# Titanium Frames - The Future



## MtKuna (Apr 4, 2015)

So after many endless days trying to figure out which bike I wanted, I finally pulled the wallet out and bought this beauty. Now let me give you a little insight on my past. When I was 14 (that was a VERY long time ago) I got my first job building bikes a local Schwinn shop. I rode my Motobecane Super Mirage which I had outfitted with full Dura ace to and from work. It was a great bike, back then. A friend of mine was given a Colnago for his birthday and we would ride far out into the country during the weekends.I grew up admiring his colnago and said that if I ever could afford one, I'd buy one. Well that day came and went and after riding an aluminum/carbon colnago with full record around for a few years it was time for something else. The research began for a new bike. Should I go full Carbon, Steel, Carbon/titanium or full titanium. This decision alone took over a month to decide. I decided on Titanium, next it was down to who I wanted to get a frame from, Moots, Erikson, Seven or Lynskey, sure there are others, but these were the most accessibly to me. I then boiled it down to Moots or Erikson only because of the history and attention to detail from each. Sure Lynskey makes some great bikes and has tried out new geometry etc, but sometimes the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented and its better to focus on "mastering" something then reinventing something. Moots and Erikson have both mastered working with Titanium. I then decided on Dura Ace because I wanted to go electronic and the new 9070 group had rave reviews. I found this bike a an LBS nearby and it turns out that it was the actually bike used in the Moots photo shoot for their RSL. Its imply is ............... an amazing bike.


----------



## Bevo (Dec 26, 2012)

Very clean!

I love the shapes carbon comes in but a nice TI bike is just clean, cables hidden an DI make it even nicer. If that was mine there would be nothing to change.

Have you been out yet, how is the ride?


----------



## Tachycardic (Mar 31, 2013)

Congratulations on a sweet bike! It's a lifetime of thrills!


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

The future of Titanium bikes will disappear for good. Majority of Ti bike owners are 55+ years old. As they die off due to old age, so will the demand of Ti bikes. The majority of the younger generation are tech savvy thus going after the lastest nano tube carbon technology.


----------



## MtKuna (Apr 4, 2015)

*With age comes wisdom*

I disagree completely. Carbon frames are showing their inherent faults and limitations. They break............ It doesn't take someone who has been round 55+ years to figure that out. The advancements in Titanium frame construction ( The Moot RSL weighs in at 2.5lbs ) will outlast any carbon frame you can dream off. Titanium is the future an as you start to see the cost go down, you will see their popularity rise.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

Keoki said:


> The future of Titanium bikes will disappear for good. Majority of Ti bike owners are 55+ years old. As they die off due to old age, so will the demand of Ti bikes. The majority of the younger generation are tech savvy thus going after the lastest nano tube carbon technology.


bold prediction.

wrong, but bold...


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

Hopefully your Ti frame does not crack like mine did. 

My current super light carbon race frame is 6 years old and has about 35,000 miles on it. It's not broken yet, and I ride and race on some extremely bad pavement.

I think carbon has a better ride, weighs less than Ti, and is at least as durable. I've zero interest in Ti frames myself.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Yea, folks are still having lugged frames built, and Richard Sachs I believe was at 7 years back log when he stopped taking orders for lugged frames.

Folks said the same thing 20 or so years back when custom builder started tig welding lugless steel like most Ti frames are made. Lugs will go the way of the dodo boid. Just saw a post with a 953 Lugged in a Paramount thread that repeats the Geometry of his 72. Me, I just ride my 72 Paramount, then another day my Strong Custom Steel SS, then my Scott Addict LTD. Addict is a good name for a bike for me... The list goes on...

I have to agree that the young and tech can and does follow said prescription. But perhaps it is fair to say NO avid cyclist after 30-40 years of rolling does not yearn for a 531 silver soldered nervex lugged sled. And same rider will have had or have to try a Ti frame at some point. I still have one, a Blade I do not TT but refuse to get rid of.

But to me the cost of Ti is mainly in the fact that the build has to overcome some of the properties of the material, after a hi initial material cost. Steel for me, in my size and weight it will be so close in weight as to not matter much [to me] but cost 50% less.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

ericm979 said:


> Hopefully your Ti frame does not crack like mine did.


FOr example, I have seen more Merlin XLite cracked on the floor than on the road FWIW.



> My current super light carbon race frame is 6 years old and has about 35,000 miles on it. It's not broken yet, and I ride and race on some extremely bad pavement.[/quoute]
> 
> I will have it both ways, my 2009 Scott Addict LTD is my favorite bike for certain types of rides and it is also has not broke failed yet. If it did I would have it repaired and custom painted. luv luv luv.
> 
> ...


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

robt57 said:


> But to me the cost of Ti is mainly in the fact that the build has to overcome some of the properties of the material, after a hi initial material cost. Steel for me, in my size and weight it will be so close in weight as to not matter much [to me] but cost 50% less.


Where do you buy custom steel frames made in America for $900?


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

A thought, I am having a Steel disc Monster CX / Gravel, whatever name you want to call it. I am sticking with a 1-1/8" headtube. For some reason one thing the industry seem to have added in carbon designs to make them not break and have to be warrantied, thus making them un-Goodly stifff.. [IMO] like tapered head tube, hello. 

Why are folks thinking and putting/trending this on a steel bike is good in any fashion??. Even the Lemond Road frame has that. I was told the Steel headtube for tapered fork is like 4x the weight. Now this makes a little more sense for a Ti bike, what 2x the weight.. 3?

Maybe Ti over steel for these frames if tapered, which to be what everyone is buying/building...


----------



## MtKuna (Apr 4, 2015)

It is a known fact that a well mad titanium frame would last longer than any carbon frame made today, the fatigue that riding places on the frame tears at the grains of the carbon and weakens it over time. The other factor to consider is what would happen in a crash?. Chances are, that carbon frame will break, if your on the side that you might never crash your bike, then why bother wearing a helmet..............


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

MtKuna said:


> the fatigue that riding places on the frame tears at the grains of the carbon and weakens it over time.



Myth I'd say/think, funny that doesn't happen in fighter aircraft. According to a USAF mechanic I know. I guess that carbon is a few levels above bike frames, but doesn't have to be on for example my 2009 $7k Addict LTD frame. He told me HMX is more like what is used on raptors than other bike, how much more I dunno.


----------



## ericm979 (Jun 26, 2005)

Many new airliners have significant CF components too. 

