Should we all bother with Titanium ?



Russ Reynolds

New Member
Mar 10, 2007
156
0
0
I got my first bike, 40 odd years ago, steel and 2nd hand (we were so poor that my dad painted the handlebars with pink housepaint to cover up the bodgey chrome, or lack of it)
My 2nd bike was 20 years ago, again steel.
My 3rd was 8 years ago again steel.
4th was Aluminium, 3 years ago.
5th. I am in the process of putting together a Carbon and it's not even finished and I have already got my eyes on a Titanium frame.

If you look at the history of of bikes from 1817 it seems that the only type I havent had is wood. Wood lasted for 30 years but hardly anyone had a bike anyway. Steel then lasted as the popular choice for 130 odd years. Aluminium for say 8 years. Carbon for 2. Of course these years are just estimates and also change in different countries. Another thing, I realise Steel ain't just steel. In the 130 odd years of steel, there would have been thousands of different steel alloy combinations.

But the question still remains before I lauch off and buy a Titanium frame, if I drew a graph of 'material of choice' for bike frames based on history, I'm only going to get 6 months out of it before it's pushed aside to make way for the new Bamboo Alloy Composite or the latest space age material 'Teridgium' which is used to make astronauts toothbrushes.

Should we all bother with Titanium?
 
I wouldn't bother with Titanium. My particular case: i was in a head on collision while riding by bike. the other guy was on a honda gold wing... 700 lbs of steel. 50 mph. my carbon bike shattered in several places, so the bike effectively had crumple zones. i had major injuries. however, my injuries were probably reduced because the bike broke. for sure, the top tub broke against my leg, saving me a broken bone.

by contrast, www.dieseldavegalloway.com had a similar crash while riding a Ti bike. his injuries were much more severe than mine.

me, i'll stick with carbon. does it really matter how long the bike lasts if you don't?

cu,
larryb
 
I was just going to ask about this same question about Ti.

As far as I read, it's the "quality" of the ride that sets Ti apart from the rest. But the problem is that it's damned hard to find a LBS that has a Ti demo bike. So it'll be a matter of faith to plonk down one's CC for a Ti frame.

The other concern I have is with the stiffness of a Ti bike. Is it still good for criterium racing? Is it still good for climbing?
 
larryb said:
I wouldn't bother with Titanium. My particular case: i was in a head on collision while riding by bike. the other guy was on a honda gold wing... 700 lbs of steel. 50 mph. my carbon bike shattered in several places, so the bike effectively had crumple zones. i had major injuries. however, my injuries were probably reduced because the bike broke. for sure, the top tub broke against my leg, saving me a broken bone.

by contrast, www.dieseldavegalloway.com had a similar crash while riding a Ti bike. his injuries were much more severe than mine.
I am skeptical. With a sample size of two I am still skeptical. That's the nicest I can put it.
 
sogood said:
The other concern I have is with the stiffness of a Ti bike. Is it still good for criterium racing? Is it still good for climbing?
I wouldn't race my Ti bike in a crashaterium but it climbs nice. Ti can be made into as stiff a frame as you want. Those old big tubed Litespeed Ultimates were Cannondale stiff.
 
Russ Reynolds said:
If you look at the history of of bikes from 1817... Wood lasted for 30 years but hardly anyone had a bike anyway.
I have seen bikes with solid hickory "tubes" and cast brass lugs from the 1890s, and wood rims held on much longer, were still available in 1995.

OK, I am done discussing insignificant details now, you may return to the discussion of Titanium.
 
Russ Reynolds said:
I got my first bike, 40 odd years ago, steel and 2nd hand (we were so poor that my dad painted the handlebars with pink housepaint to cover up the bodgey chrome, or lack of it)
My 2nd bike was 20 years ago, again steel.
My 3rd was 8 years ago again steel.
4th was Aluminium, 3 years ago.
5th. I am in the process of putting together a Carbon and it's not even finished and I have already got my eyes on a Titanium frame.

If you look at the history of of bikes from 1817 it seems that the only type I havent had is wood. Wood lasted for 30 years but hardly anyone had a bike anyway. Steel then lasted as the popular choice for 130 odd years. Aluminium for say 8 years. Carbon for 2. Of course these years are just estimates and also change in different countries. Another thing, I realise Steel ain't just steel. In the 130 odd years of steel, there would have been thousands of different steel alloy combinations.

But the question still remains before I lauch off and buy a Titanium frame, if I drew a graph of 'material of choice' for bike frames based on history, I'm only going to get 6 months out of it before it's pushed aside to make way for the new Bamboo Alloy Composite or the latest space age material 'Teridgium' which is used to make astronauts toothbrushes.

Should we all bother with Titanium?
To each his own.
We liked it well enough to splurge on a titanium tandem and touring bicycle (back when I had a "real job" with decent income).
No paint or rust, but one is polished and the other dull (ugly) grey. Both have steel forks. It is interesting to see some of the ti frame makers choosing what parts to make with Ti and what parts carbon fiber. None that I see choose a titanium fork.
 
