# Yet again: Carbon vs Titanium



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

This is probably old news, but I was wondering as a lighter rider (130-135 pounds), will there be an obvious difference in the ride quality of well designed carbon frame versus titanium frame? With Xmas round the corner, I was thinking that maybe I'll be able to snag a relatively inexpensive complete but old Ti road bike or a carbon frameset off CL/eBay for bike number N+1...

I have an old steel bike and a newer aluminum bike, and I enjoy riding both. Ti appeals to me because there are plenty of old Ti bikes ridden by riders in my club, and it would be cool to have a bike that lasts that long. I have sentimental attachment to my old steel bike being the original owner, and it is from 1984, but my main gripe is the stem mounted shifters and not willing to bolt some cheapos on the downtube...

On the other hand, carbon frames seem to be the norm now, so there must be something to them that makes them great to ride, right??? Or maybe I should just forget about wasting the $$$ and just keep riding the bikes I have now?


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Wrong question*



milkbaby said:


> This is probably old news, but I was wondering as a lighter rider (130-135 pounds), will there be an obvious difference in the ride quality of well designed carbon frame versus titanium frame? With Xmas round the corner, I was thinking that maybe I'll be able to snag a relatively inexpensive complete but old Ti road bike or a carbon frameset off CL/eBay for bike number N+1...
> 
> I have an old steel bike and a newer aluminum bike, and I enjoy riding both. Ti appeals to me because there are plenty of old Ti bikes ridden by riders in my club, and it would be cool to have a bike that lasts that long. I have sentimental attachment to my old steel bike being the original owner, and it is from 1984, but my main gripe is the stem mounted shifters and not willing to bolt some cheapos on the downtube...
> 
> On the other hand, carbon frames seem to be the norm now, so there must be something to them that makes them great to ride, right??? Or maybe I should just forget about wasting the $$$ and just keep riding the bikes I have now?


How a bike rides is about the geometry, the details of frame design (tube shape, tube diameter, tube wall thickness), the wheels/tires, and lastly the material of construction. There are far too many variables to assign "the ride" to a choice between frame material, though you will find many who argue otherwise.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

CF tends to be black and Ti tends to be silvery. I can't offer much more help than that.


----------



## Doolab (Feb 13, 2008)

I own both a Ti road bike and a CF road bike. They're both nice in my eyes, and as a matter of opinion, I think the Ti bike is timeless in beauty and lively in its responses, and the CF bike is aggressive and sexy, as well as sharp in its responses and superb in its efficiency.

Now having read your post again, since you're quite familiar with steel and aluminum bikes, then a Ti bike would probably feel to you as lively as a steel bike yet would be lightweight as an aluminum bike. So it would slot itself somewhere in between those two.
Now a CF bike would be quite a departure in feel from metal frame bikes, and may be worth considering just for variety's sake...

The rest is up to you. Enjoy whatever you decide to go with... There really isn't a bad choice between the 2 materials.

Cheers.


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

milkbaby said:


> *On the other hand, carbon frames seem to be the norm now, so there must be something to them that makes them great to ride, right??? * Or maybe I should just forget about wasting the $$$ and just keep riding the bikes I have now?


CF is the norm, because that is what all the bike frame labels have gone to manufacturing. Said labels moved to CF because they are dirt cheap to mass produce in Asia. If overnight someone discovered how to make a dirt cheap frame out of uranium, then all the LBSes world wide would suddenly need lead aprons. The profit margin on asian made CF frames is huge when compared to any metal frame that needs either an artisan welding/brazing (Ti or steel) it...or an inert environment for machine welding (aluminum). It is simply about profit margin not ride. That is the only real reason most LBSes only have CF bikes these days.


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

I get criticized for saying it, but I honestly can't tell any difference in ride between any of the four frame materials I've ridden. In particular, I had a steel and aluminum bike with the exact same geometry, and set up exactly the same. One time during a ride I forgot which one I was riding. Change tires, and there's a difference. Design the frame differently, and there's a difference. Change materials, and I don't think it matters.

So I say ride what makes you ride more.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Like others said, a great deal depends on the specific frames in question rather than simply the materials. That said, I have Ti and carbon bikes. The Ti bike has a great soft ride, but it is quite flexible which can be seen and felt during hard efforts and also in it's handling. The carbon bike's ride has a significantly stiffer ride, but pedaling and handling are much stiffer. So, at least these two examples hew to the stereotype for the materials. I'll add that I weigh ~ 165lb.


----------



## Schneiderguy (Jan 9, 2005)

I have a custom steel bike with steel fork, a Lynskey Helix (twisted tubes) and had a Look that I crashed put a big ding in the down tube just below the head tube, choose not to have it repaired and bought the Helix. The Look was about 1/2 lb lighter than the Helix with all the same eq. and wheels. They both are/were stiff and responsive. The Look a little snapper but the Helix is smoother on rough roads. However I found the Look to be very comfortable also. CF doesn't crash as well as Ti. Often CF damage can be repaired. I didn't want to be thinking of whether a repair would hold or not while flying down a hill or bearly hanging on a hammerfest ride so I replaced it. I liked the Look a lot. Over all the Helix is a better bike for me. There are great TI used bike buys on ebay. A lot of Ti bikes are not stiff enough for big guys. I weigh 140 and ride an XS Helix-plenty stiff. My dream bike would be a custom Helix built to the specs of my custom steel bike.


----------



## Mike Overly (Sep 28, 2005)

Ti for life, carbon if you want to know you got the current state of the art. I ride all the materials, and I'm fastest with an egg for breakfast and a tailwind.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Kerry Irons said:


> How a bike rides is about the geometry, the details of frame design (tube shape, tube diameter, tube wall thickness), the wheels/tires, and lastly the material of construction. There are far too many variables to assign "the ride" to a choice between frame material, though you will find many who argue otherwise.


