# Why not more Titanium Rims?



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

Why aren't more (I'm not really aware of any) Titanium Rim systems available. I know it would likely not be a good material for the spokes. But, on the rim and hub it seems to be a much stronger/lighter choice than Aluminum. 

Anyone?

Ti could be better than Carbon Fiber for wheel construction, or am I just lost in an oasis?


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Too difficult to shape correctly, too expensive and not any lighter than carbon for similar designs. There have been people who tried, but no luck. 

-Eric


----------



## de.abeja (Aug 27, 2006)

and the brake tracks would get hot as all hell Ti is not the best heat conductor.


----------



## johnmyster (Mar 13, 2003)

Have you ever heard of anybody extruding titanium? It's not fun. Aluminum is easy.


----------



## lsnfa (Oct 22, 2003)

probably too flexy as well


----------



## danl1 (Jul 23, 2005)

johnmyster said:


> Have you ever heard of anybody extruding titanium? It's not fun. Aluminum is easy.


^^^
What he said. Thread need not continue.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

kneejerk said:


> I know it would likely not be a good material for the spokes. But, on the rim and hub it seems to be a much stronger/lighter choice than Aluminum.


Aluminum weighs around half as much as Ti (density that is), so the Ti rim would need to be half as thick to get a weight advantage. Ti's advantage is good strength and especially fatigue resistance. But the biggest problem with Ti for rims, is the poor ability to extrude and *bend* it into a hoop without buckling. This is even a problem with deeper Al rims. A deep Ti rim would have to be stamped in two halves and welded together... and welding tends warp a structure somewhat... besides being an expensive process to do well. Composites are the way to go...


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

How about some CNC rims? Even welding them in sections, even with higher grade Aluminums? ................ I'm imagining the answer to this is likely......... Too Expensive! ......... But,......... again I imagine a CNC'd wheel would be a whole lot stronger than the extruded we use. But, then again most extruded rims are adaquate for strength..... getting them lighter is what I was really itching at. I think Mavic already CNC's there rims, but I think they are extruded Aluminum? Are the Mavic rims CNC'd (machined from Aluminum blocks opposed to extrusions)?

Thanks for pointing out the Ti problems. I immediately recalled the Lockheed Martin problem in making the F35 fighter jet parts from Ti (from the NOVA documentary).......... specifically all the CNC bits the Ti would chew and destroy because of the hardness of Ti............. I guess I need to research the metals characteristics some more.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

Do you own a Ti bike? 

I think last time I checked carbon was cheaper.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

kneejerk said:


> How about some CNC rims? Even welding them in sections, even with higher grade Aluminums?


Imagine the hunk of metal you would need to start with (700mm diameter and 10mm thick) just to end up with half a rim... that you would then have to weld using 2 continuous beads. I would not have high hopes for the rim being round and planar when you are done. CNC is inferior to forging, strengthwise. Yes, you can get very strong Al alloys that can be CNC'd... but none of the strongest alloys can be welded.

Some manufacturers extrude rims the normal way and then machine sections of them afterwards. If you wish to optimize strength and weight with an aluminum rim, that is probably the best place for you to investigate.


----------



## timmyturner (Jun 26, 2021)

lsnfa said:


> probably too flexy as well


are you serious? it wouldnt be too flexy its stiffness to weight is superior to alloys since its twice as strong and only 60 percent heavier than aluminium and with proper engineering it far exceeds alloys look at all the amazing ti frames. so youre saying ti frames flex compared to the alloy ones when the tubes that are smaller than aluminum? and for some reason you think because its a rim the properties of ti changes? nope science is science bruh. and it wouldnt be extruded try cnc'd. they would probably retail for 5k tho on the low end. yall dumb af


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

timmyturner said:


> are you serious? it wouldnt be too flexy its stiffness to weight is superior to alloys since its twice as strong and only 60 percent heavier than aluminium and with proper engineering it far exceeds alloys look at all the amazing ti frames. so youre saying ti frames flex compared to the alloy ones when the tubes that are smaller than aluminum? and for some reason you think because its a rim the properties of ti changes? nope science is science bruh. and it wouldnt be extruded try cnc'd. they would probably retail for 5k tho on the low end. yall dumb af


The post you replied to is from 2008. 

There are no Ti wheels because it’s a dumb idea. All those great Ti frames? Why are they great? What specific properties make those frames great?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> The post you replied to is from 2008.
> 
> There are no Ti wheels because it’s a dumb idea. All those great Ti frames? Why are they great? What specific properties make those frames great?


Just a drive-by rant. We need to inform the poster that anybody who dredges a thread more than 10 years old has to buy beer for everyone else in the thread.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Just a drive-by rant. We need to inform the poster that anybody who dredges a thread more than 10 years old has to buy beer for everyone else in the thread.


Haha. Guilty. I did it recently. I’m not sure how, it showed under the “new” content search? Beers on me. 

Wait? We are cyclists, I should be able to get off with coffees? 

