# Who had carbon fiber and switched to a Ti bike?



## mtnbikerva1 (Jan 30, 2009)

From what frame to what frame?
Why?
Feel?
Durability?
How do you feel about your choice now?


----------



## russd32 (Aug 25, 2011)

i have both and here are my thoughts.

The ti bike rides well, probably about the same as my carbon bike but it lacks the plastic'y thunk noise that carbon makes when you hit a bump. I do like that it's a raw finish so and you don't have to worry about cracking a tube if the bike just falls over. The things I don't care for is that it fingerprints really easy. All in all I probably like titanium better, and if my frame was nicer and fit better I'd probably buy a new fork and swap my good groupset to that bike.


----------



## SteveV0983 (Dec 9, 2008)

russd32 said:


> The things I don't care for is that it fingerprints really easy.


Lemon Pledge will take care of that. Really, this is not a joke. Moots treats all their bikes with Pledge before they leave the factory and I can attest that is takes off fingerprints, sweat stains, and anything else I find on the frame. Water, Dawn, Simple Green, Clean Streak....I've tried them all - they do nothing. Only Lemon Pledge works. Really.

Sorry I cannot help the OP with his question because I've never owned Carbon. But I will add that going from my steel Serotta to a Moots has been night and day. The Moots is phenomenal.


----------



## russd32 (Aug 25, 2011)

Thanks for the tip! I'll give that a shot!


----------



## GA1911 (May 4, 2010)

I also have both a carbon and Ti bike, and the main difference between the two is the ride quality. The Ti bike really soaks up the bumps and road imperfections. However the carbon bike still has a nice ride, but is a stiffer frame with more of a race geometry. I built the carbon bike to see how light a bike I could build without spending a ton of money, and I ended up with a 16 lb. bike in a 58cm frame. I mainly ride the carbon on shorter rides or if I am going to be doing some climbing.

For my Ti bike, I clean with Windex. I bought a Lynskey frame with their "industrial finish" which they basically hit the frame with scotchbrite to take the top layer of the Ti off, and this helps reduce the fingerprints.

I don't think you can go wrong with either material.


----------



## Italianrider76 (May 13, 2005)

How different is the ride betwen Ti ad Al?


----------



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

Nobody believes me when I say this, but......
If the bikes fit the same, you will feel no tangible difference between the ride of frames made from different materials. If you want a difference, get larger tires and use lower air pressure.

Honestly, I don't know how anyone can tell the difference.


----------



## JELLIOT (Aug 7, 2003)

Waiting on a Seven Axiom SL. Currently riding a Cdale Carbon Synapse. I decided on ti due to its durability (I expect to have the bike forever). I also wanted custom as my proportions mean I have difficulty with stock bikes. Not sure about the ride. I like my synapse - its a good climbing bike but I don't find it particularly stiff. I will keep the carbon bike but not sure for how long because I expect I will only want to ride the Seven.


----------



## mtnroadie (Jul 6, 2010)

My first road bike was a carbon bike. I now ride steel, ti and carbon bikes.

Here are my impressions…. 

When I first got my ti bike I was pretty disappointment, compared to my very stiff and light carbon bike the ti bike felt noodly, and it did not have the spring of my steel bikes. It felt the energy I put into the pedals got filtered and diminished by the frame. However this was only my initial impression. I got used to it and now my Ti bike is my favorite bike to ride. It’s lighter than my steel bikes, a bit heavier than my carbon bike. I sometimes feel like it moves faster than my carbon bike, and the feel of the ride is not as supple as steel but not as numb as carbon.

I found myself asking myself why didn’t I look at ti bikes to begin with? To any beginner looking for a non-carbon light bike with a superb ride quality I would suggest a ti for sure. There are some great deals on used ti bikes out there.

I dislike aluminum frames; most of them make for an extremely jarring ride. I have ridden some and was pleasantly surprised. Recently a buddy of mine was looking for a cheap used bike to see if he liked road biking. I ended up telling him to get an aluminum bike with carbon stays and fork. I thought if any aluminum frame would ride nice this would be it. I took it for a short ride and never again. Having said that tires and wheels can make a huge difference. 

I recently transformed the ride of my ti bike to a more stiff feel. I trued out a crazy creek from my rear wheel, stiffening up the wheel significantly, I also ditched the quill adapter and 1.125” stem to a traditional quill. It lowered my bars by about an inch and made for a noticeably harsher ride. The adapter and modern stem acted as a shock dampening.


----------



## SteveV0983 (Dec 9, 2008)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> Nobody believes me when I say this, but......
> If the bikes fit the same, you will feel no tangible difference between the ride of frames made from different materials.


I respectfully disagree with this because there are too many factors involved. Maybe if you were comparing same quality, price, and year of 2 different frames they may be close. I went from a 1992 steel Serotta with a steel fork to a 2012 Vamoots with a carbon fork (same wheels, tires, bars, seat, group) and the rides are drastically different. Both are comfortable bikes but the Moots is much more responsive, accelerates much faster when you step on the pedals, absorbs noticeably more road shock, and has much more responsive handling. It is super comfortable and the geometries are almost identical (within 5mm here or there). Maybe if I were comparing 2 newer bikes they would be closer. That being said, I used to have a 1991 Trek Aluminum and when I came across the 1992 steel Serotta, the Trek was sold. The aluminum was a much harsher, more jarring ride and those 2 bikes where basically the same year. That Aluminum Trek was the most uncomfortable bike I ever rode.