MtKuna, it's great that you got a new Ti bike. Do you really need to spread misinformation to make yourself feel good about your purchase? Perhaps you could go out and ride it instead.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

ericm979 said:


> Many new airliners have significant CF components too.
> 
> MtKuna, it's great that you got a new Ti bike. Do you really need to spread misinformation to make yourself feel good about your purchase? Perhaps you could go out and ride it instead.


It is the intenets, after all. Not worth believing nor sweating are a lot of data points. We live on huge wiki page anymore.... 

If you like/luv your new bike, ride it until it breaks, if it doesn't ever. Even better!


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Keoki said:


> The future of Titanium bikes will disappear for good. Majority of Ti bike owners are 55+ years old. As they die off due to old age, so will the demand of Ti bikes. The majority of the younger generation are tech savvy thus going after the lastest nano tube carbon technology.


I see plenty of bike owners under 55 with Titanium. It's usually not their first bike, and more often than not you'll see it in during inclement weather. Titanium was never and will never be the most popular frame choice due to cost and that it's supported mainly by small local builders, but the clean round tubing, custom geometry and niceties like continued support of threaded bottom brackets and something that i appreciate a 'pump peg' mean it will continue to provide a great choice for cyclists that want a comfortable ride and know the extra pound is not significant. 

And there are always new 55 year olds... I'm very much toying with the idea of a Firefly at some later time. The frames are excellent and come in at a lower price point than say a Dogma or a C60.


Oh and Titanium frames can go back to the factory for modernization, such as adding support for disc brakes.


----------



## .je (Aug 25, 2012)

I've heard that most of the titanium used for anything, including frames, is from Russia. With the rising dollar, and falling Ruble, would the price of titanium frames be coming down?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

.je said:


> I've heard that most of the titanium used for anything, including frames, is from Russia. With the rising dollar, and falling Ruble, would the price of titanium frames be coming down?


Not true. Companies like Seven, Firefly, Moots, Erikson, Bedford are U.S. sourced.
And my view is labor is the biggie. By the way, prices never go down because of cost structure, but the result of competition, unless these builders suddenly decide to reduce their margins the price of Titanium is not that relevant. I seem to recall reading and hearing from my fish monger that wild fish prices were rising due to the increase in petroleum pricing, well when petroleum came down fish prices still kept going up.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Where do you buy custom steel frames made in America for $900?



I said that backwards, Ti is 50% more than the steel where I am getting my second frame made from same builder 15 years after the first. And that's just short of 100% more with a 10% courtesy for being a repeat customer.


----------



## charlox5 (Jan 31, 2011)

Nice new bike OP.

FWIW I have a carbon and a Ti bike, and I like them both.

But if i'm being brutally honest, I ride the crabon more (Look 585 w/ SRAMkenstein group) than I do the Ti (Lynskey R330 w/ Chorus), even if I much prefer Campagnolo. The look is faster and plenty comfortable. And while I don't intend to sell, if I had to choose between my lynskey and the vintage De Rosa or Gios or a boutique custom steel bike i dream about, and couldn't keep both--I'd probably get the steel bike.

that being said, it all comes down to preference, and that's the bottom line so don't let my opinion pee in your cheerios. enjoy the moots and ride the hell out of it!


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

Keoki said:


> The future of Titanium bikes will disappear for good. Majority of Ti bike owners are 55+ years old. As they die off due to old age, so will the demand of Ti bikes. The majority of the younger generation are tech savvy thus going after the lastest nano tube carbon technology.


Your thoughts are so far from the truth.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

MtKuna said:


> It is a known fact that a well mad titanium frame would last longer than any carbon frame made today, the fatigue that riding places on the frame tears at the grains of the carbon and weakens it over time. The other factor to consider is what would happen in a crash?. Chances are, that carbon frame will break, if your on the side that you might never crash your bike, then why bother wearing a helmet..............


Ummm, I am not sure where you get your "facts", but they are incorrect. Carbon does not fatigue like metal (including titanium). It is not going to weaken over time as you claim.

Crashing? A carbon frame is not necessarily toast after a crash. More often than not it is not an issue to hop back on a carbon frame after a crash and keep riding. Is there more risk that one will crack in a crash? Sure.

Titanium the future? no way. 1.) It's to expensive to mass produce, 2.) Shapes are limited making the engineering limited, 3.) Limited shapes mean less marketability from a sexy look point of view.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

Beautiful bike! 

The evolution of your post into the carbon vs TI (and someone will throw in Steel soon) comparisons was completely predictable too, its comical!


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Srode said:


> Beautiful bike!
> 
> The evolution of your post into the carbon vs TI (and someone will throw in Steel soon) comparisons was completely predictable too, its comical!


Why argue, get both. Not sold on whether the melding of the two provides real advantage, but it sure looks sweet.

https://pelotonmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/FireFlyNS_hero-610x350.jpg


----------



## cnardone (Jun 28, 2014)

Beautiful bike. Ride it and love it. The only thing that can make that bike any better is black letters on the frame and wheels.:blush2:


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

BMW is making cars out of CF. Your thread title should be "Titanium Frames, Some Small Part of the Future."


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

MtKuna said:


> It is a known fact that a well mad titanium frame would last longer than any carbon frame made today, the fatigue that riding places on the frame tears at the grains of the carbon and weakens it over time. The other factor to consider is what would happen in a crash?. Chances are, that carbon frame will break, if your on the side that you might never crash your bike, then why bother wearing a helmet..............


Complete rubbish. It is well known and established then it comes to cyclic fatigue strength in common bicycle frame materials, carbon is generally superior to Al, steel and Ti.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

cnardone said:


> The only thing that can make that bike any better is black letters on the frame and wheels.


you'd leave the platform pedals...?

I'd add a speck of color somewhere too...it's a little bland with just black, gray, and white.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> Not true. Companies like Seven, Firefly, Moots, Erikson, Bedford are U.S. sourced.


Actually what he said is true (well, China is actually ahead of Russia) and his question was valid. 
There's a difference between mining Titanium and making bike tubes. Just because a bike tube is made in the US doesn't mean the raw material came from the US and it's price isn't subject to foreign currency fluctuation.


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

adjtogo said:


> Your thoughts are so far from the truth.


Nope, I'm right because I said so.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Keoki said:


> Nope, I'm right because I said so.


Not only is Titanium here to stay with new bike designs, but we're seeing Stainless Steel now getting some serious attention. Now that's an interesting comparison.


----------



## JSUlly (Jul 10, 2014)

Skinny tubes on metal bikes will always look better than the bazooka tubes on carbon bikes. I'm not going to argue about material properties, just state that a frame made of metal looks really damn nice.


