What frame material?

ZMC888

I'm buying a bike or maybe just a frame in the winter for riding next spring. I've just switched over (about a year) from 10 years of being a mountain bike rider after becoming addicted to Strava and cycling at much faster speeds on the road. I currently have a steel frame CX/commuter with CF forks and 28mm slick tyres.

So I'm deciding between Ti, Alloy and CF. On a mid racy bike like a Trek Emonda ALU5 or 6, or Get a Ti Frameset like a Van Nicholas Ventus and build it up with Shimano 105 compact and Campy Zondas.

Being a mountain biker previously I am quite rough on my bikes, I like to push them, find flaws and warranty the parts early on, I'm also doing about 350-400kms a week at the moment, weigh 79kg (174lbs). That sort of mileage also puts a lot more wear on the thing.

I'm wary of Carbon fibre, but I have lots of carbon parts and they seem pretty strong , but I worry about the frames. Also with weight being a concern modern hydroformed alloy is supposed to be pretty weak. Another issue is I'm really not fanatical about Press-fit BBs. Which seems to push me towards a Ti bike as well. I haven't raced as yet, but I'm not opposed to a crit or sportive just for the fun of participation rather than being competitive.

mr_evil

The best performing frames (lightest, stiffest, most aerodynamic) are CF, and it's much easier to tune than other frame materials, which means you can find frames with any sort of characteristics you want. It's also much more difficult to break than people give it credit for. Don't worry about the press-fit BBs - they are not as bad on average as some people will have you believe, and if you do have problems you can get adapters that will solve them.

Titanium is tough and corrosion resistant, which is nice if you like to be able to abuse your bike. Aside from the toughness, it doesn't really offer any practical advantages over CF, especially considering the price. It is pretty though.

Aluminium is cheap.

So, considering everything, I would say the obvious choise is titanium. Why? Because it's titanium.

fenix

What carbon parts do you have ? And why worry about carbon frames ? They build F1 Cars and airplanes out of carbon fibre.

You're more likely to break the wheels than carbon frames unless you make a habit of crashing. If you're heavy on things - go for wider tyres to absorb the impact. Or learn to ride a road bike.

imposter2.0

Overthinking 101

ZMC888

Fenix wrote:

What carbon parts do you have ? And why worry about carbon frames ? They build F1 Cars and airplanes out of carbon fibre.

Carbon forks, seat posts, head set pacers, bottle cages etc. Wasn't there a certain bike crash on Ventoux in July forcing the rider to abandon his bike and run to the finish? Isn't carbon fibre ridiculously strong in one direction and weak in another direction?

You're more likely to break the wheels than carbon frames unless you make a habit of crashing. If you're heavy on things - go for wider tyres to absorb the impact. Or learn to ride a road bike.

Already run 28mm tires. I prefer 28mm tires and wider rims as I think the bike handles better in corners and deals with rough roads better and are maybe just as fast or even faster than narrower tires.I'm not interested in carbon clincher wheels, quite happy with alloy.
Got years of experience bike handling on XC to 150mm travel mountain bikes. Taking Peter Sagan and Cadel Evans as examples of XC riders that cross over to road they are better bike handlers than a regular road rider, I'm perfectly capable of riding a road bike. It's just I don't like to ride like a pussy and coddle some show-pony to the local cafe or leave a better bike at home if the weather isn't perfect.

fenix

Well I've broken two seatposts - both alloy and had no problems with my CF seatposts. If you're happy to ride a carbon fork then the frame that attaches to it is a bit of a no brainer.

Not sure what broke on Froomes frame, but riding into a motorbike isn't a common occurrence anyway and its perfectly possible that it would have broken a bike of any material.

28mm tyres sounds a good idea - I use 25mm in the UK and can only see myself going wider as the roads get worse.

Really CF is tough. Sure you could break it if it falls over sideways and lands on something sharp and pointy - but all light frames would do the same.

I hate coddling show ponies too. Grrrr.

(I have no idea what that means)

fat daddy

ZMC888 wrote:

Wasn't there a certain bike crash on Ventoux in July forcing the rider to abandon his bike and run to the finish?

