Titanium vs Carbon vs Aluminium crash-wise

[[email protected]]

Which one of the three seems more bicyclist friendly in a crash?
My (naive? poorly informed?) reaction is: please, no carbon!
I don't want to be impaled on the carbon bits from shattered carbon
parts.
Of course having a sub $1500 budget for a bike helps to fulfill my
wish
Unfortunately most bikes come at least with a carbon seatpost.
Thoughs? Pics of mangled bikes made up of different materials
after serious crashes that totalled at least the frame?

Is titanium likely to absorb the impact better than aluminium?

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Dec 6, 12:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Which one of the three seems more bicyclist friendly in a crash?
> My (naive? poorly informed?) reaction is: please, no carbon!
> I don't want to be impaled on the carbon bits from shattered carbon
> parts.
> Of course having a sub $1500 budget for a bike helps to fulfill my
> wish
> Unfortunately most bikes come at least with a carbon seatpost.
> Thoughs? Pics of mangled bikes made up of different materials
> after serious crashes that totalled at least the frame?
>
> Is titanium likely to absorb the impact better than aluminium?

What type of crash? In most cases, the rider is ejected from the
bike, and it makes no difference to the rider whether the bike was
made of CF, Al, steel, bamboo, etc. Now, different materials may
mitigate the damage to the frame -- but only steel (and maybe Ti -- I
don't know) yields in a way that can be fixed with spot repairs,
assuming spot repairs are cost effective. I assume you are not asking
about what frame/frame materials are more likely to fail and cause a
crash. That is a different thread. -- Jay Beattie.

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Dec 6, 2:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Which one of the three seems more bicyclist friendly in a crash?
> My (naive? poorly informed?) reaction is: please, no carbon!
> I don't want to be impaled on the carbon bits from shattered carbon
> parts.
> Of course having a sub $1500 budget for a bike helps to fulfill my
> wish
> Unfortunately most bikes come at least with a carbon seatpost.
> Thoughs? Pics of mangled bikes made up of different materials
> after serious crashes that totalled at least the frame?
>
> Is titanium likely to absorb the impact better than aluminium?


I've had two highspeed head-ons with ditch on my Paramount ti (Serotta
built). Neither one affected the frame a bit but in one case put me
in serious back pain for months and the other broke my collarbone. I
would bet a reasonably built (i.e., not a ghisallo) ti frame comes out
tops in crash survival.

YMMV

D'ohBoy

 

[Werehatrack]

On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:24:07 -0800 (PST), [email protected] may have
said:

>Which one of the three seems more bicyclist friendly in a crash?

None of the above. Don't buy a bike for its crashworthiness in any
event; the differences will be minimal at best.

>My (naive? poorly informed?) reaction is: please, no carbon!
>I don't want to be impaled on the carbon bits from shattered carbon
>parts.

If they shatter, they generally stay connected together. Metals, on
the other hand, can and do tear, sometimes leaving very shrp edges.

>Of course having a sub $1500 budget for a bike helps to fulfill my
>wish
>Unfortunately most bikes come at least with a carbon seatpost.

I'm not rich enough to shop that high up the food chain, then.
Nothing but aluminum here, and likely to stay that way.

>Thoughs? Pics of mangled bikes made up of different materials
>after serious crashes that totalled at least the frame?
>
>Is titanium likely to absorb the impact better than aluminium?

Much more depends upon the specific bike's design and construction
characteristics, and the nature of the impact, than upon the material
employed in the frame.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[A Muzi]

[email protected] wrote:
> Which one of the three seems more bicyclist friendly in a crash?
> My (naive? poorly informed?) reaction is: please, no carbon!
> I don't want to be impaled on the carbon bits from shattered carbon
> parts.
> Of course having a sub $1500 budget for a bike helps to fulfill my
> wish
> Unfortunately most bikes come at least with a carbon seatpost.
> Thoughs? Pics of mangled bikes made up of different materials
> after serious crashes that totalled at least the frame?
> Is titanium likely to absorb the impact better than aluminium?

The pavement is more likely to be a problem that any frame material:

http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/MIMICRSH.JPG
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/LIZCRASH.JPG
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 6, 4:00 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Which one of the three seems more bicyclist friendly in a crash?
> > My (naive? poorly informed?) reaction is: please, no carbon!
> > I don't want to be impaled on the carbon bits from shattered carbon
> > parts.
> > Of course having a sub $1500 budget for a bike helps to fulfill my
> > wish
> > Unfortunately most bikes come at least with a carbon seatpost.
> > Thoughs? Pics of mangled bikes made up of different materials
> > after serious crashes that totalled at least the frame?
> > Is titanium likely to absorb the impact better than aluminium?
>
> The pavement is more likely to be a problem that any frame material:
>
i was more concerned about the fatal and near fatal crashes
similar to the ones described in the latest volume of Bicycling.
(is that magazine worth reading?)

> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosf...llowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/LIZCRASH.JPG

you sure that was done by the pavement and not by a boyfriend?
if so i guess those two are a new addition to the customer base of
full face helmet manufacturers

 

[A Muzi]

>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Which one of the three seems more bicyclist friendly in a crash?
>>> My (naive? poorly informed?) reaction is: please, no carbon!
>>> I don't want to be impaled on the carbon bits from shattered carbon
>>> parts.
>>> Of course having a sub $1500 budget for a bike helps to fulfill my
>>> wish
>>> Unfortunately most bikes come at least with a carbon seatpost.
>>> Thoughs? Pics of mangled bikes made up of different materials
>>> after serious crashes that totalled at least the frame?
>>> Is titanium likely to absorb the impact better than aluminium?

> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The pavement is more likely to be a problem that any frame material:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/MIMICRSH.JPG
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/LIZCRASH.JPG

[email protected] wrote:
> i was more concerned about the fatal and near fatal crashes
> similar to the ones described in the latest volume of Bicycling.
> (is that magazine worth reading?)
> you sure that was done by the pavement and not by a boyfriend?
> if so i guess those two are a new addition to the customer base of
> full face helmet manufacturers

Those are two of my staff with current (November) haematomas from bike
crashes. Both frames and wheels were fine.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 6, 3:24 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Which one of the three seems more bicyclist friendly in a crash?
> My (naive? poorly informed?) reaction is: please, no carbon!
> I don't want to be impaled on the carbon bits from shattered carbon
> parts.
> Of course having a sub $1500 budget for a bike helps to fulfill my
> wish
> Unfortunately most bikes come at least with a carbon seatpost.
> Thoughs? Pics of mangled bikes made up of different materials
> after serious crashes that totalled at least the frame?
>
> Is titanium likely to absorb the impact better than aluminium?

The only failed bike part that I've ever heard of anyone getting
impaled on was an ultra-light aluminum seat post. And that was JRA,
not a crash. Carbon fiber parts, by the way, are typically made with
a ductile enough matrix that they fail more like wood than glass. The
edges are rarely sharp. A frame made out of any material is capable
of breaking in a crash, but you're unlikely to land on it in any
grisly manner. Worry more about hitting windshields and curbs.

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Which one of the three seems more bicyclist friendly in a crash?
> My (naive? poorly informed?) reaction is: please, no carbon!
> I don't want to be impaled on the carbon bits from shattered carbon
> parts.

As far as I know, that's a non-issue. In the past 28 years I've sold, what,
way over 50,000 bikes, not sure exactly how many. I've sold large numbers of
carbon bikes during the past 16 years or so. My "CFMs" (Customer Failure
Modes) haven't changed during that period, and I have plenty of customers
who are quite adept a crashing. I have yet to hear of people suffering from
embedded shredded carbon.

> Unfortunately most bikes come at least with a carbon seatpost.
> Thoughs? Pics of mangled bikes made up of different materials
> after serious crashes that totalled at least the frame?

Pretty tough to come up with a scenario in which a seatpost is destroyed
while you're still attached!

> Is titanium likely to absorb the impact better than aluminium?

If you're measuring the degree to which an impact is "absorbed" by the
damage to something, I suspect an object (bicycle frame or whatever) that
didn't get damaged during an impact didn't actually "absorb" the impact, but
rather acted as a conduit to transfer the forces elsewhere. So if I'm
correct, an old-style lightweight steel frame, which would buckle a downtube
if it came across a nasty pothole, probably "absorbs" an impact much better
than a more-durable frame made of your material of choice.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

 

[Scott Gordo]

On Dec 6, 7:33 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Dec 6, 4:00 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:> [email protected] wrote:
> > > Which one of the three seems more bicyclist friendly in a crash?
> > > My (naive? poorly informed?) reaction is: please, no carbon!
> > > I don't want to be impaled on the carbon bits from shattered carbon
> > > parts.
> > > Of course having a sub $1500 budget for a bike helps to fulfill my
> > > wish
> > > Unfortunately most bikes come at least with a carbon seatpost.
> > > Thoughs? Pics of mangled bikes made up of different materials
> > > after serious crashes that totalled at least the frame?
> > > Is titanium likely to absorb the impact better than aluminium?
>
> > The pavement is more likely to be a problem that any frame material:
>
> i was more concerned about the fatal and near fatal crashes
> similar to the ones described in the latest volume of Bicycling.
> (is that magazine worth reading?)
>
> >http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/MIMICRSH.JPGhttp://www....
>
> you sure that was done by the pavement and not by a boyfriend?
> if so i guess those two are a new addition to the customer base of
> full face helmet manufacturers

"Bicycling" is worth reading if you enjoy reading shmaltzy bike
catalogs interspersed with car and booze advertisements. (Though I do
like reading Joe Lindsay's articles on their website.)

A well-made frame is a well-made frame. Aluminum probably suffers the
worst reputation for catastrophic failure, but with few exceptions,
heavy-duty downhill and freeride MTB bikes are made of aluminum. The
vast majority of handlebars, stems, cranks, seatposts, etc are as
well.

