# Why no titanium bikes in pro peloton?



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

I realize this sounds like a topic that has been beaten to death, but being the new owner of a titanium bike (Litespeed T1SL), I cant help but wonder why carbon fiber is now king.

It seems you can easily build a Ti bike that is below the UCI weight limit, and that has excellent ride characteristics. The only thing you cannot do with them is build them to be “aero”, which I think most of us agree is a bunch of BS anyway. (At a mere 30-40mph with a large, clunky object - eg the rider - atop the bike, wind resistance from the bike is comparatively negligible).

Has anyone published any study documenting the superiority of carbon fiber over Al or Ti in the various criteria by which one would evaluate a pro-level bike (eg stiffness, rider positioning, and comfort)?


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

A) Cost of production. CF bikes are easy to mass produce. A Ti bike is not. 

B) Strength/stiffness vs weight. To be as strong/stiff the ti bike will weigh more. Sure you can make a ti bike near the UCI limit--but it will be a noodle and not last very long (There were a few years of pre-buyout Litespeeds where they found this out).


----------



## Akirasho (Jan 27, 2004)

Also, remember that professional road racing (at least) is a marketing tool and rolling billboard

Ti did have it's day in the Pro Peloton (Armstrong rode a Ti (Litespeed?) framed TT bike rebadged as a Trek in at least one tour) and rebadging prolly still goes on if the Pro has enough clout to choose a specific frame's characteristics (less of an issue these days because of the relatively cheap one off cost of CF).

Back in the day, I recall, that upon his retirement, Indurain walked into a shop and bought a Cannondale CAAD off the peg! Course, that was over 20 years ago.


You might see more varied frame materials still used on the track but that's a real niche.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

Waspinator said:


> Has anyone published any study documenting the superiority of carbon fiber over Al or Ti in the various criteria by which one would evaluate a pro-level bike (eg stiffness, rider positioning, and comfort)?


I don't know of any documentation, but I find this video interesting.






Carbon fiber is now king because the frame can take an almost infinite number of shapes, leading to annual market changes and market driven claims of "stronger, stiffer, lighter, more compliant..." which drives demand and sales. Titanium is not amenable to such shaping (nor does it need to be, to be competitive).


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Waspinator said:


> The only thing you cannot do with them is build them to be “aero”, which I think most of us agree is a bunch of BS anyway.


Speak for yourself. At any rate there will always be many who are ill- or misinformed.



Waspinator said:


> (At a mere 30-40mph with a large, clunky object - eg the rider - atop the bike, wind resistance from the bike is comparatively negligible).


And you base this on what? The data show at racing speeds the power savings from an aero frame are easily measured and on the order of the difference in placings.

And to answer your question, first, I'm not sure there isn't a team at the Continental or Pro-Continental level that rides one. Second, the reason there are no titanium frames at the Pro Tour level is that no manufacturer is willing to pay a team to ride one.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Nothing to do with Ti but Spesh is trying to race their new Al at TDU. I think that’s pretty cool. 

Peter Sagan to debut alloy frame and tubeless tyres in Down Under Classic - Gallery | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## MR_GRUMPY (Aug 21, 2002)

Sponsorship…..Besides the hundreds of frames, the sponsor would have to come up with a large pile of money...….And provide a frame that weighs the same as carbon frames.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> Speak for yourself. At any rate there will always be many who are ill- or misinformed.
> 
> 
> And you base this on what? The data show at racing speeds the power savings from an aero frame are easily measured and on the order of the difference in placings.
> ...


Data? What data? 

Can you provide me with a reference to this data?

And better yet, can you provide me with a reference to data acquired by someone actually trained in some field of science who knows how to properly carry out a study, as opposed to some bike frame designer who labeled himself an “engineer”?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Waspinator said:


> Data? What data?


Right. That's the question, where did you get your data? Having presented yourself as knowledgable on the subject, I asked what is the basis for your conclusions. And no, I won't do your work for you.


Waspinator said:


> ...as opposed to some bike frame designer who labeled himself an 'engineer'?


In light of Gerard Vrooman's, Phil White's, and Damon Rinard's backgrounds (not to slight other who I don't recall off hand), that's really funny. At any rate, look for their CVs and white papers.


----------



## BacDoc (Aug 1, 2011)

There might be some Ti bikes, in the past it was not unusual for a pro to go to a frame builder “of honor “ to build a custom frame then paint it to match sponsors.

Now with tech being as state of the art as it is, there’s probably no advantage. The custom magic with steel and Ti is still there but sadly computer algorithm is replacing the hand of the master frame builders for the pros anyway.

Enjoy the ride of your Ti Lightspeed!


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> Speak for yourself. At any rate there will always be many who are ill- or misinformed.
> 
> 
> And you base this on what? The data show at racing speeds the power savings from an aero frame are easily measured and on the order of the difference in placings.
> ...





Marc said:


> A) Cost of production. CF bikes are easy to mass produce. A Ti bike is not.
> 
> B) Strength/stiffness vs weight. To be as strong/stiff the ti bike will weigh more. Sure you can make a ti bike near the UCI limit--but it will be a noodle and not last very long (There were a few years of pre-buyout Litespeeds where they found this out).


I don’t think your strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven. Like many developments in the bike industry, it was presented as fact and everyone simply accepted it and followed suit in choice of frame materials. But I don’t think it’s true.

Moreover, your “won’t last very long” assertion is patently false. At very least, we know that titanium, like steel, can endure an unlimited number of flex cycles below its elastic modulus without failing. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a titanium frame wouldn’t last through multiple pro races. Hell, is there even anecdotal evidence that they don’t last? I doubt it.

I’d be very curious to talk to a company that has real engineers.... ie individuals with PhDs in material sciences who have conducted well-designed research into various building materials. Boeing, for example, would have actual engineers who have carefully studied the various materials such as Al, Ti, and CF and know their properties well.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> Data? What data?
> 
> Can you provide me with a reference to this data?
> 
> And better yet, can you provide me with a reference to data acquired by someone actually trained in some field of science who knows how to properly carry out a study, as opposed to some bike frame designer who labeled himself an “engineer”?


Wow...this is roughly the equivalent of bring a wooden spoon to a gunfight. You should quit while you're not light years behind. Just give up on trying to convince anyone of anything at all in this thread. Read what has been posted...absorb it...and just stop.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Waspinator said:


> I don’t think your strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven. Like many developments in the bike industry, it was presented as fact and everyone simply accepted it and followed suit in choice of frame materials. But I don’t think it’s true.
> 
> Moreover, your “won’t last very long” assertion is patently false. At very least, we know that titanium, like steel, can endure an unlimited number of flex cycles below its elastic modulus without failing. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that a titanium frame wouldn’t last through multiple pro races. *Hell, is there even anecdotal evidence that they don’t last? I doubt it.*
> 
> I’d be very curious to talk to a company that has real engineers.... ie individuals with PhDs in material sciences who have conducted well-designed research into various building materials. Boeing, for example, would have actual engineers who have carefully studied the various materials such as Al, Ti, and CF and know their properties well.


I already told you there was, and even told you specifically when it happened and who manufactured it.


Why do you ask questions on this forum...then argue with answers you clearly haven't read?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

its expensive to sponsor a team. serotta did years ago and it was a factor in their going bankrupt. if you go to some high end fondos targeted at serious amateurs and pros such as the marmotte and the maratona you will see titanium bikes but these are purchased by the athletes themselves.

the answer has nothing to do about the merits of titanium vs carbon but everything to do with economics


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> Speak for yourself. At any rate there will always be many who are ill- or misinformed.
> 
> 
> And you base this on what? The data show at racing speeds the power savings from an aero frame are easily measured and on the order of the difference in placings.
> ...





Marc said:


> A) Cost of production. CF bikes are easy to mass produce. A Ti bike is not.
> 
> B) Strength/stiffness vs weight. To be as strong/stiff the ti bike will weigh more. Sure you can make a ti bike near the UCI limit--but it will be a noodle and not last very long (There were a few years of pre-buyout Litespeeds where they found this out).





BacDoc said:


> There might be some Ti bikes, in the past it was not unusual for a pro to go to a frame builder “of honor “ to build a custom frame then paint it to match sponsors.
> 
> Now with tech being as state of the art as it is, there’s probably no advantage. The custom magic with steel and Ti is still there but sadly computer algorithm is replacing the hand of the master frame builders for the pros anyway.
> 
> Enjoy the ride of your Ti Lightspeed!


BacDoc. Chiropractor or spine surgeon?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Waspinator said:


> At very least, we know that titanium, like steel, can endure an unlimited number of flex cycles below its elastic modulus ...


It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Team Gewiss-Ballan rode titanium DeRosas during the '90s. Drugged up, they kicked butt.

_The team produced winners of the Giro d’Italia – Evgeni Berzin and Ivan Gotti as well as top classic specialists Giorgio Furlan and Nicola Minali. Former World Champion Moreno Argentin finished his career with the team on a high note with stage wins at the 1993 Giro d'Italia as well as the impressive win at La Flèche Wallonne in 1994. The team dominated cycling [on DeRosa titanium bikes] during the 1994 season with Giorgio Furlan winning Tirreno–Adriatico (and Berzin second overall) and Furlan winning Milan–San Remo. Berzin then won Liège–Bastogne–Liège which was followed by Argentin’s win in La Flèche Wallonne. The win in the Fleche Wallonne was impressive because the team *completely dominated the race* with taking all podium places at the race with Argentin, Furlan and Berzin ahead of many greats of cycling at the time including Claudio Chiappucci, Franco Ballerini, Davide Cassani and Gianni Bugno.

After the Fleche Wallonne of 1994, French sports newspaper L'Équipe interviewed the team’s doctor Michele Ferrari. Journalist Jean-Michel Rouet asked Ferrari if his riders used EPO to which Ferrari denied prescribing the drug but said he would not find it wrong, saying that it was not dangerous and compared taking EPO to drinking orange juice. This remark generated controversy and Ferrari later stepped down as team doctor.[2]

Afterwards Berzin won the 1994 Giro d'Italia while Piotr Ugrumov came second overall in 1994 Tour de France. Vladislav Bobrik won the Giro di Lombardia in the late season for the team.

In the following year, the team was not as dominant but still successful. Berzin came second at the 1995 Giro d'Italia behind Tony Rominger and ahead of his teammate Ugrumov. The team *set the record speed of the team time trial at the 1995 Tour de France of 54.930 km/h. This speed stood for ten years until Lance Armstrong's Discovery Channel Team broke it during the 2005 Tour de France.* The Gewiss team beat Laurent Jalabert's Team ONCE to second place and the defending champion Miguel Indurain’s Banesto to third place. Riis would wear the yellow jersey as leader of the general classification in that year’s Tour before eventually finishing third overall._--wiki


----------



## masont (Feb 6, 2010)

Waspinator said:


> Data? What data?
> 
> Can you provide me with a reference to this data?
> 
> And better yet, can you provide me with a reference to data acquired by someone actually trained in some field of science who knows how to properly carry out a study, as opposed to some bike frame designer who labeled himself an “engineer”?


"I'm not willing to do my own research, so I will demand you do it for me and when you refuse I will assume it's because you are wrong. But if you do give me information, so you know, here are the ways I will discredit it"


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

MR_GRUMPY said:


> Sponsorship…..Besides the hundreds of frames, the sponsor would have to come up with a large pile of money...….And provide a frame that weighs the same as carbon frames.


drop the mic.


----------



## steelbikerider (Feb 7, 2005)

Litespeed was a bike sponsor for Lotto in 2002 I believe. They found it was expensive.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

masont said:


> "I'm not willing to do my own research, so I will demand you do it for me and when you refuse I will assume it's because you are wrong. But if you do give me information, so you know, here are the ways I will discredit it"


Of course. That’s how it works. Someone making a claim (or accepting a claim) should support that claim with research.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

The OP has very entrenched opinions about the superiority of titanium, Litespeed, and the T1SL, which he has made clear in previous threads. This is all perfectly fine, as it's always nice to love what you ride. You may or may not agree with him, but I doubt you will sway him.

As much as I love my high-end titanium bikes, they can't compete with my plastic bikes- all "superbikes" of their respective years. The ability to precisely tune the carbon layup just simply cannot be duplicated in production on a metal frame. They're just very, very different animals, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## masont (Feb 6, 2010)

https://imgflip.com/i/2r2x43


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Alaska Mike said:


> The OP has very entrenched opinions about the superiority of titanium, Litespeed, and the T1SL, which he has made clear in previous threads.


yes, troll level stuff but he's serious. Worth considering before banging your head against the wall and telling him anything other that his bike is the best and far superior to any other bike.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> The only thing you cannot do with them is build them to be “aero”, which I think most of us agree is a bunch of BS anyway.





Waspinator said:


> Of course. That’s how it works. Someone making a claim (or accepting a claim) should support that claim with research.


Daaanngg. Do you need a sponge to soak up all that irony?

YOU made the claim... in Post #1.
So PLEASE follow your advice and support your claim with research.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

No Dentists in the ProTour. . .


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Coolhand said:


> No Dentists in the ProTour. . .


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Coolhand again.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

tlg said:


> Daaanngg. Do you need a sponge to soak up all that irony?
> 
> YOU made the claim... in Post #1.
> So PLEASE follow your advice and support your claim with research.


Pretty much this.

YMSSRA.

Aero has only been tested by everyone from PHDs at bike companies to independent PHDS, to independent bike mags to joe blow all unscientific on his local strava segments... 

Just because you choose to ignore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But don't let that stop you from enjoying your slower non aero ti bike.



PBL450 said:


> Nothing to do with Ti but Spesh is trying to race their new Al at TDU. I think that’s pretty cool.
> 
> Peter Sagan to debut alloy frame and tubeless tyres in Down Under Classic - Gallery | Cyclingnews.com


Sagan managed second on it I guess. "New" is subjective though as the sprint frame has been around for a few years, the only new part being the disc brakes.


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

Marc said:


> I already told you there was, and even told you specifically when it happened and who manufactured it.
> 
> 
> Why do you ask questions on this forum...then argue with answers you clearly haven't read?


Even though it happens to be the reality of things, he didn't like your answer therefore it has to wrong.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

Akirasho said:


> Also, remember that professional road racing (at least) is a marketing tool and rolling billboard.


Hence the carbon clinchers that are no better (typically worse) than aluminum rims and idiotic disc brakes (driven largely by the carbon clinchers they pushed).


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

Waspinator said:


> I don’t think your strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven.


Young's modulus of Toray T700S (common in road bikes) is 230 Gpa, and garden variety Ti-6AL-4V is around 115 Gpa. Cooked pasta noodle to uncooked respectively.