Are you saying that broad generalizations are not possible? Unthinkable. 

Are you suggesting that my one or zero sample point is not sufficient for extrapolation? Unthinkable.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Applying science*



orange_julius said:


> Are you saying that broad generalizations are not possible? Unthinkable.
> 
> Are you suggesting that my one or zero sample point is not sufficient for extrapolation? Unthinkable.


Using some regular phrases from the scientific literature:

"It is known that" - I think.

"It is generally known that" - A couple of other folks think so too

"Correct within an order of magnitude" - Wrong


----------



## Newnan3 (Jul 8, 2011)

I have a carbon road and mtn frame but would prefer a Ti frame if I could afford one.......But i still like my carbon bikes.


----------



## dekindy (Jul 7, 2006)

Buy a carbon bike with a good warranty and you can get a new frame every couple of years when it breaks.


----------



## Got Time (Jan 23, 2009)

Last time I bought a new bike I simply went to each LBS in the area and checked what they have available and tried to test ride whatever they suggested after explaining my kind of preferred riding. I only excluded steel bikes because I already had one of those (what was back then a "high end" frame...). Some carbon bikes were way too stiff for me, some Ti bikes were too flexy for me, and so on. At the end I picked something that made me think "Wow" while riding it.

Note: if you want to compare frames, make sure the rest (esp. wheels, tyres, air pressure) is the same.

If you want a Ti bike: ride it and if you like it, buy it. Simple, isn't it?


----------



## lardo (Aug 16, 2011)

I have a Ti road bike. I put down the money for Ti because of the longevity. It also has better resale value.


----------



## jdp211 (Jan 7, 2011)

Ride quality has much more to do with tire choice and pressure than frame material


----------



## singlespeedbuss (Aug 6, 2009)

I have had steel (old Bianchi) road like a Cadillac but not snappy. An old Aluminum Douglas with Carbon forks and rear chain stays, rode really nice also. I currently have a Tarmac SL2, rides nice but not as nice as the Bianchi although it hauls arse and climbs fabulous, and lastly I have a Lynskey SS which rides pretty well but is stiff and hauls and climbs well also. It does not ride as well as my old steel Bianchi or my CF bike. Carbon is light, fast and snappy but Ti is pretty sweet and will last a lot longer. If your steel bike rides really nice keep riding it until it`s worn out or you think you need one of the new wonder bikes. Enjoy whatever you decide and Merry Christmas!


----------



## nor_cal_rider (Dec 18, 2006)

Everyone has an opinion on this....I own both CF and Ti bikes by top end designer/manufacturers. Honestly, I love the way both ride, but am personally more comfortable on my CF frame. I've ridden both bikes over the same routes, and found no real difference in pace/speed...but find the geometry of my Madone just a "perfect match" to me and my riding. The Ti framed Moots is a great ride too...just not my personal first choice (yet I'll never sell it - the bike rides great and has a nearly indestructible frame).

YMMV....


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

You can tailor the ride quality of the bike just the way you want, with any available frame material, and parts selection.

You can get a carbon frame to weigh a little bit less, and it may come in a slightly different molded shape.

The ti bike will look more untilitarian, (the exception being a Lynskey Helix) and weigh a little lighter than a steel frame. It will be much more corrosion resistant, and probably last longer, (depending on the manufacturer) thaqn either a steel or carbon frame.

A steel frame will give you the widest range of choices, from utility to classy, heavy or light, stiff or flexy, colors, etc...

An aluminum frame will be the most available option, will look the most similar from different manufacturers, most likely the least expensive, but best bang for the buck of all the choices.

Don't limit your frame choice by material alone, unless you already know what you want out of your frame, and you're looking to a ti bike for a specific reason, like its corrosion resistance.
Nothing wrong with any frame material choice out there. You need to understand what you want out of your frame, and what is needed to get that quality that you are looking for..


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

I'm interested in what model and year your bike is, that has stem mounted shifters.


----------



## SevensRacer (Dec 14, 2011)

After talking with local bicycle mechanics and a couple of engineers, the only bikes I can see owning are ones made from steel, aluminum, or titanium. From their views, while carbon fiber is, indeed, a strong material, it's strength, unlike metals, is unidirectional, meaning that it's strength might only be directed towards a specific point. For instance, a piece of carbon fiber might be extremely strong when pressure is applied one way, but directed towards another way, it can snap quite easily. Due to this, carbon fiber requires far more attention when it comes to production, application and maintenance.

You may want to read these links below regarding carbon fiber:

Carbon fiber forks on bicycles can hold an insidious danger

Carbon Fiber Warning


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

SevensRacer said:


> After talking with local bicycle mechanics and a couple of engineers, the only bikes I can see owning are ones made from steel, aluminum, or titanium. From their views, while carbon fiber is, indeed, a strong material, it's strength, unlike metals, is unidirectional, meaning that it's strength might only be directed towards a specific point. For instance, a piece of carbon fiber might be extremely strong when pressure is applied one way, but directed towards another way, it can snap quite easily. Due to this, carbon fiber requires far more attention when it comes to production, application and maintenance.
> 
> You may want to read these links below regarding carbon fiber:
> 
> ...


Being in the bike biz, having owned everything except Ti (but I have ridden Ti and the difference between a Litespeed Classic and a Vortex is day and night), and 45 years of road riding, all I can say to this is "BS."


----------



## SevensRacer (Dec 14, 2011)

Richard said:


> Being in the bike biz, having owned everything except Ti (but I have ridden Ti and the difference between a Litespeed Classic and a Vortex is day and night), and 45 years of road riding, all I can say to this is "BS."