----------



## keppler (May 25, 2007)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> Nobody believes me when I say this, but......
> If the bikes fit the same, you will feel no tangible difference between the ride of frames made from different materials. If you want a difference, get larger tires and use lower air pressure.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know how anyone can tell the difference.


You definitely can. With the same wheels on both my aluminum and carbon bikes, I'll take the carbon one every time. The ride is always good and it smooths out pretty much all road surfaces. The aluminum one transmits all the road buzz directly into your hands and body, and you feel beat up if you ride it for long periods. 

And I bought into the larger tires (and wide 23mm rims) for the aluminum frame. It helped, a bit, but not enough to want to ride it as much as my carbon bike. I'm now looking at an afforadble steel frame to replace it.


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

mtnbikerva1 said:


> From what frame to what frame?
> Why?
> Feel?
> Durability?
> How do you feel about your choice now?


Best I can say for this is that when I went bike shopping the last time around, I rode everything they'd let me toss a leg over, and did what I could to find common ground with tire pressure and my saddle held consistent. Wheels don't matter that much to ride quality. Would have liked to have kept tires consistent, but that was impractical.

Anyway, the essential learning from that is that comparing materials for ride quality is a pointless exercise. The most dead-feeling, BB-flexing bike I've ever personally ridden was made of carbon. So was the harshest, stiffest ass hatchet. I rode whippy and stiff ti, aluminum, and steel, too. My point: What sort of ride you want, and what you want it made from, are essentially independent variables.

That said, I ended up with Ti. The particular bike I have is a great combination of softening the big hits and damping the noise enough to be comfortable, but still letting me know exactly what's going on down at the contact patch. If there's anything to be said about materials, it has to do with what is most commonly produced out of them, and this seems to be the target point for the good ti builders. Good carbon builders seem to chase stiffness to weight above all else, tossing in a nod to comfort if they can. 

If I have another bike, the likelihood is that it will also be ti.


----------



## maximum15 (Feb 6, 2004)

I have a 2004 Litespeed Classic and a 2010 Cervelo RS. They both have the same wheelset and tires (which makes a huge difference in how a bike feels). They also have the same stems, but different bars (aluminum ritchey-litespeed, aluminum 3T-cervelo) and seatpost (thomson-litespeed, 3T- cervelo). They also have the same saddle. Everytime I hop on the Litespeed, I think it is a smoother ride than the Cervelo. Everytime I hop back on the Cervelo I ask myself why I think the Litespeed is better. In reality, I think you just hear more noise on the carbon bike, but both are very smooth rides. The carbon Cervelo does have a feel of more "snap" when I stand on the pedals and it lets me know if I'm not pedaling smoothly. I have put certain wheelsets on the Litespeed that made its ride harsh, so I will reiterate wheels and tires make a huge difference on ride quality. I have no regrets in purchasing either of these bikes but I do like not worrying about frame damage on the Litespeed. If I were to only be able to own one, it would be the Litespeed and the reason would be perceived durability of the frame. One last thought, both of these bikes have the exact same top tube length, head angle, and seat tube angle. I believe the Cervelo has longer chainstays. As others have pointed out, this is just two bikes of the many varieties available and is only beneficial if you are considering one of these bikes.


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> Nobody believes me when I say this, but......
> If the bikes fit the same, you will feel no tangible difference between the ride of frames made from different materials. If you want a difference, get larger tires and use lower air pressure.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know how anyone can tell the difference.


I've had a Litespeed Classic for ~15 years now. In that time I've had several aluminum and carbon bikes, as well as a couple of steel bikes. The Ti frame has never been for sale. 

I agree that tires can make a very big difference in ride quality but to me, the way my Ti frame flexes and rides is very different from the way the carbon bikes I've owned does. I could tell a significant difference between two Cannondale alloy frames I've owned as well as multiple carbon bikes. The Ti bike just sings to me.
Interestingly enough, I have ridden a bike for a week before noticing that the handlebars weren't perfectly straight.

It's just a matter of what a particular rider is sensitive too but there are definite differences in the ride characteristics of frames. If you don't perceive them, buy aluminum bikes and enjoy all the $$ savings.


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

This thread has a bunch of generalizations based on experience riding one or two bikes of a certain material. An awful lot depends upon geometry and hat the builder does with th material. For example the statement that aluminum is jarring isn't true in a generalized sense. In fact a criticism some make of linimum is it's too smooth and flexes too much.

The benefit of CF is it can be easily made to ride a variety of ways. Ti can too but when you want it stiff, especially in the bb area, it gets heavy. If you want a smooth riding, comfortable bike, all materials can be made to ride that way. If you want on the other hand a stiff and very light bike, only CF cA do that.


----------



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

See, nobody agrees with me. Personally, I've ridden steel bikes, aluminum bikes, titanium bikes, and carbon fiber bikes. I now ride steel and Ti, because that's what I have that fit. I would buy aluminum again if I could find one that fit. I really don't care about frame material. There are far too many other factors to consider.


----------



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

stanseven said:


> ....... want on the other hand a stiff and very light bike, only CF cA do that.


Or steel, or aluminum. or titanium. Tube size and manipulation work wonders. My Ti bike is very stiff, and quite light. Everything's relative, of course.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> Nobody believes me when I say this, but......
> If the bikes fit the same, you will feel no tangible difference between the ride of frames made from different materials. If you want a difference, get larger tires and use lower air pressure.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know how anyone can tell the difference.


