Talk to me about Titanium frames please.......

daniel_b

So over the last 4 months I have really really gotten into my cycling, and am loving it more than I ever have done - nearly 3 months worth of sustained training, and seeing real improvements has completely transformed my riding and enjoyment of it.

I'm going out, or turbo-ing as childcare demands, 3-4 times a week, and covering between 80-100 miles each week - no commuting involved sadly, and can only see this increasing.

So anway, I digress.
I have my current winter/ex commute bike that I have actually been riding all year, this has mudguards, aluminium frame, and carbon forks, and is running 10 spd 105.
It's fairly battered, but saw me through my 102 mile sportive with no issues.

I will soon finally have my CR1 SL built up as my best road bike.

But due to buying a bargain Ultegra 6800 groupset last December, I now have a 'spare' 105 5700 groupset knocking about - I also have spare wheels, and multiple stems and handlebars - so I 'could' create another bike.

IF I were to do this, would Titanium be a sound choice, but I don't really understand the merits, advantages, or perhaps disadvantages of Titanium - would anyone care to share their views?

Would it be a big no no to buy a Titanium frame second hand or from ebay - assuming they are available from the HK sellers (Haven't actually looked yet) or is it something best to buy new, and if so are there specific recommended manufacturers or resellers?

The Rookie

Don't buy cheap Ti frames, they tend to be heavy (heavier than a decent aluminium one) and pretty stiff, also welding Ti is difficult and a greater proportion of Ti frames crack than probably any other material (low numbers due to the low take up, but a greater proportion), an acquaintance had a cheap Ti MTB frame and it was horrid. Go with a good quality steel, ally or CF frame to choice would be my recommendation or save up for a quality Ti frame.

dhope

A good titanium frame is lighter than steel, more comfortable than aluminium and longer lasting than carbon. According to the blurb anyway.
I've never ridden one

Other people will tell you that a good steel frame is just as light as titanium, or a good Alu frame doesn't buzz much, and some loons will even claim carbon doesn't melt in the rain.

I think I'd get a good (but not great/expensive) steel or alu frame if I had spare 105. Might go more fancy if it was spare Ultegra or DA. EKE will be along in a minute to tell you to get a Kaffenback 2

iPete

Does it not come down to age?

are you over 40
Yes > buy Ti
No > carbon
/End

ugo.santalucia

Mechanical properties don't lie. Namely Young's modulus and Tensile strength is what you are looking for. These discriminate between materials. Compare titanium to a decent grade steel and see if there is any significant difference.
Then also look at how aluminium alloy (take the best... 7 series or so) is way lower, yet according to 10/10 people aluminium frames are so stiff they are actually harsh...

Now you should have a picture of how much material matters... pretty much zero

leeefm

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Now you should have a picture of how much material matters... pretty much zero

This. Stiffness and other properties are defined by mainly mechanical specification. Take an example of a steel coke can versus an aluminium one. The aluminium one will be lighter, and have less strength than the steel one, but you could (probably) stand on the aluminium one without it crushing as long as your load is put along the length of the can.

Bicycle tubes follow the same principles, that's why you tend to see much larger diameter tubes on stiffer bikes. With aluminium alloys, because they are comparatively softer than steel alloys, the greater mechanical stiffness is afforded by the larger diameter in the tubes.

So really you want to be comparing the mechanical properties of the frames, as well as the material properties. But seriously, can you be bothered? Just go out and test ride a few

tangled_metal

unfortunately bikes have the human involvement in how good a material is. humans go on feelings and their gut instincts on things so whatever you read about different materials it all comes down to finding out for yourself. Check out bike reviews for example. I have no doubt that two different cycling journos will give different reviews on the same bike so how can you expect a simple answer on Titanium. Personally I reckon you can get good and bad in any materials and I think it is better for you to get a good frame irrespective of the material. If that means Alu alloy or steel then go with it. Your bike, your rules.

The Rookie

dhope wrote:

Other people will tell you that a good steel frame is just as light as poor titanium

FTFY

I'm not sure I agree totally with Uso, the key differentiator is internal hysteresis, aluminium's is low, steel and Ti higher, that means Ally will react more to inputs without that damping effect leading to a 'buzz' type of feeling. Early alloy frames were poorly designed, they were much lighter than steel but did give a harsh feeling ride, also the other components can be selected to alleviate it (bars and seatpost).