Russ Reynolds said:
Should we all bother with Titanium?
After lots more miles going in on my steel bike, I am still campaigning for steel. If you are worried about the whole 'planned obsolesence' that plagues products in the current market, I can't think of anything likely to be have better value, ultimate longevity and guaranteed ride quality, than a nice steel based bike. Well that's my vote anyway.

Good as titanium is, is really worth the mark up over steel, for a frame that has mostly identical qualities, except being slightly lighter?
 
KellyT said:
Good as titanium is, is really worth the mark up over steel, for a frame that has mostly identical qualities, except being slightly lighter?
Errr... Another one is that Ti doesn't rust.
 
larryb said:
I wouldn't bother with Titanium. My particular case: i was in a head on collision while riding by bike. the other guy was on a honda gold wing... 700 lbs of steel. 50 mph. my carbon bike shattered in several places, so the bike effectively had crumple zones. i had major injuries. however, my injuries were probably reduced because the bike broke. for sure, the top tub broke against my leg, saving me a broken bone.

by contrast, www.dieseldavegalloway.com had a similar crash while riding a Ti bike. his injuries were much more severe than mine.

me, i'll stick with carbon. does it really matter how long the bike lasts if you don't?

cu,
larryb
You carbon frame shattering wouldn't have absorbed any energy decreasing the impact on yourself. Metal with a large amount of plastic deformation (ie it can bend/streetch a lot) would aborb more energy before failing. At failure nothing is absorbed further. Thats what a crumple zone is, an area designed to deform and absorb energy rather than transferring it.
Maybe that other guys crash was actually worse than yours??

Fact is you have a minor crash on carbon and you take your life in your hands riding it again. Was it damaged?? Will it self destruct without warning?? Ti and steel can likely be bent back into shape if crashed, and not form cracks. Fatigue cracks forming is more likely due to a bad weld, and the crack would grow slowly. Since you don't have to paint Ti you would see any damage well before it becomes a problem.

I think Ti and steel bikes are cool. You see some many carbon bikes around, and I'm not impressed anymore (other than wow he's spent a lot). You see a Ti or steel bike, and its cool, rear, different. Your not buying the latest fad, your buying what could be your last bike (frame) with Ti.

If you want to change bikes all the time, get Al or carbon. If you want something with some class, or some coolness, that still weighs less than the carbon bikes with one full drink bottle, then get Ti (or steel) frame.
 
Hmmm. I'm not impressed by any frame material, 'cuz I know that all by itself, material tells you nothing about a frame. Frankly, all I care about is how the bike feels to me.

Honest frame builders will tell you it's all about the geometry, not the material. Even builders of that allegedly revered material, steel, will tell you that if they have any integrity at all.

I have a Ti bike, but only because it happened to be a Ti bike that felt best to me. It could have easily been CF or aluminum, for that matter. FWIW, the bike it replaced was a steel frame that rode like a jackhammer. Go figure.
 
It's almost impossible to see a Ti bike let alone test ride one. But have come across a Ti frame that looked gorgeous. I have the geometry on the frame but no idea how well it'll ride (53cm frame, 74 deg seatube, 73 deg headtube for a start). It uses 3-2.5 Ti tubing. Wondering and wondering... :rolleyes:
 
sogood said:
It's almost impossible to see a Ti bike let alone test ride one. But have come across a Ti frame that looked gorgeous. I have the geometry on the frame but no idea how well it'll ride (53cm frame, 74 deg seatube, 73 deg headtube for a start). It uses 3-2.5 Ti tubing. Wondering and wondering... :rolleyes:
Geoffs has a Ti bike, check it out next time you see him. Its a nice bike.
 
sogood said:
Errr... Another one is that Ti doesn't rust.
True. I have sprayed loads of rust inhibitor into my one, and I plan on taking one of the aluminium 'B' bikes out if it looks like being damp. But if you plan on only keeping one bike and it has to be weather resistant, then perhaps it is worth the premium. I don't think it is to me though.

On the other hand, I read some of these posts, and I feel my bank account twitching a little ...
 
hey Philip P,

you are right! the TI accident was worse than mine. the TI bike broke the fellows leg. did the TI tube do anything to save his leg or did his leg break?

on my carbon bike, the top tube broke. however my femur didn't... just a huge black and blue where the tube and the leg met. boy am i glad the carbon shattered.

may not work for you, but for me, the results are clear. TI may last longer than CF. TI can be beautiful. TI can be elitist. TI can be a great ride. carbon is boring, everyone has it. carbon may not last forever. carbon paint jobs are inferior to TI.

i don't really care about any of that. i'd rather have a less serious injury...
that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

statistics of rare events? usually are bs and can be interperted differently by experts with different biases. do i care? no. i can look at a couple of examples and choose which outcome i oprefer. others can look at the same examples and ride off into the sunset on TI looking good on their elitist, well painted, durable bikes that fit them well.
 
larryb said:
hey Philip P,

you are right! the TI accident was worse than mine. the TI bike broke the fellows leg. did the TI tube do anything to save his leg or did his leg break?

on my carbon bike, the top tube broke. however my femur didn't... just a huge black and blue where the tube and the leg met. boy am i glad the carbon shattered.

may not work for you, but for me, the results are clear. TI may last longer than CF. TI can be beautiful. TI can be elitist. TI can be a great ride. carbon is boring, everyone has it. carbon may not last forever. carbon paint jobs are inferior to TI.

i don't really care about any of that. i'd rather have a less serious injury...
that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

statistics of rare events? usually are bs and can be interperted differently by experts with different biases. do i care? no. i can look at a couple of examples and choose which outcome i oprefer. others can look at the same examples and ride off into the sunset on TI looking good on their elitist, well painted, durable bikes that fit them well.