Yeah, his bike was run over by 350kg's of motorbike and camera crew, after he went down .... a carbon fibre frame was the least of his issues,

ZMC888 wrote:

It's just I don't like to ride like a pussy and coddle some show-pony to the local cafe or leave a better bike at home if the weather isn't perfect.

despite popular believe that carbon dissolves in the rain and can only beridden in perfect conditions if at all, go on you tube and watch "pro" riders compete in the Paris Roubaix on carbon bikes .. in the rain .... at a speed that will be greatly in excess of your own .... the bikes are not weak, the owners are !

also, look at the power output of Greipel, Keitell, Cavandish, Sagan ... if they can put over 1500w through a carbon frame without breaking it after a 6 hour ride .. I am sure you can with out breaking it.

These carbon frame bikes have been ridden in pro competition a long time before they filtered down to the good weather café riders

thegreatdivide

ZMC888 wrote:

Fenix wrote:

What carbon parts do you have ? And why worry about carbon frames ? They build F1 Cars and airplanes out of carbon fibre.

Carbon forks, seat posts, head set pacers, bottle cages etc. Wasn't there a certain bike crash on Ventoux in July forcing the rider to abandon his bike and run to the finish? Isn't carbon fibre ridiculously strong in one direction and weak in another direction?

You're more likely to break the wheels than carbon frames unless you make a habit of crashing. If you're heavy on things - go for wider tyres to absorb the impact. Or learn to ride a road bike.

Already run 28mm tires. I prefer 28mm tires and wider rims as I think the bike handles better in corners and deals with rough roads better and are maybe just as fast or even faster than narrower tires.I'm not interested in carbon clincher wheels, quite happy with alloy.
Got years of experience bike handling on XC to 150mm travel mountain bikes. Taking Peter Sagan and Cadel Evans as examples of XC riders that cross over to road they are better bike handlers than a regular road rider, I'm perfectly capable of riding a road bike. It's just I don't like to ride like a pussy and coddle some show-pony to the local cafe or leave a better bike at home if the weather isn't perfect.

You are awesome.

imposter2.0

ZMC888 wrote:

Isn't carbon fibre ridiculously strong in one direction and weak in another direction?

Only if it is built that way.

ZMC888 wrote:

It's just I don't like to ride like a pussy and coddle some show-pony to the local cafe or leave a better bike at home if the weather isn't perfect.

Awesome is as awesome does.

I feel another 90s-style 'MTB v roadie' thread coming on.

fenix

Oh I do have a cheaper non carbon bike for winter. Just because obviously more bikes are better than one - and it has full mudguards and wider bombroof tyres. Changing a flat in the cold is no fun. And its cheaper kit on it as I'm more likely to hit ice in winter and dont need to be QUITE so precious about cleaning a 105 gearset as opposed to DA or whatever.

Plus its a cross bike and I can do stuff on it that my showpony cant. Cos I'm awesome too. :-)

VIBE7s

Had a pretty hard crash with my alloy bike recently. Handlebars and shifter took worst of the hit, helmet also trashed. Alloy frame, carbon fork. No visable damage to fork or frame but would never use that fork again. Bought a new fork straight away.

ZMC888

fat daddy wrote:

Also, look at the power output of Greipel, Keitell, Cavandish, Sagan ... if they can put over 1500w through a carbon frame without breaking it after a 6 hour ride .. I am sure you can with out breaking it.

These carbon frame bikes have been ridden in pro competition a long time before they filtered down to the good weather café riders

Yes a 6 hour ride. I'm talking about putting well over 3000 hours on the bike.

I didn't came here to attack CF. I have an open mind. If most of you guys have CF frames and love them that's great. I'm just looking for unbiased comparisons.

imposter2.0

ZMC888 wrote:

I didn't came here to attack CF. I have an open mind. If most of you guys have CF frames and love them that's great. I'm just looking for unbiased comparisons.

I suspect there isn't the appetite on here for such comparisons any more. Perhaps there might have been 8-10 years ago, when CF was not commonplace. But it is such a routine frame material these days that it hardly warrants such a discussion when most people got over that years ago.

fenix

I'm not biased.
I've had custom steel frames from some of the best builders in the world.
I've had aluminium frames.
I've had carbon fibre frames.

No incidents to report apart from steel frames corrode. That chrome plating looks lovely - but isn't a good idea sadly.

Are you really going to be keeping the same bike for around 45,000 miles ?

This CF bike did well for a 'short ride' of round the world - and looked to be ridden pretty hard.

http://road.cc/content/news/59716-inter ... record-kit

ZMC888

thegreatdivide wrote:

You are awesome.