You’ve built a lot of rims, any interest or value in Ti?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> Haha. Guilty. I did it recently. I’m not sure how, it showed under the “new” content search? Beers on me.
> 
> Wait? We are cyclists, I should be able to get off with coffees?
> 
> ...


What? No, you're not the thread dredger, @timmyturner is. 

Coffee works for me though as I'm not much of a drinker.

Ti? Nope. Even if it were practical to make a Ti rim - which as you can see from all the explanations above, is not - the cost would be prohibitively high enough to keep me from being interested.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Lombard said:


> What? No, you're not the thread dredger, @timmyturner is.
> 
> Coffee works for me though as I'm not much of a drinker.
> 
> Ti? Nope. Even if it were practical to make a Ti rim - which as you can see from all the explanations above, is not - the cost would be prohibitively high enough to keep me from being interested.


I dredged up a different thread not too long ago. 

Funny, me either, I’m not a beer drinker. I do enjoy wines, especially when paired well with meals. 

It seems like CF has (understandably) taken over. I am running CF wheels these days and I do wonder sometimes about their strength... No problems though and overall good experiences according to the interwebs. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> I dredged up a different thread not too long ago.
> 
> Funny, me either, I’m not a beer drinker. I do enjoy wines, especially when paired well with meals.
> 
> It seems like CF has (understandably) taken over. I am running CF wheels these days and I do wonder sometimes about their strength... No problems though and overall good experiences according to the interwebs.


I have yet to dip my toe into carbon rims. The cost of a little weight reduction has never been worth it to me. Carbon rims are often touted as being stiffer than alloy rims. But paradoxically, stiffer rims do not make for stiffer wheels but just the opposite, as counter intuitive as it may seem. If you haven't seen this, it's worth reading in its entirety:









Debunking Wheel Stiffness


We take a close look at the concept of wheel stiffness. What does it mean? How does it affect your performance? Are all wheels created equal? For more myth-busting, read on.




www.slowtwitch.com


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Lombard said:


> I have yet to dip my toe into carbon rims. The cost of a little weight reduction has never been worth it to me. Carbon rims are often touted as being stiffer than alloy rims. But paradoxically, stiffer rims do not make for stiffer wheels but just the opposite, as counter intuitive as it may seem. If you haven't seen this, it's worth reading in its entirety:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great article! Thanks, simple enough for me to understand! Haha! 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

As to the original thread (old as it may be..): I once worked at a ring mill, which made titanium rings (albeit much larger than a bike wheel) for large jet engines. In order to take a billet of titanium and make it into a ring, we had to heat it to 2000°F, press it flat under a 100 ton press, put it back into the 2000°F oven, get it red hot again, and press it a gain. Back into the oven. Then, bring it out and press it with an arbor, making it into roughly a donut. Back into the oven. Next it goes to the smallest ring mill, where, glowing red-hot, it gets spun until it's about twice the diameter. Back into the oven. Repeat until you get it to just shy of the size you need, then put it in a ring mill with a shape-tool wheel to get the profile you want. Then, you anneal the piece. Now you are ready for machining....

At this point, you put the ring on a VTL (table lathe), and you start machining. Titanium is VERY hard, so you need super expensive inserts to cut. When you get the first side cut, you need to flip the workpiece, and you need a fixture to seat it onto. Then you machine the second side. Then you need to machine the spoke holes. Now, after 15 operations, you've taken about $200 of titanium billet, added probably $2000 worth of labor, for a rim that's too brittle to use.

Did that answer everybody's questions?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

No Time Toulouse said:


> As to the original thread (old as it may be..): I once worked at a ring mill, which made titanium rings (albeit much larger than a bike wheel) for large jet engines. In order to take a billet of titanium and make it into a ring, we had to heat it to 2000°F, press it flat under a 100 ton press, put it back into the 2000°F oven, get it red hot again, and press it a gain. Back into the oven. Then, bring it out and press it with an arbor, making it into roughly a donut. Back into the oven. Next it goes to the smallest ring mill, where, glowing red-hot, it gets spun until it's about twice the diameter. Back into the oven. Repeat until you get it to just shy of the size you need, then put it in a ring mill with a shape-tool wheel to get the profile you want. Then, you anneal the piece. Now you are ready for machining....
> 
> At this point, you put the ring on a VTL (table lathe), and you start machining. Titanium is VERY hard, so you need super expensive inserts to cut. When you get the first side cut, you need to flip the workpiece, and you need a fixture to seat it onto. Then you machine the second side. Then you need to machine the spoke holes. Now, after 15 operations, you've taken about $200 of titanium billet, added probably $2000 worth of labor, for a rim that's too brittle to use.
> 
> Did that answer everybody's questions?


Yes, very solid answer! 👍👍👍


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

PBL450 said:


> Yes, very solid answer! 👍👍👍


Well, a short synopsis is this; when you work titanium, you can only work it a small amount at a time, before you need to stress-relieve before working it more. Titanium is brittle. And, like most brittle things, is very, VERY hard. Machinists DESPISE working with titanium; it wears the shit out of expensive tooling, plus it sparks extremely brightly. It's also very expensive..

