Titanium vs. Carbon-Fiber

[dhk2]

No surprise to hear Grant Peterson at Rivendell dissing CF frames and forks in favor of steel, since that's what he makes. But it's also pretty obvious that CF frames and forks aren't failing everyday and throwing people to the ground. A buddy recently fatigued-out his second-replacement Trek CF frame due to BB debonding. He's been racing/training/touring on them for the past 20 years, and all three frames (original and two warranty replacements) have failed "gently" on him, not suddenly breaking like some CF fear-mongers would have us believe. He's still a fan of CF, and is building up a new CF bike now.

Just found today that my custom Columbus Zonal (aluminum) frame is starting to shown corrosion blisters under the paint at the bottom of the downtube and at the back of the top tube. It's seven years old, with 28K miles. I've had the same issues with steel bikes, in about the same time. For me, the big advantage to Ti and CF is freedom from corrosion, so my next frame will be one of those. CF has a soft finish which is relatively easy to scratch, chip and scrape. so to me the ultimate in durability looks to be unpainted ti.

As much as I like Ti, it can and does fail, just like any other material. A hammerhead Cat 1 here has broken ti frames, steel frames, CF and aluminum frames over the years. Like Al and Fe, everything depends on the weight and quality of the tubeset, the fitting of joints as well as the quality of the welds.....basically the design and manufacturing. From my point of view, no material has a clear advantage in fatigue life, but Ti certainly has the edge when it comes to corrosion-resistance and a tough finish.

Bottom line, Lynskey is at the top of my list now......the new Sportiva frame looks like just what I need for mountain tours. Sure, they're heavier than some CF frames, and maybe not as stiff, but I'm not racing anymore. A couple of guys have them here, and the workmanship/finish makes for a very classy frame vs the now-mainstream CF stuff coming out of Taiwan/Chinese factories.

 

[Froze]

I understand there are people that swear by CF bikes, I have a friend that has a 2001 Trek CF bike and loves it. But then I had another friend who also had a Trek CF built in 07 and his 5 year old daughter went into the garage where he stored the bike and somehow made the bike fall from the table he had it leaning against and hit a vise he had sitting on the floor. When he went to pick his bike up he noticed a scratch with some tiny fibers sticking out. So he took it to the LBS he bought the bike from and they ended up sending it back to Trek, Trek totaled the bike frame. He did buy another frame at a wholesale price, but after that he has been very leery of CF. If you watch bicycle races ever so often a fork breaks, usually after hitting something, but the resulting crash is bad, steel never did that kind of sudden failure. And lately it seems that there's been more and more frame and fork failures since production has shifted from Europe and America to Asia. And then trust CF wheels and spokes? Trek had a rash of broken steerer tubes that Trek blamed on rider error for over tightening bolts; see: http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/06/news/steered-wrong-racers-concerned-about-broken-carbon-steerer-tubes_121389

Here's a web site with a small sampling of pics and quotes from the riders, some were due to crashes bu some for no known reason: http://www.bustedcarbon.com/

I went to some MTB racing events and I saw plenty broken CF seat posts and cranks, not to mention forks and frames. Just last spring I saw a guy on the bike path with a broken CF fork, luckily he didn't get hurt due to crashing onto grass, but it happened suddenly causing him to veer hard right and just as he hit the grass the other side of the fork snapped, which of course with the fork breaking it took out the front rather expensive wheel. I'm wasn't able to tell if the head tube got damaged or not.

Like one of the articles said, there likes and dislike reasons are on both sides of the argument, I just know for me I won't buy CF after all the problems I've seen. I want a bike to last a lifetime and so far that's what all mine are doing.

Here's some info on the various materials: http://www.talu.com/materials.php

 

[Lewie]

Originally Posted by pTricky .

Carbon fiber has a very high strength-to-weight ratio, making it seem like an ideal material. However the toughness (defined as the energy required to break it) is rather low, so in the case of major trauma, such as a crash, a carbon bike will break more easily and more completely than one made of metal.

If you're looking for durable and light weight, a good steel frame could be better than either titanium or carbon fiber. R&E Cycles in Seattle, WA builds some very light steel road bikes, such as the 14.75 pound (including pedals and cages!) Trillium Outlaw. I have been to the shop and lifted their bikes, and they are very light.

http://www.rodcycle.com/


That said, there is a certain allure to titanium...

