn't extend into areas of durability in which Ti excels, for example.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/EFBe ... e_test.htm0 -
It's not waffly, it's just conceptual. The plain english translation is more waffly! :That waffly paragraph could do with a plain–english translation;
Take two properties of a bike frame, e.g. BB flexiness and weight. You could build a range of different frames with different combinations of BB flexiness and weight out of any frame material. If you had a graph with BB flexiness on the x axis and weight on the y axis, the total range of what is possible for combinations of these properties would be defined by a particular shape for each material. These shapes would overlap significantly, but not completely. But there are more than two properties you are interested in when making a bike frame, so there are far more than 2 axes, and the "shapes" for each material are multidimensional. They define what ranges of combinations of values of all of the properties you are interested in are possible for a given material.
OK, I guess having the usual interminable debate about certain materials always being x or y, or else always being irrelevant compared to frame design, is more plain-englishy, but it does get tedious..
As far as the Sheldon Brown piece goes, there are of course different types of durability. That article was testing response to multiple flexing, and one conclusion seemed to be that all of the frames were perfectly adequate. Where the Ti frames failed it was always near to welding points, which just emphasises the importance of the frame builder's skill when working with Ti. But Ti will be much more durable in terms of scratching, gouging and chipping, and probably also occasional extreme compression or impact, as in a crash, everyday wear & tear, or when you are transporting the bike as luggage. In practice you are probably going to get rid of your carbon frame when it starts to look tatty or you squash a tube in a crash...0 -
I've had steel, carbon, alu frames.
Similar designs for all three and for me - the alu was the harshest, steel in the middle and carbon the most comfy.
For your purposes I'd probably go with a decent Ti frame. No corrosion and should give a comfy ride if thats what its designed for. I daresay the Lightspeed Blade style of Ti Frame wouldnt be quite as comfy - so clearly design of the frame is important too.0 -
As a quick thought - you can get a great planet - x carbon bike with an ultegra groupset for a grand - ride the arse off it and see if you like Carbon! Ti frames are a really long term investment - test ride as much as you can beforehand. I did that and ended up really loving the feel of carbon - so built up a specialized tarmac 4 years ago and it's been just amazing, so have just built up a giant XTC hardtail for XC. When I have some more cash I'll look at Ti - maybe next year. Happy shopping!0
-
To be honest I suspect someone in this forum works for Planet X or its distributor/official retailer
In all threads there's always somebody sponsoring Planet X products... bloody hell! :shock:left the forum March 20230 -
'Tis not I - they're just great prices! I know what you mean though :-)0
-
neeb wrote:Usually threads on carbon vs. Ti degenerate into slanging matches between those who think that certain frame materials have certain universal properties when it comes to how a bike rides, and those who think that the material has absolutely no significance at all and it's all down to geometry and how much your tyres are inflated...
The truth is somewhere in between, you can design frames with a range of properties out of any commonly used material, so you can have flexy carbon frames and stiff steel ones, etc. But a given material imposes certain limitations and defines a multi-dimensional space of possibilities, and the spaces so defined for each material overlap significantly but also have significant non-overlapping areas. Carbon has quite a large space of possibilities, but it doesn't extend into areas of durability in which Ti excels, for example.
In your case, with an infinite budget you could probably find a bike with very similar ideal properties for you in terms of comfort, stiffness, etc, made out of either carbon or Ti, but the Ti one would be just slightly heavier while the carbon one would be more prone to damage over several years (scratches, chips, possible breaking in bad crashes). You could also find a steel one that was much the same, except it would be heavier again (although possibly cheaper) and prone to rust (unless it's v. expensive steel).
When thinking about properties of a bike it is important to separate "comfort", in the sense of simple shock absorption, from the feel of the bike when pedaling, i.e. how it transfers energy from the pedals. For some reason everyone always talks about the comfort thing when discussing frame materials, but the latter aspect is more important I think, and is more likely to be influenced by frame material. I am almost prepared to believe the people who claim that the frame makes no difference at all to comfort compared with things such as tyre choice, inflation, etc. I'm pretty sure from the bikes I have ridden that frame material combined with design has a significant effect on how a bike rides in terms of energy transfer, however. There is a theory that flexy frames don't actually waste energy because the elastic distortion is returned at a different point on the pedal stroke, and a more sophisticated version of this that says that it depends on the degree of flex - the flex needs to be just right for the individual rider to return the energy at the ideal point, but if this is the case it is more efficient in practice than either a stiffer or more flexible frame.
Are you sure you need a custom frame? Unless you are a weird size it should be pretty easy to find one that fits, given appropriate choice of stem, head tube size etc.
disclaimer: everything I know about this subject may be gleaned from popular mythology, b*llshitting on forums and subjective prejudice...
I tend to agree with the last couple of lines....
left the forum March 20230 -
There I agree with you completely– it's one reason why I prefer metal frames; everyday toughness is an important characteristic that many ignore. Still, CFRP and aluminium outlasting steel and titanium frames, in a well conducted fatigue test, is somewhat upsetting to purveyors of received wisdom.neeb wrote:But Ti will be much more durable in terms of scratching, gouging and chipping... everyday wear & tear, or when you are transporting the bike as luggage.0 -
gupta-patel wrote:Titanium rusts and carbon corrodes, especially in hot weather.
I thought carbon also melted in the rain????0 -
Ti will be heavier and more expensive than carbon. It will be a metal rather than "plastic" which is important to some people on existential grounds. Carbon can be shaped into more aerodynamic tube profiles, more an issue for TT bikes.
Carbon can be made to be just as comfortable as a Ti bike, it generally does have good damping and bikes designed specifically to do this are very comfortable. This is down to the bike design though.
I have two Ti bikes including my best bike (a Litespeed Archon) and currently three carbon ones... have had two additional carbon bikes in the past. And lots of aluminium.
Ti is mainly down to heart over head these days IMHO. To an extent it is "almost as good as a carbon bike but in metal"
One thing I would say about Ti bikes is they age well, particularly if in an unpainted finish. Clubmates with Litespeeds it is very difficult to pin a year on, some are 1 year old, some are over ten. So I saw mine as a "frame for life" which I will still be riding 20 years down the line.
And of course if you wanted something like a tourer Ti would probably make more sense than carbon (my first Ti bike was a Van Nicholas Amazon; the choice was between that and steel.)0 -
+1
carbon is racier, but a ti is for life and not just Christmas (and a crash).0 -
-
At any given price point carbon will tend to be lighter. Or looking at it the other way at any given weight carbon will be cheaper.redddraggon wrote:Really? Maybe the cheapest carbon frame, will be cheaper than the cheapest Ti frame, but on Average I reckon they are pretty much equal.
I reckon you'll pay more for custom carbon over custom Ti too.
My Litespeed Archon frame (£3,199) is exactly the same frame weight as my Planet X carbon (£399.) Both 1,180g. Carbon frames at the Archon price level tend to be a fair bit lighter, generally sub-kilo. Sub-kilo Ti frames (like the Ghisallo) are reported by many to be excessively flexy- you don't hear this about sub-kilo carbon.
Custom is a good point, if you really need custom, which most people don't! Although you can actually get custom carbon using lugged tubes.0 -
-
have you tried them all? boardman cheap frame is cast in exactly the same mould as the £3500 race bike.0
