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

First.Aspect

menthel wrote:

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.

Um, no, PhD in solid state chemistry.

If cf hadn't come along, ti would have taken over pro cycling. Lets face it, cf is better in most respects. Ti is better than steel or al. For performance, al is better than steel. I have no objection to a Parlee or a Colnago. I do object to pointless additional stiffness and attendant fugliness in parts of the frame I wasn't ever able to bend in the first place. Curvy, swoopy and tapered just doesn't do it for me.

meanredspider

First Aspect wrote:

Curvy, swoopy and tapered just doesn't do it for me.

Your lack of appreciation of aesthetic appeal isn't really a reason to damn a material though. And TG CF can be designed in different ways otherwise bikes would be incredibly dull - they'd all look like the same collection of tubes just in different colours. After all, there can only be a few optimum layouts of tubing. It's one of the criticisms I have of Ti and Steel in particular - without knowing the colour schemes, it's pretty hard to tell one bike from another

menthel

And continually reading about titanium failing (as well as other materials) also shows, anecdotally that it isn't the wonder material that its lovers profess.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

Curvy, swoopy and tapered just doesn't do it for me.

Your lack of appreciation of aesthetic appeal isn't really a reason to damn a material though. And TG CF can be designed in different ways otherwise bikes would be incredibly dull - they'd all look like the same collection of tubes just in different colours. After all, there can only be a few optimum layouts of tubing. It's one of the criticisms I have of Ti and Steel in particular - without knowing the colour schemes, it's pretty hard to tell one bike from another

Be fair! There is no way that you can say that a preference for straight lines in a frame implies a lack of appreciation of aesthetic appeal! It may be a different form of aesthetic appeal but you can't claim a high ground just for liking the more obvious!

In reality, there aren't that many ways of making a frame curvy that aren't contrived - Pinarello is the obvious worst mainstream offender here - a shape that is very contrived and fools no-one with an honest degree of cynicism into thinking that the shapes are there for anything other than purely (misguided) aesthetic reasons.

I think your Volagi is one of the few non conventional shapes that does look right (though only in its carbon form) but that's not to say that there is anything wrong with the traditional tube framed shape. For me, those are so much more subtle and crisp than carbon frames.

Odd thing about carbon frames and your comment about colour schemes. Whilst with steel bikes, the colour scheme is often the main thing that makes the frames look different, with carbon frames it is the paint job that tends to make them all look the same!

EKE_38BPM

Rolf F wrote:

...with carbon frames it is the paint job that tends to make them all look the same!

So, you're saying carbon frames are black, white, red and curvy? What rubbish!!!

essex-commuter

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

...with carbon frames it is the paint job that tends to make them all look the same!

So, you're saying carbon frames are black, white, red and curvy? What rubbish!!!

As per my previous post, this is one that has melted. Told you.

meanredspider

It's hard to think of one straight-line, two triangle, bike frame having considerably more or less aesthetic appeal than the next one though. Sure, the colour scheme or the finishing kit can enhance the look but, generally, line up a series of steel or Ti frames and I think the majority would be hard-pressed to tell them apart

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

It's hard to think of one straight-line, two triangle, bike frame having considerably more or less aesthetic appeal than the next one though. Sure, the colour scheme or the finishing kit can enhance the look but, generally, line up a series of steel or Ti frames and I think the majority would be hard-pressed to tell them apart

That carbon frames are more distinctive from each other doesn't make them intrinsically more attractive that steel frames - just more varied.

EKE - put that thing away!

sketchley

I thought the issue with Ti frames cracking was due poor choices of tubing in cheaper frames and more importantly poor quality or contaminated welds which then fail and crack the tubing. Either way my enigma has a lifetime warranty hopefully I'll never have to use it!

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

That carbon frames are more distinctive from each other doesn't make them intrinsically more attractive that steel frames - just more varied.

Agree - but the potential is at least there. After that you have to apply a bit of judgement. Besides, variety is a good thing. I often think when I see a fugly but radical car design "At least it's different and stretches the envelope". Life's too short for the mundane.

airbag

Curves on a bike frame don't do it for me either. A bicycle is a wonderfully minimalist machine, and its beauty comes from that. Straight lines connecting points in space conveys the purpose of a frame - its geometry - far more eloquently than superfluous curves.

That said, with the best will in the world selling a long-lived bike comes off as snake oil to me. No material can guarantee a frame lasts forever, and big companies can afford a lot of testing small ones cannot.

First.Aspect

airbag wrote:

Curves on a bike frame don't do it for me either. A bicycle is a wonderfully minimalist machine, and its beauty comes from that. Straight lines connecting points in space conveys the purpose of a frame - its geometry - far more eloquently than superfluous curves.

That said, with the best will in the world selling a long-lived bike comes off as snake oil to me. No material can guarantee a frame lasts forever, and big companies can afford a lot of testing small ones cannot.