I will never buy another steel bike, unless it is stainless. Thirty years ago I purchased a Schwinn Super LeTour. It lasted 2 years before the top tube and botton bracket were very rusty. I then purchase a mid-level Italian steel frame. I was very leery of rust. Coated the cable guides with fingernail polish. Washed and cleaned it often. Nevertheless, the cable guides rusted within one year. I continued to ride the bike, sanding and repainting the cable guides every year. And then rust appeared on other parts of the top tube. At least the bottom brackett did not rust. Maybe it is my sweat (I do sweat alot), but I have not had good luck.with steel bikes. I now have an aluminum bike and a carbon fiber bike. Happy with both. I like the idea of a TI frame, but am very happy with my CF. Plus the CF frame does not flex.
Every steel bike I have ever ridden has flexed when I am riding out of the saddle, sometimes enough for chain grinding or to shift gears. And I weigh about 175-180.

 

[pTricky]

New steel bikes are supposed to be much stronger due to advances in tubing manufacture.

 

[Lewie]

Originally Posted by pTricky .

New steel bikes are supposed to be much stronger due to advances in tubing manufacture.

Very interesting. I have not ridden a new steel bike for a long time. I must say that the new Columbus stainless steel frames from Italy, such as Cinelli and Masi, look very interesting, though I doubt if I would pay $3,500 for a stainless steel frame, but who knows. They are very attractive.

 

[davereo]

Copied and pasted from Wikipedia.
Titanium alloys specific stiffnesses are also usually not as good as other materials such as aluminium alloys and carbon fiber, so it is used less for structures which require high rigidity

HMMMM....

 

[Froze]

Originally Posted by Lewie .




I will never buy another steel bike, unless it is stainless. Thirty years ago I purchased a Schwinn Super LeTour. It lasted 2 years before the top tube and botton bracket were very rusty. I then purchase a mid-level Italian steel frame. I was very leery of rust. Coated the cable guides with fingernail polish. Washed and cleaned it often. Nevertheless, the cable guides rusted within one year. I continued to ride the bike, sanding and repainting the cable guides every year. And then rust appeared on other parts of the top tube. At least the bottom brackett did not rust. Maybe it is my sweat (I do sweat alot), but I have not had good luck.with steel bikes. I now have an aluminum bike and a carbon fiber bike. Happy with both. I like the idea of a TI frame, but am very happy with my CF. Plus the CF frame does not flex.
Every steel bike I have ever ridden has flexed when I am riding out of the saddle, sometimes enough for chain grinding or to shift gears. And I weigh about 175-180.

Where do you live that this kind of rust would appear?

My oldest bike is 26 years old steel race bike with over 150,000 miles on it, the first 18 years it spent time with me on the coast of California, the last 8 years in Indiana, there isn't a spot of rust anywhere and it's been ridden in rain. My second oldest steel bike is 23 years old it has about 35k on it and spent the same years in Calif and Indiana, again no rust. I have cheap kids bikes that sat out in the rain for many years and though they have rust is strictly light surface rust.

So again where do you live that would make a steel frame rust out in just 2 years? I had a steel bike for 20 years all in Calif., it was my beater that I left locked up and parked outside and I rode it on the beach right in the salt water and salt spray and never bothered to wash it off when I got home. I left it in Calif because there was some rust flakes in the bottom bracket, but none externally.

So again where do you live that would rust out a bike in 2 years. I asked this 3 times because I don't believe you. There are kids bikes here in Indiana left outside in backyards getting covered with snow year after year after year after year and the kids ride them every summer. NO RUST!!

 

[Steve_A]

Yeah, Froze, I was wondering the same thing. Cheap steel, cheap paint? Lewie, I don't think you need to spend $3500 to get a good quality steel frame. (I wish I had that $ to order a custom!).

 

[Lewie]

I live in central Illinois, and I wish I knew what caused my steel bikes to rust. When my Schwinn rusted I was devastated, since I really liked the bike. I did strip the Schwinn of paint and rust and repaint it. Let’s just say the results were not very good, but that was my fault.
When I got my Italian racing bike, I was so afraid of rust that I took meticulous care of it, at least I thought I did. As soon as I got the bike I coated the cable guides with fingernail polish, and still the guides showed signs of rust within 1 year. Places where I had a scrape or the frame pump rubbed the paint to bare metal, I coated with fingernail polish, and never had any problem with rust. My riding friends did not have the same problem. It was just me. They only thing I could figure was that it was my sweat.