----------



## Notvintage (May 19, 2013)

At this point I must ask. . Does Trek make good titanium frames? LOL


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Don't get me wrong, I loved my Moots Compact so much that I bought a Vamoots RSL to build up as a race bike. At my level, the bike isn't what's making me progressively slower. The trade-offs in performance are compensated by the durability, serviceability, and aesthetics (yes, I'm shallow). And again, the trade offs are minimal at my level, which is far, far below the professional level, and nobody is paying me to ride their bikes.

I love titanium as a bike frame material, but it has it's limits- as does every material.


----------



## TimV (Mar 20, 2007)

Titanium bicycle frames are expensive to produce, even in mass quantities. Carbon fiber frames are much less expensive by comparison and can be built to be nearly as light, stiff, strong, etc. 

All of the big name companies build high end carbon road bikes and therefore race high end carbon road bikes. This is simple marketing (race on Sunday sell on Monday). Whether or not titanium might be marginally better than carbon is frankly irrelevant. 

My primary whip is a custom titanium Kish, btw.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Peter P. said:


> I don't know of any documentation, but I find this video interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Outstanding example of flawed experiment. The tubes were not designed for having a truck driven over them, they were designed for the stresses experienced by bicycle frames. 

This is the same flawed argument that the disc brake fans make. It’s not a questions of “better” it’s a question of “good enough for the application.” 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> I’d be very curious to talk to a company that has real engineers.... ie individuals with PhDs in material sciences who have conducted well-designed research into various building materials. Boeing, for example, would have actual engineers who have carefully studied the various materials such as Al, Ti, and CF and know their properties well.


Boeing, Airbus, etc.? You mean the companies whose latest/greatest plane design incorporate copious amounts of carbon fiber composites??? 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> I don’t think your strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven.


Uhhh yea... it's been scientifically proven.




> I’d be very curious to talk to a company that has real engineers.... ie individuals with PhDs in material sciences who have conducted well-designed research into various building materials. Boeing, for example, would have actual engineers who have carefully studied the various materials such as Al, Ti, and CF and know their properties well.


I'm a real engineer. Although I don't have a PhD in material science. But you could ask a Boeing engineer why they make airplanes structures from carbon fiber and not from titanium. :thumbsup:


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

Alaska Mike said:


> As much as I love my high-end titanium bikes, they can't compete with my plastic bikes- all "superbikes" of their respective years. The ability to precisely tune the carbon layup just simply cannot be duplicated in production on a metal frame. They're just very, very different animals, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.


That's if you buy that "tuning" really accomplishes anything but market speak. To me, a frame is supposed to be rigid and is a structure to enable the attachment of components in the proper locations. Tires and tire pressure has more effect than frame material. People say that steel rides better, Ti rides better, carbon fiber is too stiff; it's all BS.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

mfdemicco said:


> That's if you buy that "tuning" really accomplishes anything but market speak. To me, a frame is supposed to be rigid and is a structure to enable the attachment of components in the proper locations. Tires and tire pressure has more effect than frame material. People say that steel rides better, Ti rides better, carbon fiber is too stiff; it's all BS.


I pretty much agree w/ this, same thing when people talk about wheels and 'ride quality'. So many other things contribute to ride quality before wheels and to be honest frames unless you have some kind of mechanical pivot built into the frame somewhere ala iso-speed.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

mfdemicco said:


> That's if you buy that "tuning" really accomplishes anything but market speak. To me, a frame is supposed to be rigid and is a structure to enable the attachment of components in the proper locations. Tires and tire pressure has more effect than frame material. People say that steel rides better, Ti rides better, carbon fiber is too stiff; it's all BS.


Have you ever ridden a bike that was too soft in the tail, that flexed the wheels into the brake pads? How about too stiff, that transmitted too much road vibration to the rider or rode like a cement block? Two extremes that the tuning I speak of mitigates. When you're trying to shave weight, where you put your structural strength is very, very important, no matter what material you use. The ability to make very small tweaks to a layup give carbon fiber a very large advantage in this regard.

I've owned all of the common bike frame materials, across a wide spectrum of performance profiles- usually with the same components attached as I tore down one frameset and built up another. Wheels, tires, and air pressure certainly do matter for ride quality, but frame design does have a very real impact. Certain combinations of parameters are much easier to meet with certain materials.

I don't chase the latest and greatest. I've said it before- the last real advances in road bike frame design were ten years ago. I prefer simple, reliable, and easy to work on. We'll see how I deal with the PF30 bottom bracket on my RSL (adapted to a GXP crank). I'm tired of fishing cables through frames or press-fitting much of anything. I just want to ride my bike, do a quick clean-up and lube afterwards, and get on with life.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

Alaska Mike said:


> Have you ever ridden a bike that was too soft in the tail, that flexed the wheels into the brake pads?


That's caused by low spoke count wheels with a stiff rim.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

taodemon said:


> Pretty much this.
> 
> YMSSRA.
> 
> ...


Good correction, thanks. The frame is not new, my bad, the frame being raced at this level is new. I misplaced my new.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

mfdemicco said:


> That's caused by low spoke count wheels with a stiff rim.


Actually, I've had carbon fiber Cannondale and BMC frames that would flex a 32 spoke aluminum wheel into the brake pads all of the time. The seat/chain stays would flex excessively when out of the saddle. Great ride when cruising around, but when you needed to apply power they worked against you. Same wheelset in another frame would work just fine (same tire clearance). Where they chose to make the frame stiff affected how it performed.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

The takeaway is that it’s expensive and it’s just not that good? If there was some clear performance advantage then someone would be using it. Hell, Sky has no budget limits and lives on “marginal gains.” If there was any incremental advantage they’d be riding it. At that level, no one is leaving an edge on the table. I’ve never ridden Ti and I’m sure it has its merits, they just obviously aren’t falling into the performance category.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Aluminum makes a good crit frame because it's cheap (crash replacement) and you can get the required stiffness for the constant effort spikes in a weight that is acceptable. It's why the CAAD and Smartweld frames are so popular. It's not a big leap for this particular race. I think it's cool that he would do it.

Given the choice, I don't think Sagan would opt for an aluminum frame by any manufacturer over the current options he has in carbon fiber for normal World Tour Races. While the geometry certainly plays into this, material does matter over a four hour race.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Alaska Mike said:


> Actually, I've had carbon fiber Cannondale and BMC frames that would flex a 32 spoke aluminum wheel into the brake pads all of the time. The seat/chain stays would flex excessively when out of the saddle. Great ride when cruising around, *but when you needed to apply power they worked against you.* Same wheelset in another frame would work just fine (same tire clearance). Where they chose to make the frame stiff affected how it performed.


Explain this please. If you put energy into a frame and make it flex where does the energy go? There are only 2 things that can happen( I'm pretty sure @asgelle would know for sure)...let's see if you get them right.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

PBL450 said:


> The takeaway is that it’s expensive and it’s just not that good? If there was some clear performance advantage then someone would be using it. Hell, Sky has no budget limits and lives on “marginal gains.” If there was any incremental advantage they’d be riding it. At that level, no one is leaving an edge on the table. I’ve never ridden Ti and I’m sure it has its merits, they just obviously aren’t falling into the performance category.


From a performance standpoint, Ti can be made to perform really well. Steel can too, as can aluminum. You can build any of these materials into a very respectable race bike. That said, each has its own set of trade-offs when you're seeking performance, Maybe it's weight. Maybe it's comfort. Maybe it's cost.

At this moment, carbon is the most infinitely tune-able material for frame design. It's also cheaper to experiment with different layups within an existing mold to achieve a desired result that can be replicated time after time. Metal bikes rely much more heavily on the skill and knowledge of the builder (machinist, welder...) to ensure a predictable outcome.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Alaska Mike said:


> From a performance standpoint, Ti can be made to perform really well. Steel can too, as can aluminum. You can build any of these materials into a very respectable race bike. That said, each has its own set of trade-offs when you're seeking performance, Maybe it's weight. Maybe it's comfort. Maybe it's cost.
> 
> At this moment, carbon is the most infinitely tune-able material for frame design. It's also cheaper to experiment with different layups within an existing mold to achieve a desired result that can be replicated time after time. Metal bikes rely much more heavily on the skill and knowledge of the builder (machinist, welder...) to ensure a predictable outcome.


^This^


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

cxwrench said:


> Explain this please. If you put energy into a frame and make it flex where does the energy go? There are only 2 things that can happen( I'm pretty sure @asgelle would know for sure)...let's see if you get them right.


In these cases, straight into the brake pads (friction), thanks to the flexible nature of the carbon layup.

Believe me, I love that wound-up feeling of a well-made steel or titanium frame. I seriously doubt much energy is converted to heat in the case of a bicycle frame, but there are likely parasitic characteristics that differ between each material.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Alaska Mike said:


> In these cases, *straight into the brake pads* (friction), thanks to the flexible nature of the carbon layup.
> 
> Believe me, I love that wound-up feeling of a well-made steel or titanium frame. I seriously doubt much energy is converted to heat in the case of a bicycle frame, but there are likely parasitic characteristics that differ between each material.


Read my question again. When the frame flexes w/ the initial pedal input...what happens next? You're putting energy into the frame. No...the energy does not go into the brake pads. We're only talking about the frame here. Nothing else. Remember your physics class?


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

I don't buy that Ti frames are too expensive for a pro team. These team budget would hardly be affected by the difference in cost. When I have shopped for frames for myself, it really is the carbon frames which seem to retail for the higher prices. A nice Lynskey Ti frame can be had for as low as $600 these days and commons around $1000 - a made in USA hand-welded legit Ti racing frame, made by the same people who founded and made those Litespeed for nigh on 30 years. When I shopped for a carbon frame last year I had to settle for a 3 yr old leftover model for $1000 (Kona Superjake), and more recently I have been shopping for a full sus trail bike carbon frame and they start at about $2000 for a 2 year old model, and $3-5k for a nice new one. I know an S-Works carbon Road frame on par with what more pro teams us is like $4-5k or so nowadays too - definitely no more than a custom order, high-margin Seven Ti frame.

Carbon frames are also extremely labour intensive to produce, compared to alu and steel, and perhaps similar or more labour intensive than Ti from what I can tell.

I just think Ti isn't used because technology has moved on, the Carbon is lighter and the companies in the business of sponsoring pro cycling want them on the latest carbon steeds because that is what sells. But price is not important in this equation - and even if it was the Ti would not cost more.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

BCSaltchucker said:


> I don't buy that Ti frames are too expensive for a pro team.


No Pro Tour team pays for frames. They’re all given free frames plus significant cash. At the Continental level, teams may have to buy frames at a discount, but any team that has to buy its frames does have budget worries that would make cost a significant consideration.


----------



## BCSaltchucker (Jul 20, 2011)

asgelle said:


> No Pro Tour team pays for frames. They’re all given free frames plus significant cash. At the Continental level, teams may have to buy frames at a discount, but any team that has to buy its frames does have budget worries that would make cost a significant consideration.


I agree. And a conti or lower team could likely find Ti frames for as cheap as any carbon frame. But they'd find so much more to choose from in carbon, and knowing they are lighter and perhaps better, I can't see them choosing Ti - even if the Ti frames where cheaper.

(I have no dog in the hunt. Ride both ti and carbon, and also Alu and steel, myself)


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

BCSaltchucker said:


> I agree. And a conti or lower team could likely find Ti frames for as cheap as any carbon frame. But they'd find so much more to choose from in carbon, and knowing they are lighter and perhaps better, I can't see them choosing Ti - even if the Ti frames where cheaper.
> 
> (I have no dog in the hunt. Ride both ti and carbon, and also Alu and steel, myself)


Genesis raced for a bit on 953 stainless recently. FWIW:

https://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/genesis-bikes-update-volare-953-team-frameset.html

Granted...they're the exception AFAIK.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Here's the deal. There aren't any major manufacturers making Ti frames and marketing them as their 'top of the line'. None. So none of the major brands would want to pay a pro team AND supply them w/ well over 100 frames if it's not something they're wanting to sell a ton of. There has to be a big time ROI to make the deal happen. The companies that do make Ti frames are small. They can't afford to produce a ton of frames, give them to a team, AND pay to play. Not gonna happen. All of the big names settled on carbon many years ago as the material they would use for their race bikes. Once everyone had the :idea: moment and understood how important aerodynamics are they knew that carbon was the only material that would enable them to make the shapes needed. Added bonus: it's very light. 
And as much as it will pain @waspinator there are actually real and very experienced engineers throughout the bicycle industry, many of them w/ doctoral degrees.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

On a perfectly stiff bike and drivetrain (impossible), almost all of the energy put into a pedal stroke would translate into forward momentum. No energy would be dissipated into lateral movement of the frame.

In the case of my BMC's and Cannondale's layup, the rear triangle would deform to the point that the wheel would be forced into the brake pad, thus reducing the power available for forward momentum. Brake pads don't absorb and then release power in a positive way, because we really wouldn't want them to. This wasn't a spring effect- it was a noodle effect. As the frame rebounded, it had to overcome the initial resistance of the brake pad and the inertia of the wheel. As the rear triangle had deformed, some of the energy was projected laterally instead of forward as the wheel straightened out. This was obviously less than optimal for handling and performance.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> Here's the deal. There aren't any major manufacturers making Ti frames and marketing them as their 'top of the line'. None. So none of the major brands would want to pay a pro team AND supply them w/ well over 100 frames if it's not something they're wanting to sell a ton of. There has to be a big time ROI to make the deal happen. The companies that do make Ti frames are small. They can't afford to produce a ton of frames, give them to a team, AND pay to play. Not gonna happen. All of the big names settled on carbon many years ago as the material they would use for their race bikes. Once everyone had the :idea: moment and understood how important aerodynamics are they knew that carbon was the only material that would enable them to make the shapes needed. Added bonus: it's very light.
> And as much as it will pain @waspinator there are actually real and very experienced engineers throughout the bicycle industry, many of them w/ doctoral degrees.


very few engineers in the bicycle industry are doctorates. The industry can't afford to pay them.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Alaska Mike said:


> On a perfectly stiff bike and drivetrain (impossible), almost all of the energy put into a pedal stroke would translate into forward momentum. *No energy would be dissipated into lateral movement of the frame.*
> 
> In the case of my BMC's and Cannondale's layup, the rear triangle would deform to the point that the wheel would be forced into the brake pad, thus reducing the power available for forward momentum. Brake pads don't absorb and then release power in a positive way, because we really wouldn't want them to. This wasn't a spring effect- it was a noodle effect. As the frame rebounded, it had to overcome the initial resistance of the brake pad and the inertia of the wheel. As the rear triangle had deformed, some of the energy was projected laterally instead of forward as the wheel straightened out. This was obviously less than optimal for handling and performance.


Remember Newton's third law? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? If the frame flexes, it will flex back. Where does the energy go? Not into heat, so into the return flex of the frame.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

Whatever happened to inexpensive Russian and Chinese Ti frames? The Russians have a lot of experience with Ti from their defense industry. 