----------



## cnardone (Jun 28, 2014)

Oxtox said:


> you'd leave the platform pedals...?
> 
> I'd add a speck of color somewhere too...it's a little bland with just black, gray, and white.


Ack!!! Yes, the pedals need to change too!!! I got a Lynsky last fall. All black (white on the wheels) except for a Navy Chris King headset. I love how that little color pops. Unfortunately, I am now fixated on getting navy CK hubs to match the headset. 

It never ends does it?

cmn


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

JSUlly said:


> Skinny tubes on metal bikes will always look better than the bazooka tubes on carbon bikes. I'm not going to argue about material properties, just state that a frame made of metal looks really damn nice.


not only do they look better, but in many cases a better solution. Stiffness is not always a more= better thing


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Trek_5200 said:


> not only do they look better, but in many cases a better solution. Stiffness is not always a more= better thing


And again, it is in the design an implementation.

My 85 SLX Columbus was a lot stiffer than my 2006 Roubiax.

I like the way oversize tubes look on a frame. Probably more to do with scale as I ride a 61CM. I also luv the look of my 72 Paramount. But who here really cares what I like or dislike looks wise.  I also like the 'Bazooka' TUbes on my Scott Addict. The head tube is a little bulky looking, but I don't look at it much...

But hard to argue that the aesthetics don't make a difference to all of us on our 'things'


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Carbon fiber does fatigue. However, and more importantly, the mode of failure of carbon fiber is different then alloys. When carbon fiber fails, it tends to be spetacular, without much warning signs that can be easily discernable to the untrained eyes.

http://wings.buffalo.edu/academic/d...fatigue damage in carbon fiber composites.pdf


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

aclinjury said:


> Carbon fiber does fatigue. However, and more importantly, the mode of failure of carbon fiber is different then alloys. When carbon fiber fails, it tends to be spetacular, without much warning signs that can be easily discernable to the untrained eyes.
> 
> http://wings.buffalo.edu/academic/d...fatigue damage in carbon fiber composites.pdf


Yes, c-fiber composites will fatigue. But a properly made continuous c-fiber composite will have a higher fatigue strength (cycles to failure) than any of the commonly used metals in a bicycle frame, or primary aircraft structure. Unlike the common metals, C-fiber composites like those used in bicycle frames (and airframes) fail in a brittle mode, which can be quite spectacular, and noisy. Many mistakenly view that as a weakness, when in fact the composite is much stronger.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Where do you buy custom steel frames made in America for $900?


Gunnar Cycles, stock size $900, made-to-measure +$350.


----------



## Vitamin G (Aug 3, 2007)

More than anything, the design and geometry of the bike is what makes the bike.

I had an Alu/Carbon Trek and have a Ti Lynskey. The Lynskey climbs better, the Trek descends better.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> When carbon fiber fails, it tends to be spetacular


Composites can include other thing besides carbon in their weave.
Adding things like kevlar can change the failure mode.

An impact that involves enough force to cause a sudden catastrophic failure in a carbon structure will likely cause a similar failure in a metal structure. As an old-timer I have seen lots of aluminum rims fail suddenly, often resulting in face plants. And I have steel frames and forks fail too.

Just sayin'.


----------



## jbinbi (Jan 7, 2013)

robt57 said:


> But perhaps it is fair to say NO avid cyclist after 30-40 years of rolling does not yearn for a 531 silver soldered nervex lugged sled. And same rider will have had or have to try a Ti frame at some point. I still have one, a Blade I do not TT but refuse to get rid of.
> .


Word. (As one who started on ten speeds 40+ yrs ago, hopefully I am using that correctly;-)


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

Calfee bikes in Santa Cruz has repaired 12,000 carbon frames according to their website.


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

It really is funny how the CF vs. Ti vs. steel vs. Aluminum always comes into play. Some so called experts that really aren't experts at all, chime in, thinking they're God's gift to the CF movement, and that CF is the "best thing since apple pie". 

I can certainly believe Calfee has repaired 12K carbon bikes. Just think of how many more that didn't get repaired and ended up in the trash. Just think of how many are still sitting in someone's garage or storage unit, broken up. For me personally, I've had two CF bikes that had cracked frames. One frame, I was lucky enough to sell on ebay for $550. The new owner lived near Calfee and was going to have it repaired there. Calfee quoted me $500 to get it fixed before I sold it. The other frame was a recall twice by the manufacturer. The bike still made funny noises when I rode it even after the defects were repaired, and I sold that too. I know of one local guy who races in crits and he told me he is on his third CF frame. The previous two cracked as well. He told me he's buying a steel bike to do cyclocross this fall. 

There is definitely a backlash now against CF bikes, but, since they're mostly being mass produced in Asia, bike manufacturers keep pumping them out by the ship load, and people will still keep on buying them. Personally, I own a Lynskey R255 now and am extremely happy with the bike. If I were to ever buy another CF frame again, the only one I'd buy would be a Time frame, which are completely hand crafted one by one and molded by French craftsmen with years of experience. They are not assembly line built like those other brands in Asia. Time is a more expensive CF frame, and very comparable to the price I paid for my Lynskey, but maybe in the future, I will buy that Time frame. 

In the meantime, Ti is where it's at.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

adjtogo said:


> ... Personally, I own a Lynskey R255 now and am extremely happy with the bike. If I were to ever buy another CF frame again, the only one I'd buy would be a Time frame, which are completely hand crafted one by one and molded by French craftsmen with years of experience. They are not assembly line built like those other brands in Asia. Time is a more expensive CF frame, and very comparable to the price I paid for my Lynskey, but maybe in the future, I will buy that Time frame.
> 
> In the meantime, Ti is where it's at.


I thought you were selling your Lynskey and getting out of cycling because of your chronic heath problems, and now elevated disability status?


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

ibericb said:


> I thought you were selling your Lynskey and getting out of cycling because of your chronic heath problems, and now elevated disability status?


I still have the Lynskey. I had it up for sale on ebay. Someone was going to buy it from me a few hours away. The guy contacted me, and he tried to negotiate a different price. He then wanted me to deliver it to him where he lives a few hours away. I told him no, then he tried to say I need to come down in price an additional $500 if he comes to pick it up. I had no further contact with him. The guy was a nut job!!

I'm not buying anymore bikes, but I did make the statement "if I was to buy another CF bike, it would be a Time". I made that statement in hopes of others getting away from buying those cheap mass produced Asian bikes that are built fast and have a short life. That is, if they were stuck on buying a CF bike.