I'm not sure I understand the comparison between frame materials and injuries. I'd rather break my leg on the top tube than have the carbon shatter and puncture my lungs and heart. Choosing frame material based on how it may impact your leg in and accident is odd.
 
hi Mish,

you are right. it is an odd way to evaluate TI and CF.

however, i been there and can only say that i am might glad that the CF tube broke and my leg didn't.

i recognize that other folks have other criteria. I come from a survivors perspective. Those who haven't had a head on crash with a car or motorcycle come with their perspectives.

is my perspective odd. yes. yet when i compare my injuries to those of a fellow on a TI bike, i see that we had similar injuries to legs, arms and hands. yet his injuries are all more severe than mine... but the crashes were very similar. head on with a car and head on with a motorcycle. speeds seem to have been comparable. both riders were very experienced and safety orientated... yet both were in accidents. cars and motorcycles move so fast, that although you think you can take evasive action on a bike, we learned that that isn't always possible. accidents will happen.

wouldn't it be great if no one else ever had a head on with a car or motorcyle.
is that likely to be the case. i don't think so. Thus i think it is prudent to factor into the evaluation of TI or CF, how do people survive a head on crash. So far, i've seen information on 2 cases. that's all the info that i have at this time. based on those 2 cases, i think CF is the better material. very odd. oh well. if more information becomes available, i will update my opinion.
 
larryb said:
hi Mish,

you are right. it is an odd way to evaluate TI and CF.

however, i been there and can only say that i am might glad that the CF tube broke and my leg didn't.

i recognize that other folks have other criteria. I come from a survivors perspective. Those who haven't had a head on crash with a car or motorcycle come with their perspectives.

is my perspective odd. yes. yet when i compare my injuries to those of a fellow on a TI bike, i see that we had similar injuries to legs, arms and hands. yet his injuries are all more severe than mine... but the crashes were very similar. head on with a car and head on with a motorcycle. speeds seem to have been comparable. both riders were very experienced and safety orientated... yet both were in accidents. cars and motorcycles move so fast, that although you think you can take evasive action on a bike, we learned that that isn't always possible. accidents will happen.

wouldn't it be great if no one else ever had a head on with a car or motorcyle.
is that likely to be the case. i don't think so. Thus i think it is prudent to factor into the evaluation of TI or CF, how do people survive a head on crash. So far, i've seen information on 2 cases. that's all the info that i have at this time. based on those 2 cases, i think CF is the better material. very odd. oh well. if more information becomes available, i will update my opinion.

What is true is that you have no clue how to interpret what happened to you with respect to frame material. I've had head-ons, and your conclusions are, frankly, stupifying. It's like choosing to eat only donuts because a 747 has never crashed into your home while you've been eating donuts.

It's clear that as a society, America is at a clear disadvantage when it comes to reasoning skills. I weep for our society.
 
larryb said:
...is my perspective odd. yes. yet when i compare my injuries to those of a fellow on a TI bike, i see that we had similar injuries to legs, arms and hands. yet his injuries are all more severe than mine...
I can understand your perspective based on your experience. The problem is you're assigning a safety difference to an experience that's totally outside the design specs of the bicycle. It's not as though CF frames are designed with collapsible top tubes the way Volvo's are designed with side impact door panels or crumple zones. Your top tube shattered and you're convinced it saved you some injury, it might have but you can't expect the same results next time if you are unfortunate enough to have a similar crash.

I can just see the adds now, "Ride with greater safety....try our RacerSafe CF frames, guaranteed to shatter in a head on collision". I'm sure that would sell a lot of frames :)

A local skier died a couple of years ago when his CF ski pole broke in a tumble and punctured his femoral artery. Would I use that experience to condemn CF ski poles? Heck no, it was pretty darn random but it's an example of the previous poster's point. Splintering CF carries it's own set of dangers.

There are a lot of good reasons to choose one frame material over another like weight, price, repairability. But chosing a frame material on the hopes that it will behave a certain way in a high speed head on collision with a motor vehicle. Frankly if I thought that way I'd give up cycling all together.

-Dave
 
daveryanwyoming said:
A local skier died a couple of years ago when his CF ski pole broke in a tumble and punctured his femoral artery. Would I use that experience to condemn CF ski poles? Heck no
Actually, now you've told me about it, I think it would put me off them ...
 

Similar threads

P
Replies
31
Views
1K
P