What as always struck me as odd about Ti is that you hardly see any Ti forks. You hear this and that excuse about that. I've always felt that if the material was so much better than the alternatives, you'd see forks made from it. Not to be and thus the myth of Ti being such a great material for bicycles come crashing down.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

mfdemicco said:


> Whatever happened to inexpensive Russian and Chinese Ti frames? The Russians have a lot of experience with Ti from their defense industry.


I have a Russian titanium frame. The welds are as good as any I have seen, but the quality of the raw materials is a big unknown. 

There are a lot of companies (mostly boutique) outsourcing their ti manufacturing to Chinese and Russian companies. Why Cycles comes to mind. The quality of the product is often determined by the quality of the sourcing company's oversight of the entire process. Otherwise, the contractor can sub-contract out to other companies, leading to all sorts of mysteries in the supply chains. All titanium is not created equally, even among similar grades.

So far, I've been very happy with my Russian frame. It's held up to TSA many times, which is something I can't say for several aluminum and carbon frames over the years. Other people may not have the same experience, as with any frame made of any material whose parentage is unclear.


> What as always struck me as odd about Ti is that you hardly see any Ti forks. You hear this and that excuse about that. I've always felt that if the material was so much better than the alternatives, you'd see forks made from it. Not to be and thus the myth of Ti being such a great material for bicycles come crashing down.


Again, not the easiest or cheapest material to work with. When a company can source a quality carbon fork for $200, why would they want to bother making a titanium fork with similar performance characteristics for more money (think skilled labor man-hours)? Aesthetically, the metal fork is less popular today among the average buyer than the swoopy, aero-looking lines you can create with carbon.

Again, all frame materials have their advantages and disadvantages. Ti is a great frame material in the hands of a true craftsman. A well-made titanium bike is a joy to ride, and some of us greatly prefer their looks over the latest carbon wonderbike. Yes, they can be built to perform at a very high level. Steve Tilford used to race ti exclusively, and did ok for an old man.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

cxwrench said:


> Remember Newton's third law? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? If the frame flexes, it will flex back. Where does the energy go? Not into heat, so into the return flex of the frame.


Yes, but it depends on how the frame flexes under load- which comes back to how the carbon is laid down.

If a frame deflects laterally, it will bounce back laterally, wasting some of the input energy intended for forward propulsion.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> very few engineers in the bicycle industry are doctorates. The industry can't afford to pay them.


Really? I'd imagine every competitor in the aero game has a PhD or two.
Heck, Specialized could afford to build their very own wind tunnel. Recruited Chris Yu, a PhD in the field of High Fidelity Flow Simulation

Nathan Barry, one of Cannondale’s team of design engineers, is an aero specialist and has a background in aerodynamics, specializing in bicycles — he’s published papers and his PhD on how to analyse real world aero for bicycling .

Canyon head of R&D is Dr. Michael Kaiser


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

FWIW- steel was better for low production craftsmen/artists, carbon fiber was better for aero, lightness, ride quality, fatigue life, ease of production scaling, and design flexibility, and Aluminum took over the low end. Ti didn't have much left. Ti is like Campy, a sub-optimal choice made because of what it is to the buyer. Ti isn't a logical choice, its an emotional one for the buyer. 

Also FWIW, in my opinion the Ti bikes I have owned were no better than the Steel bikes I owned, nor decidedly better than the CAAD5 I owned (but were *way* more expensive). The Ti bikes were better than the early carbon bikes I owned, and not nearly as good as the last two generations of carbon bikes I have owned.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

mfdemicco said:


> That's if you buy that "tuning" really accomplishes anything but market speak. To me, a frame is supposed to be rigid and is a structure to enable the attachment of components in the proper locations. Tires and tire pressure has more effect than frame material. People say that steel rides better, Ti rides better, carbon fiber is too stiff; it's all BS.


I moved everything from one frame to another, kept using the same PSI, so the only variable is the frame and I disagree strongly.
I'd agree it didn't necessarily have anything to do with what the frames were made of but the implication that frame doesn't matter at all I find absurd.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> Wow...this is roughly the equivalent of bring a wooden spoon to a gunfight.


Or this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNh51G84WZY




Waspinator said:


> Of course. That’s how it works. Someone making a claim (or accepting a claim) should support that claim with research.


Pot meet kettle.

Weren't you the guy who claimed that quick release was vastly superior to thru-axle for disc brake bikes? And IIRC, you also claimed that post mount was superior to flat mount.

Hello Waspinator!


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I moved everything from one frame to another, kept using the same PSI, so the only variable is the frame and I disagree strongly.
> I'd agree it didn't necessarily have anything to do with what the frames were made of but the implication that frame doesn't matter at all I find absurd.


 I have been using the same components/wheels with the last 3 carbon frames I have had (an original venge, tarmac sl5 and now sl6) and the difference in how they ride/feel is noticeably different despite all 3 having very similar geometry so the idea that the frame doesn't matter seems pretty silly to me too.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

taodemon said:


> I have been using the same components/wheels with the last 3 carbon frames I have had (an original venge, tarmac sl5 and now sl6) and the difference in how they ride/feel is noticeably different despite all 3 having very similar geometry so the idea that the frame doesn't matter seems pretty silly to me too.


So are you saying that all three of these bikes have exactly the same brand and make of tires, the same size tires inflated to exactly the same pressure?

Tires will make the biggest difference in ride quality. Everything else is comparatively minuscule.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I moved everything from one frame to another, kept using the same PSI, so the only variable is the frame and I disagree strongly.
> I'd agree it didn't necessarily have anything to do with what the frames were made of but the implication that frame doesn't matter at all I find absurd.


Do both frames have the same geometry? If not, it's not a fair comparison. 

By your second paragraph, you are agreeing with me. That is what I was saying.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

mfdemicco said:


> Do both frames have the same geometry? If not, it's not a fair comparison.
> By your second paragraph, you are agreeing with me. That is what I was saying.


Slightly different but resulting in identical fit. Geometry was close enough to duplicate the fit exactly with one less spacer and about half a cm less set back.

And no, I am not agreeing with this: "That's if you buy that "tuning" really accomplishes anything but market speak. To me, a frame is supposed to be rigid and is a structure to enable the attachment of components in the proper locations."

I would agree with this: "People say that steel rides better, Ti rides better, carbon fiber is too stiff; it's all BS."


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.


I know exactly what these terms mean.

Elastic modulus refers to a material’s ability to flex elastically. The upper limit of elastic modulus is yield strength, at which the material flexes plastically (ie it doesn’t return to its original shape). So, bend a bar of metal less than to the point that it would bend permanently, and it’ll flex back.

Metals like Ti and steel typically can flex below this point an unlimited number of times. Aluminum cannot.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.





OldChipper said:


> Boeing, Airbus, etc.? You mean the companies whose latest/greatest plane design incorporate copious amounts of carbon fiber composites???
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Precisely. Did it ever cross your mind that they chose composites because titanium would be too expensive?


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.





Notvintage said:


> Young's modulus of Toray T700S (common in road bikes) is 230 Gpa, and garden variety Ti-6AL-4V is around 115 Gpa. Cooked pasta noodle to uncooked respectively.


Tensile strength and modulus of elasticity are not the same thing. They may be related - one may affect the other - but they are not the same characteristic of a material. What’s more, you cannot s


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.





Notvintage said:


> Young's modulus of Toray T700S (common in road bikes) is 230 Gpa, and garden variety Ti-6AL-4V is around 115 Gpa. Cooked pasta noodle to uncooked respectively.


Tensile strength and modulus of elasticity are not the same thing. They may be related - one may affect the other - but they are not the same characteristic of a material. What’s more, you cannot simply look at the individual properties of a material in its unbuilt form and extrapolate it into an estimation of the properties of the product it’s being used to build. Steel is a fat “stiffer” metal than aluminum, yet steel frames are known to flex more (because of how they must be built up).


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> Precisely. Did it ever cross your mind that they chose composites because titanium would be too expensive?


lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.

The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs. 

Cost of the plane is a small factor. Cost of fuel is significantly larger factor. Airlines would gladly pay more for a plane made from titanium if it was lighter and saved fuel costs over 20 years. 

BOEING UPS THE ANTE WITH COMPOSITE-LOADED 787-10 DREAMLINER
So, what is it about the 787-10 that makes the plane so attractive? Drastic improvements in fuel mileage and emissions made possible by a full range of composites that make up entire sections of the plane, including the wings and fuselage.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
When the Boeing 747 was first introduced in 1970, it was believed that the company had reached the absolute limit in size and weight.

Engineers have to look at a number of factors when designing a new airplane. First is the total weight of the aircraft, including the aircraft itself along with passengers and cargo. Aerodynamic principles dictate that in order to lift a certain amount of weight off the ground, a plane's wing span has to be commensurate. The more weight you add, the bigger the wings have to be.

COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER
So, how did we get from the '70s-era 747 to the modern 787-10? By taking advantage of composite materials. Things like fiber composite panels offer superior strength and rigidity without excess weight. In fact, everything from carbon fiber tubing to fabricated sheets and panels offer the strength and rigidity needed for airframe construction but at a much lower cost in terms of weight.

The 787-10 can seat 330 passengers and fly more than 6,000 nautical miles because of the advantages of composite materials. It is a 224-foot aircraft with a wingspan of just under 200 feet, so every major airport in the world can accommodate it. Its main advantage is fuel savings.

By drastically reducing fuel consumption without sacrificing seating capacity, Boeing has created an aircraft that generates higher revenues per seat. In the ultra-competitive world of commercial airlines, this is everything.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.





cxwrench said:


> there are actually real and very experienced engineers throughout the bicycle industry, many of them w/ doctoral degrees.


Yeah. Sure there are.

I mean, why not? It’s every newly-graduated engineering PhD’s dream to go design bicycles. What could be more enticing than that?


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.





cxwrench said:


> Remember Newton's third law? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? If the frame flexes, it will flex back. Where does the energy go? Not into heat, so into the return flex of the frame.


Ummm....

I’m afraid that you misunderstood Newton’s third law.

The “equal and opposite” force is simultaneous - eg when you push against a wall, the wall simultaneously pushes against you. That’s the idea.

A bike frame flexing and rebounding back is not an example of Newton’s third law. 

That being said, work (in Joules) imparted unto the frame to bend it is more than the work. (in Joules) carried out by the frame flexing back. The loss of energy (ie Joules) is to heat.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.





tlg said:


> lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.
> 
> The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs.
> 
> ...


Dude... did you even read what you quoted? This ar


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> Dude... did you even read what you quoted? This ar


Dude.... yea. Did you? 
Do you still not understand why they chose composites over titanium?


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.





tlg said:


> lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.
> 
> The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs.
> 
> ...


A couple comments in response:

1. First, just because Boeing can take advantage of composite’s benefits doesn’t mean bicycle companies can. Boeing is a large company that hires PhDs galore to study every last aspect of every airplane. Hell, my father had a PhD in mechanical engineering (his thesis was on acoustics) and Boeing hired him to study the acoustics in airplanes. Your average schmo designing bike frames is not playing anywhere even remotely near Boeing’s playing field.

2. Boeing has access to materials and manufacturing techniques and quality control techniques that no bicycle company has, or would be willing to even attempt to acquire.

3. This quote from Boeing doesn’t say anything about cost. Remember the objective of the 787 Dreamliner: the plane was designed to be a plane that would be built in large quantities, traveling to ‘smaller’ destinations as opposed to fewer planes flying to fewer and larger hubs (which is what Airbus bet on when they produced the A380) . Hence, using lower-cost materials was paramount to Boeing and the Dreamliner. That means Ti was out.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> A couple comments in response:
> 
> 1. First, just because Boeing can take advantage of composite’s benefits doesn’t mean bicycle companies can.


You seriously don't think bicycle companies aren't taking advantage of composites? :shocked:





> 3. This quote from Boeing doesn’t say anything about cost. Remember the objective of the 787 Dreamliner: the plane was designed to be a plane that would be built in large quantities, traveling to ‘smaller’ destinations as opposed to fewer planes flying to fewer and larger hubs (which is what Airbus bet on when they produced the A380) . Hence, using lower-cost materials was paramount to Boeing and the Dreamliner. That means Ti was out.


Read it again.
IT'S ALL ABOUT THE WEIGHT
COMPOSITE MATERIALS ARE THE ANSWER

It doesn't say anything about costs because that wasn't the objective. Contrary to what you made up.
"In response to the preferences of airlines around the world, Boeing Commercial Airplanes' new airplane is the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, a super-efficient airplane. *The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane* that had the seating capacity of a 767 and the range and speed of a 777 or 747."

Yes it's about costs. Fuel costs. Achieved by the superior strength to weight ratio of composts.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

cxwrench said:


> Wow...this is roughly the equivalent of bring a wooden spoon to a gunfight. You should quit while you're not light years behind. Just give up on trying to convince anyone of anything at all in this thread. Read what has been posted...absorb it...and just stop.


some people when offered a rope really just want there to be a shovel at the end so they can dig faster.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.





tlg said:


> You seriously don't think bicycle companies aren't taking advantage of composites? :shocked:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Boeing makes money by selling airplanes for more than it costs to make them. 

You think cost wasn’t a consideration for Boeing? Seriously?


----------



## craiger_ny (Jun 24, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> Yeah. Sure there are.
> 
> I mean, why not? It’s every newly-graduated engineering PhD’s dream to go design bicycles. What could be more enticing than that?


A person may not entirely know where their career will take them. We work with a supplier of ours that has a number of folks on hand with PhDs. They make gears, that's all they make. I doubt those folks were chomping at the bit to get that degree so they could enter the exciting world of designing and manufacturing gears but rather it was likely something that they incrementally worked their way into as both their interests and opportunities grew for them.

There was never a day that I pictured myself a designer of custom gages and programmer of various types of measuring equipment but it's where I have come to find myself.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

den bakker said:


> some people when offered a rope really just want there to be a shovel at the end so they can dig faster.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to den bakker again.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> Boeing makes money by selling airplanes for more than it costs to make them.
> 
> You think cost wasn’t a consideration for Boeing? Seriously?


It would really help the conversation if you actually read.



tlg said:


> lmao. No that is NOT why they chose composites. Give it up! Strength to Weight is a real thing.
> 
> The Boeing Dreamliner airframe is nearly half carbon fiber reinforced plastic and other composites. Reducing weight by 20 percent compared to more conventional designs.
> 
> *Cost of the plane is a small factor. Cost of fuel is significantly larger factor. *


This is really basic stuff. 

*The original customer objectives set for the 787 program in 2002 were for a more-efficient airplane * Not the cost of the plane. Airlines will pay whatever Boeing charged for the plane for significant fuel savings.


So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven? Seriously?


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.





tlg said:


> It would really help the conversation if you actually read.
> 
> This is really basic stuff.
> 
> ...


