Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => The Knowledge => Topic started by: Phil on 10 November, 2008, 11:07:50 pm
-
I'm soon going to be building a bike for 'best' - summer day rides, club runs, racing, and that sort of thing. However, I'm stuck between an xacd titanium frame and a Focus (or similar) carbon fibre frame.
I know a lot depends on the maker, but I'm interested in finding out a bit more about the differences in material. I understand that carbon is lighter, but I can't really get a handle on how much weight I'd be saving and how much this would affect my speed and comfort. I'd also like to know more about the difference in ride quality and in lifespan between the two. Any thoughts appreciated. :)
-
That sounds like at least two different bikes are required.
-
Talk to a certain Mike of this Parish about the difference between XACD and an upmarket Ti frame.
I think the materials have far less impact than the quality/design of the framebuilder.
-
Talk to a certain Mike of this Parish about the difference between XACD and an upmarket Ti frame.
I think the materials have far less impact than the quality/design of the framebuilder.
I absolutely agree. A sub £1,000 carbon frame isn't going to ride the same as, say, a Pinarello Prince.
A friend of mine has a Pinarello Paris and an FP3. He tells me that the difference is noticeable.
However, also bear in mind the use that you will be putting the bike to. As someone said; you don't expect an F1 car to be reliable for going for the papers every day.
-
finally, a question I can answer!
I have an XACD frame (in fact, I have two - the road frame and a custom one like the cx frame) and my little brother has a 2-year old focus cayo. I also have a bling Ti bike and a condor carbon bike (the barrachi, their sportive frame).
For what you describe, I'd go for the XACD the Focus the XACD the Focus.
Crap. I dont know...
the XACD frames are soft as hell. Lots of bottom bracket flex, but really comfy. I went for the Ti forks too which was a mistake, with carbon forks it'd feel better. Ideal for really long days in the saddle, but not great for sprinting or using every watt of power.
Petes focus is stiffer but feels a bit 'dead'. Quicker when you're hurrying but not that inspiring to ride. I might be biased because he's got really thin handlebars on his which I hate, but I just dont like the feel.
Both smooth out the road, but the XACD is comfier because it's so damn soft.
Neither of them hold a candle to the bling bikes, the condor is stiffer but livelier, the bling Ti is... amazing.
I expect focus have improved their bike, I think it's a different weave from when Pete got his, so it's probably closer to the condor now. From what you describe, I'd either go for the focus if I want something stiff & quick to last 3 or 4 years, or the XACD road frame if I can put up with a slightly softer frame but want something to last forever.
if you're ever near cambridge, you're very welcome to come and try...
-
A bike is not just the frame though as mike started to allude to with the handlebar comments. Wheels can make difference to how a bike 'feels'
-
Steel is real! ;)
-
Steel is real! ;)
*beep*
Deviation. :P
-
I've got a couple of xacd frames, and a Pinarello Ti frame (verr bling) as well as 2 carbons. I'd echo what Mike says about the xacd except I don't find mine too flexy, but that may be down to the oversize oval downtube and small size of the frames. I love them. They aren't light but do float along nicely.
The cheap focus carbon frame would be my choice for a fast summer bike though. No worries about skidding on ice or winter slime and trashing it.
-
I don't have a carbon bike - though it would likely be my choice also for a fast summer geared bike
I have 3 Ti bikes, and they feel totally different. I suspect - as others said - that the choice of tubing profile, geometry etc make as big a difference as the frame material
Ti scores for longevity, winter-proofness and (if you want it) customisation. It doesn't sound as if any of those are a strong criterion for you.
-
Look at Planet X too. They do cheap bike is both carbon and ti.
Personally, I like Ti because it is more durable and if failure does occur, it will be more pleasant than for carbon.
-
Like a lot of others I also have an Xian frame and love it. I used to have a Colnago Ti frame and although the quality was much better I don't think there was that much difference in ride quality. The beauty of using carbon for frames is the strength can be varied by using different weave layups, section thickness and shape so it is strong where it needs to be and yet give the ride the designer wants. The cheaper carbon frames tend to be quite firm I looked at loads but didn't want one you need a mortgage for, so bought a Merckx chm which is a reasonable price, gets good reports, made in Italy and finished in Belgium and also looks very nice.
-
One more with an XACD frame - (thanks again Mike for the help with the order). It has the same geometry as a VN Yukon and I am so impressed with how comfortable it rides. My other ti bike is an Airborne Zeppelin... a great frame for those fast club runs. Never had a carbon but would like one someday.
