Titanium or carbon

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by Bob, Jun 10, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Thu, 12 Jun 2003 15:05:16 GMT, "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> from Shaw Residential
    Internet wrote:

    >
    >"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> "Tom Schulenburg" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> > You should look at alternatives, and think about getting a custom frame. Check out:
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >http://www.pictureframes.com/scripts/WebObjects/PictureFrames.woa/wa/CustomMade
    >> >
    >> Tom you may want to check that URL you gave, it just sent me to some website about pictures.
    >>
    >>
    >Sorry, ignore that last post, it's still early in the morning.

    What do you mean? IT's already afternoon.

    --
    http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace I want another RE-WRITE on my CAESAR SALAD!!
    2:01:40 PM 12 June 2003
     


  2. Dave Stocker

    Dave Stocker Guest

    "bob" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:[email protected]...
    > Which is the better frame Ti or Carbon?

    Neither. They both flex. If that is what you need, then go straight to the big travel: Kona Stinky,
    Santa Cruz Bullit, Trek Liquid, etc.

    -Dave
     
  3. Chris Neary

    Chris Neary Guest

    >Carbon does not fare well in crash.

    Data please!

    Purely anecdotal, but the damaged carbon bikes I've seen had absorbed energy which would have
    equally trashed a ti bike.

    >Warrant on Ti is generally better and I would prefer lifetime.

    Can't speak to other makes, but the Trek OCLV's have lifetime warranties.

    >Plain Ti does not chip or scratch.

    Bring your ti bike over and I guarantee I can scratch it.

    >If you are heavier than 150lb Ti might have better ride quality for you.

    Then again, it might not.

    >Ti lasts longer.

    Data please.

    >The popularity of Trek is mostly due to incredible performance of Lance Armstrong.

    And the fact that they are a competitive product to the alternatives, including the many fine ti
    bikes offered.

    Chris Neary [email protected]

    "Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the
    elements I loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh
     
  4. > The better cyclist you are the longer top tube you need.

    And this is because...

    Top tube length is determined by proper fit, not your skill as a cyclist. While it's true that
    someone who's more flexible and more used to a racing-style position may desire a longer top tube
    plus stem combo, it's also true that a great many "better cyclists" ride with fairly short top tubes
    & stems. It's also true that that Lance guy you mention later rides a 100% stock TREK 5500 & 5900
    frameset. If, because he was a "better cyclist" he needed a longer top tube, I'm sure they'd find a
    way to accommodate him.

    > Carbon does not fare well in crash.

    Neither does steel, ti or aluminum. But regarding carbon in particular, I have proof that riding
    straight-on into the side of a car at 14.5mph did no damage to a carbon fiber frame, nor the carbon
    fork blades, but did in fact bend the *steel* fork column rather nastily.

    In addition, many carbon frames are designed to be easily repairable, using a lugs & tube
    construction technique that allows them to replace just one tube if required.

    > Warrant on Ti is generally better and I would prefer lifetime.

    The warranty on the line that produces Lance's bike is, and has been, lifetime.

    > Plain Ti does not chip or scratch.

    Titanium most certainly does get scratched, although I'd generally give ti high marks for cosmetic
    durability.

    > If you are heavier than 150lb Ti might have better ride quality for you.

    Actually, unless a manufacturer goes to the trouble of increasing tube diameter for larger frame
    sizes (most don't), a titanium frame is likely to get rather flexible in larger sizes, and more
    likely have a front derailleur that scrapes against the chain when standing on the pedals while
    climbing. Carbon fiber, on the other hand, is a designer material that can be made differently for
    the various frame sizes. In TREKs case, the lugs for the larger frames are made differently than
    those for the smaller ones, because it's assumed they will encounter more stress.

    > Ti lasts longer.

    The real world is littered with failed titanium frames, many examples of which can be found in
    newsgroup postings. Just as it is littered with carbon, steel & aluminum frames that have failed.
    It's not the material, it's what you do with it that makes the difference in terms of lifespan.
    Technically an aluminum frame weakens from the very first day you ride in, while the fatigue life of
    steel and titanium is such that it continues with nearly its original strength for a very long time
    until it approaches its
    limit. Does that make steel or titanium stronger than aluminum? Not if the aluminum frame is
    properly designed. Given the lightness of the material, you can design in such a tremendous
    margin of safety that it's not likely to fail after having been ridden 115 miles every
    single day for 15 years (a real example given to me by an engineer talking about his
    aluminum frame designs, and why they were nothing to worry about).