Those rings that we made for GE and Rolls-Royce engines cost thousands upon thousands of dollars just to be made into a rough profile BEFORE machining. Not certain how anything similar could be possible for a bicycle, unless you have a bank account the size of a Saudi prince.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

This might be a good reason I've never seen a Ti rim.


----------



## ogre (Dec 16, 2005)

No Time Toulouse said:


> Titanium is brittle.


I thought it was somewhat flexy but the modulus of elasticity makes it good frame material. The chainstays on my Moots Routt YBB gotta have some give. I know this stuff is in your line of work so please correct me.


----------



## timmyturner (Jun 26, 2021)

PBL450 said:


> The post you replied to is from 2008.
> 
> There are no Ti wheels because it’s a dumb idea. All those great Ti frames? Why are they great? What specific properties make those frames great?
> 
> ...


the topic is not about who thinks its a good idea or not, thats purely subjective. ti frames are great check out ti properties over other alloys and even cf which it isnt far off from. yes its a hard material to work with but it would be really cool imo not the idea of ti rims, but ti rims on my bike would be cool, they would be lighter, stronger, and corrosion free compared to alloys. im not a brand that needs to worry about the costs and issues with running a business so the problems that come with making special custom parts is of no concern to me, ti rims would be cool hands down. i suppose your make rims or have something against ti, and you dont enjoy working with materials that require skill and finesse therefore you think its a dumb idea. im also a fan of ti cranks over carbon ones, theyre stiffer too. cf is ok but its much easier to skimp and cut corners on the production line with cf especially now that its all made over seas in asia, but when you have a badass ti part its something to be proud of and admire. im glad to say in my opinion your opinion here is sad, it lacks the artful, imaginative, progressive ideas that life should be full of. anything else you would like to add to this? i cant seem to think of another point in your argument besides ti is hard to machine and weld, its funny you ask why ti is so great, obvi. its lighter, stronger, and corrosion free compared to all other alloys, go tell nasa and aero space theyre wasting their time using ti. lmao.


----------



## timmyturner (Jun 26, 2021)

PBL450 said:


> Yes, very solid answer! 👍👍👍


just to clarify ti is engineered to be lighter, its denser but its strength allows it to work with less material. but im sure you kno that.


----------



## ogre (Dec 16, 2005)

timmyturner said:


> the topic is not about who thinks its a good idea or not, thats purely subjective. ti frames are great check out ti properties over other alloys and even cf which it isnt far off from. yes its a hard material to work with but it would be really cool imo not the idea of ti rims, but ti rims on my bike would be cool, they would be lighter, stronger, and corrosion free compared to alloys. im not a brand that needs to worry about the costs and issues with running a business so the problems that come with making special custom parts is of no concern to me, ti rims would be cool hands down. i suppose your make rims or have something against ti, and you dont enjoy working with materials that require skill and finesse therefore you think its a dumb idea. im also a fan of ti cranks over carbon ones, theyre stiffer too. cf is ok but its much easier to skimp and cut corners on the production line with cf especially now that its all made over seas in asia, but when you have a badass ti part its something to be proud of and admire. im glad to say in my opinion your opinion here is sad, it lacks the artful, imaginative, progressive ideas that life should be full of. anything else you would like to add to this? i cant seem to think of another point in your argument besides ti is hard to machine and weld, its funny you ask why ti is so great, obvi. its lighter, stronger, and corrosion free compared to all other alloys, go tell nasa and aero space theyre wasting their time using ti. lmao.


Word Salad. Welcome back Rudge.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

timmyturner said:


> the topic is not about who thinks its a good idea or not, thats purely subjective. ti frames are great check out ti properties over other alloys and even cf which it isnt far off from. yes its a hard material to work with but it would be really cool imo not the idea of ti rims, but ti rims on my bike would be cool, they would be lighter, stronger, and corrosion free compared to alloys. im not a brand that needs to worry about the costs and issues with running a business so the problems that come with making special custom parts is of no concern to me, ti rims would be cool hands down. i suppose your make rims or have something against ti, and you dont enjoy working with materials that require skill and finesse therefore you think its a dumb idea. im also a fan of ti cranks over carbon ones, theyre stiffer too. cf is ok but its much easier to skimp and cut corners on the production line with cf especially now that its all made over seas in asia, but when you have a badass ti part its something to be proud of and admire. im glad to say in my opinion your opinion here is sad, it lacks the artful, imaginative, progressive ideas that life should be full of. anything else you would like to add to this? i cant seem to think of another point in your argument besides ti is hard to machine and weld, its funny you ask why ti is so great, obvi. its lighter, stronger, and corrosion free compared to all other alloys, go tell nasa and aero space theyre wasting their time using ti. lmao.