After talking with these bicycle mechanics and chemical engineers, who by the way, have 40+ years of experience, I think I'll stick to their "supposed" BS anytime.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

SevensRacer said:


> After talking with these bicycle mechanics and chemical engineers, who by the way, have 40+ years of experience, I think I'll stick to their "supposed" BS anytime.


Carbon is an awesome bike frame material. It's in no way unidirectional in the bike frame application. How can anyone even say that with a straight face? The material is woven on some applications, and cross-layered on other applications. That's where its gets its inherent strength from. Being layered to resist against itself. The layers can then be tailored to be superstrong in certain directions, and thinner in others, to suit the ride characteristics better.

You could also argue that the strength in a metal tube is unidirectional, and therefore must be over engineered to suit the bike frame application. Otherwise it would crush like a pop can.

I still don't get how some people look at carbon fiber as some sort of witchcraft mystery frame material.

You don't need to bash carbon if you happen to like ti, and vice versa. They both make excellent frame materials. All the top pro riders used to use ti, but now they all use carbon.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

turbogrover said:


> I'm interested in what model and year your bike is, that has stem mounted shifters.


I believe it's a 1984 model year Lotus Elan (sure of the model, unsure of the year). Very heavy high tensile steel, but it was my first road bike, a birthday gift from my parents way back when... I still enjoy riding it, but the stem mounted shifters are definitely not as convenient as either DT, bar end, or integrated brake/shifters.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

milkbaby said:


> I believe it's a 1984 model year Lotus Elan (sure of the model, unsure of the year). Very heavy high tensile steel, but it was my first road bike, a birthday gift from my parents way back when... I still enjoy riding it, but the stem mounted shifters are definitely not as convenient as either DT, bar end, or integrated brake/shifters.


Just judging from your limited intro of your riding preferences, you probably won't notice any marked difference between a modern ti or modern carbon bike. They will both have carbon forks, and if you're looking at a certain price point, they'll have similar equipment. Light wheels will give you a quicker snappier ride, and 25mm tires will smooth out the ride, regardless of the frame stiffness. If you buy a bike made within the last few years, it'll ride so much nicer than what you have now, I'm sure you'll enjoy it a lot, regardless of the frame material selection. As long as it fits you properly. :thumbsup:


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Carbon has the potential advantage of being fabricated in such a way as to have differing physical characteristics in different directions. Good designers can exploit this to create products that perform better. Bad designers or poor fabrication methods can screw it up and make things that work worse.


----------



## SevensRacer (Dec 14, 2011)

turbogrover said:


> Carbon is an awesome bike frame material. It's in no way unidirectional in the bike frame application. How can anyone even say that with a straight face? The material is woven on some applications, and cross-layered on other applications. That's where its gets its inherent strength from. Being layered to resist against itself. The layers can then be tailored to be superstrong in certain directions, and thinner in others, to suit the ride characteristics better.
> 
> You could also argue that the strength in a metal tube is unidirectional, and therefore must be over engineered to suit the bike frame application. Otherwise it would crush like a pop can.
> 
> ...


Umm, carbon fiber it actually unidirectional. Manufacturers use this aspect to make certain areas stronger or weaker. Metal is NOT unidirectional. I can apply pressure on any side and it will respond exactly the same.

Frame Materials for the Touring Cyclist

I don't bash carbon, nor look at it as some voodoo - I simply state what lbs mechanics and engineers have told me on carbon fiber. Heck, even carbon fiber bike makers like Trek and Specialized talk about this in their warnings below:

http://www.trekbikes.com/pdf/carbon_care/10TK_Carbon_Care_Flyer.pdf
http://cdn.specialized.com/OA_MEDIA/pdf/manuals/08_Fork_Installation_Guide_r2.pdf


----------



## SilverStar (Jan 21, 2008)

SevensRacer said:


> After talking with local bicycle mechanics and a couple of engineers, the only bikes I can see owning are ones made from steel, aluminum, or titanium. From their views, while carbon fiber is, indeed, a strong material, it's strength, unlike metals, is unidirectional, meaning that it's strength might only be directed towards a specific point. For instance, a piece of carbon fiber might be extremely strong when pressure is applied one way, but directed towards another way, it can snap quite easily. Due to this, carbon fiber requires far more attention when it comes to production, application and maintenance.
> 
> You may want to read these links below regarding carbon fiber:
> 
> ...


"Salient News"? Try something a bit more authoritative and I might start to believe it. Meanwhile, I agree with the rest of the BS callers.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

SevensRacer said:


> Umm, carbon fiber it actually unidirectional. Manufacturers use this aspect to make certain areas stronger or weaker. Metal is NOT unidirectional. I can apply pressure on any side and it will respond exactly the same.
> 
> Frame Materials for the Touring Cyclist
> 
> I don't bash carbon, nor look at it as some voodoo - I simply state what lbs mechanics and engineers have told me on carbon fiber. Heck, even carbon fiber bike makers like Trek and Specialized talk about this in their warnings below


Okay, I'm not saying the material itself is not unidirectional, I know that it is. I'm saying that it's layered, with the layers in differing directions. I've also said many times over, that carbon fiber's biggest problem, is that it's so strong, that frame designers get overzealous trying to shave weight off the frame, and sometimes you end up with a frame that is a little too fragile for the average Fred to be riding.

A 3 lb. carbon frame can be a bulletproof frame. A 3 lb.steel or aluminum frame can still be pretty fragile, and a 3 lb ti frame can be an awesome bike, but not as laterally stiff as a carbon frame.

