Author Topic: Steel or Ti  (Read 10623 times)

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #25 on: August 16, 2016, 02:25:58 pm »
Carbon fibre is the current best material for making bicycle frames.  Light, stiff, compliant due to the layup of the fibres and repairable.
Anyone in doubt as to the durability or strength of the material should look at the 6 inch travel mountain bikes that are currently being produced in CF.

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #26 on: August 16, 2016, 02:53:01 pm »
Carbon fibre is the current best material for making bicycle frames.  Light, stiff, compliant due to the layup of the fibres and repairable.
Anyone in doubt as to the durability or strength of the material should look at the 6 inch travel mountain bikes that are currently being produced in CF.

Yeahbut if the choice is Steel or Ti?
Sic transit and all that..

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #27 on: August 16, 2016, 03:50:14 pm »
Yeahbut if the choice is Steel or Ti?

Steel*.  Everyone I know with a Ti frame has ended up with it cracked around the welds.  Data size: 3.

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #28 on: August 16, 2016, 03:54:03 pm »
Yeahbut if the choice is Steel or Ti?

Steel*.  Everyone I know with a Ti frame has ended up with it cracked around the welds.  Data size: 3.

...and everyone I know with a Ti frame has ended up very happy, with 100% of the frames in the group being over 14 years old.  Data size: 3

vorsprung

  • Opposites Attract
    • Audaxing
Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #29 on: August 16, 2016, 04:03:13 pm »
My Ti frame broke but until it did I was happy.  Sample size: 1

Off topic: I prefer carbon
Audaxing Blog follow @vorsprungbike on

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #30 on: August 16, 2016, 06:40:18 pm »
A couple of weeks ago I saw a bike that was made of plywood. I didn't get a chance to speak to the owner but he certainly looked very happy indeed. Sample size: 1
An ungovernable laughter, a joyous agitation which makes the summer stretching before you seem like an unrolling canvas on which you might draw those first rude pure strokes that are free. (Capote)

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #31 on: August 16, 2016, 08:28:24 pm »
Yeahbut if the choice is Steel or Ti?

Steel*.  Everyone I know with a Ti frame has ended up with it cracked around the welds.  Data size: 3.

...and everyone I know with a Ti frame has ended up very happy, with 100% of the frames in the group being over 14 years old.  Data size: 3


I bought 3 TI frames from xacd over the years (2004-2006). Frame#1 sold to Sam, who's happy with it.
Frame #2 ditched, after it developed a crack around the bottom of the seat tube. Frame#3 is being used
as my summer/best bike. Nowt wrong with it.


(I also have a steel and carbon fibre framed bikes. Both ok). :thumbsup:

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2016, 12:10:07 am »
My frame best at transmitting and amplifying noise happens to be titanium.  It's more to do with the tubing size than the metal.  Great big thin-walled downtube - makes even a normal chain working normally sound as rough as a bag of badgers.

Odd. My Van Nicholas ti is completely silent.

Samuel D

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2016, 09:47:45 am »
Carbon fibre is the current best material for making bicycle frames.

This statement can only be true for some definitions of “best”. My best is not your best.

Anyone in doubt as to the durability or strength of the material should look at the 6 inch travel mountain bikes that are currently being produced in CF.

For durability, looking at machines being currently produced tells us nothing. Let’s see how many of them will be in use in 30 (or just 10) years. My guess is very few indeed.

Steel has a proven track record. There are 100-year-old steel bicycles still being ridden. Paris and other cities are full of 30-year-old steel bicycles that have spent those 30 years being knocked about in the street.

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2016, 10:28:56 am »
Carbon fibre is the current best material for making bicycle frames.  Light, stiff, compliant due to the layup of the fibres and repairable.
Anyone in doubt as to the durability or strength of the material should look at the 6 inch travel mountain bikes that are currently being produced in CF.
I kind of agree with you, with the caveat that CF is very vulnerable to abrasion. This isn't speculation, it is observation. I've had mudguards wear through the gelcoat and one layer of cf on a pair of forks. Those were very sturdy audaxing forks and I had no hesitation in riding the bike even with the wear, but it did take me aback. I would not use a CF frame or fork for long distance touring.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2016, 10:40:59 am »
Yep.

Carbon wins in all aspects but care needed to avoid chafing. Remember too that carbon IS repairable.  Remember too that it can be as little as £300 for a reasonable CF frame.

Ti is pretty much unrepairable  economically.  Make sure it has a warranty that means something. I've had 3 Ti frames, and the ride quality has been beautiful. The lack of paint is great too, as is the lack of maintenance.

Steel needs care to avoid internal rust, and paint chips need a timely repair to avoid rust. Steel is popular with luddites who don't know any better. My made to measure 853 frame from a highly reputed builder was the worst riding frame I'd had in years, but that is because I am used to CF and Ti. I changed the steel frame for a cheap Ribble CF frame and it was a massive improvement. Steel is disappearing from the audax scene with good reason.

So, value for money and lightweight, potentially awesome ride = CF...but needs care when attaching guards, lights etc.

Smooth ride quality, no maintenance= Ti....but pricy, not light, and needs a warranty.

Shit ride, high maintenance, heavy= steel

Take your pick

Cudzoziemiec

  • Solar powered, tea fuelled cycle-wol
Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #36 on: August 17, 2016, 10:49:26 am »
Ti is pretty much unremarkable economically. 
The price of some Ti frames is remarkably uneconomical!
An ungovernable laughter, a joyous agitation which makes the summer stretching before you seem like an unrolling canvas on which you might draw those first rude pure strokes that are free. (Capote)

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #37 on: August 17, 2016, 10:51:01 am »
Ti is pretty much unremarkable economically. 
The price of some Ti frames is remarkably uneconomical!