As far as riding, I haven't ridden in a while. I think I may seek a second opinion from a different cardiologist as to how far, how much, and how fast I should go. I know I was told to just ride shorter distance and ride leisurely. It's hard to give up something I love doing.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Vitamin G said:


> More than anything, the design and geometry of the bike is what makes the bike.
> 
> I had an Alu/Carbon Trek and have a Ti Lynskey. The Lynskey climbs better, the Trek descends better.


Exactly!

I've stated it repeatedly in these forums, how a frame is designed and built (geometry, tubing cross section, carbon fiber layup schedule, etc.) will be a greater determinant of ride quality differences, stiffness, handling, etc. than the general specific material differences. Talking about a material in the absence of talking about frame design is truly meaningless. The two must be taken together.

As far as the durability of carbon fiber composites in bicycle frames, from a fatigue view if built properly it is more durable than Al for sure, and most steels as well. It's a great material for bike frames in the right hands. Many of the problems that are noted with carbon fiber composite frames, however, are because it is a lousy material in the wrong hands. It takes a degree of knowledge and expertise that eluded most in the beginning, and still eludes some today. The key to good carbon frames is who designs the layup for a given frame, consolidation of the composite during manufacturing, and how they deal with joining to metals, like dropouts. 

In the right hands with the right design, all of the common bicycle frame materials used can lead to a superb frame. In the wrong hands all of them can be a disaster and lead to failures.


----------



## Herbie (Nov 12, 2010)

Agree with getting a second opinion. My cardiologist has told me that cycling is the reason I am alive. 

I'm well over 55, and when I die off, someone will inherit the 3 ti bikes I have collected and ride them for their lifetimes

I have carbon bikes and like them as well. Having bikes with different riding characteristics keeps me motivated


----------



## adjtogo (Nov 18, 2006)

Herbie said:


> Agree with getting a second opinion. My cardiologist has told me that cycling is the reason I am alive.
> 
> I'm well over 55, and when I die off, someone will inherit the 3 ti bikes I have collected and ride them for their lifetimes
> 
> I have carbon bikes and like them as well. Having bikes with different riding characteristics keeps me motivated


Personally, I have been pretty depressed over the whole thing. With three stents, and another blockage, it really is depressing. I know riding made me feel good mentally.


----------



## Scar (Sep 13, 2014)

My wife has a steel bike, a TI bike and a carbon fiber one. She likes them all. I have three TI bikes from two makers and three different models. Each has its own unique ride and I love them. However, if I were writing about bicycle materials I would say titanium has a part of the future, not that it is the future. The material itself is expensive and I don’t see it getting a lot less so down the road.

I don’t think anyone can accurately predict where bicycle materials will be even ten years down the road but I'll bet it will still include the present main players (and I'll doubt that bamboo or wood steps up to the big leagues) .

I really think all the arguments about superiority or deficiency of the different bike materials is kind of silly. Obviously, each of the four common materials does the job in the hands of a competent designer and builder. Staking out a position and defending it to the death may give some emotional satisfaction to the people who practice it, but it is unlikely to win over those with opposing views.

TI bikes rock, and I’m pretty sure the other ones do as well.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

Steve Tilford on titanium bikes ... but what does he know -- he's old.


Titanium for Cycling

I’ve been riding my cyclocross bike back and forth to Lawrence the past week on gravel. I’m sort of stuck in a rut, but not a rut that I’m concerned about. Anyway, I was thinking yesterday how perfect the material of titanium is for cycling.

I got thinking about this because I ejected a bottle from my cage on a descent with braking bumps. I was thinking if I had King ti cages on my cross bike that my bottle wouldn’t have been in the dirt and still on my bike. That got me thinking about frame materials, etc.

We have gotten so obsessed with weight that the other aspects of the frame materials have taken a backseat. Like in the trunk.

Given, carbon frames are normally lighter than titanium. But, you can build light frames from titanium. And nice frames.

I think for any bike you are riding off-road, titanium is the perfect material. With the different choices of tubing sizes and thicknesses, you can fine tune how stiff, resilient, or supple a frame is. Tuning the ride is a big plus. But being virtually indestructible is what really sets it apart.

I have crashed titanium bikes 100’s of times and never touched the frame. I was racing in Canada, in the muck and slime, and was planning to bunny hop a log, at speed. When I pulled up, my hands, which were wet, covered with mud, came off the bars. I hit the log, square, and my shock fork snapped off at the steering column. And it was an aluminum steering column, not carbon. My frame didn’t have a ding. The headtube was perfect, the down and top tube were perfect too. If I would have been riding a frame built out of any other material, it would have been destroyed.

The same goes on the road. My new Eriksen road frame is as stiff as the Trek I was riding before. I know you think that is bullshit, but just ride one. Oversized tubes, with 1″ chainstays makes the frame super stiff, yet light.

But, the real deal is that I don’t have to worry about the bike. When I was riding carbon, I was constantly checking my frame to make sure there wasn’t any small cracks. I’d check down by the bottom bracket and especially up by the headtube before each and every race. When I got a scratch in the paint, I’d always worry that it was a crack.

I don’t have to do that with titanium.

We don’t all have a couple cars with spare bikes following us around in races at all times. How many bike changes to you see the “Pros” make. Lots. Everytime they fall down, something is wrong with their bikes.

I think I wrote this last year, but at Joe Martin last year, Frankie Andreu, manager for Kenda/Five Hour Energy, came up and asked me why I was riding titanium frames. I told him because I was sick of changing the parts on my bikes everytime I crashed and ruined a carbon frame. I was riding Eriksen frames off-road, both MTB and cross, so it made sense.

Plus, the bikes never wear out. I’ve had a Ybb sense the late 90’s and it rides like it did on day one. I can’t tell you how many times that has been thrown off cliffs or hit the ground. It is pretty much indestructible.

Same goes with the King titanium cages. The cages are pricey for bottle cages, somewhere around $50 depending on where you get them. But, they are great. They don’t break. They don’t get loose. And they hold your bottle like a water bottle cage should. All this carbon, etc. for cages is total bullshit. I have yet to use a carbon bottle cage that works. They don’t hold your bottle and they break. Valueless.

I have total confidence in the bikes I ride. I don’t even think about having a catastrophic frame failure. When I fall, I am pretty sure I can just go and pick up my bike, if I can, and get on it and ride it again. I can’t say the same when I rode carbon frames.