There are very logical reasons why you can make a perfectly useable carbon frame that weighs only 800grams. That light frame isn't for everybody, and that's why there are plenty of good options out there.

So do you also think that a metal tube has the same strength in all directions? Honestly?
I've seen an aluminum frame that was pierced with a sharp piece of wood through the downtube. That frame was plenty strong for the application it was being used for, but throw an unexpected load, in a direction it wasn't designed for, and that's what happens. It's like a house of cards. That's the way most lightweight frames are designed. You can tear a piece of sheetmetal with your bear hands, and dent it with your finger tip, but roll it into a tube, and you can stand on it.

I wouldn't look to bike shop mechanic for his opinion on frame material engineering.
I would ask him about the fit and ride quality of a bike, unless he's also the guy responsible for designing the carbon frame from scratch.

I've ridden bikes made from all frame materials, and they were all great bikes. I've also broken frames and parts made from various materials. It doesn't make them all bad or give me reason to avoid any of them. They were race bikes designed to be light and fast. They weren't designed to be indestructable. Thay all have their own benefits and downfalls.


----------



## TWB8s (Sep 18, 2003)

I'm working real hard to wear out my two Ti bikes and one carbon bike. 10, 8 and 1 years on each of them. I'll let you know if anything happens.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

SilverStar said:


> "Salient News"? Try something a bit more authoritative and I might start to believe it. Meanwhile, I agree with the rest of the BS callers.


Shush, it was on the interwebs, so it must be true. Plus, the author says he is an engineer with significant experience, so what he says must be true. 

Nevermind that hundreds of other engineers who specialize in carbon frames, and thousands of owners of carbon frames who have greatly exceeded the one-year expiry date of their frames, would disagree. ;-) 

Speaking of experience, the Catholic Church had about 1500 years' worth of experience when it disagreed with Galileo. Heresy!


----------



## SilverStar (Jan 21, 2008)

orange_julius said:


> Shush, it was on the interwebs, so it must be true. Plus, the author says he is an engineer with significant experience, so what he says must be true.
> 
> Nevermind that hundreds of other engineers who specialize in carbon frames, and thousands of owners of carbon frames who have greatly exceeded the one-year expiry date of their frames, would disagree. ;-)
> 
> Speaking of experience, the Catholic Church had about 1500 years' worth of experience when it disagreed with Galileo. Heresy!


Amen! I love this!


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I have had steel, aluminum and carbon bikes and certainly can tell the difference in material. 
I have never ridden blindfolded because of obvious safety reasons.

Steel:

Peugot PX10
Zeus
Masi Gran Criterium built in California
De Rosa Columbus SLX
Mercian
Colnago
Andy Gilmour tandem

Aluminum:

Fuji
Santana Sovereign Tandem

Carbon:

Trek 5200
Trek 5500
Time VXR
Specialized Tarmac SL3
Calfee Tandem

I prefer the ride of carbon because it is inherently stiff, light and absorbs vibration.
Each part of the frame can be shaped to take maximum advantage of the material properties.
Most people who ride heavy steel are retro-grouches but there is nothing wrong with that.
The argument that Ti is more durable than carbon doesn't hold up as I everyone I have known that has owned a Ti frame has had it break at least once. It is true that Ti has more impact resistance than carbon and is less likely to break in a crash, but over the long term a carbon is less likely to break due to fatigue. I rode my Trek 5200 for 7 years and then it was replaced by a 5500 due to a manufacturing defect. I have ridden for 18 years combined on these bikes without the frame breaking.


----------



## SevensRacer (Dec 14, 2011)

turbogrover said:


> Okay, I'm not saying the material itself is not unidirectional, I know that it is. I'm saying that it's layered, with the layers in differing directions. I've also said many times over, that carbon fiber's biggest problem, is that it's so strong, that frame designers get overzealous trying to shave weight off the frame, and sometimes you end up with a frame that is a little too fragile for the average Fred to be riding.


Denying your own statement leads me to believe less of your argument.



turbogrover said:


> Carbon is an awesome bike frame material. It's in no way unidirectional in the bike frame application. How can anyone even say that with a straight face?





turbogrover said:


> So do you also think that a metal tube has the same strength in all directions? Honestly? I've seen an aluminum frame that was pierced with a sharp piece of wood through the downtube. That frame was plenty strong for the application it was being used for, but throw an unexpected load, in a direction it wasn't designed for, and that's what happens. It's like a house of cards. That's the way most lightweight frames are designed. You can tear a piece of sheetmetal with your bear hands, and dent it with your finger tip, but roll it into a tube, and you can stand on it.


It should because metal is isotropic. That is why they are given various characteristics through classifications like a periodic table. Sheldon Brown actually made a point about this on his website: Frame Materials for the Touring Cyclist

For instance, aluminum's classification is:

Modulus: 10-11
Yield Point: 11-59 (4-22)
Specific Gravity: 168.5

For steel, it is: 

Modulus: 30
Yield Point: 46-162
Specific Gravity: 490

These properties are what makes aluminum, aluminum and steel, well, steel! They *do not* change.

Also, in regards to your silly example, have you heard of butted tubing? Looking at your example, I am pretty sure you haven't. Here's a link for you to learn:Reynolds Technology



turbogrover said:


> I wouldn't look to bike shop mechanic for his opinion on frame material engineering. I would ask him about the fit and ride quality of a bike, unless he's also the guy responsible for designing the carbon frame from scratch.


The local lbs mechanics work on tons of carbon fiber bikes every month. They have even showed me a few of the damaged carbon fiber bikes in their shop: some from slightly over-tightening the seatpost, a few with broken forks and even a complete frame that had to be completely discarded due to a moderate scratch that comprised the frame's integrity. Also, the engineers (whom you have conveniently omitted) have 40+ years working as chemical engineers for Chevron. These people should _obviously_ know about carbon fiber.