Are you having a bad day? :roll:

imposter2.0

Mate, you appear to live in China - pretty much the home of CF frame production. Which makes your question even more baffling...

ZMC888

Fenix wrote:

I'm not biased.
I've had custom steel frames from some of the best builders in the world.
I've had aluminium frames.
I've had carbon fibre frames.

No incidents to report apart from steel frames corrode. That chrome plating looks lovely - but isn't a good idea sadly.

Are you really going to be keeping the same bike for around 45,000 miles ?

This CF bike did well for a 'short ride' of round the world - and looked to be ridden pretty hard.

http://road.cc/content/news/59716-inter ... record-kit

OK OK, so I'm a noob with CF and Ti. I've never been convinced by anything that pros ride as it's their job and they have such amazing mechanical back-up.

That guy that rode around the world on a CF bike, kudos. I suspect most people doing that (admittedly with less experience) would probably go with a different frame material.

I'm thinking about a CF bike now, but still wary of a PF BB. I change out my threaded BBs at 6000 kms. I don't want creaking and annoyance.

ZMC888

Imposter wrote:

Mate, you appear to live in China - pretty much the home of CF frame production. Which makes your question even more baffling...

Why is it baffling?

For about 800 pounds (8,000 yuan) I can get a fully Ultrega equipped CF - 'Tropix' (yes who?). The 'warranty' is worthless and any failure will be immediately put down to user error, but that's why it's cheap. And er max size is 52cm.

Because I want a 56cm frame it has to be specially ordered through a legit shop, because there are so many fakes about - particularly a problem with Euro bikes. I'm sure some fakes are good, but another could have me face-planting at 70kmh. Taiwan/US bikes (Merida, Spec, Giant, Trek etc) they are about as much or more than the UK. If they are Euro then they freaking ridiculous. There must be armed guards at the factories, or some of the better stuff is still made in Taiwan.

keef66

I have an alu bike with a threaded Shimano BB and a carbon bike with a press-fit Shimano BB. Neither BB has ever given me any problems.

I think the alu bike would be easier to damage in a crash; some of the tube walls are pretty thin, and would almost certainly be impossible to repair.

The CF frameset despite being a very light example, seems as tough as old boots. I'm just careful not to clamp it anywhere; it's not designed to withstand that kind of force. And CF can often be repaired.

On the other hand, nobody would ever describe my power output as awesome, and my annual mileage isn't exactly intergalactic. Nor do I abuse my bikes with the objective of breaking stuff to make warranty claims...

ZMC888

keef66 wrote:

I have an alu bike with a threaded Shimano BB and a carbon bike with a press-fit Shimano BB. Neither BB has ever given me any problems.

I think the alu bike would be easier to damage in a crash; some of the tube walls are pretty thin, and would almost certainly be impossible to repair.

The CF frameset despite being a very light example, seems as tough as old boots. I'm just careful not to clamp it anywhere; it's not designed to withstand that kind of force. And CF can often be repaired.

On the other hand, nobody would ever describe my power output as awesome, and my annual mileage isn't exactly intergalactic. Nor do I abuse my bikes with the objective of breaking stuff to make warranty claims...

What CF frameset have you got? I'm swaying more towards CF. It's just that any BB needs a swap out at 6000kms. With a threaded BB 5 quid, and it's a 5 minute job and virtually no chance of damaging your frame. PF BB loads more chances of damaging the BB and frame and the PF bearings having less reliable reputation over the long haul.

Lots of people have been saying 'I have PF BB and it's given me no problems so far'. But how far is so far? If it's 2000kms and the bike's only ridden on sunny days then it doesn't mean as much as someone that is doing 1250km or more on Strava every month for six months or more.

keef66

Scott CR1-SL. Came with a factory fitted Shimano BB-71. It rarely goes out in the wet (that's what the alu bike is for) and so it's probably only done 4000 miles in 3 years, but it's still silky smooth and silent.

That's about the mileage I got from the first 105 HT2 BB on the alu bike, but that was ridden year round in all weathers. As you say, a 5 minute job to replace...

arlowood

Have a look at Planet X if you want CF frames with standard BSA threaded BB's

The Pro Carbon has one as I chose this frame for a build earlier this year specifically because it had a threaded BB

http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FRPXPCRFF/ ... d-frameset

The RT57 and RT80 frames also have threaded BB's.