I liked the ride of my Italian bike, and still have it, with about 32,000 miles on it. It did not rust as much as the Schwinn. If my sweat starts affecting my Trek Madone, I am not going to be a happy camper. (OMG, my sweat is corrosive, and that’s why my clothes keep disintegrating. Sorry, bad humor.)

I did not ride for about 15 years, and then started riding again about 2 years ago. Riding has been lots of fun again.

 

[vspa]

In the past some top Italian brands like Benotto had an affordable line that had nothing to do with bikes ridden by the pros. Those were built in Mexico, were heavier and yes they did rust.
A quality-tubing steel bike will not rust on normal conditions, i have a 50+ years old steel track bike made by Frejus in good condition.
Froze reported likewise,

 

[Lewie]

Originally Posted by Froze .




I asked this 3 times because I don't believe you.

I could not care whether you believe me or not. The bikes did rust. Did not rust through, naturally, but did rust.Surface rust. If you do not believe me. Fine. And kids bikes left out in the weather DO rust.

 

[swampy1970]

Originally Posted by Froze .




Where do you live that this kind of rust would appear?

My oldest bike is 26 years old steel race bike with over 150,000 miles on it, the first 18 years it spent time with me on the coast of California, the last 8 years in Indiana, there isn't a spot of rust anywhere and it's been ridden in rain. My second oldest steel bike is 23 years old it has about 35k on it and spent the same years in Calif and Indiana, again no rust. I have cheap kids bikes that sat out in the rain for many years and though they have rust is strictly light surface rust.

So again where do you live that would make a steel frame rust out in just 2 years? I had a steel bike for 20 years all in Calif., it was my beater that I left locked up and parked outside and I rode it on the beach right in the salt water and salt spray and never bothered to wash it off when I got home. I left it in Calif because there was some rust flakes in the bottom bracket, but none externally.

So again where do you live that would rust out a bike in 2 years. I asked this 3 times because I don't believe you. There are kids bikes here in Indiana left outside in backyards getting covered with snow year after year after year after year and the kids ride them every summer. NO RUST!!

I have a 653 frame that was rust free when I left England 11 years ago and oddly, after hanging up in the garage for the past few years, they've started to rust and I'm in "low humidity central" - not too far from Sacramento, CA.

Steel will rust in the presence of moisture and air, unless it's stainless steel - where the high chromium content helps reduce oxidation. It's a simple scientific fact. Not rumour, not "forum lore", FACT.

 

[Froze]

Originally Posted by vspa .

In the past some top Italian brands like Benotto had an affordable line that had nothing to do with bikes ridden by the pros. Those were built in Mexico, were heavier and yes they did rust.
A quality-tubing steel bike will not rust on normal conditions, i have a 50+ years old steel track bike made by Frejus in good condition.
Froze reported likewise,

Exactly, but even the one bike I rode in the salt ocean spray and water was a Schwinn World Traveller...not exactly quality tubing, I bought new and cheap so I could trash it and not feel bad about it. I would rinse the bike off specially when sand got on the chain! But the point is the darn thing held up. And by the way, the last 8 years of it it's life it spent hanging in a garage too and nothing abnormal happened to it in regards to rust.

There's a bike on another forum that someone bought recently that is trying to figure out what make it is because there's no paint left, and instead it's covered with a dark patina. We figured out it was built between 1885 and 1918. I think, though I'm probably wrong, that it's a 1918 Schwinn Admiral track bike, probably made of gas pipe with internal pinned lugs. And guess what? It's not rusted out, in fact according to the buyer it's still ridable if he can find the original type of wheels, brakes, chain and bottom bracket (if they used one) he has the crank.

 

[vjbknife]

I don't see any advantages to CF other than aerodynamic shapes and slight weight savings, so if those are more important than longevity and ride quality than CF may work for you. But CF has too many downsides IMO especially when you consider the wear factors and ease of damage which can most times not be repaired. Titanium and even the maraging and biphase stainless steels like Cinelli is using and the Reynolds 953 are very interesting and should be excellent if you can afford one. I am building a new bike and was originally going with a high end steel frame but have switched to Titanium. I chose a Lynskey Ti Sportive frameset and will report on it when it comes in and I can complete the build on it.

 

[pTricky]

Originally Posted by vjbknife .

I don't see any advantages to CF other than aerodynamic shapes and slight weight savings, so if those are more important than longevity and ride quality than CF may work for you.

Carbon fiber does offer very good vibration damping compared with metals. One way to demonstrate this is to tap it with your fingernail. A metal frame will resonate, but one made of carbon fiber will not.