You wouldn’t be able to tell a frame is Ti or distinguish it from any other material. If you think it’s great because of some artistic perception, then it is to you. Functionally irrelevant but pretty. You think you can tell that a Ti crank is stiffer than a CF crank arm? Really? You are flexing Cf crank arms? Impressive. The worlds fastest sprinters can’t do that. Ti is not a weight saving option, it’s the opposite. I have a steel frame that weighs in with Most Ti frames and of course, Al and CF are much lighter. So, it’s heavier than necessary and you can’t tell anything about some mythical ride properties. But it’s great. And you criticize me? 

Assuming lesser quality due to Asian manufacturing is just ridiculous. Taiwanese manufacturing is among the best in the world. 

If you love it because you find it pretty that’s great. Then is great to you. But attempting to claim performance advantages is just so ill informed. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

ogre said:


> Word Salad. Welcome back Rudge.


Sounds more like Tom Kunich. I do find him amusing though.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

timmyturner said:


> just to clarify ti is engineered to be lighter, its denser but its strength allows it to work with less material. but im sure you kno that.


I said it’s a dumb idea.... Because it is. NTT offers an explanation of why it’s a dumb idea with aplomb. Ti in cycling is a way to throw away money. Or wait, it’s superior, I forgot, how could I. That’s why every frame in world tour level racing is Ti.


----------



## Finx (Oct 19, 2017)

PBL450 said:


> That’s why every frame in world tour level racing is Ti.


Kind of silly thing to say really.

We all know better than to use the 'world tour standard' as a reason for something to be considered good.

There are a LOT of 'good' bike frames out there that are not made from Carbon Fiber.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Finx said:


> Kind of silly thing to say really.
> 
> We all know better than to use the 'world tour standard' as a reason for something to be considered good.
> 
> There are a LOT of 'good' bike frames out there that are not made from Carbon Fiber.


When there is big money on the line it matters what materials and other decisions that teams make. It isn’t silly at all. Unless you consider multi-million dollar decisions about performance in a race to be silly. We make all kinds of decisions in our recreational bike purchases. We can choose any material available. Why? Because our performance is irrelevant. If our performance mattered and money was riding on it, our choices would be limited to the best materials for the job. That whole reply is just so niggling and ridiculous.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

It should be obvious by @timmyturner 's posting history that he's simply trolling:









Merckx







www.roadbikereview.com





Spoiler alert: He's praising ceramic bearings and oval chainrings.

I'm finding it quite amusing.


----------



## Finx (Oct 19, 2017)

PBL450 said:


> When there is big money on the line it matters what materials and other decisions that teams make. It isn’t silly at all. Unless you consider multi-million dollar decisions about performance in a race to be silly. We make all kinds of decisions in our recreational bike purchases. We can choose any material available. Why? Because our performance is irrelevant. If our performance mattered and money was riding on it, our choices would be limited to the best materials for the job. That whole reply is just so niggling and ridiculous.


it is very silly to suggest that the only good frames available to us normal people are the same ones the pro tour riders are on, which is the premise of the post I responded to.

It almost seems like you are arguing for the sake of the argument, not to make a specific point.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Finx said:


> it is very silly to suggest that the only good frames available to us normal people are the same ones the pro tour riders are on, which is the premise of the post I responded to.
> 
> It almost seems like you are arguing for the sake of the argument, not to make a specific point.


This is a pretty rude post, it's his way, you know, or the highway.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Finx said:


> it is very silly to suggest that the only good frames available to us normal people are the same ones the pro tour riders are on, which is the premise of the post I responded to.
> 
> It almost seems like you are arguing for the sake of the argument, not to make a specific point.


It's also silly to imply that what makes a frame a good frame is the same for pro tour riders as it is for everyone. People like to fantasize that what Cavendish needs is what they need and if a frame is great for a 120 pound climber it's got to be great for 270 pounds on the MUT I guess.

I've had both a frame used on the pro-tour and a Ti frame. The Ti frame is infinitely more 'good' for my needs, riding style, and so on.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Jay Strongbow said:


> It's also silly to imply that what makes a frame a good frame is the same for pro tour riders as it is for everyone. People like to fantasize that what Cavendish needs is what they need and if a frame is great for a 120 pound climber it's got to be great for 270 pounds on the MUT I guess.
> 
> I've had both a frame used on the pro-tour and a Ti frame. The Ti frame is infinitely more 'good' for my needs, riding style, and so on.


How, specifically does it “fit your needs and riding style.” What tires are you running? 28s? Again, please be specific in the qualities that “fit your needs and riding style.” 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

ogre said:


> I thought it was somewhat flexy but the modulus of elasticity makes it good frame material. The chainstays on my Moots Routt YBB gotta have some give. I know this stuff is in your line of work so please correct me.


Well, there's also a ton of different alloys, and one would expect a tubing extrusion to be of a more ductile alloy than one which is worked from billet. The aircraft alloys I worked with were a freakin' nightmare to machine...


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

PBL450 said:


> I said it’s a dumb idea.... Because it is. NTT offers an explanation of why it’s a dumb idea with aplomb. Ti in cycling is a way to throw away money. Or wait, it’s superior, I forgot, how could I. That’s why every frame in world tour level racing is Ti.