Yep. Nothing lasts forever. But a swooper technobabble carbon frame-a-like will date like a DFS sofa. As will the dreadful attempts at hydroforming aluminium frames, or those horror show Sabbath frames a couple of years ago.

Ti frame = art deco.
Carbon = temporary exhibition at the Tate modern

I'm way to old and slow to benefit from the latest 12 inch headset, or thermonuclear bottom bracket, so I am dropping £4k on perfect simplicity instead. Plus parts. :oops:

sketchley

What's not to like about clean lines and Ti? Although the down tube is a rather interesting shape on mine







[/

MisterMuncher

meanredspider wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

That carbon frames are more distinctive from each other doesn't make them intrinsically more attractive that steel frames - just more varied.

Agree - but the potential is at least there. After that you have to apply a bit of judgement. Besides, variety is a good thing. I often think when I see a fugly but radical car design "At least it's different and stretches the envelope". Life's too short for the mundane.

It's deciding which frames are the mk I Ford Focus (really odd at first, but gradually grew on me) and which are every Citroen since about 1980 (looks cool to begin with, then dated as disco in a year)

itboffin

Sketchley wrote:

What's not to like about clean lines and Ti? Although the down tube is a rather interesting shape on mine







[/

Beautiful mate very beautiful

meanredspider

That's a beautiful bike, Sketchley, for sure. The downtube looks, well, tubular to me. Am I missing something about the shape? And you've snuck a couple of carbon pics in there too My question is this, still. Strip off the carbon and other nice finishing kit, whack a coat of paint on it and who's to know what it's made of? Or do all Ti bike have to be clearcoat?

I'm being a little provocative in response to FA's comments on ugly carbon. I think Ti bikes are pretty but I do also feel like they all tend to look the same (esp in the de rigeur clearcoat finish). The mechanical engineer in me says that you should use the most appropriate materials in the most appropriate places. CF, with the ability to fine tune the response of the frame through shape, thickness, weave and layup, clearly stands out as the most appropriate material. The fact that you can then also play with the aero and aesthetics too moves it beyond the metals. Of course, not all of these things are done well, in the same way that not everyone seems to be able to weld Ti properly, but it's the material with the most potential to get the best frame.

sketchley

Down tube. Well it's kind of oval shaped rather than round but the longer in the horizontal at the bottom bracket, and longer in the vertical at the head tube. Photo 2 hear shows it a bit http://www.enigmabikes.com/collections/ ... cts/echo-1

As for finish, well paint add weight (okay only about 70g) and Ti does look very nice unpainted. Plus you can do neat things like bead blast logo (like mine) onto the metal. One big advantage of this is that you can polish out scratch on Ti frame with a green scouring pad including over the logos.

That being said when I tire of the metal finish and decide to upgrade I may go back to Enigma and get it painted....

walkingbootweather

The other big advantage of Ti or course is that it is easy to coordinate with matching lycra

sketchley

Also re Carbon it's not always about right tool for the job. If someone out there designed and built a Carbon bike for me at 18st that was stiff in all the right places then it would be my frame material of choice and the right tool for the job. But they don't, in fact most have weight limits on guarantees set about 120kgs which means you must be approaching the end of the design performance curve at this weight. They are mostly designed for a target market of fast light (<75kg) cyclists. The reason why carbon bikes are not build with me in mind is simply weight, my ideal carbon frame would be heavier than current models and such a frame wouldn't sell as well as a lighter one so they are not built this way. I suppose custom carbon is an option but that screams expensive which leave metal which while still designed for lighter cyclists tend to scale up better for larger riders due to properties of metal, hence why I have a steal and Ti bike (I snapped Aluminium one which put me off). This is the same reason I have wheels built now as factory road wheels are not built with me in mind and I destroy them quickly.

The Rookie

Sketchley wrote:

I thought the issue with Ti frames cracking was due poor choices of tubing in cheaper frames and more importantly poor quality or contaminated welds which then fail and crack the tubing. Either way my enigma has a lifetime warranty hopefully I'll never have to use it!

The biggest problem is the welding, it has to be surrounded by inert gas, so the frame has to be made of tubes carefully matched and then filled with inert gas on the inside as well as the gas being supplied by the welding unit, that isn't the case with Steel or Aluminium.

styxd

Ti isn't an ideal choice for the heavier rider.

supersonic

I think it was the late Steve Worland who said he has seen proportionally more failed Ti frames than any other material.

walkingbootweather

supersonic wrote:

I think it was the late Steve Worland who said he has seen proportionally more failed Ti frames than any other material.

Wasn't he mainly a MTB chap? Ti isn't what I'd recommend for off-road biking, but my Ti road bike rides very nicely, and (personal preference), I wouldn't swap for a CF frame, but then again I want a rack and panniers, mudguards, numerous bottle bosses, fittings to use different types of brakes etc.. I was able to get all this is a custom designed Ti frame shipped from China for £300. Despite all the scare stories I've not had any problems with dodgy welds and I'm very happy with it.