However why not go a bit off piste and look at their Maratona frameset

http://www.planetx.co.uk/i/q/FRPXMAR/pl ... d-frameset

Threaded BB and quite a looker IMHO. Will also take Di2 if that's your fancy.

yaya

My (now RIP) Defy CF had sustained some serious structural damage when the Blue Skoda went over it 7 months ago, but so did my pelvis and some of my internal organs...I don't think a Ti or an Alu frame could have survived it either and I would not hesitate to invest in CF again as and when I can ride on the road again.
As for PF BBs...if it's of good quality and fitted properly in a good quality frame then it would be just as good as a threaded one...

wotnoshoeseh

I was just going to get some popcorn and sit back, but felt I needed to contribute.

I have a 2012 Felt F4 with BB30 press fit, running a Shimano Ultegra crank with a set of FSA bearing sleeves. Somewhere between 11 & 12k miles on it and no issues. Everything still original on it; and it gets ridden in the wet. Easily taken apart, cleaned, re-greased and reassembled. No issues. I may have to do something with it eventually, but to be fair, I've probably had my fair share of "value" out of the bike by now.

Bordersroadie

I ride four road bikes regularly, with frames each of steel, aluminium, titanium and carbon.

Steel: I love it for nostalgic reasons (it's my from-new 1985 frame) and it's comfy to ride. I like that I can chuck it in the van every day for my lunchtime rides without concern of damage. Drawbacks: it's heavy and I have to keep up with touching up paint to prevent rust (it's a winter bike)

Alu: My light winter bike, again I like that I can use it and abuse it, as above, and it's not that different to ride than the steel. Drawbacks: none really, to be honest.

Ti: My sunday best, but one that I love most because I can use it and abuse it, chuck it in the van for lunchtime rides and ride it up and down our stone farm track and not care about the stones banging off the frame. I love how it soaks up road buzz from poor surfaces. I love that it will always look the same while everything else ages....I also love that it looks beautiful and just that it's a bit different. Drawbacks: none, but if pushed, as a weight weenie at heart, even though it's a light Ti frame, it weighs 1,350g. How much do I care, really? Not a lot given all the pluses.

Carbon: My light bike. I love that it's really lightweight and the "direct" feel of the frame, I guess due to the stiff BB area. I love the look of the smooth lines of the frame. I love that it soaks up road buzz just like the Ti bike. Drawbacks: only one, for me, I always have to be a bit careful with it, or maybe I should say, not clumsy. I know that a few times I've been clumsy with it and almost let it fall over in the van or garage or accidentally let a hard object (eg a tool) fall on it, an impact on a tube at an unlucky angle would have resulted in possibly serious damage. I also know that there's a slim chance that I have the same misfortune that a friend recently had, where his derailleur hanger snapped off and when the whole mech wrapped around the wheel (as it tends to do!) it snapped his chainstay like a twig, rendering his bike a write off not to mention leaving him stranded. The same thing happened to my alu bike once and it just chipped the paint on the chainstay. No drama, no damage. I was miles from home with no rescue cover (as is normal) and managed to shorten the chain and ride home single speed. Even unshipping a chain to the inside would potentially damage only one of my four frames.

Such things are obviously rare events ("it'll never happen to me" - until it does) and it's easy to say don't be clumsy but in my view I'd rather that such concerns are completely, 100%, eliminated and for this, only the Ti ticks every box.

PS my carbon frame has a press fit BB but I use a Praxxis threaded BB converter for Shimano Hollowtech.

ZMC888

Bordersroadie wrote:

I ride four road bikes regularly, with frames each of steel, aluminium, titanium and carbon.

Steel: I love it for nostalgic reasons (it's my from-new 1985 frame) and it's comfy to ride. I like that I can chuck it in the van every day for my lunchtime rides without concern of damage. Drawbacks: it's heavy and I have to keep up with touching up paint to prevent rust (it's a winter bike)

Alu: My light winter bike, again I like that I can use it and abuse it, as above, and it's not that different to ride than the steel. Drawbacks: none really, to be honest.

Ti: My sunday best, but one that I love most because I can use it and abuse it, chuck it in the van for lunchtime rides and ride it up and down our stone farm track and not care about the stones banging off the frame. I love how it soaks up road buzz from poor surfaces. I love that it will always look the same while everything else ages....I also love that it looks beautiful and just that it's a bit different. Drawbacks: none, but if pushed, as a weight weenie at heart, even though it's a light Ti frame, it weighs 1,350g. How much do I care, really? Not a lot given all the pluses.