Thanks for trying, but I'll gladly choose the advice of bicycle mechanics that work on many carbon fiber bikes every month, chemical engineers from Chevron with 40+ years of experience over someone who denies his own contradictions and has troubles identifying specific properties of metals anytime.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

Marc said:


> CF is the norm, because that is what all the bike frame labels have gone to manufacturing. Said labels moved to CF because they are dirt cheap to mass produce in Asia. If overnight someone discovered how to make a dirt cheap frame out of uranium, then all the LBSes world wide would suddenly need lead aprons. The profit margin on asian made CF frames is huge when compared to any metal frame that needs either an artisan welding/brazing (Ti or steel) it...or an inert environment for machine welding (aluminum). It is simply about profit margin not ride. That is the only real reason most LBSes only have CF bikes these days.


+1....:thumbsup:


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> I get criticized for saying it, but I honestly can't tell any difference in ride between any of the four frame materials I've ridden. In particular, I had a steel and aluminum bike with the exact same geometry, and set up exactly the same. One time during a ride I forgot which one I was riding. Change tires, and there's a difference. Design the frame differently, and there's a difference. Change materials, and I don't think it matters.
> 
> So I say ride what makes you ride more.


+1.... This has been my experience too..


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

turbogrover said:


> Carbon is an awesome bike frame material. It's in no way unidirectional in the bike frame application. How can anyone even say that with a straight face? The material is woven on some applications, and cross-layered on other applications. That's where its gets its inherent strength from. Being layered to resist against itself. The layers can then be tailored to be superstrong in certain directions, and thinner in others, to suit the ride characteristics better.
> 
> You could also argue that the strength in a metal tube is unidirectional, and therefore must be over engineered to suit the bike frame application. Otherwise it would crush like a pop can.
> 
> ...


Easily, call a bike manufacturer (pick any) and ask them if they recommend towing a kids trailer with a carbon frame. They will tell you that it is not recommended and it WILL void your warranty. I've heard from several that a carbon frame is not designed for that type of application; That a carbon fiber bike frame isn't designed to handle the stress of a bike trailer at the rear triangle.I've seen a few people do it, but they are doing it on borrowed time. One guy told me that he knows but he didn't care because he gets a new bike every year anyway. Don't get me wrong. I love my carbon bikes, but they aren't designed for multiple applications. I can grab a Columbus SLX framed rig and tow a BOB or my Burley D'Lite without issues and still race on it. That can't be said for carbon fiber. Also, any aerospace engineer knows that a carbon fiber aircraft part is not the same carbon fiber as a carbon fiber bike frame. The aircraft part will be stronger but they ARE unidirectional. Sure the part has it's merits, but it gets more attention during inspection than the old aluminum parts. Failure is sudden with carbon fiber and it's usually nasty regardless of which application. The "witchcraft mystery frame" statement was a bit extreme, and I know that it was used to downplay tha statement that you were opposing. Still, the fact remains that being a fanboy of any material is just ludicrous. There are negatives to every material. Don't fool yourself into think carbon is any better because you have it.


----------



## Cbookman (Jul 2, 2009)

SevensRacer said:


> Also, the engineers (whom you have conveniently omitted) have 40+ years working as chemical engineers for Chevron. These people should _obviously_ know about carbon fiber.


Chemical Engineers likely know jacksh!t about a structural material and what it's suited for. 

Get it straight. These people design chemicals, not parts for bicycles or the myriad of other things that carbon fiber is used for (Airplanes, etc). 

Would they know about the resin that holds it together? Maybe, if they had the chemical makeup given to them or they worked for the handful of resin manufacturers that make the resins used in industry. 40+ years for a chemical company does nothing to convince me that they know anything more than you do about carbon fiber and it's ability to perform as a structural material. 

Spouting off saying that carbon isn't a suitable frame material because it is uni-directional means you have a simple understanding, not a fundamental idea of how layup, weave, and the % of resin content contribute to the properties that are required to make something durable enough for everyday use.


----------



## SevensRacer (Dec 14, 2011)

Cbookman said:


> Chemical Engineers likely know jacksh!t about a structural material and what it's suited for.
> 
> Get it straight. These people design chemicals, not parts for bicycles or the myriad of other things that carbon fiber is used for (Airplanes, etc).
> 
> ...


Stated from Anne Marie Helmensteine Ph.D 
What Is Chemical Engineering? What Do Chemical Engineers Do?

_"Some chemical engineers make designs and invent new processes. Some construct instruments and facilities. Some plan and operate facilities. Chemical engineers have helped develop atomic science, polymers, paper, dyes, drugs, plastics, fertilizers, foods, petrochemicals... pretty much everything. They devise ways to make products from raw materials and ways to convert one material into another useful form. Chemical engineers can make processes more cost effective or more environmentally friendly or more efficient. As you can see, a chemical engineer can find a niche in any scientific or engineering field."_

Carbon fiber is a polymer and something they deal with as well. You're the one that needs to get their facts straight.


----------



## Cbookman (Jul 2, 2009)

SevensRacer said:


> Stated from Anne Marie Helmensteine Ph.D
> What Is Chemical Engineering? What Do Chemical Engineers Do?
> 
> _"Some chemical engineers make designs and invent new processes. Some construct instruments and facilities. Some plan and operate facilities. Chemical engineers have helped develop atomic science, polymers, paper, dyes, drugs, plastics, fertilizers, foods, petrochemicals... pretty much everything. They devise ways to make products from raw materials and ways to convert one material into another useful form. Chemical engineers can make processes more cost effective or more environmentally friendly or more efficient. As you can see, a chemical engineer can find a niche in any scientific or engineering field."_
> ...