You're right. We don't believe you.

My wife switched from a custom Ti Serotta to a Felt ZW1. Her position on both bikes is identical. And the geometry of both bikes is pretty similar. She much prefers the ride of the Felt. It's much more responsive with a stiffer rear triangle. Power transfer is really good. She has much more confidence descending due to the stiffer front end. She hasn't ridden the Serotta since she got the Felt back in March or April.

So in short, she switched to CF from Ti and is much happier.


----------



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

JoelS said:


> So in short, she switched to CF from Ti and is much happier.


The material is the _ONLY_ change?


----------



## maximum15 (Feb 6, 2004)

I agree with you and others. You really can't classify a bike by material no more than you can classify a person by race or gender. There are far too many variables.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> Nobody believes me when I say this, but......
> If the bikes fit the same, you will feel no tangible difference between the ride of frames made from different materials. If you want a difference, get larger tires and use lower air pressure.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know how anyone can tell the difference.


I'll believe you. Because its true.


----------



## terry b (Jan 29, 2004)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> See, nobody agrees with me. Personally, I've ridden steel bikes, aluminum bikes, titanium bikes, and carbon fiber bikes. I now ride steel and Ti, because that's what I have that fit. I would buy aluminum again if I could find one that fit. I really don't care about frame material. There are far too many other factors to consider.


I agreed with you up there and I'm agreeing with you down here. Say it again and I'll agree with you a 3rd time.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> The material is the _ONLY_ change?


As in you mean weight, stiffness, etc. all stays the same? Pursuing that line of reasoning is ridiculous. Different materials have different properties. I don't think it's possible to make absolutely identical frames out of different materials. Not where every property pertaining to the ride is the same. Not a chance.

Choose the frame material with the properties you're looking for.


----------



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

JoelS said:


> As in you mean weight, stiffness, etc. all stays the same? Pursuing that line of reasoning is ridiculous. Different materials have different properties. I don't think it's possible to make absolutely identical frames out of different materials. Not where every property pertaining to the ride is the same. Not a chance.
> 
> Choose the frame material with the properties you're looking for.


Ah, you're right. I really don't know anything about materials, or material properties.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> See, nobody agrees with me. Personally, I've ridden steel bikes, aluminum bikes, titanium bikes, and carbon fiber bikes. I now ride steel and Ti, because that's what I have that fit. I would buy aluminum again if I could find one that fit. I really don't care about frame material. There are far too many other factors to consider.


I agree with your statement. This has been discussed 1000 times, will be discussed for another 2000 and still will be debated. A properly made ti frame for the rider's weight and intended use will be as stiff or flexy as you want it to be. Same with carbon. 

A carbon frame for the average size rider maybe somewhat lighter than a Ti frame and considering we live in the era where 16 spoke wheels are fetching a premium it makes the carbon to be perceived as a more desirable material to a lot of people.


----------



## urawildman (Aug 16, 2009)

Carbon frame Ridley Noah '08
Ti Frame Baum Corretto '11
Stem: PRO(noah)
: Deda(baum)

Both fitted by same person, Campy SR11 and easton EA90slx wheels. Same handlebar except different stem and of coz seatpost. Noah is a ISP. Although fitted by same person, geometry is different for both bikes.

The Noah is stiffer than the baum, but heavier at 7.7kg vs 7.2kg.

I cant say which is better in a sprint, coz I aint a sprinter. But this I do know, the baum helps me climb better and keeps me more relax (the noah gets uncomfy during out of saddle climbs, somehow juz saps my strength). Flat and level, my cadence on the baum hovers at 83rpm and my Noah is comfy being at above 95rpm. Both at roughly the same speed; just different gear ratios.

The way the wheels(same set) react to the frames are different. The ea90slx flexes quite a fair bit on the noah, and much much lesser on the Baum. Well something has got to give.. either the frame flexing or the wheels. I also changed the baum stem to a PRO(alu) and pro alu bar(cavendish). The navigational handling was more precise in heavy traffic conditions when there a lot of traffic lights and stops. Well my preference was towards the baum, and thus stripped the Noah to just the frame and rode the baum in '11.

Year '12... I have revived the noah, and set it up on older shimano Dura parts(12years old) with HED stinger 6 wheels. Weight dropped to 7.4kg. The wheels also flexed a little underpower. I have since sold my ea90slx and have a Alpha 340 rims laced to alchemy hubs(20/28) on the baum. I still cant detect flexing of wheels.

I am just saying it as it is... which is better.. I would lean slightly more towards the baum for overall riding, but the Noah would hold its speed very well above 45kmh due to the HED wheels. I now ride them back to back. I am happy riding on either.


----------



## __PG__ (Jan 25, 2012)

stanseven said:


> This thread has a bunch of generalizations based on experience riding one or two bikes of a certain material. An awful lot depends upon geometry and hat the builder does with th material. For example the statement that aluminum is jarring isn't true in a generalized sense. In fact a criticism some make of linimum is it's too smooth and flexes too much.


In the past few months I've test ridden a Trek Madone, Giant TCR and Defy Advanced, a Moots CR and a Baum Corretto.