----------



## Special Eyes (Feb 2, 2011)

MtKuna said:


> Sure Lynskey makes some great bikes and has tried out new geometry etc, but sometimes the wheel doesn't need to be reinvented and its better to focus on "mastering" something then reinventing something. Moots and Erikson have both mastered working with Titanium.



Is that what you think? I own a Moots and a Lynskey, and the materials and craftsmanship on both are top notch. Lynsey is certainly as 'masterful' as any of the other boutique Ti frame builders. Oh, and I ride Colnago, too. All are quite pleasurable.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

Relying on a study done in 1998 on the properties of carbon fiber is analogous to using a 1988 study on the limitations of computers. Both carbon fiber and, more important, the matrix material have improved exponentially in the last 17 years.


aclinjury said:


> Carbon fiber does fatigue. However, and more importantly, the mode of failure of carbon fiber is different then alloys. When carbon fiber fails, it tends to be spetacular, without much warning signs that can be easily discernable to the untrained eyes.
> 
> http://wings.buffalo.edu/academic/d...fatigue damage in carbon fiber composites.pdf


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Drew Eckhardt said:


> Where do you buy custom steel frames made in America for $900?


*Curtlo Cycles - Pricing*

$990, but still, pretty close.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Relying on a study done in 1998 on the properties of carbon fiber is analogous to using a 1988 study on the limitations of computers. Both carbon fiber and, more important, the matrix material have improved exponentially in the last 17 years.


Regardless, carbon fiber does tend to snap/fail all-at-once when breaking, whereas metal will often give warning first via bending or a slowly-developing crack. CF also has poor impact resistance compared to most metals. 

These are properties that are inherent to the material, they aren't going to just go away despite whatever incremental improvements that've been made since 1998. 

Also, carbon tubes in bikes have been around for 40 years, and monocoque CF bike frames for about 30. The tech isn't in its infancy anymore, I don't think we'll be seeing 'insanely' better CF bikes going forward. I'd think that much of the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked. 

This isn't to slag on CF, it's a wonderful material for some things, but there is a tendency among some to think of it as a 'magic' material with no drawbacks and infinite scope for further improvement.


Check out the comparison that these guys did. Leave it to those wacky Germans.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> Regardless, carbon fiber does tend to snap/fail all-at-once when breaking, whereas metal will often give warning first via bending or a slowly-developing crack.


It's called brittle failure. Whether a material fails via a brittle or ductile mechanism isn't really the issue. It's about how much force or energy it takes to do the damage. In that case, a well made C-f composite generally wins. The emphasis needs to be on "well made" (in C-f composites, and glass too, there is plenty of junk out there). The downsides of brittle failures are the lack of warning, and the attendant surprise that can come when things do break. 



> CF also has poor impact resistance compared to most metals.


Again, a well made C-f composite will sustain greater impact energy without damage than the frame metals (especially Al) in the dimensions typically employed in bicycle frames.

The physical weakness of C-f composites is usually compressive strength. Still, with proper construction and design, it's not even close to being an issue for normal use.



> Also, carbon tubes in bikes have been around for 40 years, and monocoque CF bike frames for about 30. The tech isn't in its infancy anymore, I don't think we'll be seeing 'insanely' better CF bikes going forward. I'd think that much of the low-hanging fruit has already been plucked.
> 
> This isn't to slag on CF, it's a wonderful material for some things, but there is a tendency among some to think of it as a 'magic' material with no drawbacks and infinite scope for further improvement.


The real issue is cost. Substantial increases in physical properties of C-f composites are at hand even today. The problem is the cost goes up sharply. Given that C-f composites already provide more than enough strength, stiffness and toughness to design bicycle frames and airframes with superior performance properties relative to the traditional metal alternatives, there is no driver to pay up substantially from the current premium costs of those currently available. The most relevant target for the foreseeable future is lowering the cost of the current C-f/epoxy composite systems.




> Check out the comparison that these guys did. Leave it to those wacky Germans.


In this case, wacky is correct. Anyone with any real knowledge or experience in materials testing and characterization will tell you that uncontrolled German testing is about as bogus as it gets. In the world of materials testing it's truly laughable.

The real problem with C-f fiber bicycle frames is that building a composite requires a degree of knowledge and expertise which is missing in some of those who produce and sell frames to the public. When it comes to C-f bicycle frames I really want to know who is behind the design and construction of the frame, more so than for a metal frame (and I want to know then too).


----------



## TiCoyote (Jun 28, 2005)

My "beater" is a 2004 Airborne Torch with Ultegra 6600. Every time I take it out, I'm blown away by how smooth and comfortable it is. And fast.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> It's called brittle failure. Whether a material fails via a brittle or ductile mechanism isn't really the issue. It's about how much force or energy it takes to do the damage. In that case, a well made C-f composite generally wins. The emphasis needs to be on "well made" (in C-f composites, and glass too, there is plenty of junk out there). The downsides of brittle failures are the lack of warning, and the attendant surprise that can come when things do break.


Well, I'd say that both the brittleness of carbon fiber *and* the strength of it are things to take into account. AFAIK, carbon fiber can only elongate about 1-2% before failure, while many metals can elongate several times that much safely. I'd agree that CF is absolutely wonderful versus any 'planned' or designed-for stresses, but unplanned-for/unexpected ones, perhaps not so much. 

For example, in the German video (which yes, I know you dislike, and I get why), the gentleman stands on a steel or aluminum frame's stays, and they deflect a bit but survive and presumably spring back once he steps off. He stands on the CF bike's stays and... *snap*, they break almost immediately.

The impact test is also a bit disheartening... he drops a weight on the metal frames, and they dent. He does so on the CF bike, a big chunk gets torn out of it, leaving a sizeable hole in the frame. Which makes sense, as again, CF is not terribly impact-resistant. 

It's entirely fair to say in response, "Well, when is someone ever going to stand on your stays or drop a weight on your seat tube!?!", but, y'know, out on the road, sh*t happens. You can crash, you can kick a big rock up into the bottom of the downtube, you can get doored, etc. etc. And it does seem to illustrate the pitfalls of a lack of ductility/elongation, lack of impact resistance, and the inability of CF to handle unplanned-for stresses, at least in some cases. 

On the flip side, CF is of course VERY strong versus designed-for stresses, makes the lightest frames, and has an amazing stiffness-to-weight ratio. You can certainly make good bikes out of it, ppl have been doing so for decades, and I would never tell anyone that they should automatically stay away from CF products or bikes, except for maybe expedition touring bikes, where if 'sh*t happens', you could possibly be in some extremely remote area. 