Other that that, the limiting factor for many bike frames is not mechanical strength but not making the tubing so thin it dents too easily when the finely honed thin material then looses it's strength in reaction to riding forces.

In terms of actual stiffness, the frame is much much stiffer with less give than the tyres and seatpost, and that stiffness can be tweaked by tube shaping and thickness, so for me the consideration is to pick the frame that gives the ride you want, not the material that may or may not depending on your perceptions.

I'd have CF and yes I'm over 40.

ugo.santalucia

The Rookie wrote:

I'm not sure I agree totally with Uso, the key differentiator is internal hysteresis, aluminium's is low, steel and Ti higher, that means Ally will react more to inputs without that damping effect leading to a 'buzz' type of feeling.

But that's a property of the tubing and frame geometry, rather than the material...

rower63

IMHO all frames are basically the same: efficient triangulated structures of some pretty damn stiff material or other. Differences in frame "give" or "compliance" are so small amongst all the frame materials as to be completely undetectable compared with give in the saddle, tyres, wheels etc. Sure, there are differences in vibration absorption and "twistiness", but the latter is determined more by headset engineering and geometry than anything else. The biggest difference you'll feel between one bike and another will be down to geometry, headtube angle, castor, rake and all those things.
So your choice should come down to overall quality of construction and engineering, especially of the attachment points for the frame, and perhaps weight.

dhope

The Rookie wrote:

dhope wrote:

Other people will tell you that a good steel frame is just as light as poor titanium

FTFY

Yep, was more just implying that there's a lot said about each, and none of it is correct without caveats. Carbon isn't always lighter, steel isn't always stronger, aluminium isn't always harsher, bamboo isn't always chewier etc.

MisterMuncher

I'd kind of agree that frame design is a bigger component of ride quality than material, but conversely there's no small amount of self-fulfilling prophesy going on. Builders are aware of what's expected of each material, and so tend consciously or unconsciously to build toward those stereotypes. I think it would be interesting to see what happens if two or three frames were built to identical geometries with some compensation (tube sizing etc) built in for material differences. I'm willing to bet good money that weight aside there'd be precious little difference if it were possible to blind a test

Then again, I'm a weirdo because I prefer the "buzzy" aluminium ride to "smooth" steel, "damped" carbon or "springy" Ti.

menthel

MisterMuncher wrote:

I'd kind of agree that frame design is a bigger component of ride quality than material, but conversely there's no small amount of self-fulfilling prophesy going on. Builders are aware of what's expected of each material, and so tend consciously or unconsciously to build toward those stereotypes. I think it would be interesting to see what happens if two or three frames were built to identical geometries with some compensation (tube sizing etc) built in for material differences. I'm willing to bet good money that weight aside there'd be precious little difference if it were possible to blind a test

Then again, I'm a weirdo because I prefer the "buzzy" aluminium ride to "smooth" steel, "damped" carbon or "springy" Ti.

I don't think you are alone. I much prefer my Italia as it feels more lively and gives greater feedback from the road than my 00 which always feels a bit sterile and if anything slightly too compliant. I have no interest in Ti bikes what so ever. A decent carbon frame is on my list for N+1 and I might replace the 00 frame with something by kinesis when it gives up the ghost.

menthel

MisterMuncher wrote:

I'd kind of agree that frame design is a bigger component of ride quality than material, but conversely there's no small amount of self-fulfilling prophesy going on. Builders are aware of what's expected of each material, and so tend consciously or unconsciously to build toward those stereotypes. I think it would be interesting to see what happens if two or three frames were built to identical geometries with some compensation (tube sizing etc) built in for material differences. I'm willing to bet good money that weight aside there'd be precious little difference if it were possible to blind a test

Then again, I'm a weirdo because I prefer the "buzzy" aluminium ride to "smooth" steel, "damped" carbon or "springy" Ti.