    > The popularity of Trek is mostly due to incredible performance of Lance Armstrong.

    Lance is certainly a great spokesperson for TREK, but hardly the sole reason for their success. If
    you look at recent bicycle history, you'll find that the mid-90s (before Lance made his incredible
    comeback, and many years before he had anything to do with TREK) were the years that TREK became the
    dominant force in the US retail bicycle scene.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  5. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    > > Ti lasts longer.
    >
    > The real world is littered with failed titanium frames, many examples of which can be found in
    > newsgroup postings. Just as it is littered with carbon, steel & aluminum frames that have failed.

    I would like to make some comments on this:

    I have always been a doubter when it comes to new materials but after a decade of watching these new
    materials I have found out that aluminum, carbon fiber and ti generally have better reliability than
    steel. I suppose this is because all of the manufacturers overdesign the bikes to prevent the
    reliability problems that are always being feared.

    So over the last 5 years or so I've kept a pretty close watch on failed frames and it has been my
    experience that it is the steel frames that fail most often because it is this material that is best
    known and with which manufacturers take the most chances.

    None of these materials fail commonly.

    So don't chose your bike by thinking that you are going to chose a more reliable material because
    they are all at least the same. Use a more intelligent format for choosing your bike - buy from a
    good dealer who sells bikes from a reliable manufacturer because workmanship is far more likely to
    add to the reliability than the material.
     
  6. David Storm

    David Storm Guest

    "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "bob" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Which is the better frame Ti or Carbon?
    >
    > Since both of those frame materials are offered because they are exotic (and not because of any
    > significant superiority compared to quality steel or aluminum), then the better one is the one
    > that turns you on more. That's the only noticeable advantage either material possesses over the
    > cheaper alternatives anyway.
    >
    > Chalo Colina

    A guy in our club was in a twenty man pile up at 25 mph last Monday. He wasn't hurt, but his
    $6,000 C40 Colnago (carbon) was literally broken in half. Both top tube and down tube snapped off
    at the head. Apparently Colnago doesn't warranty their frames?!! A $3000 Trek is starting to look
    pretty good.
     
  7. In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...

    >A guy in our club was in a twenty man pile up at 25 mph last Monday. He wasn't hurt, but his
    >$6,000 C40 Colnago (carbon) was literally broken in half. Both top tube and down tube snapped off
    >at the head. Apparently Colnago doesn't warranty their frames?!! A $3000 Trek is starting to look
    >pretty good.

    Why would Colnago, or any other company, warranty a frame damaged because of a crash? No body covers
    crash damage. At best some companies will sell you a frame a reduced cost if you send in a crash
    damaged frame.
    -----------------
    Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)
     
  8. David Storm

    David Storm Guest

    "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > A guy in our club was in a twenty man pile up at 25 mph last Monday. He wasn't hurt, but his
    > > $6,000 C40 Colnago (carbon) was literally broken in half. Both top tube and down tube snapped
    > > off at the head. Apparently Colnago doesn't warranty their frames?!! A $3000 Trek is starting to
    > > look pretty good.
    > >
    > What make you think that Colnago is responsible for a frame breaking in an accident? The warranty
    > is against "manufacturer's defects" not accidents.
    >
    > Trek would say the same thing, as would any other manufacturer.
    >
    > Mike
    >
    >

    Not looking for argument...made statement. I was told that Colnago does not warranty their frames
    period. It was partially a question since I don't know for sure.
     