Fuel economy is only relevant to Boeing inasmuch as it is a selling feature for the plane.

But for Boeing itself, they needed to accomplish this in a way that was as inexpensive as possible. It is entirely possible that CF was superior in this way alone.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

tlg said:


> It would really help the conversation if you actually read.
> 
> This is really basic stuff.
> 
> ...


I mean we all know how the market is saturated with titanium sub-1kg bike frames. I mean geeze, you hear about sub-800gram titanium frames all the time for road use.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> Fuel economy is only relevant to Boeing inasmuch as it is a selling feature for the plane.


Well duh. That's why that was their original objective. To sell planes. 


So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven? Seriously?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Marc said:


> I mean we all know how the market is saturated with titanium sub-1kg bike frames. I mean geeze, you hear about sub-800gram titanium frames all the time for road use.


lol I was just looking into that. I'm not up to speed on weights of Ti frames so was doing some research. Lightest I could find was Litespeed T1sl @ 1050g.
An Émonda SLR 9 frame weighs 640 grams.

Surely it has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> It doesn’t help to use big words when you don’t know what they mean.





tlg said:


> lol I was just looking into that. I'm not up to speed on weights of Ti frames so was doing some research. Lightest I could find was Litespeed T1sl @ 1050g.
> An Émonda SLR 9 frame weighs 640 grams.
> 
> Surely it has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.


If you’ll read my original post, you’ll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

Moreover, you have to realize that there hasn’t been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> If you’ll read my original post, you’ll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.


So what? The UCI weight limit has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio. 



> Moreover, you have to realize that there hasn’t been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.


lol You haven't heard of hydroforming? Never seen a CAAD12? 


*So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven? Seriously?*


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> I
> 
> Moreover, you have to realize that there hasn’t been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> If you’ll read my original post, you’ll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.
> 
> Moreover, you have to realize that there hasn’t been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into *straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it,* and little else.


Looked at your own bike lately? Not exactly straight, round tubes.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Waspinator said:


> If you’ll read my original post, you’ll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.
> 
> *Moreover, you have to realize that there hasn’t been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.*



Just stop posting about this already...you're only proving how little you know by arguing with those who know more than you.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Lombard said:


> So are you saying that all three of these bikes have exactly the same brand and make of tires, the same size tires inflated to exactly the same pressure?
> 
> Tires will make the biggest difference in ride quality. Everything else is comparatively minuscule.


I've been using the same HED jet 5 wheels with conti gp4000ii pretty much the whole time for the past 5 years and I always inflate my tires to the same pressure. Occasionally I would pick up an Sworks turbo from the bike store when I ran out of contis before my next online order arrived. The turbos never lasted me long so I would be back on conti's in a month or two. 

14k miles on the venge, 6k on the sl5, 2.3k so far on the sl6 from july of 2018. I've just moved all the components/wheels to each new frame. The biggest difference in ride quality being the SL5 to SL6. The original venge had pretty much identical geometry to the sl5 and the sl6 is fairly close to the sl5 as well in this regard.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Waspinator said:


> If you’ll read my original post, you’ll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.
> 
> Moreover, you have to realize that there hasn’t been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else.


Did you just wake from a 30yr nap?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Marc said:


> Just stop posting about this already...you're only proving how little you know by arguing with those who know more than you.


No, it's all of us that are wrong. Especially those of us that have been in the industry for over 20 years and worked for teams for 15 years. We know nothing about why certain materials are used or not, and have no clue about the level of education in the industry. It might be fun if Waspy let us know what he does for a living and we can all second guess the **** outta him.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> No, it's all of us that are wrong. Especially those of us that have been in the industry for over 20 years and worked for teams for 15 years. We know nothing about why certain materials are used or not, and have no clue about the level of education in the industry. *It might be fun if Waspy let us know what he does for a living and we can all second guess the **** outta him.*


He did mention that his dad had a PhD, but never divulged his own education or profession. Hmmmm.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

cxwrench said:


> It might be fun if Waspy let us know what he does for a living and we can all second guess the **** outta him.


I'm sure he's scouring the interwebs looking for something to come back and "school us" that the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

tlg said:


> I'm sure he's scouring the interwebs looking for something to come back and "school us" that the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven.


I'm sure you're right!


----------



## Finx (Oct 19, 2017)

Coolhand said:


> FWIW- steel was better for low production craftsmen/artists, carbon fiber was better for aero, lightness, ride quality, fatigue life, ease of production scaling, and design flexibility, and Aluminum took over the low end. Ti didn't have much left. Ti is like Campy, a sub-optimal choice made because of what it is to the buyer. Ti isn't a logical choice, its an emotional one for the buyer.
> 
> Also FWIW, in my opinion the Ti bikes I have owned were no better than the Steel bikes I owned, nor decidedly better than the CAAD5 I owned (but were *way* more expensive). The Ti bikes were better than the early carbon bikes I owned, and not nearly as good as the last two generations of carbon bikes I have owned.


All Ti bikes are not created equal. I have no idea what (Ti bike) you are comparing here in terms of bike type (racing, touring, MTB, etc..), design and engineering, manufacturing, etc...


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

Originally Posted by *Waspinator*

_"If you’ll read my original post, you’ll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

Moreover, you have to realize that there hasn’t been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else. "_

I have this wild idea, yo waspinator, instead of going back and forth with us; why don't you shoot an email to Ernesto or Giovanni or Mr. Sinyard and ask them the very same question. Get the answer directly from the horse's mouth. Errrr so to speak. And when they give you an answer you don't like and tell you that "well you can start your own bike company and you can start building titanium frames for the Pro Peloton, good luck" you wont hold it against them will you?

You can also impress Ernesto and Giovanni by telling them what a couple of fools they were for using short round (for the most part) tubing to build bikes with all those years.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Alaska Mike said:


> From a performance standpoint, Ti can be made to perform really well. Steel can too, as can aluminum. You can build any of these materials into a very respectable race bike. That said, each has its own set of trade-offs when you're seeking performance, Maybe it's weight. Maybe it's comfort. Maybe it's cost.
> 
> At this moment, carbon is the most infinitely tune-able material for frame design. It's also cheaper to experiment with different layups within an existing mold to achieve a desired result that can be replicated time after time. Metal bikes rely much more heavily on the skill and knowledge of the builder (machinist, welder...) to ensure a predictable outcome.


My point is not detracting from Ti being a capable material for a race frame. It is, rather, that if it, in the hands of the very finest metallurgists the world has ever known, had a performance advantage, it would be being exploited. Same for Al or freaking magnesium for example... It is a failure from a racing perspective. Not because of the cost or magical abilities required of the welders, but because it just isn’t good enough to warrant the effort. “Some dude raced on it” is far from a rave. It is the definition of damned by faint praise. If you are interested in elite race materials in your hobby/amateur bike, Ti is a wholesale failure. If you love it, good for you, I’m not concerned with our use. It isn’t raced because it sucks.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> So what? The UCI weight limit has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.
> 
> lol You haven't heard of hydroforming? Never seen a CAAD12?
> 
> ...


I am fully aware of hydroforming tubes. But the frame is still a collection of tubes welded together.... much like the old carbon fiber bikes that consisted of carbon fiber tubes bonded into metal lugs. There are other ways to make metal structures lighter and stronger. While metal doesn’t have the directional strength they carbon fiber does, it can be combined in other ways than welding to improve strength. But it requires technology and expense the bike industry doesn’t have. It’s somply easier for them to build CF frames because the technique is simple.

But again, there is a UCI weight limit that a bike of any material can meet, while delivering a perfectly stiff ride.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> Looked at your own bike lately? Not exactly straight, round tubes.


The tubes are straight. And they’re welded. Litespeed was able to make a 6/4 tapered top tube by rolling and welding a sheet of metal, but in the end, the frame is just welded tubes. 

Trek, it seems, has made some fancy-shaped aluminum tubes. Alas, these frames too are welded tubes.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> But again, there is a UCI weight limit that a bike of any material can meet, while delivering a perfectly stiff ride.


 Of course the UCI weight limit has nothing to do with the strength to weight ratio. They can make larger aero shaped frame designs for less weight. And apply the weight saved to other areas like handlebars. 


*How many times must I ask? So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven?*


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

Lombard said:


> He did mention that his dad had a PhD, but never divulged his own education or profession. Hmmmm.


I’m a doctor (eg physician). And I’ve taken courses aplenty in physics and materials science along the way. And I read. A lot.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> And I’ve taken courses aplenty in physics and materials science along the way. And I read. A lot.


With all those courses and reading.... you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven? :skep:


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> With all those courses and reading.... you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven? :skep:


As an absolute? No. Within the limitations of the bike industry’s abilities. Yes.

I think there is a lot left to discover about the ability of metals and more manufacturing techniques to develop, but the bike industry doesn’t have the wallet or the education for it. Hopefully technology will trickle down from bigger industries.

But once again, and for the umpteenth time: an aluminum or Ti frame can be built light and stiff enough and even dip below the UCI limit.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> As an absolute? No. Within the limitations of the bike industry’s abilities. Yes.


So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.



> But once again, and for the umpteenth time: an aluminum or Ti frame can be built light and stiff enough and even dip below the UCI limit.


And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.
> 
> And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?


I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.

Want proof?

Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.

Why do pro riders ride bikes heavier than the UCI limit? Sponsorship.


----------



## MaxKatt (May 30, 2015)

Okay, with a chance to be pioneer, I think I'll go Pro this year and ride Titanium. Will report back with findings.

Please find me on KickStarter under TiGuyPodiumHigh (Team TGPH) Thanks in advance for your support.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.


Ahhh because you said so? lmao



> Want proof?
> 
> Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.
> 
> Why do pro riders ride bikes heavier than the UCI limit? Sponsorship.


OMG the irony of those two statements. Now that's just silly. Uhhh yea, manufacturers are making top end bikes that aren't aero. And Pro's ride them. Like the Emonda... which weighs under 14lbs. 

*So please enlighten us!*... why would a Pro choose a 17lb Madone over an 14lb Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. They're sponsored to ride both. )


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.
> 
> And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?





tlg said:


> Ahhh because you said so? lmao
> 
> OMG the irony of those two statements. Now that's just silly. Uhhh yea, manufacturers are making top end bikes that aren't aero. And Pro's ride them. Like the Emonda... which weighs under 14lbs.
> 
> *So please enlighten us!*... why would a Pro choose a 17lb Madone over an 14lb Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. They're sponsored to ride both. )


The 14lb Emonda isn’t allowed in UCI sanctioned races, if I’m not mistaken.

So that leaves the Madone. And riders will pretty much ride what the team is supplied. Business trumps everything. Including winning.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.
> 
> Want proof?
> 
> ...


Why would the pros use a heavier (above uci limit) aero bike at all if they didn't make a difference and they could just use a light weight (at uci limit) bike of the same sponsorship if aero was negligible? The science of aero has been proven and tested repeatedly including independent PHD testers. I would be afraid to be one of your patients given how dense you are about things repeatedly tested and proven. Do you still feel lobotomies are an effective treatment to mental disorders? Maybe you should look into getting one done to yourself as you might see some improvement.:mad2:

You don't even need to be a phd to understand that if something wasn't effective and in fact determental by being heavier it wouldn't be used by pros. I can't imagine Sagan waking up and saying, "today I don't feel like winning so I'll use the aero bike".  

Sky only rides aero bikes... they must be doing something wrong.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> The 14lb Emonda isn’t allowed in UCI sanctioned races, if I’m not mistaken.
> 
> So that leaves the Madone. And riders will pretty much ride what the team is supplied. Business trumps everything. Including winning.


:mad2: Sheesh you really don't know how the Pro's work. They add weight to meet the limit. The Emonda is absolutely a bike Pros are sponsored to ride. 

Here's Contador's










Now back to the question. 
So please enlighten us!... why would a Pro choose a significantly heavier Madone over an Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. *They're sponsored to ride both.* )


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

taodemon said:


> You don't even need to be a phd to understand that if something wasn't effective and in fact determental by being heavier it wouldn't be used by pros. I can't imagine Sagan waking up and saying, "today I don't feel like winning so I'll use the aero bike".


To be fair, pros are pros because of their enormous aerobic engine, not because of their expertise in science or engineering. Read some of Josh Portner or Damon Rinard's stories about how some pros rejected equipment or position improvements even in the face of overwhelming evidence.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.
> 
> And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?





tlg said:


> :mad2: Sheesh you really don't know how the Pro's work. They add weight to meet the limit. The Emonda is absolutely a bike Pros are sponsored to ride.
> 
> Here's Contador's
> 
> ...


I said “The 14lb Emonda” for a reason. I am indeed aware that they can add weight to make the bike UCI legal.

You’re trying to get me to say aerodynamics, and even if that’s what they believe, they are mistaken.

Show me a study demonstrating the significance of aerodynamics of the bicycle itself in anything but time trials. And I’m talking about the aerodynamics of the frame, and not the wheels, not the rider positioning, etc. Just the frame.

Consider what you’re proposing here...

That a bicycle frame, which has a fraction of the total surface area of the rider and an even smaller fraction of the cross-sectional area of the rider produces a significant amount of drag, and that nearly curving the tubes or adding angles to them, etc, can make a significant difference at speeds as low as 30-40mph.... keeping in mind that the wind resistance experienced by an object is proportional to the square of its velocity.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

asgelle said:


> To be fair, pros are pros because of their enormous aerobic engine, not because of their expertise in science or engineering. Read some of Josh Portner or Damon Rinard's stories about how some pros rejected equipment or position improvements even in the face of overwhelming evidence.


Yes, there will be waspinators in all walks of life but the teams with the most wins for 2018, 17, 16 etc all regularly used (or only used in the case of sky) aero bikes. If they were detrimental why would whole teams keep using them?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

taodemon said:


> If they were detrimental why would whole teams keep using them?


3T Strada


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

asgelle said:


> 3T Strada


And how long did that last?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

taodemon said:


> one of your patients


Please don't tell me that means what I think it means. In all seriousness I really hope not.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> Show me a study demonstrating the significance of aerodynamics of the bicycle itself in anything but time trials. And I’m talking about the aerodynamics of the frame, and not the wheels, not the rider positioning, etc. Just the frame.


Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.

Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance.


----------



## Finx (Oct 19, 2017)

tlg said:


> Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.
> 
> Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance.


Less than a minute of gains over a 25 mile ride is significant?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Finx said:


> Less than a minute of gains over a 25 mile ride is significant?


For a Pro... in a breakaway... 1.25sec per 1km is priceless.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Finx said:


> Less than a minute of gains over a 25 mile ride is significant?


It only takes a fraction of a second to separate winner from loser so yes...I'd say it's significant.


----------



## Finx (Oct 19, 2017)

cxwrench said:


> It only takes a fraction of a second to separate winner from loser so yes...I'd say it's significant.


Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing. 

