Steel or Ti

[mattc]

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.

How is that a "wrong criterion"? I do understand your personal logic, but it assumes no sentimental value to any object.

I personally don't get very attached to bikes, but I can see how one that you've had amazing adventures with - perhaps an unusual/custom design, or a gift/inheritance etc etc - could have enormous sentimental value. And a bike that starts out as your average, non-bling workhorse could acquire sentimental value simply by hanging around ("being loyal" ?!?) for 30 years.

I cannot brand such views as "wrong"!

[trekker12]

So, has any of this helped the OP?

For what it's worth I'll add my two pennarth. I bought a Steel bike, well it was a gift from Mrs Trekker but she knew it was top of my wish list.

I knew it was somewhat traditional, in fact the shop owner who sold it to my wife called it conservative. I agree with her but I like it's appearance, I like the way it rides and I like the fact it stands out as being a bit different from the multitudes of carbon bling I see everywhere. I wasn't going racing, I planned to enter a few 200km Audaxes but it's unlikely I'll be on the start line for LEL next year and I thoroughly enjoy riding it.

I could have bought CF, I felt Ti was too expensive and as said elsewhere the life of it is unlikely to be an issue because I'll possibly want something newer and shinier one day in this modern consumer world.

The fact is I could get equal riding pleasure from CF, Ti or Steel based on geometry and bike design and clear in the knowledge I'm simply not fast enough or don't care enough to notice a significant impact on my Audax times. I chose my bike made of steel because I liked it and that's all many of us need.

[Exit Stage Left]

Nice to see a review of the Ribble steel bike in the weekend Guardian. Helen's a bit confused by the Ribble pricing, she thinks the basic-spec price is for the frame only. I'm not sure about the idea of 'fashionable' steel bikes. The headline should say 'trouper'.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/20/ribble-reynolds-525-bicycle-review-helen-pidd

[rogerzilla]

They both break.  It's how they're put together that matters and the fatigue limit is useless if the welding is done poorly.  Steel is easier to have modified later.  I'[ve ridden bikes made from everything and never noticed any magical ride qualities of any material, althiugh lighter bikes do ride better.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Nice to see a review of the Ribble steel bike in the weekend Guardian. Helen's a bit confused by the Ribble pricing, she thinks the basic-spec price is for the frame only. I'm not sure about the idea of 'fashionable' steel bikes. The headline should say 'trouper'.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/aug/20/ribble-reynolds-525-bicycle-review-helen-pidd

Blinded by the light!

[bludger]

I am currently weighing up a steel or ti (leaning towards steel) touring/gravel bike (i.e. a touring bike that will handle really crap roads) but notice nearly all the options I seem to come across have a carbon fork. Since part of the appeal for me is that steel can (hopefully) be fixed by a welder nearly anywhere in the world, should this be a cause for concern? I don't know if forks are much of a failure point relative to the frame.

That said this bike https://road.cc/content/review/174276-light-blue-robinson-rival-1x is steel frame and fork, and is apparently a bit of a trooper.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Don't know about failure rates but carbon fibre can be mended, albeit not on the back streets of Bishkek, so this is not much help to the stranded tourist. I also don't know how trustworthy such a repair would be on a safety critical item like a fork – but then I'm not sure how much I'd like to trust a weld in a steel or other metal fork under such circumstances either.

[mattc]

I've stopped worrying about carbon forks - and I never worried much in the first place! Forks just aren't a serious weak-spot on any quality modern bike.

Plus it's not difficult to get a new set of forks for your bike in foreign lands. [compared to many other failures].

Forks seem to be one area where the balance-of-compromises all work out in carbon's failure favour! as a material.

[Samuel D]

Forks seem to be one area where the balance-of-compromises all work out in carbon's failure as a material.

Did you mean “favour”?

I’m not overly worried about forks failing – I’m light and hope that preserves me from that fate – but lightweight steel ones have more springiness than typical carbon ones (and that’s before you get into the super-stiff fork blades needed for disc brakes and the super-stiff tapered steerer tubes that are currently in vogue, two features which in combination demand fat tyres for tolerable comfort).

A friend of mine has a Raleigh from the 80s and it’s astonishing how flexible the fork and steerer tube are. You can see the hub nodding back and forth whole centimetres when peering over the handlebars on a rough road.

[Karla]

Don't know about failure rates but carbon fibre can be mended, albeit not on the back streets of Bishkek, so this is not much help to the stranded tourist. I also don't know how trustworthy such a repair would be on a safety critical item like a fork – but then I'm not sure how much I'd like to trust a weld in a steel or other metal fork under such circumstances either.

I know of (i.e. have shopped at) at least one very good bike shop in Bishkek that will definitely be able to sell you a new pair of carbon forks.

[Ian H]

I'm not worried about full carbon forks, just the ones with ally steerers. 

[Cudzoziemiec]

Don't know about failure rates but carbon fibre can be mended, albeit not on the back streets of Bishkek, so this is not much help to the stranded tourist. I also don't know how trustworthy such a repair would be on a safety critical item like a fork – but then I'm not sure how much I'd like to trust a weld in a steel or other metal fork under such circumstances either.

I know of (i.e. have shopped at) at least one very good bike shop in Bishkek that will definitely be able to sell you a new pair of carbon forks.

That's a good point actually. Probably easier to buy a new one than get either steel or carbon mended in most of the world.

[rogerzilla]

I like steel, not for the ride (although my Columbus SL Ron Cooper doesn't suffer the gear and brake rub of the carbon Boardman) but for the ability to modify it.

I've seen more cracked steel and Ti frames on here than anything else, so the metals' fatigue limit is of no practical use in a constructed frame.  Aluminium frames rarely break now but sre grossly unfashionable.

Carbon is very light but it had better have all the "braze-ons" you need.  It can also be noisy as the large tubes amplify sound, and can feel dead.

I'd have steel for a world tour and carbon for audax.

[zigzag]

pros of steel: easy and cheap to build and customise
cons of steel: heavy, flexy, rusts, needs respraying/treatment, feels slow and not much fun to ride (ime)

pros of ti: doesn't rust, easy to customise, can be anodised in lovely colours, lighter than steel
cons of ti: difficult to weld (therefore prone to cracking), difficult to repair, can be/feel flexy, more expensive

[gonzo]

I've had a ti bike which was like an armchair. I've had another that was a stiff-as-you-like crit racing beast! Design is key.

I've ridden ti for so long that I've lost any comparison so I can't be anymore help than the above statement.

[Morat]

Steel is definitely better because I love my steel bike. But if you bought me a titanium bike for comparison... I could learn to love that too