  9. Kevan Smith

    Kevan Smith Guest

    On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 17:45:05 GMT, "Fabrizio Mazzoleni" <[email protected]> from Shaw Residential
    Internet wrote:

    >
    >"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:y1fGa.1108>
    >
    >> It's also true that that Lance guy you mention later rides a 100% stock TREK 5500 & 5900
    >> frameset. If, because he was a "better cyclist" he needed a longer top tube, I'm sure they'd
    >> find a way to accommodate him.
    >>
    >
    >You haven't spent much time out on the road training with Lance, have you.
    >
    >I've suffered through some 5 hour rant sessions on the bike with that guy during the off season.
    >Last year I could tell it was going to be one long bitch ride with him, when you're waiting out in
    >the driveway at his home and you hear Kristin and him screaming and yelling at each other ( it's
    >not as bad now after she took the kid and dumped Lance ) that's a tip off.
    >
    >I learnt the hard way not to wait too close to the door after the time back when Kristin was still
    >home and threw that lame little trophy he won at the '98 Rheinland Pfalz Rundfahrt at Lance as he
    >opened the door to leave.
    >
    >When you start on a ride with Lance after something like that you really hope Carmichael has a
    >really tough training plan for him today or else the whole ride will be Lance whining about having
    >to ride a stock mass produced American bike.
    >
    >It's no better in when we're in the pack over in Europe, Lance is ticked that some guy like Jerome
    >Bernard riding for team Jean Delatour can get a custom frame and just brand it with a Scott decal.
    >He takes it out by crowding the guy on the road and then complaining that Stephane was riding
    >unsafe. There's no need for that kind of shit, and I'm always happy when things get lined out
    >single file and we get lance hyperventilating to finally shut him up.

    This is the best post of the year so far.

    Thanks.

    --
    http://home.sport.rr.com/cuthulu/ human rights = peace Yow! I just went below the poverty line!
    4:49:56 PM 13 June 2003
     
  10. Mitch Haley

    Mitch Haley Guest

    "Mike S." wrote:
    >
    > What make you think that Colnago is responsible for a frame breaking in an accident? The warranty
    > is against "manufacturer's defects" not accidents.
    >
    > Trek would say the same thing, as would any other manufacturer.

    Some manufacturers do (or did) give better warranties. A friend crashed his 8 year old Klein (before
    Trek owned Klein) and discovered a crack in the downtube/headtube weld. The bike barely had 50,000
    miles on it at the time. He rode it for a couple of months, decided the crack was growing, and ended
    up getting a new frame for free when he mentioned it to the local dealer. Unfortunately, the new
    frame had a wider rear triangle, lower brake bridge, etc, requiring him to replace several parts
    which fit the old frame but not the new one. Mitch.
     
  11. "Mike S." <[email protected]> wrote let it be known in news:[email protected]:

    >> A guy in our club was in a twenty man pile up at 25 mph last Monday. He wasn't hurt, but his
    >> $6,000 C40 Colnago (carbon) was literally broken in half. Both top tube and down tube snapped off
    >> at the head. Apparently Colnago doesn't warranty their frames?!! A $3000 Trek is starting to look
    >> pretty good.
    >>
    > What make you think that Colnago is responsible for a frame breaking in an accident? The warranty
    > is against "manufacturer's defects" not accidents.
    >
    > Trek would say the same thing, as would any other manufacturer.

    Well, not ANY manufacturer. Check out Kestrel's 'No-Fault Warranty' on selected carbon frames. It
    covers any damage including accidents and outright abuse.

    http://www.kestrel-usa.com/

    (Not a kestrel employee... just a happy customer!)

    --

    Curt Bousquet [email protected] < Reverse for email

    Road biking in Southern VT and Western Mass.

    My 2002 bike log: http://www.scanline.com/bikelog/2003.html
     
  12. On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 04:06:03 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >The real world is littered with many titanium bikes that have failed, typically at or near a weld
    >(often on the downtube near the shifter bosses).

    So does the Habanero compare? On the website, it says that they've got good welders rather than
    crappy, and that this helps a lot -- plus they put their money where their mouth is with a warranty
    plus half off a crash replacement.

    Jasper
     
  13. On 11 Jun 2003 17:32:42 -0700, [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:

    >Since both of those frame materials are offered because they are exotic (and not because of any
    >significant superiority compared to quality steel or aluminum), then the better one is the one that
    >turns you on more. That's the only noticeable advantage either material possesses over the cheaper
    >alternatives anyway.

    Ti has the big advantage of not needing paint and thus looking great.