For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

tlg said:


> Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.
> 
> Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance.


And that is still the first gen venge, which isn't nearly as aero as any of the current generation aero bikes. Their current "lightweight" bike is just as aero as that so while there might be some companies still making top-end bikes that aren't aero that that isn't the trend. And in the case of Pinarello their top end is only available in aero. 



Waspinator said:


> Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.


Because they make their money from consumers which aren't limited by uci regulations that might have use for a super light weight bikes on terrain that the benefits of aero are outweight by weight (7+% climbs). 

Eventually I see most companies going the way of Pinarello with one bike that is both light weight and aero.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Finx said:


> Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.
> 
> For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.


The Thread you're in is *Why no titanium bikes in pro peloton?*

We're not talking about average joes.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Finx said:


> Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.
> 
> *For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless*.


That may or may not be the case, but plenty of "average joes" are spending their money on those numbers.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Finx said:


> Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.
> 
> For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.


Amateur racers devote hundreds of hours and hundreds of dollars to their racing. Who are you to say their results shouldn't matter to them.

The point isn't that the difference should matter to everyone. The point is that the difference is measurable and is very significant to many.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

tlg said:


> The Thread you're in is *Why no titanium bikes in pro peloton?*
> 
> We're not talking about average joes.


Mark up, as in build cheap, sell expensive.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Finx said:


> Maybe, if you're competing in Cat1/2/Pro level racing.
> 
> For most of us average joes, it's pretty much meaningless.


Not really, it could be the difference in getting dropped or not on a ride with stronger riders. On a century it might mean you aren't as destroyed at the end. While it might not be a matter of winning and losing for us it still has appreciable benefits.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.
> 
> And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?





tlg said:


> Sheesh. It's been studied a bazillion times.
> 
> Same rider. Same wheels. Aero bike vs Steel bike = 50sec over 40km. That's 1.25 seconds every km! Go ahead... keep beliving aerodynamics have no significance.


Typical bicycle industry stupidity. Useless drivel that would be skewered by legitimate engineers.

The pedaling rider on the bicycles is a gargantuan confounding factor... especially when you’re talking about a one second difference over the course of a km. If you think his movement would be identical on both bicycles, you’re nuts. Even if the drive trains were identical, you’d be nuts. (Granted, to their credit, they did acknowledge that the drivetrains were different).

The proper way to study this would be to have a static object on the frames representing the rider (eg a rider or a dummy), and blow wind at these things at increasing velocities (up to the maximum speed a rider may propel a bicycle) and measure the force of the drag. This should be done repeatedly, with the rider in different positions each time (eg pedals mid-stroke or at 3 and 9 o’clock, hands in hoods, hands in drops, etc). Drag forces should be measured for each velocity and each rider position. But having some bald-headed twirp get on a bike and pedal into the wind is a surefire way to introduce error and skew results.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> Typical bicycle industry stupidity. Useless drivel that would be skewered by legitimate engineers.


So it should be easy for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who've skewered it. We'll wait for your proof.




> The proper way to study this would be to have a static object on the frames representing the rider (eg a rider or a dummy), and blow wind at these things at increasing velocities (up to the maximum speed a rider may propel a bicycle) and measure the force of the drag. This should be done repeatedly, with the rider in different positions each time (eg pedals mid-stroke or at 3 and 9 o’clock, hands in hoods, hands in drops, etc). But having some bald-headed twirp get on a bike and pedal into the wind is a surefire way to introduce bias and skew results.


Oh.... you're the expert on the proper way to study this? 

FYI... riding a bike isn't static.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Apparently a BS in aeronautics/mechanical engineering + M.S. aeronautics + PhD in aeronautics doesn't make you a legitimate engineer. 

You should really see about that lobotomy. You could even do it to yourself being a physician and all.



tlg said:


> So it should be easy for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who've skewered it. We'll wait for your proof.
> 
> 
> Oh.... you're the expert on the proper way to study this?
> ...


His "proper" way is about as flawed a way of testing as it gets.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.
> 
> And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?





tlg said:


> So it should be easy for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who've skewered it. We'll wait for your proof.
> 
> 
> Oh.... you're the expert on the proper way to study this?
> ...


When you’re familiar with scientific method, eliminating big confounding factors like that becomes common sense. 

Yes, I realize that riding a bike isn’t static. But since I doubt Honda would loan their Asimo robot for such a test, the next best way would be to test wind resistance with the static rider in various stages of pedal stroke.

The upshot is that easily 15-20 different measurements for each frame would have to be taken, at different rider positions at different velocities.

The experiment in the video posted here was comically bad, and is, unfortunately, what the bicycle industry considers to be “research”.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> When you’re familiar with scientific method, eliminating big confounding factors like that becomes common sense.
> 
> Yes, I realize that riding a bike isn’t static. But since I doubt Honda would loan their Asimo robot for such a test, the next best way would be to test wind resistance with the static rider in various stages of pedal stroke.
> 
> ...


STILL waiting for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who agree with you.

How long shall we wait? Can I go get lunch?


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Apparently none of these bike companies ever thought of testing each element individually because they made one video with a bald guy on it. The rest of the time I'm sure the tunnel sits there unused.

I guess engineers that have worked in F1 who then move to the cycling industry really aren't legitimate either. The only legitimate engineer/physician is wasp. :thumbsup:

I wonder if wasp is a flat earther too. :idea:


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.
> 
> And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?





tlg said:


> STILL waiting for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who agree with you.
> 
> How long shall we wait? Can I go get lunch?


I’m not the one making dubious claims about the importance of frame aerodynamics. Am I.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

tlg said:


> STILL waiting for you to provide the "legitimate" engineers who agree with you.
> 
> How long shall we wait? Can I go get lunch?


Well you know how science and engineering works right?

Someone declares and explanation, and it is your job to prove them wrong. Duh. The fact you don't get this _clearly_ means you're less of an engineer than he is.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> I’m not the one making dubious claims about the importance of frame aerodynamics. Am I.


Yes. You are. It is EXACTLY what you're doing. 
You're claiming it's of no importance. Which is a claim about it's importance. Yet you've provided ZERO "legitimate" engineers or data to agree with you.

The burden is now upon you. You made the claim. Put up or shut up. I'll go get lunch while waiting for your proof.


----------



## rideit (Feb 8, 2005)

Thif Fred is a failboat, failing on the high feas.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> When you’re familiar with scientific method, eliminating big confounding factors like that becomes common sense.
> 
> Yes, I realize that riding a bike isn’t static. But since I doubt Honda would loan their Asimo robot for such a test, the next best way would be to test wind resistance with the static rider in various stages of pedal stroke.
> 
> ...


Since the rider is moving (pedaling) you don't think it would make more sense to test w/ a rider moving in the tunnel? Really?


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> I’m not the one making dubious claims about the importance of frame aerodynamics. Am I.


Yes, you the "physician" are the one making dubious claims that they don't matter right from the start of the thread so it is on you to to provide evidence to support your make believe bs. There is no lack of studies supporting the benefits of aero. I'm not having much luck finding anything supporting your alternate reality though.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.
> 
> And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?





tlg said:


> Yes. You are. It is EXACTLY what you're doing.
> You're claiming it's of no importance. Which is a claim about it's importance. Yet you've provided ZERO "legitimate" engineers or data to agree with you.
> 
> The burden is now upon you. You made the claim. Put up or shut up. I'll go get lunch while waiting for your proof.


That argument is ridiculous.

Someone made a claim about aerodynamics, and I’m calling it BS based on the fact that there is no good research to justify the claim. So it falls upon me to prove the claim wrong?


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> That argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Someone made a claim about aerodynamics, and I’m calling it BS based on the fact that there is no good research to justify the claim. So it falls upon me to prove the claim wrong?


Yep. You need to back up claims, that's just how things work.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> It seems you can easily build a Ti bike that is below the UCI weight limit, and that has excellent ride characteristics. *The only thing you cannot do with them is build them to be “aero”, which I think most of us agree is a bunch of BS anyway.* (At a mere 30-40mph with a large, clunky object - eg the rider - atop the bike, wind resistance from the bike is comparatively negligible)


*
First post by wasp...*
Yes you made the first claim that aero is BS and have yet to provide any proof other than that you are a physician and know better than all the engineers in the world.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> That argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Someone made a claim about aerodynamics, and I’m calling it BS based on the fact that there is no good research to justify the claim. So it falls upon me to prove the claim wrong?


That "someone" is you! lol
It's your claim all the wind tunnel testing and research is BS. 
It's your claim aerodynamics is of no importance.

Those are claims YOU keep making. The burden is upon you to support your claims. That's how it works. Put up or shut up.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Since I have nothing to do for lunch, I'll do his homework.
So Waspinator, go ahead, dis-prove it. And you can't simply call it BS. You must provide data from "legitimate" engineers.

https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/technspec/scott-foil-road-aero-redefined-2/








Scott provided the diagram below to show computer modeled airflow around a round tube, a fully ‘aero’ NACA tube, and a FOIL tube, which gives a good indication of how well the various tube shapes perform to wind coming from straight on.

Cyril told us: “In our first study, we wanted to find out which shape would be the best to optimize our three parameters: stiffness, weight, and aerodynamics. So, I simulated a round tube, a complete NACA profile like in the Plasma, and then I tried to analyze the barrier of the airflow on the tube and the separation. On the round tube, you can see the flow creating a lot of turbulence and separating quite early. Early in this case is in the middle of the tube. That creates a lot of negative force and a big tail with some turbulence. On the complete NACA profile, you can see that there is a very laminar flow around the tubing, which stays attached for a very long time to the tail. The separation is very narrow. That reduces the negative force on the back of the tube.”

As part of my due diligence, I called the Dave Salazar at A2 Windtunnel, who confirmed the Scott’s diagram is on the up. Dave also confirmed that the least aero of all tube shapes is in fact the ‘round’ tube – which generally causes air to separate sooner than a foil shape as it flows past, thereby creating more turbulence and a larger wake which will add more drag.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.
> 
> And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?





cxwrench said:


> Yep. You need to back up claims, that's just how things work.


So, according to your logic, I could make some absurd claim about bike materials, make up some overtly flawed experiment, and then require you to prove that my claim is a bunch of BS?


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.
> 
> And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?





tlg said:


> Since I have nothing to do for lunch, I'll do his homework.
> So Waspinator, go ahead, dis-prove it. And you can't simply call it BS. You must provide data from "legitimate" engineers.
> 
> https://www.pezcyclingnews.com/technspec/scott-foil-road-aero-redefined-2/
> ...


You haven’t served up any new information here. Yes, one bike frame can be more aerodynamic than another. That’s not the point I’m debating. You could probably make shoelaces more aerodynamic, but for what purpose?

The point I’m debating is the effect that it has when put in context.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Waspinator said:


> So, according to your logic,* I could make some absurd claim about bike materials*, make up some overtly flawed experiment, and then require you to prove that my claim is a bunch of BS?


This is what you've done, and they have pretty much proven your claim a bunch of BS.

And this is from a guy who has no interest in an aero bike. Nor titanium.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> You haven’t served up any new information here. Yes, one bike frame can be more aerodynamic than another. That’s not the point I’m debating. You could probably make shoelaces more aerodynamic, but for what purpose?
> 
> The point I’m debating is the effect that it has when put in context.


Some make believe context you made up?


----------



## rideit (Feb 8, 2005)

I am guessing that you weren’t first in your class in Dr. School.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

velodog said:


> And this is from a guy who has no interest in an aero bike. Nor titanium.


No, he's got skin in the game. His first post:



Waspinator said:


> being the new owner of a titanium bike (Litespeed T1SL), I cant help but wonder why carbon fiber is now king


Clearly trying to justify his purchase was the most awesomest. (Even though he'll never ride it in the pro peloton)


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Ahh, moving the goal posts, in context a first generation venge was 50s faster over round tubes over 40km (see bald guy video again).

Or take a look at the tour magazine tests for context where they compare both aero bikes and non aero bikes along three 100km courses (flat 500m, rolling 1000m, hilly 2000m) and give the numbers and time differences. 

Aero bikes (different ones) beat out all other bikes on all 3 courses. Even on the hilly course which favors weight, the heavy venge vias disc beat out the lightweight emonda, though by only a few seconds. The lighter weight +aero canyon bike (fastest time on hilly course) beat the emonda by almost 2 minutes. Two minutes over 100km in a situation where weight is favored. On the flat course the difference between the emonda and the fastest bike (madone) was 3 minutes. 

Aero isn't BS, the world is round, earth circles the sun.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

taodemon said:


> Ahh, moving the goal posts, in context a first generation venge was 50s faster over round tubes over 40km (see bald guy video again).
> 
> Or take a look at the tour magazine tests for context where they compare both aero bikes and non aero bikes along three 100km courses (flat 500m, rolling 1000m, hilly 2000m) and give the numbers and time differences.
> 
> ...


Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean diddly when the sample sizes are small. If you’re going to use race results, you need dozens of races to prove the point. A few race results here and there won’t cut it. You need consistent results showing over and over that aero bikes are producing on the average better times than non-aero bikes.

But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think you’ll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think you’ll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.


What do you consider negligible? 

Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.
> 
> Want proof?
> 
> ...


Aero makes no difference to riders like you and me. But to racers who are sustaining 25+mph, it's a big difference.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

tlg said:


> No, he's got skin in the game. His first post:
> 
> Clearly trying to justify his purchase was the most awesomest. (Even though he'll never ride it in the pro peloton)


You misunderstood me, I'm the one with no skin in the game.

As far as his purchase=his awesome, well sure, just as my purchase=my awesome. But that don't make my steel rando bike faster than a crabon aero bike.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

velodog said:


> You misunderstood me, I'm the one with no skin in the game.
> 
> As far as his purchase=his awesome, well sure, just as my purchase=my awesome. But that don't make my steel rando bike faster than a crabon aero bike.


Ahh gotcha. Misread that.

I got no skin in the game either. Lots of bikes. None of them aero.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean diddly when the sample sizes are small. If you’re going to use race results, you need dozens of races to prove the point. A few race results here and there won’t cut it. You need consistent results showing over and over that aero bikes are producing on the average better times than non-aero bikes.
> 
> But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think you’ll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.


Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

cxwrench said:


> Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.


Or a troll.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Or a troll.


Very likely. He's been like this in the past IIRC.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

cxwrench said:


> Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.


oh, he's got some stiff competition over in PO...


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> Jesus you are thick. And stubborn. And able to ignore fact like no one I've ever seen.


Or perhaps I’m not as quick as most bicyclists to label as fact claims that are poorly substantiated.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> Or perhaps I’m not as quick as most bicyclists to label as fact claims that are poorly substantiated.


Yet every single thing you've said is just your unsubstantiated opinion with zero facts to support it.

So I ask yet again. What do you consider negligible? 

Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean diddly when the sample sizes are small. If you’re going to use race results, you need dozens of races to prove the point. A few race results here and there won’t cut it. You need consistent results showing over and over that aero bikes are producing on the average better times than non-aero bikes.
> 
> But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test, I think you’ll find the difference in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.


The only one spouting nonsense anecdotal evidence is you the non engineer "physician". You are still the only one to not have found any source supporting your make believe theory that aero is negligible. Your inane ramblings don't count. 

In the labs they are finding the differences aren't negligible, which is why all bikes are moving towards more aero. Some companies are just slower than others about it. They have been testing this stuff for years now in cycling alone (much much longer in aeronautics and cars). Just because you are ignorant to it doesn't mean it isn't happening.



Lombard said:


> Aero makes no difference to riders like you and me. But to racers who are sustaining 25+mph, it's a big difference.


Except it does. How important that difference is completely up to you. A slower rider will save more absolute time over the same course due to spending more time riding. If saving some watts or going a bit faster on a ride isn't important to your solo riding and you are happy with your current bike there probably isn't a reason to buy an aero one. If you like going fast or need some help keeping up with faster riders it could be the difference you need. Some don't think aero bikes are comfortable, others don't like the looks, all fine reasons for not getting one, especially if you have the physical means to make up the difference, but none of that makes aero not real or BS or negligible.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> No, he's got skin in the game. His first post:
> 
> Clearly trying to justify his purchase was the most awesomest. (Even though he'll never ride it in the pro peloton)


I also ride a carbon fiber “aero” bike too.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> I also ride a carbon fiber “aero” bike too.


Sure you do, and you must be real fast on it too like most of the other doctors and dentists.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> But even in a lab, with a properly designed wind tunnel test,* I think you’ll find the difference *in forces of drag between an aero and non-aero bike to be negligible.


Key words... YOU THINK. 
You have no evidence. No knowledge. Just made up thoughts.

What do you consider negligible? 

Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?








[/QUOTE]


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> Or perhaps I’m not as quick as most bicyclists to label as fact claims that are poorly substantiated.


You have not posted anything other than 'I feel' and 'it seems'...while some others have posted videos and graphics describing legitimate testing time and time again. The have posted substantial evidence while you have posted none. Congratulations on joining the troll elite.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

tlg said:


> Key words... YOU THINK.
> You have no evidence. No knowledge. Just made up thoughts.
> 
> What do you consider negligible?
> ...


At this point I think it is fairly safe to assume he likely has no idea what that even means. All that counts is the nonsense he keeps going on about anyways. His uninformed opinion is more valid than years of engineering and aerodynamics research done by real engineers.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Or a troll.


:7::9: 

Remember this beauty?

https://forums.roadbikereview.com/g...-vastly-superior-design-thru-axle-360883.html


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

cxwrench said:


> You have not posted anything other than 'I feel' and 'it seems'...while some others have posted videos and graphics describing legitimate testing time and time again. The have posted substantial evidence while you have posted none. Congratulations on joining the troll elite.


Oh, out comes the “troll” accusation. That was fast!

Look dude... people have better things to do with their time than study bicycle aerodynamics. The only people who would bother to spend any time (and money) on it would be, you guessed it, bike manufacturers who have something to sell. You know what we do in medicine with studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and product manufacturers? We toss them. Actually, we read them, discuss them at the fancy dinners and lunches, and then ignore them and go on about our business, directed by independent studies by people who have no stake in a given product. 

So yeah, it would be awfully hard for me to find a well-designed, independent, peer-reviewed study in the glorious and popular field of bicycle aerodynamics. Nobody but people selling bikes (or in business with people selling bikes) gives a hoot about the topic. So all we have are studies like the ones in the video: flawed and misguided.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> Yet every single thing you've said is just your unsubstantiated opinion with zero facts to support it.
> 
> So I ask yet again. What do you consider negligible?
> 
> Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?


I don’t dispute those results (but it’d be helpful if I knew what CdA was). What I dispute is the significance of the results - ie the extrapolation of it to more speed in a bicycle race.

Lighter bicycles. Stiffer frames. Better drivetrains. Better wheels. And likely better athletes have produced the faster times we see today. But to say that aerodynamics of a bicycle frame (which has a very small total surface area and aerodynamic cross sectional area) makes an appreciable difference when you have a large clunky human being on top of it with his chest forward into the wind simply flies in the face of reason and common sense.

Would you make this claim about frame aerodynamics if the rider were the size of a gorilla? An elephant? See my point?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> Oh, out comes the “troll” accusation. That was fast!


Fast? It's been 170 posts. None of which you've provided any proof to your claims.



> So yeah, it would be awfully hard for me to find a well-designed, independent, peer-reviewed study in the glorious and popular field of bicycle aerodynamics. Nobody but people selling bikes (or in business with people selling bikes) gives a hoot about the topic. So all we have are studies like the ones in the video: flawed and misguided.


That's a crock of $#it.. Just proving yet again you have utterly no clue what you're talking about There's lots of independent facilities doing wind tunnel testing. 

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1344-wind-tunnel-testing-of-cyclists 

https://www.slowtwitch.com/Products/An_independent_aero_super_bike_test__6309.html
Slowtwitch forum member Kiley Austin-Young crowd raised money to test various super bikes in the A2 Wind Tunnel with AeroCamp mavens Heath Dotson and Brian Stover. Jimmy Seear of Ventum and Dan Kennison of Premier Tactical were also there to assist and have their bikes tested. Geoff Eaker of A2 ran all the tests and slowtwitcher BryanD assisted in various ways. Bikes tested were Felt B2, Premier Tactical, Cervelo P5X, Cervelo P5/6, Diamondback Andean and Ventum One.


*(Maybe you could rent a wind tunnel and do some testing. Prove us wrong. Come to think of it, if what you say is true, why hasn't this been done? Should be easy and make someone really rich and famous debunking every single bicycle manufactuter)*


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> I don’t dispute those results (but it’d be helpful if I knew what CdA was). What I dispute is the significance of the results - ie the extrapolation of it to more speed in a bicycle race.


:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

You don't even know what CdA is and YOU are disputing the significance of the results. WOWWWWW. To bad you don't know how stupid what you just said sounds.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

Waspinator said:


> *Oh, out comes the “troll” accusation. That was fast!*
> 
> Look dude... people have better things to do with their time than study bicycle aerodynamics. The only people who would bother to spend any time (and money) on it would be, you guessed it, bike manufacturers who have something to sell. You know what we do in medicine with studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and product manufacturers? We toss them. Actually, we read them, discuss them at the fancy dinners and lunches, and then ignore them and go on about our business, directed by independent studies by people who have no stake in a given product.
> 
> So yeah, it would be awfully hard for me to find a well-designed, independent, peer-reviewed study in the glorious and popular field of bicycle aerodynamics. Nobody but people selling bikes (or in business with people selling bikes) gives a hoot about the topic. So all we have are studies like the ones in the video: flawed and misguided.


Not really....took 3 days of non-stop idiocy on your part and 176 posts. So, it really was overdue.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Waspinator said:


> That argument is ridiculous.
> 
> Someone made a claim about aerodynamics, and I’m calling it BS based on the fact that there is no good research to justify the claim. So it falls upon me to prove the claim wrong?


Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. To spell it out in gory detail not that it should be necessary, you didn't claim there was no evidence that frame aerodynamics matters; you claimed that is doesn't matter. Surely even you can see the difference.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

Waspinator said:


> ...it’d be helpful if I knew what CdA was...


game over, bro.

you've proved you're clueless and just here to argue pointlessly.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

tlg said:


> :crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
> 
> You don't even know what CdA is and YOU are disputing the significance of the results. WOWWWWW. To bad you don't know how stupid what you just said sounds.


Told you.:lol:


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Waspinator said:


> Would you make this claim about frame aerodynamics if the rider were the size of a gorilla? An elephant? See my point?


I have a dog, a horse, and an elephant carrying a loaded pack. I make each one's five pounds lighter. Which one had the most weight removed?


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> I have a dog, a horse, and an elephant carrying a loaded pack. I make each one's five pounds lighter. Which one had the most weight removed?


Which one had the greatest percentage of its weight removed? Which one noticed the biggest change?

That’s the question you should be asking.


----------



## mfdemicco (Nov 8, 2002)

Waspinator dude, you need to heed to the immortal words of Kenny Roger in "The Gambler:"

"You've got to...
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away 
And know when to run…"

I mean, it seems like you're against everybody and their grandmother in this thread.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Waspinator said:


> Which one had the greatest percentage of its weight removed? Which one noticed the biggest change?
> 
> That’s the question you should be asking.


Except for cycling that can't be answered; it's unique to each rider. That's why serious people don't bother to address it. They worry about what is knowable.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> :crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
> 
> You don't even know what CdA is and YOU are disputing the significance of the results. WOWWWWW. To bad you don't know how stupid what you just said sounds.


If knowing what that abbreviation were of any significance whatsoever, I could have easily googled it rather than pointed out that I didn’t know what it was.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> I’m a doctor (eg physician).


Really? You must not have very many patients as you have a lot of time to argue on message boards.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Waspinator said:


> If knowing what that abbreviation were of any significance whatsoever, I could have easily googled it rather than pointed out that I didn’t know what it was.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Lombard said:


> Really? You must not have very many patients as you have a lot of time to argue on message boards.


Frames, brakes, q/r vs thru axle...he's started some doozies.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

asgelle said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


Waspy is a physician. I sure as heck hope he's not a psychiatrist.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

Lombard said:


> Waspy is a physician. I sure as heck hope he's not a psychiatrist.


nope, he only claims to be one.

based on his contributions to this thread, I wouldn't let the guy treat a hangnail...


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

asgelle said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


I tried...
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to asgelle again.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

asgelle said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect


Haha, talk about BS research references. Are you a PhD in Psychology? Which branch? I’m going to assume your scholarship agenda is in cognitive psychology? Why anyone with your psych research background would point to this is hard to digest... I’m happy to read up on your scholarship, I’d love to in fact... Please send me some references to get me started. I follow the currency in social mostly... But I love Quant psych. Prove you are right!!


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

PBL450 said:


> Haha, talk about BS research references. Are you a PhD in Psychology? Which branch? I’m going to assume your scholarship agenda is in cognitive psychology? Why anyone with your psych research background would point to this is hard to digest... I’m happy to read up on your scholarship, I’d love to in fact... Please send me some references to get me started. I follow the currency in social mostly... But I love Quant psych. Prove you are right!!


I may be reading your post wrong, but if not where do I find the go fund me to buy you a sense of humor?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> I may be reading your post wrong, but if not where do I find the go fund me to buy you a sense of humor?


Haha, I just thought it was ironic after all the goading to justify the OPs academic preparation that the poster would use such dubious material... It would be funny if the poster hadn’t been seriously mean spirited in previous posts. I don’t see any humor after outright insults. Other posters have engaged with OP without being obnoxious.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> Haha, I just thought it was ironic after all the goading to justify the OPs academic preparation that the poster would use such dubious material... It would be funny if the poster hadn’t been seriously mean spirited in previous posts. I don’t see any humor after outright insults. Other posters have engaged with OP without being obnoxious.


If you read through the OP's history, you will see why he gets lit up a lot.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

Lombard said:


> If you read through the OP's history, you will see why he gets lit up a lot.


I get lit up a lot because too many people posting here are incapable of having a debate without taking disagreement personally.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> I get lit up a lot because too many people posting here are incapable of having a debate without taking disagreement personally.


You go beyond a 'debate'...you're completely and totally incapable of understanding the other side much less admitting it could be correct. You are stubborn beyond belief and troll-like in your habit of starting these threads. There are nearly 200 posts in this trainwreck and you're the only one on your side. That should tell you something about this 'debate'.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> I get lit up a lot because too many people posting here are incapable of having a debate without taking disagreement personally.


Pot meet kettle. Rather than admit you may be wrong when everybody here told you why you are wrong, you double down and insist you are right, but don't have anything on your side to back it up. This has happened on multiple threads you have started.

You are either a troll or a masochist.

Do you know a guy named ASFOS?


----------



## tomato coupe (Nov 8, 2009)

Waspinator said:


> I don’t dispute those results (but it’d be helpful if I knew what CdA was). What I dispute is the significance of the results - ie the extrapolation of it to more speed in a bicycle race.


I have little interest in this debate, but you owe me a new keyboard after that post. (I spit coffee all over it.)


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

Waspinator said:


> Typical bicycle industry stupidity. Useless drivel that would be skewered by legitimate engineers.


Typical doctor stupidity who thinks he knows everything about bicycle engineering. Useless drivel that would be skewered by any legitimate engineer.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

Lombard said:


> Pot meet kettle. Rather than admit you may be wrong when everybody here told you why you are wrong, you double down and insist you are right, but don't have anything on your side to back it up. This has happened on multiple threads you have started.
> 
> You are either a troll or a masochist.
> 
> Do you know a guy named ASFOS?


I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.

But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.
> 
> But I require *better evidence* than what’s been provided here.


What isn't good enough about the load of info that's been posted here? We all know it's your ignorance that's the problem here, but I'll play along. What kind of 'evidence' do you want?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Waspinator said:


> I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.
> 
> But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.


How can we do that if we don't speak the same language? You admit you don't know what CdA is and have no interest to learn. That's the same as saying you refuse to look at the evidence; yet you continue asking for for proof you're wrong.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

asgelle said:


> How can we do that if we don't speak the same language?* You admit you don't know what CdA is and have no interest to learn.* That's the same as saying you refuse to look at the evidence; yet you continue asking for for proof you're wrong.


I forgot about that...there's no way to supply facts when he has no ability to make sense of them.


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

asgelle said:


> How can we do that if we don't speak the same language? You admit you don't know what CdA is and have no interest to learn. That's the same as saying you refuse to look at the evidence; yet you continue asking for for proof you're wrong.


Haven't you heard? Facts/proof is fake news if it doesn't support your position. Some pseudo fact/proof BS is 100% correct if it supports your position.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

cxwrench said:


> I forgot about that...there's no way to supply facts when he has no ability to make sense of them.


All ya gotta do is agree with him, that'll make sense to him.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

dr. waspinater some reading material, if you're interested.

Cycling Power Lab


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

exracer said:


> Haven't you heard? Facts/proof is fake news if it doesn't support your position. Some pseudo fact/proof BS is 100% correct if it supports your position.


You can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.
> 
> But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.


You are utterly completely full of s#it. You've been destroyed in this thread (and others) and you have nothing, not one shred of fact to support your uninformed made up opinion. 

Talking with you is like talking to an anti vaxxer who doesn't even know what a virus is. 

Your opinion is worthless.


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

asgelle said:


> You can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.


Well somebody had better explain that to Waspinator and the prez and use small words and a flow chart.