Oh yeah and he had obviously never seen any frames made out of cheese.

sketchley

styxd wrote:

Ti isn't an ideal choice for the heavier rider.

Why?

styxd

Sketchley wrote:

styxd wrote:

Ti isn't an ideal choice for the heavier rider.

Why?

it isn't as stiff as steel. If you're big and heavy you're probably better off on a steel frame.

rolf_f

Sketchley wrote:

Down tube. Well it's kind of oval shaped rather than round but the longer in the horizontal at the bottom bracket, and longer in the vertical at the head tube....

Not that unusual - my MTB is the same. It's probably a very simple thing to do - after all, you just start with a round tube and reform it. I expect you'll find the circumference is the same all the way along the tube.

Sketchley wrote:

Also re Carbon it's not always about right tool for the job. If someone out there designed and built a Carbon bike for me at 18st that was stiff in all the right places then it would be my frame material of choice and the right tool for the job. But they don't, in fact most have weight limits on guarantees set about 120kgs which means you must be approaching the end of the design performance curve at this weight. They are mostly designed for a target market of fast light (<75kg) cyclists..

I don't think this is the case - most carbon bikes are designed to be too stiff for light riders - maybe a side effect of the UCI weight limit which keeps most bikes above 6.8kg anyway. After all, "frame stiffness" is one of the key purchase characteristics for the mamil purchaser......

supersonic

walkingbootweather wrote:

supersonic wrote:

I think it was the late Steve Worland who said he has seen proportionally more failed Ti frames than any other material.

Wasn't he mainly a MTB chap? Ti isn't what I'd recommend for off-road biking, but my Ti road bike rides very nicely, and (personal preference), I wouldn't swap for a CF frame, but then again I want a rack and panniers, mudguards, numerous bottle bosses, fittings to use different types of brakes etc.. I was able to get all this is a custom designed Ti frame shipped from China for £300. Despite all the scare stories I've not had any problems with dodgy welds and I'm very happy with it.

Oh yeah and he had obviously never seen any frames made out of cheese.

He tested over 3000 bikes in his career ;-). And a lot were CX and road bikes, he wrote for a broad spectrum of publications.

First.Aspect

supersonic wrote:

walkingbootweather wrote:

supersonic wrote:

I think it was the late Steve Worland who said he has seen proportionally more failed Ti frames than any other material.

Wasn't he mainly a MTB chap? Ti isn't what I'd recommend for off-road biking, but my Ti road bike rides very nicely, and (personal preference), I wouldn't swap for a CF frame, but then again I want a rack and panniers, mudguards, numerous bottle bosses, fittings to use different types of brakes etc.. I was able to get all this is a custom designed Ti frame shipped from China for £300. Despite all the scare stories I've not had any problems with dodgy welds and I'm very happy with it.

Oh yeah and he had obviously never seen any frames made out of cheese.

He tested over 3000 bikes in his career ;-). And a lot were CX and road bikes, he wrote for a broad spectrum of publications.

Ah, well, that's scientifically proven then.

Honestly, its no small wonder that the ye/no vote is so close. When you read a thread like this and see how much nonsense comes from a supposedly disproportionately well educated and intelligent portion of society.

Carbon for light blokes, or heavy blokes. Or it cracks.
Stainless steel rusts.
Titanium not for heavy blokes because its flexy. And Ti cracks. Everywhere.

Better tell racing car manufacturers, aircraft manufacturers and road car manufacturers all of this stuff, because some of them are strapping turbos and jet engines to this stuff.

Lets just ignore all that shall we? Especially the moderators; we know what they are like.

---

MRS - carbon is potentially the way to go in virtuall all respects. I have a 26 foot piece of carbon at home. Its a thing of beauty. I kind of like the idea of a parlee, or a some other carbon frame which is simple in external design but shows off the material. I prefer titanium. I appreciate good engineering, even if its ugly (e.g. your bike, the trek's use ofbelastomers etc.). I intensely dislike being sold over priced bad engineering (e.g. pointless curves in forks, pointless bits of elastomer stuck in the middle of a specialised frame, etc.).

But mainly,for me, if I'm spending as much on a bike as on a decent second hand car, then I want it to look somewhat like that Enigma. Or, in my case, far far nicer.

meanredspider

First Aspect wrote:

I intensely dislike being sold over priced bad engineering (e.g. pointless curves in forks, pointless bits of elastomer stuck in the middle of a specialised frame, etc.).

I don't disagree.

BTW - StSt can and does rust - though probably not (or extremely rarely) on bike frames

supersonic

Especially the moderators; we know what they are like.

I am not sure what that means?

I am simply relaying what a bike journalist with 30 years experience in all formats of bike riding has stated.