The Baum feels like a carbon bike under acceleration. My bike is a Reynolds 531 steel race bike. My Dad has a Litespeed touring frame. The Baum rides like no metal bike I've ever ridden before. I agree with you that tube shapes and geometry have a massive impact on feedback, probably more so than material. After all, you can build a carbon bike that will flex and feel like a noodle as well.



stanseven said:


> The benefit of CF is it can be easily made to ride a variety of ways. Ti can too but when you want it stiff, especially in the bb area, it gets heavy. If you want a smooth riding, comfortable bike, all materials can be made to ride that way. If you want on the other hand a stiff and very light bike, only CF cA do that.


I agree. The benefit of Ti is durability and strength. For pure stiffness and weight nothing beats carbon fibre. It depends on what you are using your bike for, and who is paying for it IMO.


----------



## c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n (Mar 3, 2012)

I wanted to buy a carbon frame but a 2nd hand Ti frame became available and I took it ... I do not know how a carbon frame feels like but I am very happy with my Van Nicholas.

Decided durability was quite important and I am never going to race but will ride long distances.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

I have carbon, aluminum and Ti road bikes. The Ti bike is a noodle compared to the other two; super plush but flexes in pedaling and cornering. I agree with others that this is a partially due to the design and construction of this specific bike, not just the material, and Ti bikes can be designed and built to be stiffer than the one I have.


----------



## mtnbikerva1 (Jan 30, 2009)

*Material and shapes all make a difference*

I have a litespeed vortex that is a great climber and sprinter. 
It is all 6/4 ti and shaped tubes. Very stiff.


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

*Lynskey made me a believer*

Hello,
I love to build, ride, and work on bicycles. I enjoy trying new technologies and comparing them to older technologies to see if new really does mean better. I started out on steel, then aluminum, then aluminum and carbon, then carbon, then steel again, and now I am working my way to titanium. After picking up my first titanium bike I really want a new Lynskey R430 or Helix OS. First off and as previously mentioned by others, tires (brand, sizes, and pressures) make the most significant difference regardless of frame material. For example I have found tubeless road tires to be the most transformative technology I have used period. They make any bike ride like a dream whether it be aluminum, carbon, steel, or titanium. I have run my Campy Shamal Two Way Fit wheelsets (one with tubeless and one without) back to back on each frame material and the tubeless make even my harshest aluminum bike ride like a dream. The second most important thing is tires. Quality tires (Continental, Vittoria, Michelin) set at the right tire pressure for you make a huge difference. The third thing is wheels. Flexy wheels will make even the best frame seem like it has a soft front end or flexy bottom bracket. Frame material does make a difference. I love the solid no flex feel of a stiff bottom bracket and front end especially when running at race pace. My 2012 Giant is by far the most focused bike I have ever ridden in that regard. I push on the pedals and it goes forward. I push harder and it goes forward faster. There is no waiting around and no flex. Period. My other carbon bikes are also good, but none quite so efficient as my Giant. That said I absolutely Love my titanium Lynskey R230. This is the first bike I have ridden, which seemed like it had the ride of tubeless tires built in! The front end is plenty stiff when sprinting (definitely not a distraction) and the bottom bracket does not flex and it is just so smooth. I Love this bike so much I am now on the hunt for another Lynskey...something in their pro range. Bottom Line: Carbon is stiff and efficient, but Ti (at least my Lynskey) is stiff enough and much more comfortable. My two cents. 

My bikes (for now):
* 2007 Ridley Excalibur (Carbon) - Shimano Dura Ace 7800 - Topolino Clincher Wheelset

* 2010 Ridley Damocles (Carbon) - Campagnolo Super Record 11 - Zipp 303 Firecrest Carbon Clincher Wheelset

* 2010 Lynskey R230 (Titanium) - Shimano Dura Ace 7800 - Boyd Vitesse Clincher Wheelset

* 2006 Specialized Allez Pro (Aluminum/Carbon) - Shimano Dura Ace 7800 - Easton Circuit Clincher Wheelset

* 2010 BMC SLX-1 (Aluminum/Carbon) - Campagnolo Super Record 11 Titanium - Campagnolo Shamal Two-Way Fit Tubeless Clincher Wheelset

* 2007 Flyte SRS-1 (Carbon)- Shimano Dura Ace 7800 - Spinergy Full Carbon Clincher Wheelset

* 2005 Trek Madone 5.9SL (Carbon, Project 1 "Mountain Storm") - Shimano Dura Ace 7800 - Mavic R-SYS SL Clincher Wheelset

* 2006 Trek Madone 5.2SL (Carbon, Project 1 "Flame") - Shimano Ultegra 6700 - Mavic Ksyrium ES SL '20th Anniversary' Clincher Wheelset

* 2003 Trek 5500 (Carbon)- Shimano Dura Ace 7800 - Mavic Ksyrium ES Clincher Wheelset

* 2011 Trek 5.5 (Carbon)- SRAM Force/Red - Mavic Ksyrium ES SL '20th Anniversary' Clincher Wheelset

* 2007 Bianchi 928SL (Lugged Carbon) - Campagnolo Record 10 Titanium - Campagnolo Shamal Two-Way Fit Tubeless Clincher Wheelset

* 2003 Casati Laser (Steel) - Campagnolo Record 10 Titanium - Velomax Circuit Clincher Wheelset

* 2011 Chinese FM028 (Carbon) - Campagnolo Chorus 11 - 88mm (Fear) 60mm (Front) Carbon Clincher Wheelset

* 1995 Cannondale R900 (Aluminum) - Shimano Dura Ace 7800 - Zipp 101 Clincher Wheelset