I thought I had provided a reasonable solution to inquiry in a previous post. I offered that if didn't like the answers he was getting here then perhaps he should send out emails to Colnago, Pinarello and Specialized. Between the 3 of them, you have ? what? over 100 years of bike/frame building experience. I'd say that makes them slightly qualified on the subject. When I made the post it only dealt with titanium frames but they are also fully qualified to speak on the aero subject as well.

Shockingly he didn't take me up on that. Big surprise. What a killjoy that would be if you got an answer you didn't like and it pretty much matched what everyone else was saying here. Suck all the air out of the room. Put an end to standing on a ridiculous position and arguing pointlessly for over 200 posts.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.
> 
> But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.


But you don't want to do any research yourself. You just want to cry that you think you are right and everybody else is wrong. Even if we spoonfeed you, you still won't believe any of us.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

exracer said:


> Well somebody had better explain that to *Waspinator and the prez* and use small words and a flow chart.


You beat me to it.


----------



## masont (Feb 6, 2010)

Waspinator said:


> Typical bicycle industry stupidity. Useless drivel that would be skewered by legitimate engineers.
> 
> The pedaling rider on the bicycles is a gargantuan confounding factor... especially when you’re talking about a one second difference over the course of a km. If you think his movement would be identical on both bicycles, you’re nuts. Even if the drive trains were identical, you’d be nuts. (Granted, to their credit, they did acknowledge that the drivetrains were different).
> 
> The proper way to study this would be to have a static object on the frames representing the rider (eg a rider or a dummy), and blow wind at these things at increasing velocities (up to the maximum speed a rider may propel a bicycle) and measure the force of the drag. This should be done repeatedly, with the rider in different positions each time (eg pedals mid-stroke or at 3 and 9 o’clock, hands in hoods, hands in drops, etc). Drag forces should be measured for each velocity and each rider position. But having some bald-headed twirp get on a bike and pedal into the wind is a surefire way to introduce error and skew results.


I've been in that wind tunnel running tests with a Stanford PhD in computational fluid dynamics and a MIT educated Engineer who do this for a living. If you think you're coming up with anything they haven't come up with, you're drastically overestimating your own ability even more than I thought you were. I'm sure you can write cialis prescriptions and tell people to exercise and drink more water, but you're out of your depth in this discussion, and you'd be well served to be as humble as you'd like one of us to be in your office with a patient. You are an expert in your world. You are clearly not an expert in this world. 

Also it is a tip that nobody gives a rip what the aero properties are without a rider on it, unless you know of bike races that don't have riders on the bikes.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

masont said:


> Also it is a tip that nobody gives a rip what the aero properties are without a rider on it, unless you know of bike races that don't have riders on the bikes.


Yes and no. Yes in the sense that aero bicycle design has reached a level of maturity where design of a bare frame and a fully built bicycle have been pretty well optimized so the next frontier is to improve designs based on bike rider interactions. But it's still possible to see gross differences in performance between bikes even without a rider. It's true there are examples where the relative performance of super aero frames changes from bare bike to bike+rider, but the differences are small both before and after the rider is on board. If even moderate differences are seen between bare bikes, it's unlikely the relative performance will change when they are compared with riders present.

I suspect that most development testing progresses from bare frame to fully built bike to bike+rider because that would go from the cleanest data that could be taken quickly, to noisier but more accurate data that takes more wind tunnel time. One caveat is the extent that this might be short circuited by CFD modeling. Sophisticated CFD could replace most or all of the first two steps.


----------



## rideit (Feb 8, 2005)

Waspinator said:


> I’ll readily admit I’m wrong when someone proves me wrong.
> 
> But I require better evidence than what’s been provided here.


This is _precisely_ the flat-earther screed.


----------



## Akirasho (Jan 27, 2004)

OK, someone catch me up. Why is this thread still growing???


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

asgelle said:


> How can we do that if we don't speak the same language? You admit you don't know what CdA is and have no interest to learn. That's the same as saying you refuse to look at the evidence; yet you continue asking for for proof you're wrong.


Not being familiar with an abbreviation isn't the same thing as not knowing what something is. And yes, I looked it up, and yes, I know what drag coefficient is. Just haven't seen it written as CdA before.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Waspinator said:


> Not being familiar with an abbreviation isn't the same thing as not knowing what something is. And yes, I looked it up, and yes, I know what drag coefficient is. Just haven't seen it written as CdA before.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_holes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performance_art


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Waspinator said:


> Not being familiar with an abbreviation isn't the same thing as not knowing what something is. And yes, I looked it up, and yes, *I know what drag coefficient is. Just haven't seen it written as CdA before.*


When you say stuff like this the hole that @asgelle references just gets deeper and deeper. It's never been written as anything other than CdA.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Akirasho said:


> OK, someone catch me up. Why is this thread still growing???


You should be able to figure it out in about 3 seconds.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> When you say stuff like this the hole that @asgelle references just gets deeper and deeper. It's never been written as anything other than CdA.


I really think he's heading more toward this hole.


----------



## mik_git (Jul 27, 2012)

You walk into the Litespeed head office showroom and tell them that aero bikes and carbon fiber are pointless...oh wait...


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Finx said:


> All Ti bikes are not created equal. I have no idea what (Ti bike) you are comparing here in terms of bike type (racing, touring, MTB, etc..), design and engineering, manufacturing, etc...


Same with steel, aluminum and carbon.

Well, the first ti frames built with the same tubing diameters as steel of the day were known for having too much "modulus of elasticity" under maximum efforts. LeMond's first carbon bike was also allegedly "flippy" compared to the steel bikes, largely because it had aluminum lugs. Builders manipulated the tubing to compensate and dropped aluminum lugs. Now they're manipulating the weaves and layups, so carbon finally rides "better" than steel and as comfortably as ti. 

So agree, ti's are outliers. Get one you like and it'll last forever, even better than steel! . But why smash it up in a race? Then again, they're also very crashworthy, aren't they?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> Not being familiar with an abbreviation isn't the same thing as not knowing what something is. And yes, I looked it up, and yes, I know what drag coefficient is. Just haven't seen it written as CdA before.


Keep exposing your ignorance and confirming why your baseless made up opinion is meaningless. It's hilarious. 

CdA isn't drag coefficient. Derp


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

As someone else here noted, the answer to Waspinator's question is purely economic. Titanium bikes are more expensive to produce that the Chinese mass marketed bikes that Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, etc. are selling. The money is in carbon fiber. Whether carbon fiber is a better material than titanium, aluminum, steel or bamboo is a secondary concern. The titanium bike industry is pretty much a small cottage industry compared to the big bike manufacturers.

It costs a lot of money to sponsor a World Tour team. It goes beyond providing 'free bikes'. Firms like Litespeed can't afford that level of marketing. Judging by the number of guys I see riding high end Specialized, Trek and Pinarello bikes around here, it must work. And there's no convincing these guys that some 'old hat' titanium bike is the thing to have. Gotta have those $2500 carbon clinchers as well. 

Waspinator periodically visits us, makes an @ss of himself and disappears. He evidently bought a Litespeed T1sl bike for big bucks. I suspect he has buyer's remorse. Titanium was the gee whiz material 25 years ago. Now its seen by most people as a bit dated, like steel. He's also convinced that Litespeed has somehow evolved titanium fabrication to some mystical level where in reality, nothing has changed in decades. But good luck convincing him of that because he's swallowed Litespeed's marketing BS hook line and sinker. I've got five bikes and only one is carbon fiber -- a classic C40. I still have a Litespeed Ultimate made when Michael Lynskey owned the company. I like steel and titanium bikes, but I sure wouldn't make a troll of myself defending those choices with any argument other than its what I prefer.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

pmf said:


> As someone else here noted, the answer to Waspinator's question is purely economic. Titanium bikes are more expensive to produce that the Chinese mass marketed bikes that Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, etc. are selling.


That's simply not true. A high end Litespeed Ti frame is the same price as a Madone frame. Yea yea... but carbon is produced in China bla bla. Well you can get a Ti frame from China for $330 too. There's not some great magical mystery to Ti. 
And even if a Ti frame cost $1k more, if it were lighter and more aerodynamic than carbon, then the Pro's would be using it. But it's not so they don't. $1-$2k in the scheme of a $12,000 bike is irrelevant.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

tlg said:


> That's simply not true. A high end Litespeed Ti frame is the same price as a Madone frame. Yea yea... but carbon is produced in China bla bla. Well you can get a Ti frame from China for $330 too. There's not some great magical mystery to Ti.
> And even if a Ti frame cost $1k more, if it were lighter and more aerodynamic than carbon, then the Pro's would be using it. But it's not so they don't. $1-$2k in the scheme of a $12,000 bike is irrelevant.


No, the pros use what they get paid to use. And when you get down to it, the bikes they ride aren't the determining factor in the results they get. There's UCI weight limit, so that's not a factor anymore. 

I think you're confusing cost of production with price. Does a Specialized S-Works cost a lot to manufacture? More than any other carbon bike? I can get on the Lynskey website and pay thousands of dollars for one of their frames, and then I can sometimes find them on ebay (sold by Lynskey) for $700. I recall the guy who ran Bikes Direct used to post here. He sources all his frames from China. He had a post about pricing once -- aluminum frames were dirt cheap, next came carbon and then steel and titanium. I'm talking hundreds -- not thousands different. But I bet margins like that matter. Why do you find FSA cranks on $3000 bikes? There's a reason the industry went to Chinese made carbon frames, and that reason is the economics favor that shift. Use your google skills to find a $250 carbon frame from China. 

You are utterly completely full of s#it. You've been destroyed in this thread (and others) and you have nothing, not one shred of fact to support your uninformed made up opinion. Sound familiar?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

pmf said:


> No, the pros use what they get paid to use. And when you get down to it, the bikes they ride aren't the determining factor in the results they get. There's UCI weight limit, so that's not a factor anymore.
> 
> I think you're confusing cost of production with price...
> 
> There's a reason the industry went to Chinese made carbon frames, and that reason is the economics favor that shift. Use your google skills to find a $250 carbon frame from China.


 Nope. Like I said... you can also buy a Ti frame for $330. Neither carbon or Ti are that expensive to manufacture. 




pmf said:


> Titanium bikes are more expensive to produce that the Chinese mass marketed bikes


 Like I've shown... not true. Ti isn't magical fairy dust.

Sure it's purely economical. Bicycle manufactures want to sell bikes. Pro teams winning races sells bikes. If they could sell more bikes by having teams win on Ti, they would make them. But they don't so they won't.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

pmf said:


> Waspinator periodically visits us, makes an @ss of himself and disappears. He evidently bought a Litespeed T1sl bike for big bucks. I suspect he has buyer's remorse.


I'm going to say I disagree that it was buyer's remorse. More likely, it's the teenager mentality of loving his new purchase and needing to prove to the world that it's better than any other. Sort of like when a teenager buy's his first car which happens to be a Chevy. So now he must prove to the world that not only are Chevys awesome, but all Fords suck.

I have 7 bikes and my favorite one is my Jamis Renegade 631 Reynolds steel bike. But I'm not arguing that it should be the standard for the TdF. ut:


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

tlg said:


> That's simply not true. A high end Litespeed Ti frame is the same price as a Madone frame. Yea yea... but carbon is produced in China bla bla. Well you can get a Ti frame from China for $330 too. There's not some great magical mystery to Ti.
> And even if a Ti frame cost $1k more, if it were lighter and more aerodynamic than carbon, then the Pro's would be using it. But it's not so they don't. $1-$2k in the scheme of a $12,000 bike is irrelevant.


Where you gonna find an aero Ti frame that's as slippery as an aero crabon frame? And will it be possible to get it as cheaply as an aero carbon frame can be made. Just a guess on my part, but I don't think that building a slippery Ti frame can be done as cheaply as a round, oval or even helix frame can be made.

And even if it could be done cheaply, why would the big manufacturers bother making the investment now having already decided to butter their bread with crabon. Maybe if the sales of crabon starts to slump there would be a move to "Ti, the next big advancement", but I doubt that seeing as Specialized has plopped Sagan on an aluminum frame at the Race Down Under..


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

tlg said:


> Nope. Like I said... you can also buy a Ti frame for $330. Neither carbon or Ti are that expensive to manufacture.
> 
> .


Do you have a link to these $300 Ti frames? I wanna get me one (I tried Google but that got me Ti eyeglass frames for $300)


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

velodog said:


> Where you gonna find an aero Ti frame that's as slippery as an aero crabon frame? And will it be possible to get it as cheaply as an aero carbon frame can be made.


You're not gonna find one. Which is why pro's aren't riding Ti frames. They can't be made aero. 



DaveG said:


> Do you have a link to these $300 Ti frames? I wanna get me one (I tried Google but that got me Ti eyeglass frames for $300)


 Ti frame from China for $330
I don't think you wanna get yourself one.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

tlg said:


> You're not gonna find one. Which is why pro's aren't riding Ti frames. They can't be made aero.
> 
> Ti frame from China for $330
> I don't think you wanna get yourself one.


The welds look a bit rough and it's no lightweight at 1600g for a super small. Maybe I will stick with my Lynskey


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

DaveG said:


> The welds look a bit rough and it's no lightweight at 1600g for a super small. Maybe I will stick with my Lynskey


It’s also only available in 46 cm size frame. So unless you’re 4’10” it’s probably not for you. Convincing argument for the cost of titanium versus carbon fiber fabrication.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

pmf said:


> As someone else here noted, the answer to Waspinator's question is purely economic. Titanium bikes are more expensive to produce that the Chinese mass marketed bikes that Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, etc. are selling. The money is in carbon fiber. Whether carbon fiber is a better material than titanium, aluminum, steel or bamboo is a secondary concern. The titanium bike industry is pretty much a small cottage industry compared to the big bike manufacturers.
> 
> It costs a lot of money to sponsor a World Tour team. It goes beyond providing 'free bikes'. Firms like Litespeed can't afford that level of marketing. Judging by the number of guys I see riding high end Specialized, Trek and Pinarello bikes around here, it must work. And there's no convincing these guys that some 'old hat' titanium bike is the thing to have. Gotta have those $2500 carbon clinchers as well.
> 
> Waspinator periodically visits us, makes an @ss of himself and disappears. He evidently bought a Litespeed T1sl bike for big bucks. I suspect he has buyer's remorse. Titanium was the gee whiz material 25 years ago. Now its seen by most people as a bit dated, like steel. He's also convinced that Litespeed has somehow evolved titanium fabrication to some mystical level where in reality, nothing has changed in decades. But good luck convincing him of that because he's swallowed Litespeed's marketing BS hook line and sinker. I've got five bikes and only one is carbon fiber -- a classic C40. I still have a Litespeed Ultimate made when Michael Lynskey owned the company. I like steel and titanium bikes, but I sure wouldn't make a troll of myself defending those choices with any argument other than its what I prefer.


Buyer's remorse? Don't make me laugh. I am extremely happy with my purchase, and I'm contemplating purchasing a second T1SL Disc frame. My current one was built up for sturdiness. I'd like to build a second one as light as possible. No buyer's remorse here whatsoever.