    Jasper
     
  14. > So does the Habanero compare? On the website, it says that they've got good welders rather than
    > crappy, and that this helps a lot -- plus they put their money where their mouth is with a
    > warranty plus half off a crash replacement.

    Mark from Habanero frequents this group often, and from all I've read & heard, is a very reputable
    guy. I wouldn't worry at all about his machines. He's not building stuff on the bleeding edge, but
    rather sticking to stuff that works.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  15. Paul

    Paul Guest

    yep steel he's right you know...can't beat it
     
  16. > > What make you think that Colnago is responsible for a frame breaking in an accident? The
    > > warranty is against "manufacturer's defects" not accidents.
    > >
    > > Trek would say the same thing, as would any other manufacturer.
    >
    > Well, not ANY manufacturer. Check out Kestrel's 'No-Fault Warranty' on selected carbon frames. It
    > covers any damage including accidents and outright abuse.
    >
    > http://www.kestrel-usa.com/

    According to Kestrel's website-
    ===================================
    Your replacement cost will vary depending on the age of the product, but will be no more than 65% of
    the current manufacturer's suggested retail price at the time of the exchange. Ask your dealer or
    KESTREL for details and the current replacement cost. This offer applies only to the original
    consumer purchaser for as long as the original consumer purchaser owns the product.
    =======================================

    65% of the current suggested retail price is hardly a "no fault" warranty freebie. What it is is a
    good way to maintain customer loyalty, and is not at all unusual. TREK gives a 25% discount (crash
    replacement credit, they call it), and I believe Cannondale has a similar program.

    This is far different from saying that TREK, or Kestrel, or Cannondale is responsible for a frame
    breaking in an accident. It's also more desireable as well. The costs of covering
    accidentally-wrecked non-warranty frames would have to be passed on to all users in the form of
    higher prices.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
     
  17. Tim Axtelle

    Tim Axtelle Guest

    Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[email protected]>...
    > On 11 Jun 2003 17:32:42 -0700, [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:
    >
    > >Since both of those frame materials are offered because they are exotic (and not because of any
    > >significant superiority compared to quality steel or aluminum), then the better one is the one
    > >that turns you on more. That's the only noticeable advantage either material possesses over the
    > >cheaper alternatives anyway.
    >
    > Ti has the big advantage of not needing paint and thus looking great.
    >
    > Jasper

    The other big advantage to Ti over carbon is the metallic 'ping' sound that the cable spacers make
    when you go over a bump in the road. I love that. Probably just me.
     
  18. Tim Axtelle wrote:
    >
    > Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    > > On 11 Jun 2003 17:32:42 -0700, [email protected] (Chalo) wrote:
    > >
    > > >Since both of those frame materials are offered because they are exotic (and not because of any
    > > >significant superiority compared to quality steel or aluminum), then the better one is the one
    > > >that turns you on more. That's the only noticeable advantage either material possesses over the
    > > >cheaper alternatives anyway.
    > >
    > > Ti has the big advantage of not needing paint and thus looking great.
    > >
    > > Jasper
    >
    > The other big advantage to Ti over carbon is the metallic 'ping' sound that the cable spacers make
    > when you go over a bump in the road. I love that. Probably just me.

    Ti has nearly the same ductility as steel. Carbon snaps.
     
  19. Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A. wrote:

    > Ti has nearly the same ductility as steel. Carbon snaps.

    That depends on temperature. When I was caving in England, using Single Rope Technique, I was warned
    against using titanium carabines in my equipment. There had actually been accidents because they can
    suddenly shatter at the low temperatures in caves (about 4 degrees C). We always used aluminium
    crabs to hang our lives on.
     
  20. In article <[email protected]>, Dr Engelbert Buxbaum
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Dr. Rev. Chuck, M.D. P.A. wrote:
    >
    > > Ti has nearly the same ductility as steel. Carbon snaps.
    >
    > That depends on temperature. When I was caving in England, using Single Rope Technique, I was
    > warned against using titanium carabines in my equipment. There had actually been accidents because
    > they can suddenly shatter at the low temperatures in caves (about 4 degrees C). We always used
    > aluminium crabs to hang our lives on.

    If titanium cracks at 4 degrees C, why aren't the jet engine fans exploding off of more airplanes?
    They see air a lot colder than that.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...