* 2010 Felt B2R (Carbon) - SRAM Red - Hed Tri-spoke Clincher Wheelset

* 2007 Salsa Campeon (Aluminum/Carbon) - Shimano Dura Ace 7800/Ultegra 6700 - Bontrager Race X Lite Clincher Wheelset Tubeless Conversion

* 2011 Chinese FM015 (Carbon) - Campagnolo Chorus 11 - Campagnolo Khamsin Clincher Wheelset

* 2007 Masi Gran Criterium (Scandium/Carbon) - Campagnolo Record 10 Titanium - Bontrager Race Lite Clincher Wheelset

* 2012 Giant TCR Advanced SL (Carbon) - Campagnolo Super Record 11 Titanium - Mavic Ksyrium ES SL '20th Anniversary' Clincher Wheelset

* 2012 Trek District (Aluminum) - Single Speed Belt Drive - Bontrager District Wheelset

* 2009 Xootr Travel Bike (Aluminum) - Single Speed - Xootr 406mm Clincher Wheelset

Recently sold:
* 1995 Bottechia (Steel) - Full Dura Ace 7400 group - Mavic MA40 with Dura Ace hubs

* 1982 Gios Torino Super Record (Steel / fully restored) - Campagnolo Record 10 Titanium Group - Mavic Open Pro with Campagnolo Record Hubs

* 2003 Tommasini Tecno (Steel) - Campagnolo C- Record 8 Speed Titanium Group with Delta Brakeset - FiR 30mm Aluminum Aero Wheels

* 1990 Eddy Merckx 20th Anniversary Edition (Steel) - Campagnolo C Record 7 Speed Group with Delta Brakeset - Mavic MA40 with Campagnolo 

* 1995 Fausto Coppi Campionissimo (Steel) - Dura Ace 7700 Group - Neuvation R28 Wheelset


----------



## FTR (Sep 20, 2006)

I have had steel, aluminium, CF and ti.
The steel frame was the harshest riding of them all (Colnago Master Olympic with the star shaped tubing and Colnago fork). 
The CF frame was stiff and smooth but felt "dead".
The aluminium frame was OK but just did not appeal to me.
My Moots is a keeper. I love everything about it except in hindsight I would probably not have bought the Compact.
The CF bike was totaled in a collision with someone who forgot to wake up before driving their car that morning. It is being replaced by a 2nd ti bike.

Oh, and one of the best sprinters in our B grade crits is on my team and is the importer of many high end ti frames (Form, Blacksheep, Eriksen and many others). He has both a ti and a CF bike (Calfee, which he also imports). He wins just as many sprints on the ti bikes as he does on the Calfee.
If your ti bike feels flexy then I am going to wonder whether the tubing was selected properly for your size and purpose.


----------



## mtnroadie (Jul 6, 2010)

I spent the past few days riding my late 90s Merckx Ti AX w/ Athena 11 (my if there are any clouds in the sky bike), today I switched it up and rode my Scott CR1 with Record 11. It turned into another ride where I found myself thinking “maybe I should ditch the carbon frame for a nice modern custom ti or ti/carbon frame” This happens more and more often, not sure if I’ll ever give up the carbon bike. Yet if I had to choose one, I wouldn’t even think twice… Ti!


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

looigi said:


> I have carbon, aluminum and Ti road bikes. The Ti bike is a noodle compared to the other two; super plush but flexes in pedaling and cornering. I agree with others that this is a partially due to the design and construction of this specific bike, not just the material, and Ti bikes can be designed and built to be stiffer than the one I have.


I had a custom Ti built just the way I wanted it with a stiff bb area and very stiff rear. It's quick on hard sprints and steep standing climbs. But it weighs 2.7 lbs which is close to 0.9 lbs more than a comparable CF bike I have with similar characteristics.


----------



## morgan1819 (Nov 22, 2005)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> Nobody believes me when I say this, but......
> If the bikes fit the same, you will feel no tangible difference between the ride of frames made from different materials. If you want a difference, get larger tires and use lower air pressure.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know how anyone can tell the difference.



With all due respect, my experience has been different than yours.

My one question to you would be the following: Do you ride your bike on any nasty roads?


I started out the year with three carbon bikes and one steel bike with 'racing' geometry. Geo numbers and build kit all essentially the same. Wheelset and tire pressure was EXACTLY the same, as I swap my Ultegra tubeless wheels between bikes.

I ride a 4-5 mile section of road with no shoulder, and significant patchwork on my way out of town ... so 10 miles total of nasty that I have to deal with on each ride.

With the same wheels, psi, build, geo, road, and rider .... there was one frame that was significantly smoother and more enjoyable to spend time on than the other three. It was one of the carbon frames.

PM me if you would like to know the frames involved.


----------



## c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n (Mar 3, 2012)

morgan1819 said:


> ... PM me if you would like to know the frames involved.


ok you have had 15 mins of fun now ... do tell us ...


----------



## morgan1819 (Nov 22, 2005)

c_h_i_n_a_m_a_n said:


> ok you have had 15 mins of fun now ... do tell us ...



I simply didn't mention the brands because someone at a different weight or riding style may have the exact opposite experience I did. I have lost 20 lbs this year, and am down to 175lbs. Another rider plus or minus 30 lbs would probably have a different experience. Fair to say?

I'm not sure what you mean in reference to "15 mins of fun"?

Also not sure what you are rolling your eyes about?