For me personally, what keeps me away from CF bikes is the failure mode, which is often all-at-once when it happens, i.e. without warning. I personally am a bit paranoid about that. But I understand that many ppl do not share my paranoia, and will be very happy with a CF bike, never ever worrying about it. And I say more power to 'em, that's the right choice for them. 




> The real issue is cost. Substantial increases in physical properties of C-f composites are at hand even today. The problem is the cost goes up sharply.


Well, that's interesting. Since no one's making a, say, $1 million CF frame, I personally have no knowledge of or way to evaluate the properties/performance of such a frame. 

You appear to be highly interested in this, IYHO and from your research, what would such a 'cost-no-object' frame be like?




> The real problem with C-f fiber bicycle frames is that building a composite requires a degree of knowledge and expertise which is missing in some of those who produce and sell frames to the public. When it comes to C-f bicycle frames I really want to know who is behind the design and construction of the frame, more so than for a metal frame (and I want to know then too).


On that we are very much on the same page. It seems a shame that most consumers consider price, weight, color... and that's about it. Good craftsmanship and design are critical, and should be rewarded by an educated consumer base.



.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> Well, I'd say that both the brittleness of carbon fiber *and* the strength of it are things to take into account. AFAIK, carbon fiber can only elongate about 1-2% before failure, while many metals can elongate several times that much safely. I'd agree that CF is absolutely wonderful versus any 'planned' or designed-for stresses, but unplanned-for/unexpected ones, perhaps not so much.


Elongation to failure is the strain, and it reflects the failure mode (ductile for steel, brittle for carbon). While that attracts a lot of attention, for design of bicycle frames it's really the stress (force) that is of importance. 

The issue with brittle failure is it comes without warning. The advantage of ductile failure is it tells you there's a problem before complete failure - it tends to come with a warning. But for me, I would prefer the material that can take more abuse before either kind of failure - I don't care if the fork is bend or snaps, I want the one that is stronger and takes more before either happens. A well made C-f composite will generally win that one. But it takes the knowledge and expertise we both agree on is missing in some cases. The advantage of the ductile failure warning is it doesn't hide well, so you can easily see you have a problem. In C-f frames underlying damage preceding catastrophic failure tends to hide well. That means any abuse needs to be followed by inspection. For pro teams one of the major causes cited for hidden abuse is rough handling in transport moving the bikes around. As a result of the hidden damage issue I would say C-f composites are les tolerant of neglect.



> For example, in the German video (which yes, I know you dislike, and I get why), the gentleman stands on a steel or aluminum frame's stays, and they deflect a bit but survive and spring back once he steps off. He stands on the CF bike's stays and... *snap*, they fail immediately.


Rather than the uncontrolled German test, look at this one for a C-f fork, then this one (same test, same folks) for steel. Then watch this video from Santa Cruz comparing C-f and Al frames and forks. The reason I cite these tests is they are well controlled and instrumented. After viewing those, let me now what you think.



> On the flip side, CF is of course VERY strong versus designed-for stresses, makes the lightest frames, and has an amazing stiffness-to-weight ratio. You can certainly make good bikes out of it, ppl have been doing so for decades, and I would never tell anyone that they should automatically stay away from CF products or bikes, except for maybe expedition touring bikes, where if 'sh*t happens', you could possibly be in some extremely remote area.


If you're in an extremely remote area, and it breaks, it's broken. I would want the bike that will endure more _before breaking_, whichever one that is.



> For me personally, what keeps me away from CF bikes is the failure mode, which is often all-at-once when it happens, i.e. without warning.


Brittle failure can be both dramatic and scary (like when glass breaks), and many people mistake that for a weakness (glass vs. plastic). The failure mode reflects what happens when a critical strength is exceeded, not the underlying inherent strength or durability of the material. Don't confuse the two.



> You appear to be highly interested in this, IYHO and from your research, what would such a 'cost-no-object' frame be like?


Since composites are designed, anisotropic materials, it can largely be whatever you want within some fairly broad practical limits. and constraints. Of course the same could be said for metals if you set aside weight. And therein lies the real advantage of practical C-f systems. They can deliver superior physical properties and durability at lower weight, but generally do so with attendant higher cost.

Think about this - why did Boeing and Airbus move from metal alloys to carbon fiber composites for the new airframe primary structures? It certainly wasn't with accepting that the C-f composite systems they designed are inherently weaker in any domain. In making that large scale change they also had to do so within what become a cost acceptable to their customers, considering both initial capital investment and the longer term cost of ownership and operating. Those airframes were NOT designed to be throwaways.


----------



## MtKuna (Apr 4, 2015)

The majority of bicycles you find in your LBS will be Carbon and theres a reason for that. The "Big" companies have figured out how to mass produce them and very cheaply at that, giving them a huge profit margin. Sure they want to produce a safe cycle, but not one that last 20 years. They are in the business of making money first and foremost and their business model is much different then those that make Titanium frames. Titanium frames are expensive and most likely will be for a long time. The craftsmanship required to weld titanium etc doesnt "Fit" into the mass production money making plan of the big companies. Carbon is popular not because its the best material to build a bike from, its popular becuase it has become the cheapest, easiest one to make a bike frame from.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

MtKuna said:


> The majority of bicycles you find in your LBS will be Carbon and theres a reason for that. The "Big" companies have figured out how to mass produce them and very cheaply at that, giving them a huge profit margin. Sure they want to produce a safe cycle, but not one that last 20 years. They are in the business of making money first and foremost and their business model is much different then those that make Titanium frames. Titanium frames are expensive and most likely will be for a long time. The craftsmanship required to weld titanium etc doesnt "Fit" into the mass production money making plan of the big companies. Carbon is popular not because its the best material to build a bike from, its popular becuase it has become the cheapest, easiest one to make a bike frame from.


That whole weight thing is total BS too right? That's why all the pros ride Ti. And that's why the i concept is a worthless idiotic massive investment by one of the highest quality auto manufacturers in the world. 

BMW i : Concept


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

your history study is a bit whacked because it was Lynskey who invented the process of shaping titanium technology that all the other TI builders now use when he started Litespeed. Lynskey sold Litespeed to ABG who now has poor customer service, so in response to ABG ruining the Litespeed brand he worked so hard in getting it to be a success work Lynskey decided to open up a new titanium bike manufacturing company under his name.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

ibericb said:


> Brittle failure can be both dramatic and scary (like when glass breaks), and many people mistake that for a weakness (glass vs. plastic). The failure mode reflects what happens when a critical strength is exceeded, not the underlying inherent strength or durability of the material. Don't confuse the two.