 

[Froze]

Originally Posted by pTricky .





Carbon fiber does offer very good vibration damping compared with metals. One way to demonstrate this is to tap it with your fingernail. A metal frame will resonate, but one made of carbon fiber will not.

This such a bogus statement it isn't even funny. What you need to do is read this: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html There's more about comfort then tapping a frame with a fingernail.

 

[vspa]

Sheldon explains the ringing of a steel frame, i could add that great steel tubing rings more or less like crystal, normal steel tubing will ring less and shorter. But this is true for steel, i don't about testing other materials in this way,

 

[vjbknife]

Originally Posted by pTricky .





Carbon fiber does offer very good vibration damping compared with metals. One way to demonstrate this is to tap it with your fingernail. A metal frame will resonate, but one made of carbon fiber will not.

This only true of high frequency vibrations and not bumps from road conditions where a well designed metal frame can absorb vibrations to a much greater degree than a very stiff CF. I think CF frames feel like you are riding right on the road with no tires on your rims, feeling every little pebble and crack. To be honest though, the biggest factor in vibration reduction is tire size and pressure.

 

[pTricky]

Originally Posted by Froze .



This such a bogus statement it isn't even funny. What you need to do is read this: http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html There's more about comfort then tapping a frame with a fingernail.

To quote that particular page: "Damping is the tendency of ringing to die out. All metal frames have very low damping -- they ring long enough to produce a clear tone. A carbon-fiber frame will give a dull sound if tapped, because carbon fiber has more damping than metal. This may affect the feel to some degree, though much less at the low frequencies which affect frame feel."

Care to explain how that contradicts in any way what I said?
Also, I wasn't suggesting that this would be a huge factor, only that it can potentially make some sort of difference.

On the whole, I am not convinced that carbon fiber is a sensible choice for most cyclists, but it does have some (although slight) redeeming qualities.

 

[Froze]

Originally Posted by pTricky .




To quote that particular page: "Damping is the tendency of ringing to die out. All metal frames have very low damping -- they ring long enough to produce a clear tone. A carbon-fiber frame will give a dull sound if tapped, because carbon fiber has more damping than metal. This may affect the feel to some degree, though much less at the low frequencies which affect frame feel."

Care to explain how that contradicts in any way what I said?
Also, I wasn't suggesting that this would be a huge factor, only that it can potentially make some sort of difference.

On the whole, I am not convinced that carbon fiber is a sensible choice for most cyclists, but it does have some (although slight) redeeming qualities.

You don't test the quality of a bike by using a fingernail, that's what was bogus. And if CF tubing was sooooooo comfortable to ride then someone long before now would have made a CF touring bike designed to be loaded with 60 or so pounds and ride more comfortable then steel. They don't make CF touring bikes because their not as comfortable regardless of whatever dampening it can or cannot do. And if you would have read the site completely you would have discovered that instead of cherry picking a small phrase to "prove" your right. You see you missed the part where it says this: Rubber and flesh are both highly damped -- and so the greatest damping in a bicycle/rider system by far is in the tires and the rider's body, unless the bicycle has suspension. (ok I can't turn off the italics, or the graying, or the caps, weird).
And you missed this:

• Tire choice. Wider, softer tires make more difference to ride comfort than anything to do with the frame. Unfortunately, many newer sport bikes are poorly designed when it comes to tire clearance. For the last decade or more there has been a fad to build frames with very tight tire clearance, although there is no performance advantage whatsoever to such a design. Such bikes cannot accept anything but super skinny tires, and, as a result, there's no way they can ever be really comfortable. See my Article on Tires
• Saddle choice. See my Article on Saddles.
• Frame geometry. Generally, frames with longer chainstays, and less vertical seat-tube and head-tube angles are more comfortable. This doesn't make them any slower, but may reduce maneuverability (also known as twitchiness.)
• Rider positioning and technique in riding over bumps. See my Article on Pain and Cycling

• Suspension, if the bicycle has it. A sprung saddle or suspension seatpost also can make a big difference.

But steel is preferred in touring bikes is because of the way it dampens, all materials dampen just in different ways, it reduces the tendency to wobble at high speeds under loads. And even Sheldon, who owned many bikes said his most comfortable bike was a 1916 Mead Ranger and it was only a tad heavier then his other bikes.

And you missed serviceability at the Sheldon site where he states: Titanium, while costly, is generally the most durable material choice.

So if a person was choosing between CF and TI and wanted durability, TI is the way to go.