----------



## UrbanPrimitive (Jun 14, 2009)

Unfortunately asking this question requires a significant culling of information that is pertinent to its answer. Comparing Ti, Steel, Aluminum, and Carbon ignores far too many factors in the materials themselves to be informative. Framebuilders will argue about appropriate wall thickness in their tubes to tenths of millimeters in an all steel bike. Carbon gets even worse with the variety of carbon weaves available, resins used, and combinations of tube shapes, layers of lamination, and directional lay-up. The short version of the frame material argument, as I see it, is this:

Materials have characteristics unique to themselves.
Frame geometries create ride characteristics.
Tube shape and thickness alter ride quality.

The goal is to get all three things going in the same direction to create a frame that performs as it is intended. Frame material will, hopefully, amplify the desired character of the bike. It doesn't create it in a vacuum. To sum up better than I could say it, Richie says this:


----------



## pennstater (Aug 20, 2007)

I was riding a Look 585. Exceptional all around ride. But I didn't want to travel with it. Bought a Lynskey R230 for traveling both by car and air. It soaks up large road defects like expansion joints and pot holes better than the Look but because of a noticeable increase in road buzz I went to one size larger tire. Road buzz gone. 

I had asked Lynskey for a more forgiving frame than the 585. I am sure I could have bought Ti just as stiff as the Look. Overall both rides are quite similar. The Look just FEELS like it climbs better. I don't notice the extra pound or so of weight of the Ti, except when walking up steps at the George Washington Bridge.

The big plus is when disassembling I don't have to travel with a torque wrench and I am less concerned about frame damage due to impact or scratching. If I had to have only one it would be the Ti. But I have both and I slightly favor riding the Look.


----------



## tarwheel2 (Jul 7, 2005)

I don't own any carbon bikes, but have a Merckx AX ti and a bunch of steel bikes. As others said, the fit and geometry and tubing selected by the builder are the primary factors in ride comfort, handling and other characteristics. My Merckx AX ti handles and rides nearly identical to my steel Merckx Corsa 01, with both bikes fitted with the same wheels and tires. A builder can design a ti frame to be very stiff and unforgiving to very noodly and soft, and all points in between.

The main advantages to titanium frames are that they will never rust and you don't have to worry about chipping or scratching the paint (assuming you leave them unfinished). If you opt for the brush finish, you don't have to worry about fingerprints.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> Nobody believes me when I say this, but......
> If the bikes fit the same, you will feel no tangible difference between the ride of frames made from different materials. If you want a difference, get larger tires and use lower air pressure.
> 
> Honestly, I don't know how anyone can tell the difference.


If you owned more than one bike, I don't see how you could say this. I have two nearly identical Ti bikes and they clearly ride different because of the tubing.

It's almost like saying that all bread tastes the same.


----------



## JELLIOT (Aug 7, 2003)

I love the Baum. IMHO their logo and the way it is placed on the downtube is the coolest. I wish you could get them here in the US - or maybe you can?


----------



## civdic (May 13, 2009)

I rode a 6/4 ti bike for a while. Custom build. It was very stiff and very light. It felt stiffer than my old aluminum Cannondale. It was great for climbing, it seemed like I could go forever. I then went looking for a more comfortable ride and bought a Time. My Time is much more comfortable and lighter. I had a change to ride a Moots on a bike tour. It was very comfortable but it felt a bit like running in sand. When I stood on it to climb I could feel it flex a bit. Not too bad just not as efficient as my Time.


----------



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

Kontact said:


> If you owned more than one bike, I don't see how you could say this. I have two nearly identical Ti bikes and they clearly ride different because of the tubing.
> 
> It's almost like saying that all bread tastes the same.



OK, I'll try this one last time. I promise, this is the last time. I am a mechanical engineer by trade and by training. While I was in school, I specialized in materials, selection of materials, and mechanics of materials. I assisted in several comparative materials tests while in school, many of which were used for the Boeing plane development. I'm far from the most experienced or knowledgeable person on the planet, but I do have some experience in this area.

If you give me any bicycle frame, made out of any material, I could pick another common material used for bike frames and duplicate the ride so closely that nobody would ever tell the difference in performance. The bike weight, stiffness, and all other real property would be so similar that if the bikes were wrapped in foam you would not be able to tell which you were riding.

Can bike frames have different properties? Sure. But the material that bike is made out of is not the determining factor in how a bike rides. How the materials are applied, how tubes are manipulated, and frame geometry are a far bigger factor. Titanium bikes are not this, that, or anything else. Carbon fiber bikes are carbon fiber bikes. They can be stiff, they can be flexy. They can be heavy, they can be light. The same is true of aluminum, and steel.

But, what do I know?


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> OK, I'll try this one last time. I promise, this is the last time. I am a mechanical engineer by trade and by training. While I was in school, I specialized in materials, selection of materials, and mechanics of materials. I assisted in several comparative materials tests while in school, many of which were used for the Boeing plane development. I'm far from the most experienced or knowledgeable person on the planet, but I do have some experience in this area.
> 
> If you give me any bicycle frame, made out of any material, I could pick another common material used for bike frames and duplicate the ride so closely that nobody would ever tell the difference in performance. The bike weight, stiffness, and all other real property would be so similar that if the bikes were wrapped in foam you would not be able to tell which you were riding.
> 
> ...


That isn't what you said earlier. You said you wouldn't be able to "feel" a difference, not that they wouldn't "perform" the same. That is a completely different idea.