Making a polymer and using it in a structural sense are completely different. Yes, the individual fibers are a polymer. But a chemical engineer has nothing to do with the forces applied to a carbon fiber/resin composite in a structural sense as in a bicycle, airplane, space shuttle. The curriculum for a Chem. Eng. degree has nothing to do with structural analyses outside of a molecular level. My facts are straight. 

You don't seem to have any idea on how the material is used, how structures are constructed with it, and exactly what the difference between engineering disciplines is. I've worked with it to fabricate one off parts, including suspension members for a race car, and I've participated in destructive testing of said parts.


----------



## SevensRacer (Dec 14, 2011)

Cbookman said:


> Making a polymer and using it in a structural sense are completely different. Yes, the individual fibers are a polymer. But a chemical engineer has nothing to do with the forces applied to a carbon fiber/resin composite in a structural sense as in a bicycle, airplane, space shuttle. The curriculum for a Chem. Eng. degree has nothing to do with structural analyses outside of a molecular level. My facts are straight.
> 
> You don't seem to have any idea on how the material is used, how structures are constructed with it, and exactly what the difference between engineering disciplines is. I've worked with it to fabricate one off parts, including suspension members for a race car, and I've participated in destructive testing of said parts.


Their opinions are more than qualified, especially since they also work with other teams of engineers. In other words, they know what they are talking about.

Also, are you an lbs mechanic that works on carbon fiber bikes on a continual basis? I didn't think so.

I'll gladly take the advice on carbon fiber bikes from lbs bike mechanics that work on them constantly and supposedly "unfit" chemical engineers over yours.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

Everybody feel free to keep discussing because it has been enlightening -- thank you. Of course I've read about carbon asplodation before, but they keep making bike frames and other stuff out of it, so I am genuinely curious about a carbon framed bike.

It seems very easy to get a good deal on a carbon framed bike that is a few years old, but I have not been able to easily find good deals on used titanium bikes. The depreciation curve seems a LOT steeper on carbon versus Ti. It seems like high quality Ti is similarly priced to high zoot CF (and perhaps Ti is even less than the greatest/newest CF), but the Ti holds value much better, not sure if that is due to the constant need to "upgrade" that lotsa riders have versus the perception that Ti is "eternal".

If I had more money and more time to ride to justify it, I would be very interested in a polished Ti or shiny stainless steel (953 or XCr) frame. Not that I have any idea how they would ride, but they obviously look cool and having a cool bike makes me want to ride more...


----------



## Mike Overly (Sep 28, 2005)

Adding a thought: carbon is in most cases priced less than steel and titanium today, so I invite everyone who's passionately interested to hop off the fence and onto a CF rig to join the experiment far, far away from internet pee-eye-double-essing contests. I've got a year+ on a carbon GT GTR and it's proven quite tough. Better than a metal bike in some ways, worse in others (detailed OC ratings in my bike sig) -- but so far I'd say it's every bit as robust as a steel bike if you're reasonably careful about handling & storage. 

Crashes are a mixed bag for all the materials, but as much as I would bet on still riding home after a moderate crash on a metal bike, the cost of repairing a good steel or Ti frame will no doubt soon intersect the replacement cost of a CF.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

terry b said:


> CF tends to be black and Ti tends to be silvery. I can't offer much more help than that.


Unless painted. My titanium frame with no paint looks a lot better after 15 years (there are a few polished scratches and spots) than the steel one did (dings with primer or metal showing) after 7.


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

SevensRacer said:


> Denying your own statement leads me to believe less of your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol, okay! Watch out the sky is falling!


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

terbennett said:


> Easily, call a bike manufacturer (pick any) and ask them if they recommend towing a kids trailer with a carbon frame. They will tell you that it is not recommended and it WILL void your warranty. I've heard from several that a carbon frame is not designed for that type of application; That a carbon fiber bike frame isn't designed to handle the stress of a bike trailer at the rear triangle.I've seen a few people do it, but they are doing it on borrowed time. One guy told me that he knows but he didn't care because he gets a new bike every year anyway. Don't get me wrong. I love my carbon bikes, but they aren't designed for multiple applications. I can grab a Columbus SLX framed rig and tow a BOB or my Burley D'Lite without issues and still race on it. That can't be said for carbon fiber. Also, any aerospace engineer knows that a carbon fiber aircraft part is not the same carbon fiber as a carbon fiber bike frame. The aircraft part will be stronger but they ARE unidirectional. Sure the part has it's merits, but it gets more attention during inspection than the old aluminum parts. Failure is sudden with carbon fiber and it's usually nasty regardless of which application. The "witchcraft mystery frame" statement was a bit extreme, and I know that it was used to downplay tha statement that you were opposing. Still, the fact remains that being a fanboy of any material is just ludicrous. There are negatives to every material. Don't fool yourself into think carbon is any better because you have it.


Haha, "fanboy". I love it. Amazing how defensive people get, and then get selective reading disability. I certainly can't argue with logic like yours. As soon you throw the "baby trailer" arguement in there, all bets are off! :thumbsup:


----------



## turbogrover (Jan 1, 2006)

I don't want to call anyone ignorant, (I'm not) but let's just say the cream that is also known as, "lack of knowledge=scared taboo" always rises to the top during discussions like this.

So what's everyone's opinion on Obama's birth cert, and astronauts on the moon?