I don't think you are alone. I much prefer my Italia as it feels more lively and gives greater feedback from the road than my 00 which always feels a bit sterile and if anything slightly too compliant. I have no interest in Ti bikes what so ever. A decent carbon frame is on my list for N+1 and I might replace the 00 frame with something by kinesis when it gives up the ghost.

veronese68

There are some discounted Lynskey Ti frames at Chain Reaction at the moment. Still not cheap though.

ugo.santalucia

MisterMuncher wrote:

I'd kind of agree that frame design is a bigger component of ride quality than material, but conversely there's no small amount of self-fulfilling prophesy going on. Builders are aware of what's expected of each material, and so tend consciously or unconsciously to build toward those stereotypes. I think it would be interesting to see what happens if two or three frames were built to identical geometries with some compensation (tube sizing etc) built in for material differences. I'm willing to bet good money that weight aside there'd be precious little difference if it were possible to blind a test

Then again, I'm a weirdo because I prefer the "buzzy" aluminium ride to "smooth" steel, "damped" carbon or "springy" Ti.

Builders don't get to choose materials, they choose tubings... it is a profound difference. If you tell me there is a difference in tubings, I do agree, a big one, a difference between materials, I do disagree and so do tensile tests

cookeeemonster

Basically does it have a nice paintjob?

Decision made.

:P

airbag

The Rookie wrote:

dhope wrote:

Other people will tell you that a good steel frame is just as light as poor titanium

FTFY

I'm not sure I agree totally with Uso, the key differentiator is internal hysteresis, aluminium's is low, steel and Ti higher, that means Ally will react more to inputs without that damping effect leading to a 'buzz' type of feeling. Early alloy frames were poorly designed, they were much lighter than steel but did give a harsh feeling ride, also the other components can be selected to alleviate it (bars and seatpost).

Other that that, the limiting factor for many bike frames is not mechanical strength but not making the tubing so thin it dents too easily when the finely honed thin material then looses it's strength in reaction to riding forces.

In terms of actual stiffness, the frame is much much stiffer with less give than the tyres and seatpost, and that stiffness can be tweaked by tube shaping and thickness, so for me the consideration is to pick the frame that gives the ride you want, not the material that may or may not depending on your perceptions.

I'd have CF and yes I'm over 40.

'Wot 'e said (except I'm neither over 40 now own CF). If hysteresis is really noticeable in your frame - it's going to have a lifespan of minutes, possibly excepting frames with elastomer components.

Ti = shiny, and is pretty weather-proof. Those, and liking the particularly builder/bike you got one from, are the only reason for going after it (though I must admit, I am a fan of the shiny).

MisterMuncher

ugo.santalucia wrote:

MisterMuncher wrote:

I'd kind of agree that frame design is a bigger component of ride quality than material, but conversely there's no small amount of self-fulfilling prophesy going on. Builders are aware of what's expected of each material, and so tend consciously or unconsciously to build toward those stereotypes. I think it would be interesting to see what happens if two or three frames were built to identical geometries with some compensation (tube sizing etc) built in for material differences. I'm willing to bet good money that weight aside there'd be precious little difference if it were possible to blind a test

Then again, I'm a weirdo because I prefer the "buzzy" aluminium ride to "smooth" steel, "damped" carbon or "springy" Ti.

Builders don't get to choose materials, they choose tubings... it is a profound difference. If you tell me there is a difference in tubings, I do agree, a big one, a difference between materials, I do disagree and so do tensile tests

I think we're in agreement. What I'm saying is that if builders were to knock up four frames of identical geometry in Steel, Ti, Alloy and Carbon, with a little judicious choice in tubings and grades, there'd be very, very little beyond weight to choose between them.

essex-commuter

I ride titanium due to the fact that steel rusts, aluminium frames have a shelf life and carbon frames melt in the sun.

meanredspider

I think the point with CF is that it's easier to build into the shapes you want with the strength more carefully tuned. That said, to get that degree of design and refinement costs money

ETA - as if to prove the point, I've just been looking at a bare BMW i3 electric car chassis - made mostly of CF.

rubertoe

dhope wrote:

EKE will be along in a minute to tell you to get a Kaffenback 2

in the absence of EKE - get a kaffenback 2.

daniel_b

:shock:

Well this has caused a long and interesting thread, I will read it properly tonight!

drlodge

Just to add my angle on this - I agree that frame geometry and choice of tube is more important than material, but material will influence the choice of tubes available. Aluminium tubes will tend to be thicker than steel tubes, and steel 953 is obviously alot thinner than scaffold poles. As well as the weight, a thinner tube set will give a nicer ride than thicker material, which is perhaps why aluminium is often thought of as giving a harsh ride, and carbon a nicer ride. Of course a heavy carbon frame may well be worse than a lightweight well built aluminium frame....various factors come into play.