So.....if you just HAVE to have a metal frame AND you can afford it, Ti is a better choice than Mg, and has certain advantages over Al and steel, price not being one of them. So, "dumb idea" for frames? Well, it depends on what's important to you. 

But, for making rims, yeah, it's just a dumb idea...


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

So.....if you just HAVE to have a metal frame AND you can afford it, Ti is a better choice than Mg, and has certain advantages over Al and steel, price not being one of them. So, "dumb idea" for frames? Well, it depends on what's important to you.

But, for making rims, yeah, it's just a dumb idea...

However, I remember once that $10 titanium water bottle bolts were quite popular with the weight weenies, and I thought THAT was stupid.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

No Time Toulouse said:


> However, I remember once that $10 titanium water bottle bolts were quite popular with the weight weenies, and I thought THAT was stupid.


How many grams is a Ti vs. and Al water bottle bolt. Stupid is putting it lightly.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Lombard said:


> How many grams is a Ti vs. and Al water bottle bolt. Stupid is putting it lightly.


If you looking to save weight, a Ti water bottle bolt is pretty stupid, and not because of the cost. Aluminum is ~40% lighter than Ti.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

tlg said:


> If you looking to save weight, a Ti water bottle bolt is pretty stupid, and not because of the cost. Aluminum is ~40% lighter than Ti.


Do you know if steel frame weights vary due to the tubes used? Is a steel tube subject to weight differences as the result of how the tube or steel is made? I see such dramatically different frame weights for steel frames. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> Do you know if steel frame weights vary due to the tubes used? Is a steel tube subject to weight differences as the result of how the tube or steel is made? I see such dramatically different frame weights for steel frames.


It all depends on the alloy. I believe some alloys vary in strength and therefore the tubes can be made thinner and therefore lighter. The way they are heat treated affects strength as well.

Do a search on Reynolds Technology:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_Technology#Tubing_types


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

Lombard said:


> It all depends on the alloy. I believe some alloys vary in strength and therefore the tubes can be made thinner and therefore lighter. The way they are heat treated affects strength as well.


Yes, all steels more or less have the same density. So for the same volume will weigh the same. But with stronger alloys you can use less material.

There's only a few thousandths of a gram difference per cu.in. for any alloy

1028 low carbon: Density 7.87 g/cc 0.284 lb/in³

1095 high carbon: Density 7.85g/cm3 0.284 lb/in³

1040 high carbon: Density 7.845 g/cc 0.2834 lb/in³


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

PBL450 said:


> Do you know if steel frame weights vary due to the tubes used? Is a steel tube subject to weight differences as the result of how the tube or steel is made? I see such dramatically different frame weights for steel frames.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Steel tube sets can be had with 25.4mm butted top tubes and 28.6mm butted seat and down tubes at .7-.4-.7 mm thickness up to .9-.6-.9 mm thickness. They can also be had oversized TT at 28.6, DT at 31.7 and ST at 28.6 at those same thicknesses, .7-.4-.7 up to .9-.6-.9 mm.

There's also tube sets with 34.9 TT's at .8-.5-.8, 35mm DT's at .9-.6-.9 and 32.7 ST's at .9-.5-.9. And that's not looking at seat and chain stays, which come in different diameters and thicknesses also.

Also construction, TIG is lighter than filet brazing which is lighter than lugged. And the skill of the guy with the torch, specially at the drop outs. How much bronze was fed into those tubes to fix them to the drop outs before the builder was satisfied with the joint.

It all adds up, but more important than the weight is the ride quality. A larger rider who stomps on the pedals will probably prefer the bike built with the oversized tubes while someone who spins and rides with more finesse would probably do better with a lighter gauge tubing.


----------



## Air beaver (9 mo ago)

sounds like what everyone told Gary Fisher when he was out doing things when people said he shouldn’t.. 

My wedding ring is titanium. Just make a bigger one. We have the technology people. Less complaining and more problem solving. The future is now. Besides those rims would look reaallly sexy raw and clear coated and that’s all that matters.


No Time Toulouse said:


> As to the original thread (old as it may be..): I once worked at a ring mill, which made titanium rings (albeit much larger than a bike wheel) for large jet engines. In order to take a billet of titanium and make it into a ring, we had to heat it to 2000°F, press it flat under a 100 ton press, put it back into the 2000°F oven, get it red hot again, and press it a gain. Back into the oven. Then, bring it out and press it with an arbor, making it into roughly a donut. Back into the oven. Next it goes to the smallest ring mill, where, glowing red-hot, it gets spun until it's about twice the diameter. Back into the oven. Repeat until you get it to just shy of the size you need, then put it in a ring mill with a shape-tool wheel to get the profile you want. Then, you anneal the piece. Now you are ready for machining....
> 
> At this point, you put the ring on a VTL (table lathe), and you start machining. Titanium is VERY hard, so you need super expensive inserts to cut. When you get the first side cut, you need to flip the workpiece, and you need a fixture to seat it onto. Then you machine the second side. Then you need to machine the spoke holes. Now, after 15 operations, you've taken about $200 of titanium billet, added probably $2000 worth of labor, for a rim that's too brittle to use.
> 
> Did that answer everybody's questions?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Air beaver said:


> sounds like what everyone told Gary Fisher when he was out doing things when people said he shouldn’t..
> 
> My wedding ring is titanium. Just make a bigger one. We have the technology people. Less complaining and more problem solving. The future is now. Besides those rims would look reaallly sexy raw and clear coated and that’s all that matters.