However, the rest of what you're wrote ignores reality. You can't make a bike that duplicates the performance of one made of a springy material by using something with no ductility. A glass bike would not "perform" the same as a steel bike because of damping and suspension characteristics that are inherent in the materials. You could make a steel bike that is as rigidly stiff as one made of a brittle material, but not the other way around. This has been the historical problem with aluminum frames.

Good bicycle frames are not perfectly rigid structural members that do nothing but hold the bike parts in fixed locations. They are dynamically active force transmitters whose characteristics have an impact on human performance. Yes, there are several mostly interchangeable materials that are useful for making good bikes, but the list is actually pretty short. And that's the same as in many other sports - baseball bats through pole vaulting. (I'd like to see someone attempt to pole vault on an aluminum tube.)


And to get very specific, some very smart people have done a lot of testing with titanium as a frame material, and pretty much agree that the ride qualities of an un-cold worked tube set are pretty unique to that material. Similar to the reason "brass" musical instruments are not made of zinc or plaster.


----------



## mjm2369 (Jul 27, 2012)

good thread


----------



## morgan1819 (Nov 22, 2005)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> OK, I'll try this one last time. I promise, this is the last time. I am a mechanical engineer by trade and by training. While I was in school, I specialized in materials, selection of materials, and mechanics of materials. I assisted in several comparative materials tests while in school, many of which were used for the Boeing plane development. I'm far from the most experienced or knowledgeable person on the planet, but I do have some experience in this area.
> 
> If you give me any bicycle frame, made out of any material, I could pick another common material used for bike frames and duplicate the ride so closely that nobody would ever tell the difference in performance. The bike weight, stiffness, and all other real property would be so similar that if the bikes were wrapped in foam you would not be able to tell which you were riding.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone would disagree with the above post because ...... of course you can manipulate each material to produce different ride characteristics. I don't think that this is new information to anyone. It does clear up some confusion from an earlier post, though.


*" Nobody believes me when I say this, but......
If the bikes fit the same, you will feel no tangible difference between the ride of frames made from different materials. If you want a difference, get larger tires and use lower air pressure.
Honestly, I don't know how anyone can tell the difference."*

The wording above allows this statement to be both true and false, based on how it's interpreted. 

Anyway, I now get what you are trying to say. And you are correct, you can absolutely tune different materials to ride differently. 

I think the real problem with your statement is the following: You can manipulate a certain frame material to imitate another frame materials strength, but it usually results in severe weaknesses in other areas we use to measure the quality of a frame.

That is, you can build a 900 gram steel frame to mimic carbons weight... but would you want to ride it? Probably not. Many people ride 900 gram carbon frames.

I think the OP's question is most logically answered based upon each materials "inherent" strengths and weaknesses... and not the exception.


----------



## poff (Jul 21, 2007)

How much do you guys weigh to flex a Moots frame? I am 170lbs and my RSL is rock solid, no flex at all anywhere and last year I've climbed 650K+ ft and this year around 400Kft.


----------



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

I give up.


----------



## Cat5superstar (Jan 30, 2006)

Im an elitist Moots snob so of course ti rides better! Plus its a lifetime frame, just upgrade the parts. Well till disc brakes finally screw that up.


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> I give up.


Just realize that not everyone agrees with you. 
Truth for one man does not make it true for another.
There is no "absolute truth" when it comes to butts and nerve endings.


----------



## mtnbikerva1 (Jan 30, 2009)

Damn I have been wasting my money on my Litespeeds and Ellsworth Truth when I could have been riding a Murry or Huffy for next to nothing! Boy do I feel stupid for thinking I was riding quality bikes.
I will throw them in the dumpster and run down to Sears or Kmart and buy some Chinese bike for $150 and know what wasteful snobs the rest of you non department store bike owners are.



My Own Private Idaho said:


> OK, I'll try this one last time. I promise, this is the last time. I am a mechanical engineer by trade and by training. While I was in school, I specialized in materials, selection of materials, and mechanics of materials. I assisted in several comparative materials tests while in school, many of which were used for the Boeing plane development. I'm far from the most experienced or knowledgeable person on the planet, but I do have some experience in this area.
> 
> If you give me any bicycle frame, made out of any material, I could pick another common material used for bike frames and duplicate the ride so closely that nobody would ever tell the difference in performance. The bike weight, stiffness, and all other real property would be so similar that if the bikes were wrapped in foam you would not be able to tell which you were riding.
> 
> ...


----------



## lewdvig (Oct 4, 2004)

My tcr has a chip in the frame and it is replaced by a pegoretti and soon a ti all weather bike. 

My tcr can be fixed, I just don't want to.


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

keppler said:


> You definitely can. With the same wheels on both my aluminum and carbon bikes, I'll take the carbon one every time. The ride is always good and it smooths out pretty much all road surfaces. The aluminum one transmits all the road buzz directly into your hands and body, and you feel beat up if you ride it for long periods.
> 
> And I bought into the larger tires (and wide 23mm rims) for the aluminum frame. It helped, a bit, but not enough to want to ride it as much as my carbon bike. I'm now looking at an afforadble steel frame to replace it.


Obviously, you've never ridden a nice custom aluminum frameset like a Tsunami, or a 15.5 lb, old school 2002-2005 Fuji Team SL, Very compliant rides and still stiff enough to race crits on. Also, carbon doesn't transmit buzz but a good expansion bridge jolt will convince you of the contrary. BTW, not all carbon frames ride well. To believe that is completely absurd. Great you have the same wheels but are both bikes equally equipped? While wheels are a big factor in ride quality, having equal forks, handlebars, seatpost and stem can contribute to a nicer ride. Also, it depends on what the builder's goal was when building it.
However, a steelie would be nice to ride too.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

russd32 said:


> The things I don't care for is that it fingerprints really easy. .