-
Phil: wait until the end of the week. Planet-X are putting together Sale bikes built around their Lynksey produced Ti frame. If it's anything like the Sale carbon fibre bikes, a complete bike will be about the same price as the frame is currently!
Personally I'd go for a Ti frame with carbon forks. Although high end Alu has something worth looking at as well. Or even superlight steel: look at the Columbus Life and Spirit tubesets.
-
Like a lot of others I also have an Xian frame and love it. I used to have a Colnago Ti frame and although the quality was much better I don't think there was that much difference in ride quality. The beauty of using carbon for frames is the strength can be varied by using different weave layups, section thickness and shape so it is strong where it needs to be and yet give the ride the designer wants. The cheaper carbon frames tend to be quite firm I looked at loads but didn't want one you need a mortgage for, so bought a Merckx chm which is a reasonable price, gets good reports, made in Italy and finished in Belgium and also looks very nice.
Apparently the CHM is being discontinued as of 2008
-
What size frame are you looking for?
This possibly isn't really what you want, but I loved* my Airborne Valkyrie Audax. It beats the steel bike I have now for comfort hands down and I didn't find it overly flexy, despite being quite a sprinter.
It's a 54 cm and listed over in classifieds.
*The first time I've ever used that word for a bicycle.
-
I have in the past listed a few pointers about most of the popular materials used in frames that may be of interest here, I have listed them all to show the comparisons
Frames made of Aluminium Alloy: Often simply referred to as ‘Alloy’ Light, cheap, reasonably robust although some do comment that aluminium alloy frames are not as comfortable when compared to the others; in part this is why most will not use aluminium alloy forks, most current roads bikes will use steel or carbon. Aluminium Alloy supposedly has the most performance drop off, which in fairness only really effects a racing cyclist where a few percent reduction in performance can make the difference (especially in their heads) of winning or coming second, in reality that applies more to the older lighter frames when Pro’ riders used extremely light versions (now most pro teams use Carbon), the modern budget frames use a heavier, more robust alloy and are of course aimed at a different style of riding. They are now the most common option in the mid range and upwards frame sets, fairly robust, as they will normally dent as apposed to crack. Normally the price dictates a purchase of a frame built in alloy, that does not mean that you will not be satisfied, you will see quite a few older frames still being ridden by club cyclists who find them perfectly adequate, plus many don’t have any complaints re’ comfort or performance drop off. Although most refer to these frames in general terms as ‘alloy’ if we are being pedantic then strictly speaking this is wrong, as steel is an alloy of carbon and iron, titanium is normally aluminum and vanadium, for example Van Nicholas (http://www.vannicholas.com/WbmHome.aspx) use 3% Aluminium, 2.5% Vanadium and 94.5 Titanium, which they simply list as 3/2.5
Frames made of Carbon: With sufficient research and development can result in a bike that is comfortable, very light and efficient at transferring energy into propulsion as the material does not flex as much as other materials. Although strong they can be more delicate, where other materials dent, Carbon is more likely to crack, although I don't believe that they are as delicate as many fear them to be, quite a few have been ridden for a few years now and still going strong. Most common rider is a racing cyclist or someone who still likes to have a ‘best bike’ that can to an extent have a more precious existance than say audax or touring bike, where robustness may be more of a consideration.
Note I have mentioned "With sufficient research and development", the design and manufacture of carbon frames vary more than all the materials mentioned.
Frames made of Steel:Comfortable, very durable (if built correctly) with low performance drop off with age. These days still a popular choice for club riders who like to know that their frame has been built in the traditional way by a craftsmen. Production bikes built with steel are less common, although it remains popular with the companies that still cater for touring bikes.
Many cyclist like the fact that they are having something built often to their own specification, you can personalise your frame with your own braze on items, light bosses, extra bottle bosses etc, you can even chose your own colour. In the past all top quality frames were purchased this way, as it was how you got exactly what you wanted, both in quality and especially frame size. The old diamond shape frame being less adaptable in terms of variations in riding position than the modern sloping top tube frames; even Lance Armstrong used an off the peg frame size. Although I fall into this category, as in uses as steel frame, not Lance Armstrong, I have to admit that modern off the peg frames are now so good both in terms of production quality and the flexibility that the modern geometry gives you to achieve the perfect riding position, that the necessity to have a bike made to measure is less of an issue. In more recent years steel frames are starting to make something of a come back, as many realise that in many ways steel is a better option than aluminium alloy, especialy when it comes to comfort.