A bigger ring? Really? Just stop. Please... 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Why is this thread such a troll magnet?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Why is this thread such a troll magnet?


NTT couldn’t have put in any clearer way?


----------



## Air beaver (9 mo ago)

PBL450 said:


> NTT couldn’t have put in any clearer way?


You’re right .. road cyclists are typically strapped for cash and would NEVER pony up for something just because it’s expensive. I disagree on the “to brittle to use part” they make cranks, spokes and frames out of titanium. I agree it would be labor intensive but we could outsource it to Taiwan like we do with everything else.


----------



## xxl (Mar 19, 2002)

Lombard said:


> How many grams is a Ti vs. and Al water bottle bolt. Stupid is *putting it lightly.*


Well played.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

No Time Toulouse said:


> As to the original thread (old as it may be..): I once worked at a ring mill, which made titanium rings (albeit much larger than a bike wheel) for large jet engines. In order to take a billet of titanium and make it into a ring, we had to heat it to 2000°F, press it flat under a 100 ton press, put it back into the 2000°F oven, get it red hot again, and press it a gain. Back into the oven. Then, bring it out and press it with an arbor, making it into roughly a donut. Back into the oven. Next it goes to the smallest ring mill, where, glowing red-hot, it gets spun until it's about twice the diameter. Back into the oven. Repeat until you get it to just shy of the size you need, then put it in a ring mill with a shape-tool wheel to get the profile you want. Then, you anneal the piece. Now you are ready for machining....
> 
> At this point, you put the ring on a VTL (table lathe), and you start machining. Titanium is VERY hard, so you need super expensive inserts to cut. When you get the first side cut, you need to flip the workpiece, and you need a fixture to seat it onto. Then you machine the second side. Then you need to machine the spoke holes. Now, after 15 operations, you've taken about $200 of titanium billet, added probably $2000 worth of labor, for a rim that's too brittle to use.
> 
> Did that answer everybody's questions?


Thanks for that, very interesting. BUT, I just wonder if there's bike weenies who would pay for it just because it's so exotic and unique and because they can. Still cheaper than fast cars or boats, no?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Air beaver said:


> You’re right .. road cyclists are typically strapped for cash and would NEVER pony up for something just because it’s expensive. I disagree on the “to brittle to use part” they make cranks, spokes and frames out of titanium. I agree it would be labor intensive but we could outsource it to Taiwan like we do with everything else.


I would be far more comfortable if it was being made in Taiwan. 

I see this all the time here! Why do people keep making snarky comments about Taiwan? They have among the highest, if not the highest manufacturing standards in the world. I wouldn’t pay big bucks for a carbon fiber frame unless IT DID come from Taiwan where all the best minds in CF are located. (And Japan obviously). Taiwan has one of the highest standards of living of any “country” in the world with one of the highest worker purchasing power rankings. 

It must be good old fashioned racist, anti-Asian BS? Something being made in Taiwan is a selling point to anyone paying attention at all. 

Wait, we want Campy because it’s Italian. So is Fiat. You can’t keep an Alfa Romeo on the road long enough to refill the gas tank. Wait, even better, I prefer it to be made in America. Like a Cadillac, which have notoriously great visibility from their natural perch on the back of a flatbed. Or Mopar? Yes,your Dodge was made by Fiat. 

I have no time or truck for base racism. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> I would be far more comfortable if it was being made in Taiwan.
> 
> I see this all the time here! Why do people keep making snarky comments about Taiwan? They have among the highest, if not the highest manufacturing standards in the world. I wouldn’t pay big bucks for a carbon fiber frame unless IT DID come from Taiwan where all the best minds in CF are located. (And Japan obviously). Taiwan has one of the highest standards of living of any “country” in the world with one of the highest worker purchasing power rankings.
> 
> It must be good old fashioned racist, anti-Asian BS? Something being made in Taiwan is a selling point to anyone paying attention at all.


Unfortunately, most Westerners lump Taiwan in with mainland China which has some of the worst working conditions and standard of living. Not to mention the fly-by-night companies there that make inferior carbon wheels. Between their cheap labor and substandard quality, they are able to sell all over the world very cheap.

That is not to say there aren't excellent Chinese companies. Look at Lenovo or the appliance maker Haier. Do you have a GE appliance built in the last decade. Newsflash: It's a Haier! They bought GE Appliances and also the right to use the GE name. And they are actually better appliances than when they were made by GE!