----------



## Cbookman (Jul 2, 2009)

SevensRacer said:


> Their opinions are more than qualified, especially since they also work with other teams of engineers. In other words, they know what they are talking about.
> 
> Also, are you an lbs mechanic that works on carbon fiber bikes on a continual basis? I didn't think so.
> 
> I'll gladly take the advice on carbon fiber bikes from lbs bike mechanics that work on them constantly and supposedly "unfit" chemical engineers over yours.



Believe whomever you want, but your statements don't change anything. As an engineer, working with a chemical engineer does not make me an expert on polymers, just as a chemical engineer working with me doesn't make them an expert on anything structural. I'm not taking anything away from them as engineers, but you're operating on assumptions here chief, and you're foregoing the opportunity to ride some very sweet bikes because of this 'advice'. Just seems foolish to me is all.


----------



## orange_julius (Jan 24, 2003)

Cbookman said:


> Making a polymer and using it in a structural sense are completely different. Yes, the individual fibers are a polymer. But a chemical engineer has nothing to do with the forces applied to a carbon fiber/resin composite in a structural sense as in a bicycle, airplane, space shuttle. The curriculum for a Chem. Eng. degree has nothing to do with structural analyses outside of a molecular level. My facts are straight.
> 
> You don't seem to have any idea on how the material is used, how structures are constructed with it, and exactly what the difference between engineering disciplines is. I've worked with it to fabricate one off parts, including suspension members for a race car, and I've participated in destructive testing of said parts.


Are you saying that my advanced degree in signal processing does not make me a qualified record producer?

In the meantime, we should all stop riding bicycles altogether. Failures of all sorts of aluminum, Ti, and steel parts and frames are already documented here: 
http://pardo.net/bike/pic/fail-001/000.html 
We should wait for the kind folks at Chevron to divert their focus from hydrocarbon exploration, production and refining, to helping us cyclists.


----------



## J-dubya (Jun 23, 2010)

I had a Lemond Tete de Course (carbon fiber with Ti "backbone") which I loved. Then I broke the non replaceable ti der hanger and my friend sent me his Giant TCR (carbon fiber). I didn't think that I would like it better, but I do. It seems to me that Ti has a certain resonant frequency, which I like, I thought I would miss that going all carbon, alas I don't. It doesn't hurt that the TCR frame was lighter. These are subtle differences, but for me, it matters. It might be analogous to being a wine connoisseur. It's a seat of the pants (chamois) thing. When you are passionate about something - its good great fun. Another analogy might be women; it sure helps in a long term relationship when you look at your trusty mount and you want go ride her. I kind of think about saddles in this context, those big undies might be comfy, but they don't ignite passion. A sexy saddle has almost as much power over me as a sexy thong.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Real world answer: Current stock carbon frames are largely on the stiff side, and may ride a little harsh for lighter people.

You can get custom Ti and carbon to address the needs of a light rider, but there are more choices in custom Ti than custom carbon.

OP, have you test ridden many carbon bikes? What did you think?


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

Lots of good bikes out there. 

The big push for CF is for the higher margins. That is not to say they are not good bikes, a lot of it depends on the manufacturer. 

Current CF marketing is focusing on "stiffness" and "lightness". 

Tracking a flagship CF model for a few years, it is entertaining to see it gain 15% more stiffness in each model. After a 5 year span that is 75% stiffer than 5 years prior. Often the focus on stiffness for marketing purposes starts to negate the ride quality (if it is not just for marketing). The focus on lightness may... not will... may result is some frames that are less able to withstand routine damage. 

These are marketing driven problems. Maybe "aero" will slow things down a little in the light and stiff dept.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Dajianshan said:


> These are marketing driven problems. Maybe "aero" will slow things down a little in the light and stiff dept.


A nice thought, but I doubt it. Hard to make an aero cross sections flex in the good way. But Cervelo is claiming the S5 is more compliant than the R3.

Not that any test riders share that opinion...


----------



## Dajianshan (Jul 15, 2007)

I was talking to a test rider the other day. 

He joked that he liked to keep his rides under 5hrs because any longer than that on his bike is absolute torture. It keeps him moving at top speed.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

Kontact said:


> Real world answer: Current stock carbon frames are largely on the stiff side, and may ride a little harsh for lighter people.
> 
> You can get custom Ti and carbon to address the needs of a light rider, but there are more choices in custom Ti than custom carbon.
> 
> OP, have you test ridden many carbon bikes? What did you think?


I haven't done any test riding on carbon or titanium. Only once did I do a post-group ride parking lot excursion on my buddy's crabon Trek bike because he insisted I try out his lightweight racer. I have to admit, it felt like it had more snap and jump to it compared to either my vintage steel or Cannondale CAAD9. But I thought maybe part of it was I went directly from the group ride on the old steel (hi-tensile, almost 30 pounds, and 27x1.25" wheels) to the Trek which amplified the differences.

Interestingly, while tooling around on ebay, I "accidentally" bought a carbon bike and just received it the other day (I wanted the wheels and groupset). After a couple short one hour rides, I have to say that I was impressed at how much more direct feeling it had when pedaling hard compared to my aluminum bike which is weird since many people like the Cannondale CAADs for racing crits which require a lot of acceleration. Not to sound like a bike magazine review, but now I understand what they mean when they say the power transfer is great as the bike jumps hard when you pound on the pedals. While I didn't switch out the wheelset, they are semi close in weight from the same company and I ran my usual PSI in the tires.

I never knew what people meant about road buzz as I was always comfortable on my aluminum bike, but the new crabon definitely feels less buzzy, more muted over chipseal. I'm impressed. But I'm also still curious about titanium, mostly because I like the classic looks and the idea that the frame could potentially last a lifetime or longer.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

milkbaby said:


> Interestingly, while tooling around on ebay, I "accidentally" bought a carbon bike and just received it the other day (I wanted the wheels and groupset). After a couple short one hour rides, I have to say that I was impressed at how much more direct feeling it had when pedaling hard compared to my aluminum bike which is weird since many people like the Cannondale CAADs for racing crits which require a lot of acceleration. Not to sound like a bike magazine review, but now I understand what they mean when they say the power transfer is great as the bike jumps hard when you pound on the pedals. While I didn't switch out the wheelset, they are semi close in weight from the same company and I ran my usual PSI in the tires.