I've had a Ti frame for years and have found that WD-40 is better than Pledge or Armorall (both of those suggested by the frame makers)


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

*From what frame to what frame?*

From a carbon Argon18 Platinum (2003) to a custom Ti KISH.

*Why?*

I just wanted a change.

*Feel?*

Feels the same as the carbon. I had the specs duplicated as the Argon fitted me very well.

*Durability?*

No idea as the new Ti frame (1.4 years old now) hasn't broken yet.

*How do you feel about your choice now?*

Love it. My Ti KISH is perfect. Its finish is one of the best things about it - a very fine brushed finish (maroon 3M Scotchbrite) that can be touched up at home (try that with a blasted finish like Moots) and is so fine that it looks like a blasted finish but a much finer brushing than my brushed Ti Seven.


----------



## Jason rides (Jul 6, 2012)

morgan1819 said:


> With all due respect, my experience has been different than yours.
> 
> My one question to you would be the following: Do you ride your bike on any nasty roads?
> 
> ...


I believe you on this matter. I had a steel bike and I compared it to my carbon bike; I thought the steel bike was a little smoother........until I put the same wheel set on both. Then I realized the carbon was more enjoyable.


----------



## eickmewg (Feb 11, 2012)

I've never owned a carbon fiber bike but I did go from a 26-year old steel Pinarello with 7400 Dura Ace series stuff and self-built tubular wheels to a Ti bike with 105 components and clincher wheels. The only thing that got moved to the new bike was an American classic seat post. The new Ti bike is a big improvement, but that could be due to: 1) a ten-speed cassette, 2) a compact crankset, 3) the carbon fiber fork, 4) a decrease in weight by about 3 pounds, or 5) STI shifting (or all of the above) in addition to the Ti frame itself. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be any faster but that could be due to the 26-year older legs. I like my Ti bike!


----------



## davidka (Dec 12, 2001)

My Own Private Idaho said:


> If you give me any bicycle frame, made out of any material, I could pick another common material used for bike frames and duplicate the ride so closely that nobody would ever tell the difference in performance. The bike weight, stiffness, and all other real property would be so similar that if the bikes were wrapped in foam you would not be able to tell which you were riding.
> 
> But, what do I know?


Nice sentiment but not rooted in reality. You simply could not do what you claim. You don't know because you haven't tried. It would be more realistic to claim that you could build two frames out of different materials that would load test to similar results. There are subtleties of ride quality that you cannot account for with engineering. That's why bicycle companies employ both designers and engineers.


----------



## acid_rider (Nov 23, 2004)

i own carbon 2006 Time Edge and (3 years later, in 2009) a custom Titanium Baum.
Time and Baum both fit me well so they are the two bikes I tend to ride.
I ride Baum more often and being custom fit it fits me a little better than Time.
Both are great. I prefer Baum so if I had to settle for one road bicycle only then Titanium Baum would be the one. Else I enjoy both, differently.
I think the key is not material but - position, position, position (i.e. cycle-fit is key). 
Get the correct seat height and seatback, bar height, saddle fit, pedals/shoes, bibs and tyres/tyre pressures and even aluminium frame will do fine if using good quality carbon forks and comfortable wheels.


----------



## Jason rides (Jul 6, 2012)

Do you agree with this article on carbon vrs Ti? Carbon Vs. Titanium Bikes | eHow.com


----------



## BacDoc (Aug 1, 2011)

This thread is the perfect example of why everyone should own more than one bike!


----------



## SteveV0983 (Dec 9, 2008)

Jason rides said:


> Do you agree with this article on carbon vrs Ti? Carbon Vs. Titanium Bikes | eHow.com


Sounds like it was "written" (if you can call that writing) by someone who has stock in the carbon fiber industry. According to that list, there is no reason to ever buy a Ti bike. Of course they left out that 1) they ride fantastic and 2) don't crack for no apparent reason and 3) you don't have to spend a half hour every week looking over the entire bike for hairline cracks and 4) they are typically hand made by craftsman (often here in the US) as opposed to blown out in Asian factories and 5) Ti absorbs road shock and buzz better than CF and 6) it is nearly indestructible and will ride the same today as 20 years from now 7) you can get custom geometries and add-ons (pump pegs, BB30 bottom brackets, etc) and 8) etc, etc, etc. (my apologies for the run-on sentence). But that's just my opinion. I don't have my own article to back it up.
I did however test ride several very good carbon bikes before I threw my leg over a Moots, and at that point the search for a new bike ended before I made it out of the parking lot. Again, just my opinion. There are lots of great CF bikes out there and the prices (see #4 above) makes them very accessible to a wide market, and that's a good thing. Now more people can afford a nice bike that may have been out of reach just a few years ago. But CF and Ti (and good steel for that matter) all have their distinct benefits, and choice is always a good thing. Unfortunately, the "market" has decided that CF is "it" and it has become more and more difficult to find a dealer that has good Ti or steel that you can even test ride. So although I believe choice is a good thing, it's not always an option, which really sucks. If you are interested in Ti, you should seek one out to try it. If not, get a good CF that you like and ride the heck out of it and enjoy it.


----------