PBL450 said:


> Wait, we want Campy because it’s Italian. So is Fiat. You can’t keep an Alfa Romeo on the road long enough to refill the gas tank. Wait, even better, I prefer it to be made in America. Like a Cadillac, which have notoriously great visibility from their natural perch on the back of a flatbed. Or Mopar? Yes,your Dodge was made by Fiat.
> 
> I have no time or truck for base racism.


And let's not forget Maserati! For some reason, Italian and French products are considered exotic here. Look how many people drool over Cervelos because they have a French name. They're made in Canada! 

Remember in the early 1970's when people here used to rag on Japanese products? Toyota and Datsun sold fuel efficient cars here and they were quite inexpensive when introduced........that was until people realized how much more reliable they were than the junk being produced by the Big 3 American auto makers. For some reason, American auto makers could not build a decent small car. Chevy Vega? Their engines cooked like baked potatoes. Ford Pinto? Don't get rear ended! And Chrysler? They didn't even attempt at the economy car market, but rather they joint ventured with Mitsubishi to make the Dodge Colt.


----------



## RHankey (Sep 7, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Look how many people drool over Cervelos because they have a French name. They're made in Canada!


Since when have Cervelo's been made in Canada? You did get the first and last letters of the country right.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

RHankey said:


> Since when have Cervelo's been made in Canada? You did get the first and last letters of the country right.


I stand corrected. Cervelo was originally a Canadian company that was bought out by the Dutch conglomerate Pon Holdings. Most of their bikes are made in China:



https://www.bikelockwiki.com/where-are-bikes-made/


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Lombard said:


> .... For some reason, American auto makers could not build a decent small car. Chevy Vega? Their engines cooked like baked potatoes. Ford Pinto? Don't get rear ended! And Chrysler? They didn't even attempt at the economy car market, but rather they joint ventured with Mitsubishi to make the Dodge Colt.


Warning: serious digression here....

I owned two Dodge Colts - a '76 sedan* and an '82 hatchback** (actually a Plymouth Champ, same car) Both were, like you said, Mitsubishi, and that made me really glad. Because we had a family connection to a Chrysler dealer and got really good dealer cost type prices on MoPar products before that became a thing. I was happy because I could get a good running Japanese car through that channel and didn't have to buy the absolute shite that MoPar was selling in the 70s and 80s. They were fine cars, pretty much similar to other Japanese makes.

* The '76 Colt was totaled in an accident and I replaced it with a used Ford Courier pickup truck, I don't think MoPar marketed a Japanese-made mini pickup then, or I probably would have gone that route. The Courier was made by Mazda. Could have been Isuzu, but I'm pretty sure the Chevy mini pickup in those days was an Isuzu. I rented a campervan in Australia in the late 90s and it was labeled Ford. It was a Mazda. I sold the Ford Courier and bought a 1980 Dodge Omni hatchback which was made by VW and very similar to the VW Golf/Rabbit.

** I sold the '82 and bought a Datsun pickup made by Nissan . Sold that and bought a Chevy made by Chevy. Now I have a Ford pickup made by Ford and two Subarus made by Subaru.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Camilo said:


> Warning: serious digression here....
> 
> I owned two Dodge Colts - a '76 sedan* and an '82 hatchback** (actually a Plymouth Champ, same car) Both were, like you said, Mitsubishi, and that made me really glad. Because we had a family connection to a Chrysler dealer and got really good dealer cost type prices on MoPar products before that became a thing. I was happy because I could get a good running Japanese car through that channel and didn't have to buy the absolute shite that MoPar was selling in the 70s and 80s. They were fine cars, pretty much similar to other Japanese makes.
> 
> ...


I had a Colt in the era just after yours. Great little car, well designed. It was light and fuel efficient, very reliable. I had a Dodge Raider ((Mitsubishi Montero) also and it was a great little truck. My wife loved that truck. We bought just after getting Mattie’s with some wedding money as a down payment. It was our first and only ever car payment. 

Ford has had a major ownership stake in Mazda for a very long time. It’s why the Escort was such a decent little car. Ford has been far ahead of the other two in making decent vehicles for a long time. The Fiesta and the F150 have held that company up through tough times. I have to say though, our Hondas have been second to none. Great cars, every one.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Camilo said:


> .....bought a 1980 Dodge Omni hatchback which was made by VW and very similar to the VW Golf/Rabbit.


Actually, the Horizon/Omni were made here in the U.S. by Chrysler, but the engine, technology and design was based on the VW Rabbit.



Camilo said:


> It’s why the Escort was such a decent little car.


The later Escorts were good. The first generation Escort was the worst POS I have ever driven. Our company had those as fleet cars and the auto tranny in those jerked you forward when they shifted. The tranny would even hang sometimes unless you put the gas pedal to the floor. All the cars of that generation did that.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Lombard said:


> Actually, the Horizon/Omni were made here in the U.S. by Chrysler, but the engine, technology and design was based on the VW Rabbit.
> 
> 
> 
> The later Escorts were good. The first generation Escort was the worst POS I have ever driven. Our company had those as fleet cars and the auto tranny in those jerked you forward when they shifted. The tranny would even hang sometimes unless you put the gas pedal to the floor. All the cars of that generation did that.