Repeated for emphasis.

Failure mode is irrelevant when the load required to cause failure in a carbon structure is far beyond that of a metal structure.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

SwiftSolo said:


> Relying on a study done in 1998 on the properties of carbon fiber is analogous to using a 1988 study on the limitations of computers. Both carbon fiber and, more important, the matrix material have improved exponentially in the last 17 years.


If there are studies that add to or contradict the cited study, then cite those studies. Saying that a study is so-and-so number of years old and thus is somehow now less scientifically valid.. is like saying that all scientific data should eventually become invalid over time. But this is not how science works.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

PBL450 said:


> That whole weight thing is total BS too right? That's why all the pros ride Ti. And that's why the i concept is a worthless idiotic massive investment by one of the highest quality auto manufacturers in the world.
> 
> BMW i : Concept


Pros ride what they get paid to ride. I'm sure UCI riders would be happy to ride titanium frames given the weight limit they have to adhere to. Its not uncommon for riders to add "heavy" stuff like power tap hubs. 3 lbs is a big difference in the weight of a bike. But do you really feel three extra pounds when you're out riding it? Mot of us, me included, could easily stand to lose three or more pounds. 

The BMW i car is BMW trying to meet fuel economy standards in the U.S. They have to down weight the car and carbon fiber is the cheapest way to do it (aluminum is the other alternative). Once EPA got into the fuel economy business through regulating CO2 exhaust through the Clean Air Act, BMW can no longer just pay a small fine to DOT and be out of compliance like they've always done. They might just be forced out of business in the U.S. It's not an idiotic investment -- but you need to realize what's driving it. And its not innovation and the wonder of carbon fiber. Its business.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Part of the issue I have with carbon is that there were some corrosion issues with frames that had alumin(i)um inserts integrated into them, which is actually quite a lot of carbon frames manufactured for quite a long time period. It's hard to trust something that could be corroding under the paint until it fails without warning. Granted there could be weld issues with aluminum, steel and Ti, but the failure would be more likely to be gradual and noticeable.

My recent and future purchases have been and will be Ti or stainless. The longevity due to lack of corrosion is a trump card issue for me. As for cost, if you look around you can find a quality (even USA built) frame for under $1000.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

DrSmile said:


> Part of the issue I have with carbon is that there were some corrosion issues with frames that had alumin(i)um inserts integrated into them, which is actually quite a lot of carbon frames manufactured for quite a long time period.


I have an old-school Spec Allez Epic that has carbon tubes epoxied to alum lugs. it's 20+ years old and shows only two minor spots of corrosion on the lugs. neither of which I regard as structural deficiencies. 

Specialized issued a notice to consumers to discontinue use of these frames after 10 years, but I've pretty much ignored that advice. with at least 80K miles on it, it now sees roller duty and the occasional ride when the Ti bike is down for repairs. first gen models of this bike had a lot of frame failures, but they were due to problems with the adhesives used, not corrosion. while I like the bike, the alum fork it came with isn't noted for providing a velvety smooth ride.

speaking of the Ti bike, I'll ride it until it or me dies.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

Oxtox said:


> speaking of the Ti bike, I'll ride it until it or me dies.


I bought a Litespeed Ultimate and a Volvo V70 wagon in 1999. The bike is still working. I completely over hauled it last year. Replaced everything except the frame, pedals, post and saddle. I even stripped the decals, refinished it and applied new decals. The thing looks brand new.


----------



## MXL (Jun 26, 2012)

cnardone said:


> Beautiful bike. Ride it and love it. The only thing that can make that bike any better is black letters on the frame and wheels.:blush2:


Agreed!


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

For the people riding titanium or steel due to concerns about the failure mode of carbon, what are your running for forks? I assume steel? I think I remember seeing titanium forks but I heard they were fairly flexy if made at a reasonable weight.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Chaz955i said:


> For the people riding titanium or steel due to concerns about the failure mode of carbon, what are your running for forks? I assume steel? I think I remember seeing titanium forks but I heard they were fairly flexy if made at a reasonable weight.


Unfortunately all TI bikes today, at least that I know of, come only with carbon forks. When I bought my Lynskey I was a bit leery of using the generic rebranded Lynskey CF fork so after some research I settled on the Enve 2.0 fork because it had the highest rider weight limit of all the forks that I looked at, which in my way of thinking is that it is over engineered especially for me and thus should hold up longer. 

Here is an interesting read on this CF stuff; see: The Retrogrouch: Carbon Forks - No Way

Then theres the misinformation being spread that CF never fatigues, not true, here's a read on that: https://janheine.wordpress.com/2012/03/15/frames-going-soft/

Titanium forks would be a horrible idea unless they somehow made it thick enough not to flex but since people are into wanting a lightweight bike the thicker TI fork would be heavy might as well use steel but there's that weight thing rearing it's ugly head. Aluminum fork would work, it has in the past, some were cheaply made and cracked too easily and thus failed but others were good.

In reality forks made out of any material have failed in the past without warning! And as such can cause loss of control and thus a crash. Forks have always been the weak spot on a bike. The odd thing was with my Ridley Scandium bike I use to have the headtube at the top developed a crack, the fork is fine, I still have the fork, not sure why I kept it but maybe some project in the future will need a fork.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Chaz955i said:


> For the people riding titanium or steel due to concerns about the failure mode of carbon, what are your running for forks? I assume steel? I think I remember seeing titanium forks but I heard they were fairly flexy if made at a reasonable weight.


Steel fork. I don't think I've ever seen a Ti fork IRL, though they do exist. Every pic I've seen of a road Ti fork showed it to be a unicrown, i.e. fugly. 

For me, the ultimate would be a Ti frame with a steel flat-crown fork. Pretty light, no weird sudden failure modes, aesthetically beautiful.


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

Froze and SystemShock, thanks for the reply. I have a titanium Colnago I bought years ago that came stock with a carbon fork. I also chose ti for its durability but realized the one thing keeping my face from smashing the road at a high rate of speed wasn't a cracked stay but a fork failure. I got over it and rode that bike for 12 years and have since moved to full carbon. I was just interested to see how riders of titanium who bought it for or or at least partially due to its durability reconciled using carbon in the front end. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer as long as the end user is honest about how they will use the bike, maintain it, and chooses the materials appropriately.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Chaz955i said:


> Froze and SystemShock, thanks for the reply. I have a titanium Colnago I bought years ago that came stock with a carbon fork. I also chose ti for its durability but realized the one thing keeping my face from smashing the road at a high rate of speed wasn't a cracked stay but a fork failure. I got over it and rode that bike for 12 years and have since moved to full carbon. I was just interested to see how riders of titanium who bought it for or or at least partially due to its durability reconciled using carbon in the front end. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer as long as the end user is honest about how they will use the bike, maintain it, and chooses the materials appropriately.