Typo. Unrepairable

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - a Pacific bike ride
Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #38 on: August 17, 2016, 11:00:36 am »
Carbon fibre is the current best material for making bicycle frames.

This statement can only be true for some definitions of “best”. My best is not your best.

Anyone in doubt as to the durability or strength of the material should look at the 6 inch travel mountain bikes that are currently being produced in CF.

For durability, looking at machines being currently produced tells us nothing. Let’s see how many of them will be in use in 30 (or just 10) years. My guess is very few indeed.

My CF road bike has so far provided five years of glorious lightweight, comfortable, responsive riding.  If it doesn't last 30 years, i really don't care: it will still have been good value, and I'll have saved up enough money by then to buy a new one. 

I suppose I could make it last 30 years by not riding it, but I'd prefer to be out there enjoying life rather than worrying about whether my well-proven bike is going to let me down.

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #39 on: August 17, 2016, 12:37:08 pm »
My setup is:

Steel rigid MTB for commuting in London and overseas laden touring.  Cam theoretically be welded by a garage or farmer in remote areas, can withstand airport baggage handlers and will handle rough off-road riding.

Ti for long audaxes and CC tours in UK. Low maintenance and comfy for long days in the saddle.  Don't have to worry about getting scratched paint when stacking with other bikes.

CF for best bike. Pricy wheels and components.  Used for shorter, faster rides, mainly on dry summer days (like today!).

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #40 on: August 17, 2016, 12:57:14 pm »
My 'best' bikes are the ones I use for long-distance and touring.  The others are just playthings.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #41 on: August 17, 2016, 01:13:24 pm »
Isnt it odd how these discussions include so many barbed comments about the opinions of others?
(especially given that these things are all compromises, and mostly based on statistics, not cold hard right/wrong facts.)

... but I'd prefer to be out there enjoying life rather than worrying about whether my well-proven bike is going to let me down.

Do you think you're the only one "enjoying life"? What makes you think anyone else is worrying about their bike?

Why so judgemental just because you've chosen a different compromise to others?
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #42 on: August 17, 2016, 02:10:43 pm »
Don't be such a nipple, Matt.  It's a very valid point he's making.

 ::-) :)

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #43 on: August 17, 2016, 02:17:56 pm »
Don't be such a nipple, Matt.  It's a very valid point he's making.

 ::-) :)
Well I don't think it is.



You cockwomble.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #44 on: August 17, 2016, 02:53:16 pm »
Well I think it is.

You pencil-dicked nipple tassel

Blodwyn Pig

  • what a nice chap
Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #45 on: August 17, 2016, 06:17:27 pm »
shouldn't this be in 'THE KNOWLEDGE' rather than the review section. ???

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #46 on: August 18, 2016, 01:05:11 pm »
I had something like this, but with a hole in it that made it whistle. Irritating until I tracked it down.



Carbon fibre TT bikes with a disc wheel make the most noise, apart from Elliptigos.

Steel and Ti bikes are the quietest, until the Ti frame starts creaking from a crack in one of the welds.


That would be a bar mounted flute then

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #47 on: August 18, 2016, 04:26:06 pm »
Piccolo, more like.
I am often asked, what does YOAV stand for? It stands for Yoav On A Velo

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - a Pacific bike ride
Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #48 on: August 18, 2016, 09:33:55 pm »
Isnt it odd how these discussions include so many barbed comments about the opinions of others?
(especially given that these things are all compromises, and mostly based on statistics, not cold hard right/wrong facts.)

... but I'd prefer to be out there enjoying life rather than worrying about whether my well-proven bike is going to let me down.

Do you think you're the only one "enjoying life"? What makes you think anyone else is worrying about their bike?

Why so judgemental just because you've chosen a different compromise to others?

I think that if you're buying a bike rather than, say, a house, whether it will be there in 30 years time is the wrong criterion.  I think that if that's what you care about, you've either got some faulty logic or some seriously non-cycling premises mixed in there, because for anyone considering whether a bike will be useful as a bike (rather than a museum object or whatever else), it's existence 30 years down the line is irrelevant.

Re: Steel or Ti
« Reply #49 on: August 19, 2016, 11:36:00 am »
Critics are right about buyers of steel being luddites. But it's the doctrine of planned obsolescence that they're rebelling against.

Quote
Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence in industrial design and economics is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time. The rationale behind the strategy is to generate long-term sales volume by reducing the time between repeat purchases (referred to as "shortening the replacement cycle").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

It's got a connection with branding, especially where there's an oligopoly. The constant 'improvement' of Shimano/ Campagnolo, is the prime example in cycling.

Reynolds 531 was the paradox of a brand that didn't change for decades, winning more Tours de France than any other tubing. http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/icons-of-cycling-reynolds-531-tubing-199581

The basis of most quality frames in the world was 531, in a number of manifestations. A full double-butted set will still feel comfortable today. It will flex, but that's a good thing in general, and everyone knew how a quality frame behaved, because they were all the same.

The 1970s cycling press didn't do tests of bikes, as technology stood still for a decade, but concentrated on riders and events. The main expression of individual choice lay in having a made-to-measure frame, with an ex-rider's name on it. The main brands were looked down on by club riders.

The result was that bicycles held a strong appeal for those who were rebelling against consumerism. There were more suppliers of components, and the basic materials enabled a 'craft' element to survive.

These attitudes were reinforced by the values of the time, when a Ford Cortina was restyled regularly, but was the same underneath, and rusted away rapidly. The modern equivalent seems to be I-phones, a short product life-cycle, with poor repairability.

I'd agree that there's a strong residue of attitudes which aren't about the ultimate performance of a consumer product at the time of purchase, and how that compares to the previous and next iterations of that product.

Luddites look at the finishing times of PBP in 1983, and wonder how much was about the bike.