Carbon seems to have the second worst reputation, though, as soundly
documented in this group, almost every major manufacturer's road/race
bike over $500 and built this century has a carbon fork with
relatively few complaints.

Titanium, I think, has the fewest complaints, along with the fewest
riders. A sensibly made frame is tough to beat, but as high-end
companies like Litespeed have to compete with aluminum's weight and
carbon's kewl shapes, I'm not sure if it's necessarily as good as it
used to be. I wouldn't be too worried about a new Litespeed at your
price point, though. (Their new Archon goes for $4500 frame and
fork.)

But what do I know?

/s

 

[[email protected]]

On Dec 7, 11:45 am, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> If you're measuring the degree to which an impact is "absorbed" by the
> damage to something, I suspect an object (bicycle frame or whatever) that
> didn't get damaged during an impact didn't actually "absorb" the impact, but
> rather acted as a conduit to transfer the forces elsewhere. So if I'm
> correct, an old-style lightweight steel frame, which would buckle a downtube
> if it came across a nasty pothole, probably "absorbs" an impact much better
> than a more-durable frame made of your material of choice.
>
but i want to have a cake and eat it too: how good is power transfer
on
steel frames? not that i'm a model of pedaling efficiency or anything
but would like to know nevertheless

the shiting quality on my 3 y.o. allez degenerated some recently but
other than that i'm sure i can feel any improvement in the frame over
cheap giant ocr3 that it replaced. so i'm eyeing 105/ultegra
mix more than a better frame as an upgrade option. would
an average rider or below average rider like myself
feel a change to an uber or at least an uberesque frame?

never had a $1000+ bike so i've got to ask.

 

[A Muzi]

> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> If you're measuring the degree to which an impact is "absorbed" by the
>> damage to something, I suspect an object (bicycle frame or whatever) that
>> didn't get damaged during an impact didn't actually "absorb" the impact, but
>> rather acted as a conduit to transfer the forces elsewhere. So if I'm
>> correct, an old-style lightweight steel frame, which would buckle a downtube
>> if it came across a nasty pothole, probably "absorbs" an impact much better
>> than a more-durable frame made of your material of choice.

[email protected] wrote:
> but i want to have a cake and eat it too: how good is power transfer
> on
> steel frames? not that i'm a model of pedaling efficiency or anything
> but would like to know nevertheless
>
> the shiting quality on my 3 y.o. allez degenerated some recently but
> other than that i'm sure i can feel any improvement in the frame over
> cheap giant ocr3 that it replaced. so i'm eyeing 105/ultegra
> mix more than a better frame as an upgrade option. would
> an average rider or below average rider like myself
> feel a change to an uber or at least an uberesque frame?
>
> never had a $1000+ bike so i've got to ask.

'how good is power transfer on steel frames?'

Seemed to work OK for Fausto Coppi, Gino Bartali and Eddy Merckx. Heck
Reg Harris won British Sprints on the exact same bike in 1951 and again
(new tires)in 1974. Material is not the problem here.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> 'how good is power transfer on steel frames?'
>
> Seemed to work OK for Fausto Coppi, Gino Bartali and Eddy Merckx. Heck Reg
> Harris won British Sprints on the exact same bike in 1951 and again (new
> tires)in 1974. Material is not the problem here.
> --
> Andrew Muzi


Nonsense! The fact that a steel frame of that era could so-easily crumple in
a crash is only evidence that the riders were wimps. If they'd been strong
enough, they would have folded those frames in half during a sprint. :>)

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA


"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> If you're measuring the degree to which an impact is "absorbed" by the
>>> damage to something, I suspect an object (bicycle frame or whatever)
>>> that
>>> didn't get damaged during an impact didn't actually "absorb" the impact,
>>> but
>>> rather acted as a conduit to transfer the forces elsewhere. So if I'm
>>> correct, an old-style lightweight steel frame, which would buckle a
>>> downtube
>>> if it came across a nasty pothole, probably "absorbs" an impact much
>>> better
>>> than a more-durable frame made of your material of choice.
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>> but i want to have a cake and eat it too: how good is power transfer
>> on
>> steel frames? not that i'm a model of pedaling efficiency or anything
>> but would like to know nevertheless
>>
>> the shiting quality on my 3 y.o. allez degenerated some recently but
>> other than that i'm sure i can feel any improvement in the frame over
>> cheap giant ocr3 that it replaced. so i'm eyeing 105/ultegra
>> mix more than a better frame as an upgrade option. would
>> an average rider or below average rider like myself
>> feel a change to an uber or at least an uberesque frame?
>>
>> never had a $1000+ bike so i've got to ask.
>
> 'how good is power transfer on steel frames?'
>
> Seemed to work OK for Fausto Coppi, Gino Bartali and Eddy Merckx. Heck Reg
> Harris won British Sprints on the exact same bike in 1951 and again (new
> tires)in 1974. Material is not the problem here.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971