Truth. The Escort with a manual transmission worked way better then the automatics. Mazda made fantastic clutches. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## No Time Toulouse (Sep 7, 2016)

Lombard said:


> Actually, the Horizon/Omni were made here in the U.S. by Chrysler, but the engine, technology and design was based on the VW Rabbit....


Nope. The design of the basic car was originally a Rootes design, sold as a Sunbeam (England) or a Talbot (France) back when Rootes was a wholly-owned European subsidiary of Chrysler. There were similarities between the Golf and the Talbot, but then, there were also similarities to several other cars of this era as well. The very first models sold here in the states (the original design goes back to the mid 70's in Europe) were fitted with VW 1.8l motors because Chrysler didn't yet have the 2.2l motor ready, and the VW motor was already federally approved. By the second year, all were powered by the same American-built Chrysler 2.2l that you could get in any K-car or minivan.

I owned (and raced) a 1986 Omni GLH Turbo, a model which was designed by Carrol Shelby. That thing had more power than any front-drive car deserved to have! Those things are rare and valuable today, but wrenching on it was a nightmare, and I'm kinda glad I sold it.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

No Time Toulouse said:


> Nope. The design of the basic car was originally a Rootes design, sold as a Sunbeam (England) or a Talbot (France) back when Rootes was a wholly-owned European subsidiary of Chrysler. There were similarities between the Golf and the Talbot, but then, there were also similarities to several other cars of this era as well. The very first models sold here in the states (the original design goes back to the mid 70's in Europe) were fitted with VW 1.8l motors because Chrysler didn't yet have the 2.2l motor ready, and the VW motor was already federally approved. By the second year, all were powered by the same American-built Chrysler 2.2l that you could get in any K-car or minivan.
> 
> I owned (and raced) a 1986 Omni GLH Turbo, a model which was designed by Carrol Shelby. That thing had more power than any front-drive car deserved to have! Those things are rare and valuable today, but wrenching on it was a nightmare, and I'm kinda glad I sold it.


I drove a GLH turbo a few times, it blew me away. I mean I was prepped that it was a fast little car but it was one hell of a fast little car! One of my best childhood friends comes from a Mopar family. His mom drove a late 60s Barracuda with, if I remember correctly, had a 383 and the 6 pack, I might be wrong. His older brother had a Dart SS. One of the other surprises in cars of that size class was the AMC Gremlin that came with a 304 V8. I had that motor in a 1972 Jeep Commando and it was powerful. Most fun car I have driven was a 1972 911.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

No Time Toulouse said:


> Nope. The design of the basic car was originally a Rootes design, sold as a Sunbeam (England) or a Talbot (France) back when Rootes was a wholly-owned European subsidiary of Chrysler. There were similarities between the Golf and the Talbot, but then, there were also similarities to several other cars of this era as well. The very first models sold here in the states (the original design goes back to the mid 70's in Europe) were fitted with VW 1.8l motors because Chrysler didn't yet have the 2.2l motor ready, and the VW motor was already federally approved. By the second year, all were powered by the same American-built Chrysler 2.2l that you could get in any K-car or minivan.
> 
> I owned (and raced) a 1986 Omni GLH Turbo, a model which was designed by Carrol Shelby. That thing had more power than any front-drive car deserved to have! Those things are rare and valuable today, but wrenching on it was a nightmare, and I'm kinda glad I sold it.


I stand corrected. Although the original engine made by VW was a 1.7L not a 1.8L. IIRC, that engine had quite a few problems. The Chrysler 2.2L engine was indeed an improvement. However, the Chrysler 2.2L engine like many cast iron block/aluminum head engines of that era had issues with head gaskets.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> One of the other surprises in cars of that size class was the AMC Gremlin that came with a 304 V8.


A Gremlin with a V8 had to be ridiculously overpowered. I'm sure it was a riot! Even the straight 6 had more power than it needed!

The great thing about those AMC cars is that they were cheap and easy to work on.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Lombard said:


> A Gremlin with a V8 had to be ridiculously overpowered. I'm sure it was a riot! Even the straight 6 had more power than it needed!
> 
> The great thing about those AMC cars is that they were cheap and easy to work on.


I drove bunches of those cars! They were so much fun! Sloppy, ugly, handling was questionable but not awful, 4 speed manual V8, they were just plain old good clean fun. The zero to like 30 acceleration on those things ate up muscle cars. They’d get ya after that but they’d by shocked at being beaten off the line by a Gremlin!


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> I drove bunches of those cars! They were so much fun! Sloppy, ugly, handling was questionable but not awful, 4 speed manual V8, they were just plain old good clean fun. The zero to like 30 acceleration on those things ate up muscle cars. They’d get ya after that but they’d by shocked at being beaten off the line by a Gremlin!


And that was the beauty of it. If you raced a fancy sports car and lost, you didn't care. If you won, the guy in the sports car was sick and later on would pass you out of spite, LOL!


----------