And not all steels rust, stainless steel (953) doesn't.

And I'm over 40, don't have a carbon bike but do have a few steel bikes including a 953 :-)

sketchley

Are you fat? If so ti might be the right choice over carbon. Carbon frames are designed for light rider with little or no consideration for a heavier rider. You could make a carbon stiff in all the right places for a bigger rider but it would lead to a heavier frame than most carbon bikes currently. When i look for my new bike i looked at several carbon bikes. I was close if not over the desinged weight limit for the frame in all circumstances, I have emails from some frame manufacturers including Volagi saying that while technically not over their limit they wouldn't recommend me their carbon bikes as there would be to much flex. With a metal bike there is inherent strength in directions other than those designed for so they tend to work better with heavier riders.

I have steel Genesis equilibrium 20 and a ti enigma echo. The Enigma is by far my favoured bike. The genesis is nice but the ti is much quicker probably due to geometry and much lighter. Both though are very good bikes and handle extremely well particularly downhill where I've had both close to 50mph. Also at i can put a lot of power down when setting off which mean I can notice flex a lot. Ironically flex makes a bike fill light and energetic, which make it feel faster, but on both my bikes they are solid and the power goes straight to road. However I notice this much more in the wheels than the frames so now have good strong wheels built by ugo on both bikes.

mr_evil

While geometry may be more important than material, there are limits to that. In particular, the chainstays are limited in size, which means that steel frames can potentially have the most strong and stiff rear triangles, aluminium the least and titanium in the middle.

drlodge wrote:

...And not all steels rust, stainless steel (953) doesn't...

It's hard to find actual numbers, but I gather that 953 is similar to other high-strength stainless steels in having a low chromium content, which means that it will eventually develop rust spots (assuming it's left unpainted). Potentially a lot of rust spots if you live near the sea.

menthel

essex-commuter wrote:

I ride titanium due to the fact that steel rusts, aluminium frames have a shelf life and carbon frames melt in the sun.

Welds fail on Ti and it also cracks. It's also a bugger to repair!

First.Aspect

For most mortals, Ti frames are light enough, stiff enough and comforable enough. Best value? Er, no. Hence the over 40s thing. There's also a correlation with intelligence and aesthetic taste. Mind you, the value of a Ti frame increases if you account for the number of fugly carbon frames with you could own over the same period instead.

Welds fail on all types of frame. Scroll down the page and you'll note that carbon cracks also.

Ti is actually fairly similar to aluminium, but the rate of crack propogation is lower and defect migration (a good thing) higher. So Al frames tend to fatigue and Ti frames get stronger. At least that's the theory.

EKE_38BPM

dhope wrote:

...EKE will be along in a minute to tell you to get a Kaffenback 2

Get a Kaffenback 2.

mtb-idle

talk to you about Ti?

It will crack

menthel

First Aspect wrote:

For most mortals, Ti frames are light enough, stiff enough and comforable enough. Best value? Er, no. Hence the over 40s thing. There's also a correlation with intelligence and aesthetic taste. Mind you, the value of a Ti frame increases if you account for the number of fugly carbon frames with you could own over the same period instead.

Welds fail on all types of frame. Scroll down the page and you'll note that carbon cracks also.

Ti is actually fairly similar to aluminium, but the rate of crack propogation is lower and defect migration (a good thing) higher. So Al frames tend to fatigue and Ti frames get stronger. At least that's the theory.

Sounds like you swallowed the marketing hook, line and sinker.

If Ti were that great we would see a hell of a lot more bikes made from it, even despite the cost issue. Its just another option in the armoury of frame makers to give people the bike they want, no more and no less.