Carbon: My light bike. I love that it's really lightweight and the "direct" feel of the frame, I guess due to the stiff BB area. I love the look of the smooth lines of the frame. I love that it soaks up road buzz just like the Ti bike. Drawbacks: only one, for me, I always have to be a bit careful with it, or maybe I should say, not clumsy. I know that a few times I've been clumsy with it and almost let it fall over in the van or garage or accidentally let a hard object (eg a tool) fall on it, an impact on a tube at an unlucky angle would have resulted in possibly serious damage. I also know that there's a slim chance that I have the same misfortune that a friend recently had, where his derailleur hanger snapped off and when the whole mech wrapped around the wheel (as it tends to do!) it snapped his chainstay like a twig, rendering his bike a write off not to mention leaving him stranded. The same thing happened to my alu bike once and it just chipped the paint on the chainstay. No drama, no damage. I was miles from home with no rescue cover (as is normal) and managed to shorten the chain and ride home single speed. Even unshipping a chain to the inside would potentially damage only one of my four frames.

Such things are obviously rare events ("it'll never happen to me" - until it does) and it's easy to say don't be clumsy but in my view I'd rather that such concerns are completely, 100%, eliminated and for this, only the Ti ticks every box.

PS my carbon frame has a press fit BB but I use a Praxxis threaded BB converter for Shimano Hollowtech.

Thanks for taking the time to post this. Food for thought.

StillGoing

I've had carbon fibre framed bikes for years and never had a problem despite crashes and uneven road surfacing at times. I've just swapped my 2010 Basso Astra carbon framed winter bike for an aluminium Merida Ride one, not because of any difficulties with weather (there are none) but simply because i couldn't see the point in having an expensive bike spending most of the time hanging on the wall or being used on the turbo. That Astra is still going strong in the hands of the new owner. My CF Reacto has been used in all weathers with carbon clinchers, been bunny hopped over road debris seen at the last minute and looks and feels as good as the day I built it all up. That is a BB30 but I swapped it out for a Rotor conversion to rung a Rotor 3D24 and I haven't heard a squeak or creak out of it.

Trying to say CF is suspect just because one of your choices is from a suspect manufacturer is ridiculous as is claiming all roadies are inferior in ability to anyone from a Mtb/CX background.

ZMC888

philthy3 wrote:

Trying to say CF is suspect just because one of your choices is from a suspect manufacturer is ridiculous as is claiming all roadies are inferior in ability to anyone from a Mtb/CX background.

Don't misread me. Someone said 'learn to ride road'. I was just pointing out that I've good solid bike handling skills in terms of descending and dealing with traffic. I haven't spent years learning how to wheelie, manual, bunny hop, ride in, mud, dust, jump do drops and motorcycle knee down to be told to 'learn to ride'. But yes in terms of road positioning, pace, power etc I still have a lot to learn.

I'm not saying CF is suspect as much as I'm saying I'm a clumsy bastard in the garage (10 years of thick heavy alloy bikes that can usually still be ridden after they go off a cliff). Living where I do some roads are billiard table smooth, almost like Dubai, but others are like lunar landscapes.

Then there is the PF BB. Even if they are as reliable as a threaded BB they still need to be switched out at 6,000kms, which if done wrong can wreck your frame. The Chinese mechanics I know only have a universal press fit installation tool, no removal tools and don't have torque wrenches or the correct type of Loctite. Also I feel that I'm being railroaded into having a PF BB by the bike industry, something I've seriously had enough of with mountain biking.

Maybe the right bike for me is a Titanium bike with Ultrega, then I'll save up for a CF etap or Di2 bike longer term. Or just get a Trek Emonda ALU6 or Specialized Allez and then I can test my foot in the water about what having a CF bike might be like with less cost.

fat daddy

well to me it sounds like you know what you want the answer to be .... and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a titanium frame .... It might not take as much of the road noise out of a ride as CF or be as stiff or flexible depending on how its been moulded it might not even be as light as CF

but its the overall package that makes a bike good, bad or just different to another

And ultimately, when you have your Ti bike .... would you even need a CF one ? ... are you really going to be able to tell the difference between 8kg and 7.5kg .... will you honestly roll over a section of tarmac and think, Ah yes that 5 seconds was so much more comfortable on my CF bike ?

nah ..... buy the Ti bike and save you money for a completely different "other" ride, every one needs a

Fast Road bike
wet road bike
classic road bike
xc MTB
dh Mtb
retro/vintage mtb
adventure bike
what ever the hell a gravel bike is
CX bike
bmx
hybrid
single speed
fixie if your single sped isn't a flip flop
track bike
TT bike
fat bike

BenderRodriguez

Having ridden bikes for over 40 years, and having used every material available, I am amazed just how good a quality carbon fibre frame can be compared to everything else.