Your exaggeration of my opinion of Litespeed notwithstanding, I still believe that they are better at it than your average mom-and-pop Ti manufacturer. They have a lot of experience doing it, and being a bigger operation than most, they have the resources to do more with the material.


----------



## Waspinator (Jul 5, 2013)

tlg said:


> That's simply not true. A high end Litespeed Ti frame is the same price as a Madone frame. Yea yea... but carbon is produced in China bla bla. Well you can get a Ti frame from China for $330 too. There's not some great magical mystery to Ti.
> And even if a Ti frame cost $1k more, if it were lighter and more aerodynamic than carbon, then the Pro's would be using it. But it's not so they don't. $1-$2k in the scheme of a $12,000 bike is irrelevant.


What he's saying is "simply not true", but I'm "full of s***".

Maybe you need to learn to not take things so personally.


----------



## taodemon (Mar 17, 2014)

Waspinator said:


> What he's saying is "simply not true", but I'm "full of s***".
> 
> Maybe you need to learn to not take things so personally.


pmf doesn't have a history of posting rubbish flat earther type nonsense like "aero being BS" or "thru axles are stupid". Enjoy your ti bike, nothing wrong with that, just don't make up s%$^ when reality and all evidence says the exact opposite.


----------



## Finx (Oct 19, 2017)

tlg said:


> Yet every single thing you've said is just your unsubstantiated opinion with zero facts to support it.
> 
> So I ask yet again. What do you consider negligible?
> 
> Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?


I have no skin in this game, and I'm not taking sides, but everything on that graph is "negligible" as far as the average cyclist is concerned.

Sure, if you're a super fast TT racer there might be a small difference over a long ride, but for the majority of us on this forum, riding along at 15-20mph, those numbers are "negligible".


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Waspinator said:


> What he's saying is "simply not true", but I'm "full of s***".
> 
> Maybe you need to learn to not take things so personally.


Did I miss his 200 posts of trolling B.S. ? I don't think so.

Nothing personal about it.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Finx said:


> I have no skin in this game, and I'm not taking sides, but everything on that graph is "negligible" as far as the average cyclist is concerned.


Title of the thread and topic of discussion:
Why no titanium bikes in *pro peloton*?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Finx said:


> Sure, if you're a super fast TT racer there might be a small difference over a long ride, but for the majority of us on this forum, riding along at 15-20mph, those numbers are "negligible".


In other words, while the quantitative differences in equipment can be presented, and everyone is free to weigh them for their own needs, no one can generalize what's important to others.

And has already been pointed out, a differences of a second or two can turn into many minutes if it means making the split in a group or not.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

Waspinator said:


> "but I'm "full of s***".


Finally some truth that you believe instead of the "All the proof you have shown me is not proof at all". All you have been providing is anecdotal evidence, whereas others have posted statistical evidence. 

Sounds like you are having a sissy fit because nobody agrees with you. Do you need a safe space to cry?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

asgelle said:


> And has already been pointed out, a differences of a second or two can turn into many minutes if it means making the split in a group or not.


A 1 second advantage for a Pro in a 1km breakaway means he wins by about 12 meters. That's not negligible.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

frdfandc said:


> Finally some truth that you believe instead of the "All the proof you have shown me is not proof at all". All you have been providing is anecdotal evidence, whereas others have posted statistical evidence.
> 
> Sounds like you are having a sissy fit because nobody agrees with you. Do you need a safe space to cry?


Maybe one of these will make Dr. Waspy feel better.


----------



## pedalbiker (Nov 23, 2014)

Notvintage said:


> Hence the carbon clinchers that are no better (typically worse) than aluminum rims


I've yet to find a 50+mm aluminum rim that didn't weight about 14 lbs. You?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

I posted early on that Ti has no performance gains to offer or it would be being raced. Face it. It just isn’t a particularly good material for bicycle frames. It’s fickle, very expensive, kind of heavy and less aerodynamic than competing materials. Ride whatever you like, but it gets silly when anyone tries to make performance claims that are simply untrue. It’s not in the pro peloton because it isn’t worthy, not because pros ride what they are told to by their team/sponsors. There is enough money to be made in elite cycling that teams would be adopting the technology if it translated to wins. Expense is not the reason any more that it’s a reason the airline industry chose to make jet wings out of carbon fiber. It’s great that Ti riders love it! Maybe it has some great properties? Performance is obviously not one of them. I know, some dude raced Ti back in like 1975 and won a race... frames are made from a host of materials including bamboo. But the original question is about elite racing. So the answer to the original question, again, is that it isn’t good enough.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Notvintage said:


> Hence the carbon clinchers that are no better (typically worse) than aluminum rims and idiotic disc brakes (driven largely by the carbon clinchers they pushed).


I missed this...what are you going on about here? 'No better'? In what way? Lighter, more aerodynamic, and stiffer aren't enough? Braking is just about the same w/ rim brake wheels, obviously disc brakes are better on either rim. Nothing idiotic about them at all unless you're a luddite.


----------



## thalo (Jul 17, 2011)

Lombard said:


> Maybe one of these will make Dr. Waspy feel better.


I don't thik Phil Gaimon would rate this cookie very high, so it might not have the calming effect you desire.


----------



## Peter_T (Jun 3, 2009)

Interesting! I think that steel and Ti have a springiness that partly makes up for some of what they lack in rigidity compared to aluminum and carbon. But my impression (not from personal experience) is that when it comes to sprinting at the top level, rigidity is everything and so a better question is why not more aluminum bikes in the pro peloton? Carbon gives you that rigidity without the torture factor of aluminum on long rides.


----------



## Peter_T (Jun 3, 2009)

I think that it's especially B. A would not deter pro teams from going with Ti if there was any advantage.


----------



## Mike Overly (Sep 28, 2005)

Waspinator said:


> I realize this sounds like a topic that has been beaten to death, but being the new owner of a titanium bike (Litespeed T1SL), I cant help but wonder why carbon fiber is now king.
> 
> It seems you can easily build a Ti bike that is below the UCI weight limit, and that has excellent ride characteristics. The only thing you cannot do with them is build them to be “aero”, which I think most of us agree is a bunch of BS anyway. (At a mere 30-40mph with a large, clunky object - eg the rider - atop the bike, wind resistance from the bike is comparatively negligible).
> 
> Has anyone published any study documenting the superiority of carbon fiber over Al or Ti in the various criteria by which one would evaluate a pro-level bike (eg stiffness, rider positioning, and comfort)?


It sounds like you’re heavily into the confirmation stage of your purchase. Enjoy the bike.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

asgelle said:


> Yes and no. Yes in the sense that aero bicycle design has reached a level of maturity where design of a bare frame and a fully built bicycle have been pretty well optimized so the next frontier is to improve designs based on bike rider interactions. But it's still possible to see gross differences in performance between bikes even without a rider. It's true there are examples where the relative performance of super aero frames changes from bare bike to bike+rider, but the differences are small both before and after the rider is on board. If even moderate differences are seen between bare bikes, it's unlikely the relative performance will change when they are compared with riders present.
> 
> I suspect that most development testing progresses from bare frame to fully built bike to bike+rider because that would go from the cleanest data that could be taken quickly, to noisier but more accurate data that takes more wind tunnel time. One caveat is the extent that this might be short circuited by CFD modeling. Sophisticated CFD could replace most or all of the first two steps.


Based on what has been learned about mast sections for sailboats, I would think it quite possible to find a bike that performs relatively well in the wind tunnel without a rider and relatively poorly with a rider. 

The bike designed to be fastest with a rider would integrate aerodynamically with the rider--a feature that would likely be counterproductive on a riderless bike. Rules prohibit the obvious example (a fairing). However, finding anything that moves the needle in that direction (and is not prohibited by rules) is where the smart money is being spent.

Wind tunnel testing without riders is mostly marketing propaganda--not quality science.


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Mike Overly said:


> It sounds like you’re heavily into the confirmation stage of your purchase. Enjoy the bike.


...and that pretty much sums it up. 

I absolutely love my ti bikes. 95% of the time, I grab my Moots Compact when it's time for a ride. I have several faster/stiffer/lighter bikes, but it's the one that just plain works and performs well in all sorts of situations. Perhaps that percentage will decrease when I build my RSL, or find some other magical bike. As long as I'm enjoying the ride, it really doesn't matter what I'm riding. I try to avoid absolutes when talking about my bikes, because I just haven't experienced all that's out there. I have my preferences when it comes to bikes, and try to seek them out when contemplating new ones, but each new bike teaches me something new- sometimes good, sometimes bad.

After all, they're just expensive kid's toys.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

SwiftSolo said:


> Based on what has been learned about mast sections for sailboats, I would think it quite possible to find a bike that performs relatively well in the wind tunnel without a rider and relatively poorly with a rider.


You might think so, but sadly the data show otherwise. The Slowtwitch.com forum and Aeroweenie.com - Time Trial and Triathlon Aerodynamics Links and Data are good sources for data and (some) informed discussion. As for masts and sails, it seems a better analogy than bikes+riders would be tires and rims. In that case, there are strong interactions. However, knowing little about sailboat aerodynamics, I would be reluctant to extrapolate from bikes to boats.


SwiftSolo said:


> Wind tunnel testing without riders is mostly marketing propaganda--not quality science.


That's your opinion. Again, data show otherwise.


----------



## tfinator (Nov 4, 2009)

Dang. Wasp threads are first rate. 

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

tfinator said:


> Dang. Wasp threads are first rate.


yep, bloke buys a bike, needs to talk about that bike. Only really wants to hear affirmation.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

This thread needs this.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

frdfandc said:


> This thread needs this.


Oh common! We're having so much fun with it.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Oh common! We're having so much fun with it.


Right, like there is so much else going on? At least Waspy made things interesting for a bit.


----------



## Methodical (Jul 21, 2012)

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/beating-a-dead-horse/photos


----------



## Methodical (Jul 21, 2012)

kiwisimon said:


> yep, bloke buys a bike, needs to talk about that bike. Only really wants to hear affirmation.


This. I tried to post the same type of photo before I ever saw yours after only ready the 1s 2 pages because I knew where it was going.

Such trivial crap.


----------



## tempeteOntheRoad (Dec 21, 2001)

The reason is: I still ride my 1992 ti hardtail and my 2006 ti road. both with ti forks. The industry does not like that. I don't buy bikes. I change worn parts and upgrade when significant. That dont sell.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

tempeteOntheRoad said:


> The reason is: I still ride my 1992 ti hardtail and my 2006 ti road. both with ti forks. The industry does not like that. I don't buy bikes. I change worn parts and upgrade when significant. That dont sell.


Please just let this thread die.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> Please just let this thread die.


I doubt this thread could ever be resurrected to its former "glory". Dr. Waspy was the main character and I believe he has moved on.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Lombard said:


> I doubt this thread could ever be resurrected to its former "glory". Dr. Waspy was the main character and I believe he has moved on.


It looks like he posted about a week ago but I'm really hoping he's found another forum to troll.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

cxwrench said:


> It looks like he posted about a week ago but I'm really hoping he's found another forum to troll.


Oh com'on, CX, you're such a wet blanket! We need some comic relief.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

cxwrench said:


> Please just let this thread die.


It can't, titanium is forever.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

cxwrench said:


> It looks like he posted about a week ago but I'm really hoping he's found another forum to troll.


Oh come on ... he'll be back. He usually crawls back under the bridge when he gets beaten down, but he can't resist extolling the virtues of his Litespeed T1S1 bike that he probably paid way too much for.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

pmf said:


> Oh come on ... he'll be back. He usually crawls back under the bridge when he gets beaten down, but he can't resist extolling the virtues of his Litespeed T1S1 bike that he probably paid way too much for.


You're probably right. What will be next? 'You should wrap your bar tape pulling (pick one)...Which label on your tire should be at the valve stem...if any? Should you use a torque wrench?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

cxwrench said:


> You're probably right. What will be next? 'You should wrap your bar tape pulling (pick one)...Which label on your tire should be at the valve stem...if any? Should you use a torque wrench?


The common theme is his purchase choices are superior to anything else on the market. Despite the existence of other more 'strait' threads asking about problems he's having with said choices.

A real piece of work for sure. I'm not sure his brand of 'out there' can be faked but tip of the cap to him if he is trolling.


----------



## cxwrench (Nov 9, 2004)

Jay Strongbow said:


> The common theme is his purchase choices are superior to anything else on the market. Despite the existence of other more 'strait' threads asking about problems he's having with said choices.
> 
> A real piece of work for sure. I'm not sure his brand of 'out there' can be faked but tip of the cap to him if he is trolling.


It does seem like a 'lifestyle' for him.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> The common theme is his purchase choices are superior to anything else on the market. Despite the existence of other more 'strait' threads asking about problems he's having with said choices.
> 
> A real piece of work for sure. I'm not sure his brand of 'out there' can be faked but tip of the cap to him if he is trolling.


Color me naive, but I really don't think he's a troll. I have seen posts of his in response to medical issues which he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. He may be one of those docs who is very good at what he does, but has some really off-the-wall ideas about anything outside of his profession. A tunnel vision of sorts.

Doctors are used to being in control. That control type of personality often extends to not wanting to admit being wrong about things they know absolutely nothing about. They also may tend to think of inanimate objects in the same way they think of the human body. Trust me, I have known doctors like this.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

tempeteOntheRoad said:


> The reason is: I still ride my 1992 ti hardtail and my 2006 ti road. both with ti forks. The industry does not like that. I don't buy bikes. I change worn parts and upgrade when significant. That dont sell.


Good point. That carbon fiber crap just crumbles into oblivion like cheap plastic. That’s why so many jumbo jets keep dropping into the ocean when their wings evaporate. Those rube PhD mechanical engineers are designing planes to fail to sell more of them!


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

PBL450 said:


> Good point. That carbon fiber crap just crumbles into oblivion like cheap plastic. That’s why so many jumbo jets keep dropping into the ocean when their wings evaporate. Those rube PhD mechanical engineers are designing planes to fail to sell more of them!


https://youtu.be/mSy5mEcmgwU


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)




----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> View attachment 481118


No joke dude. This is no joke. If you put your energy into the wrists you can win on Ti frames at the world tour level. Deep. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

PBL450 said:


> No joke dude. This is no joke. If you put your energy into the wrists you can win on Ti frames at the world tour level. Deep.


Long ago, I dated a woman who had very nicely turned wrists. She told me that her whole family had the same wrists, and that they were aware of their "model" wrists, and all very proud of their wrists.

Now I know... she and her family should have been world tour riders on Ti frames.

I think about her often, when I'm enjoying some private Me Time. For her birthday every year, I would give her a container of the finest wrist polish I could afford. We used to joke: "It's all in the wrists!"

Good times.


----------