Frames made of Titanium: Becoming more popular, virtually no performance drop as they don’t even rust, comfortable, light, yet robust. Performance wise not quite as responsive as carbon or alloy (alloy when new that is), although really it is that not far off, some pro riders now even use Titanium like Magnus Bakstedt a former Paris Roubaix winner, other Pro Teams used Titanium frames painted up to look like normal production bikes of their team sponsors, often used in races where comfort can become an issue, for example over the cobbles of the Paris Roubaix, as riders are bashed about so much it can lead to fatigue. More recently though Carbon has become the frame material of choice for most who are looking at pure performance.
The down side is that Titanium is very hard to work/build with; so most don't! On the upside because of this the workman ship simply has to be of top quality and it shows, most Titanium frames do look and are very well made. Most common used when someone wants a fast, responsive, light comfortable yet robust, durable bike and of course where price is not so much of an issue. Titanium is therefore and ideal choice for longer day rides/audax/touring bikes.
Frame material conclusion, Opinion is often very divided when it comes to frame materials and if it effects how the bike rides or not. Many will state that they can tell a huge difference and by the same token many will state that the frame material makes no difference at all. I would say I fall somewhere between both, I have ridden a huge variety over the years, when riding bikes similar in set up in nearly every respect apart from the frame material I would say that I can't tell a huge difference, but I can feel more than none that's for sure.
A quality designer and manufacturer will be sensitive to the material they have used, so I would expect the bike to perform how it is supposed to and give you good long service, regardless of what it is made of. So although the frame material is indeed a consideration I believe that many are far more concerned about what they should or shouldn't use than perhaps they need be. Should this topic be of interest I have added some links just below to some websites that elaborate far more on frame materials, with far more detail and data than I have done.
Some useful links regarding frame materials:
sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials (http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html)
VN Frame materials (http://www.vannicholas.com/ResLib/WbmTitanium.aspx)
Caree frame-materials (http://www.caree.org/bike101framematerials.htm)
Paul_Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
PS. The frame linked to in my signature is a Titanium Audax that I reviewed here (http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/news/article/mps/uan/2531) that may be of interest. I also have a Ti race bike (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/3021727953_099310d273_o.jpg) for the odd occasion that I want to race or even attempt to go fast. I chose the race bike version in Ti instead of Carbon purely as I am inclined to keep my bikes for a long time, my last race bike lasted 25 years, so I wanted something that had classic lines.
-
Apparently the CHM is being discontinued as of 2008
Yes I saw that a few month ago, to be replaced by the LXM. I spoke to the importers who said that the LXM is less compact with a new paint job but the same monocoque construction. and has gone up over £200!
-
IMHO the best titan or carbon frame is a STEEL one.
So there!
Nurrrrrrrr!
J
-
Thanks everybody! I already have two lovely steel frames for audax and general purpose riding. This is going to be a racing machine, to be washed after every ride and cared for like a child.
I was leaning a little towards Ti to start off with because it's a bit different, but I think I'm more likely to go for carbon now. I'll wait to see the Planet X sale (thanks bikenerd!) and make my decision then.
-
torslanda, you'll get into the same trouble I did! ;D
My concern with carbon and aluminium frames is the forks, really. I come from a metallurgical/engineering family, so I am familiar with stress, strain and failure</old engineering joke>
But seriously, I much prefer a fork made from a material that will give me a clue what's happening, and not go straight to catastrophic failure, unscheduled forward dismount, and a booking for plastic surgery. :(
Sadly, most Ti frames have (or are designed for) carbon forks, and I understand that Ti forks are not a good idea from the dynamics point of view. So Ti is off the agenda for me.
-
torslanda, you'll get into the same trouble I did! ;D
My concern with carbon and aluminium frames is the forks, really. I come from a metallurgical/engineering family, so I am familiar with stress, strain and failure</old engineering joke>
But seriously, I much prefer a fork made from a material that will give me a clue what's happening, and not go straight to catastrophic failure, unscheduled forward dismount, and a booking for plastic surgery. :(
Sadly, most Ti frames have (or are designed for) carbon forks, and I understand that Ti forks are not a good idea from the dynamics point of view. So Ti is off the agenda for me.
Carbon forks also seem to be a relatively cheap expendable piece of equipment these days. I notice that some Ti bikes have just started to offer steel forks (http://www.vannicholas.com/WbmBikeHome.aspx?EncIdName=ICnkrKNURZqhxI97rZx5f2%2bOvXkzsjH8Y7Gfy9LaeROElJmdpq11SUkvmDEfhYsI6ibF22lyk3RUwZyTld%2b6vmlh8fjHwNysArXadWHeLHp4hYI36C6a6w%3d%3d) now though, although as an option in addition to the more popular carbon model (the pic' linked to is carbon, steel forks are an option). I confess I have asked Van Nicholas to offer a steel fork on that model for some time as that is their bike often used for heavy duty touring, to their credit they do listen to feedback from their dealers; as I was for seven years.