It really is hard to tell what is going on without using similar tires, wheels and geometry. The CAAD bikes are pretty good, but aluminum lacks (IMHO) the liveliness of some other materials, and maybe that's what you're feeling.


----------



## Saxoplay (Jan 6, 2012)

Coming from an aluminum frame myself...the Carbon rides much smoother. However, I don't have any experience with Titanium and can't really offer a comparison.


----------



## mtnbikerva1 (Jan 30, 2009)

I am not attacking anyone but.... How can a person not feel the differnce between aluminum vs Ti that is not all 6/4 shapped, or steel or a non hard core race only carbon?
I can not stand riding aluminum it is like riding a jack hammer to me.
I have a Litspeed Vortex about 2002 with: Open Pro rims, 32 spoke, all Campy record 10, Easton EC 90 (carbon) bar, All 6/4 shaped tubes.
My Vortex has gotten too harsh for my taste and I am trying to figure out what I want and can afford, now.
I like the fact that it has been non destructible in my crashes, a little CX, and about 250-350 a week in miles. 100-120 on saturdays.
I am 6'1" 172 pounds.
I like to be able to sprint when I need to but most of my riding is not sprinting.
I ride mountains, flats and everything in between.
What do you guys know about the Lyskey Helix, Litespeed Xicon, Trek 6.9 ssl/7...
Thank you.


----------



## My Own Private Idaho (Aug 14, 2007)

mtnbikerva1 said:


> I am not attacking anyone but.... How can a person not feel the differnce between aluminum vs Ti that is not all 6/4 shapped, or steel or a non hard core race only carbon?
> I can not stand riding aluminum it is like riding a jack hammer to me.
> I have a Litspeed Vortex about 2002 with: Open Pro rims, 32 spoke, all Campy record 10, Easton EC 90 (carbon) bar, All 6/4 shaped tubes.
> My Vortex has gotten too harsh for my taste and I am trying to figure out what I want and can afford, now.
> ...


I guess my butt isn't as refined as yours.:thumbsup:


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

My take is that most of you that have ridden aluminum have never ridden a premium aluminum frame. I used to have a 2005 Specialized S-Works E5 and that frame had a great ride. My Felt FA with carbon rear rides 10X better than my F1- which is full carbon. When you upgrade to carbon, you are doing just that... upgrading. I doubt anyone here can honestly say that if they owned a Trek Madone 3.1, that it rides nicer than a CAAD10-3. Components (wheels/tires in particular) play a bigger role. You'd be going from carbon to aluminum but you are upgrading to aluminum. Many of you are sold on the hype. If you start with an entry level aluminum and upgrade to a carbon bike with higher level wheels and components, it will ride nicer. However, the same can be said if you upgraded to a higher level aluminum bike. Don't fool yourselves.You're comparing oranges to apples. Ti is unchartered territory for me but judging by what other riders have told me, I might give it a try next time around.


----------



## r.shoemaker78 (Feb 23, 2012)

I tend to agree with several other posters that its about geometry and a quality builder more than the material. My Aluminum Cervelo Soloist cost more than a large group of entry level carbon bikes and after test riding several carbon bikes similarly equipped and priced, I kept coming back to the Cervelo. I test rode Fuji, Trek, Cannondale, Jamis, Scott and Giant bikes in both Carbon and Aluminum options. It came down the '11 CAAD 10-3 and the '08 Alum Soloist (still new). There was just something about the Cervelo that I loved, it felt responsive, fast and shockingly compliant over ruff surfaces. It went against all the things I had been told about aluminum and I was very skeptical about it in the beginning as I wasn't a fan of the color scheme and that it was 'older'. 3 months later and just over 1500 miles and I couldn't be happier with my decision.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

Kontact said:


> A nice thought, but I doubt it. Hard to make an aero cross sections flex in the good way. But Cervelo is claiming the S5 is more compliant than the R3.
> 
> Not that any test riders share that opinion...


You know the way it works, if they say it enough times, it'll come true.


----------



## champamoore (Jul 30, 2012)

milkbaby said:


> It seems very easy to get a good deal on a carbon framed bike that is a few years old.


It's a good deal until it breaks and you have no warranty, maybe. 

I'm looking forward to owning a ti bike and a carbon bike one of these days. I keep my eyes open for good used deals on ti bikes. 

Unless someone is selling a clean and (barely) used carbon bike for quarters on their dollars, it won't seem like a good deal to me. Carbon is one material where that warranty is half of what makes it a good deal, imho.


----------



## milkbaby (Aug 14, 2009)

champamoore said:


> Unless someone is selling a clean and (barely) used carbon bike for quarters on their dollars, it won't seem like a good deal to me. Carbon is one material where that warranty is half of what makes it a good deal, imho.


Yah, it depends on how much risk you are willing to take, but since I originally started the thread, I've gotten two carbon bikes used and have been happy with the cost savings and the bikes. Looking at carbon repair, it looks fairly inexpensive to fix small problems, so I'm not overly worried. On the other hand, it seems like it will be impossible to fix any problems with my aluminum frame, though a second hand one will probably be in the same ballpark as a carbon repair ($300-500).

Will probably try titanium or stainless steel in the future, but I am too busy riding to worry about shopping for more bikes right now!


----------