Yes, a steel or titanium frame can be comfortable, but these materials respond to stress in a simple liner manner. Bottom line is that, if a steel or Ti frame is 'springy' enough to absorb road shocks effectively, then it will flex loads when big loads are applied to it, as when climbing, even if the rider is not aware of this happening. In comparison carbon can be built with a non-linear response to loads, so that it effectively gets stiffer as the load increases. (Components such as masts for racing yachts really exploit this ability to the full.) Steel also tends to be really heavy by current standards.

Alloy frames are cheap and can be stiff, so great for a budget track bike, but you won't get a truly compliant alloy frame: the minimal fatigue life of aluminium alloy means that alloy frames have to be built to be stiff otherwise they will fail.

With regards durability and repair costs, an aluminuim frame will be scrap if it is seriously damaged, as its strength depends so much on the way the final frame is heat treated. Titanium is difficult and expensive to repair, and despite the 'frame for life' myth, there is a history of titanium frames failing at the welds. Carbon fibre has an unlimited fatigue life and can often be easily repaired, even home repair is feasible in many cases.

The only real downside to carbon is that everything depends on how the frame was designed and made, as carbon can be used to build a frame with almost any characteristics, from an absolutely rigid frame for track sprinting through to a compliant long-distance bike. Just because a bike is made from carbon does not mean that it will excel in any particular area.

To give an example, I have two carbon bikes, an old Guerciotti Khabar (now over 8 years old) that uses the 'wrapped joint' construction favoured by many small scale builders. It also uses high quality wrapped carbon tubes. This bike is super comfortable but is very flexy when sprinting or climbing out of the saddle.

My other carbon bike is a Time NSX (pretty much the same as the current Izon) which uses a combination of custom tube weaving, hand lay up and high-tech Resin Transfer Moulding, and this frame is as comfortable as the Guerciotti but is also rock solid in terms of the power transfer when climbing or sprinting, and when descending. (I went down one of my local cols, which has a broken road surface, that the Time steers down with 'scalpel precision', to use a popular cliche, but using my Guerciotti, and I thought that either the frame had developed a crack or my rear tyre had gone down, so big was the difference.)

For me the Time is streets ahead of anything else I have ridden, including Colnagos, and the technology used to make it is also a step above even the Colnago C60, with every fibre in the frame contributing to its ride qualities, rather than the necessity of having to hold the tubes together in a lugged joint. Naturally, others might prefer a different mix of qualities, such as having something that is super-stiff or aero, but that is the main point. Carbon or some other material? is not really the question any more. (Except for bikes being taken on a world tour perhaps.) The real question is 'what carbon frame has the qualities I am looking for?' Sure, even a cheap carbon frame off eBay will be likely to beat any titanium or steel frame in some areas, but to get the 'best of all worlds' that is possible with carbon, you might well have to be more selective. For me the only downside of my Time is that it is such a joy to ride that I use it even when I should really be out on one of my training bikes because the roads or weather are bad!

As to press-fit BB's, if they are machined correctly from new there should be no issue. My Time has a BB30 bottom bracket which as been issue free for 3 years and is on the original bearings.

BenderRodriguez

fat daddy wrote:

will you honestly roll over a section of tarmac and think, Ah yes that 5 seconds was so much more comfortable on my CF bike ?

Perhaps not, but if a Ti bike is built to be as comfy as good carbon one, you will certainly also be very aware of how flexible it is compared to a good carbon frame when you get out of the saddle!

I am an old git and a bit of a luddite, and when I had my previous carbon frame thought that the 'which material' debate made some sort of sense. Three years riding my Time has now convinced me that carbon is pretty much the only way to go, with the choice of steel or Ti being down to wanting something 'retro', or as you put it, simply 'different'. From a functional point of view my current carbon frame is the best bit of bike kit I have ever owned. It might even suggest it would have been worth the list price, even though I did get it at a big discount, and I can't think of any other bit of bike kit that I have that I would say the same!