Personally I would always like to see steel offered as an alternative, many don’t buy Titanium frames purely to save weight over a steel frame, it is chosen with comfort and durability in mind, I for one would consider steel forks although I have to say on the Audax bike linked to via my signature I am not exactly losing any sleep that I am using carbon on that style of bike, although by the same token if steel would have been readily available I would probably have fiited them. Titanium forks are both expensive and can vibrate, two reasons that they are not common place
Paul_Smith (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/2817796028_c6b2113f3e.jpg?v=0)
-
I was going to mention the possibility of steel forks on a Ti frame, but I felt I had grumbled enough ;D
-
I was going to mention the possibility of steel forks on a Ti frame, but I felt I had grumbled enough ;D
My Omega is just that.
-
I was going to mention the possibility of steel forks on a Ti frame, but I felt I had grumbled enough ;D
My Omega is just that.
As is my Matt Chester.
Matt would not have it any other way. He absolutely does not supply - or recommend, or even discuss - anything but steel forks.
I had carbon forks on my Pompino and changed them for steel a few years ago. It made very little difference to the weight, and even less to the comfort or handling.
-
I've got carbon forks on my Bob Jackson audax bike cause that's what the LBS had in stock after my little accident on the '07 dun run. They were also insistent that I should have carbon forks 'because they're stronger'. Personally, I'm rather glad the steel forks bent and absorbed the impact rather than breaking my foot! They've been perfectly good, although as MV says I haven't noticed a huge difference between them and the steel forks I had before.
Anyway, I trust carbon enough to ride a bike made from it without worrying, and similarly if I bought a Ti frame I would put carbon forks on it. I was more concerned about whether one material had significant benefits over the other within a particular price bracket. :)
-
Carbon forks also seem to be a relatively cheap expendable piece of equipment these days.
I guess my big concern when I hear that is how you know when to replace them? Opinions on the longevity of carbon parts seem to vary so much depending on whom you ask.
Has anyone tried Reynolds 953 fork blades?
-
I guess my big concern when I hear that is how you know when to replace them? Opinions on the longevity of carbon parts seem to vary so much depending on whom you ask.
Depends what the steerer's made of. If it's Al then change them when you change your bars - every couple of years if you ride a lot, or routinely after an accident. If it's a full carbon fork, or has a steel steerer, I'd be less worried and maybe just change after a crash.
I'm pretty relaxed about the longevity of carbon itself under normal use.
-
I have to say, my fears about carbon have been nixed by the tough and very good fork on my race bike, it's just fine thanks. It's a mature and good material.
If I was racing hard for time, I'd get carbon. Planet X would be on my list, they consistently review well, are very very well priced, and are BRITTISH! [tm].
If I was more about sportives and long races for comfort, plush Ti sounds wise.
-
torslanda, you'll get into the same trouble I did! ;D
My aversion to carbon comes from two things and the main one is jealousy. The other is the aversion to parting with stupid amounts of money to buy a frame made of a material that won't survive falling over outside the news agents.
On this very forum (IIRC) the owner of a Dolan was bemoaning just such a calamity that destroyed the integrity of his frame. I also remember from the highlights of this year's Tour seeing a rider in the peloton collide with a piece of street furniture. He was left with a massive pain in the goolies and a very expensive Airfix kit.
OK, probably extreme examples. Probably don't happen very often. Granted, 653 builds a 'cracking' frame but at least steel gives the illusion of being able to be repaired.
luv'n'stuff
J
-
I ride an Airborne Valkyrie (Ti Audax Bike) and a Look 565 (Carbon "best" bike). For what you want to use it for, I'd certainly recommend the Look or a similar carbon framed bike. You'll probably save about 300-500g in weight difference between the two frames. But having a lighter bike for daylight rides in better weather means that -
- I don't need a rack or mudguards on it
- I don't need lights or dynohub on it
- I'm aware that I spent a lot of money to get a lighter bike, so I don't weight it down carrying the kitchen sink
The overall effect is that my Carbon bike is a good few pounds lighter than my Titanium bike and much quicker to ride. Ride wise the Carbon bike isn't quite as soft as the Ti, but then again it's got completely different components/wheels/saddle so I couldn't say it was the material that made the difference. Still plenty comfy enough for 200km rides.
-
If you do head Ti-wards, this thread (http://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=4408.0) lists all the Ti manufacturers that this forum could come up with.