Did you read the sites I gave? Carbon does fatigue much to the surprise of all the cyclists who bought CF bikes because they were told differently. This is now a known issue still being a non mentionable in the cycling world.


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

froze said:


> Did you read the sites I gave? Carbon does fatigue much to the surprise of all the cyclists who bought CF bikes because they were told differently. This is now a known issue still being a non mentionable in the cycling world.


Honestly, I didn't because read them because my intent was not to get a material science lesson or argue what material is best or worst for any specific application. My question is how people who ride titanium or won't ride full carbon because of durability reconcile using a carbon fork. This question is partially in response to seeing many titanium bikes in magazines, on the road or in shops running carbon forks. I guess I don't understand choosing a material for its durability or failure mode and putting a material that you don't trust in an area as critical as the fork. One already responded that he uses a steel fork. Perhaps for some titanium was not primarily chosen for durability but for ride quality or aesthetics. Maybe it is just a lack of available options. As I said, I'm not looking for rights or wrongs, just opinions.


----------



## metalheart (Sep 3, 2010)

I went for a fusion of ti and carbon --- this is how they are made:
Holland Cycles


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

froze said:


> Did you read the sites I gave? Carbon does fatigue much to the surprise of all the cyclists who bought CF bikes because they were told differently. This is now a known issue still being a non mentionable in the cycling world.


Pretty much all the common engineering materials used in bicycle construction will fatigue. The issue is how much over what cycle period, and how do they compare. Well made C-fiber composites will outlast the traditional metals, and poorly made C-fiber composites won't. It isn't mentioned so much in the cycling world because when it comes to fatigue strength and durability, C-fiber composites are generally better than the metals. How much as metal fatigue discussed in the cycling world?


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

metalheart said:


> I went for a fusion of ti and carbon --- this is how they are made:
> Holland Cycles
> 
> View attachment 305469


Beyond cool. Wasn't Lemond bikes doing something with a titanium lower half of the frame and carbon upper half? I seem to remember seeing one in a shop a few years back. Enjoy that Holland.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> Pretty much all the common engineering materials used in bicycle construction will fatigue. The issue is how much over what cycle period, and how do they compare. Well made C-fiber composites will outlast the traditional metals, and poorly made C-fiber composites won't. It isn't mentioned so much in the cycling world because when it comes to fatigue strength and durability, C-fiber composites are generally better than the metals. How much as metal fatigue discussed in the cycling world?


Iber, don't certain metals (such as steel and Ti, but not aluminum) have what is known as a distinct 'fatigue limit', i.e. a load level below which they can be stressed an almost infinite number of times/cycles, without having their strength diminished or being in danger of failure?:

_*Fatigue limit*, *endurance limit*, and *fatigue strength* are all expressions used to describe a property of materials: the amplitude (or range) of cyclic stress that can be applied to the material without causing fatigue failure.[1] 

*Ferrous alloys and titanium alloys[2] have a distinct limit, an amplitude below which there appears to be no number of cycles that will cause failure.* Other structural metals such as aluminium and copper, do not have a distinct limit and will eventually fail even from small stress amplitudes. In these cases, a number of cycles (usually 10[SUP]7[/SUP]) is chosen to represent the fatigue life of the material._


Fatigue limit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> Iber, don't certain metals (such as steel and Ti, but not aluminum) have what is known as a distinct 'fatigue limit', i.e. a load level below which they can be stressed an almost infinite number of times/cycles, without having their strength diminished or being in danger of failure?


That's pretty much true, but it's not really infinite for steel or Ti. It is a very high number though, which practically seems infinite. Because of the way they fail (differently) C-fiber composites don't have that fatigue limit. But at cyclic load levels equivalent to those of steel, properly made C-fiber composites will last significantly longer. That's one of the advantages that Boeing appreciates in using C-fiber composites extensively in their newer airframes. They are using a lot more Ti than they did in the past. Airframe lifetime is a very big deal.

One of the problems with comparing carbon fiber composites to traditional metal arises from the constructed, engineered, anisotropic nature of C-fiber composites vs. isotropic standard metal alloys. With C-fiber composites there is always the caveat about how they are made, including matrix resin, fiber, layup and consolidation. That's why I always say "well made", and I want to know who is behind both the design and the construction of any composite material in a critical application.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Chaz955i said:


> Honestly, I didn't because read them because my intent was not to get a material science lesson or argue what material is best or worst for any specific application. My question is how people who ride titanium or won't ride full carbon because of durability reconcile using a carbon fork. This question is partially in response to seeing many titanium bikes in magazines, on the road or in shops running carbon forks. I guess I don't understand choosing a material for its durability or failure mode and putting a material that you don't trust in an area as critical as the fork. One already responded that he uses a steel fork. Perhaps for some titanium was not primarily chosen for durability but for ride quality or aesthetics. Maybe it is just a lack of available options. As I said, I'm not looking for rights or wrongs, just opinions.


That's why you should have read the articles it would have explained some things, but whatever.

Ti for me, just my opinion, offered a better ride quality then any aluminium, carbon fiber, or even my steel bikes except my touring bikes that feel better but only when loaded with another 50 pounds in the rear. TI also lighter than steel and feels snappier than steel, doesn't fatigue like AL or CF and is repairable in the event of an accident far easier and cheaper than AL (which really isn't repairable) or CF. Aesthetics wise I prefer the look of lugged steel over anything else currently on the market, in fact the TI bike I ride looks too industrial for my taste but that doesn't prevent me from riding it. I like TI also because of where I live I encounter rain a lot and didn't want my steel bikes to start rusting, or in the case of aluminium, corroding.

Ti bikes are increasing in marketing presence and in sales because the failure rate of CF bikes is becoming too costly for people to keep swallowing the same poison pill, people are looking for a bike frame that will last a long time and is fairly light, TI offers all of that. The only drawback to TI over any other material is the weight is the 2nd lightest bike material with Carbon fiber being the lightest although low end carbon fiber is just as heavy as TI and some are even heavier than ti.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

froze said:


> ...
> *Ti bikes are increasing in marketing presence *and in sales because the failure rate of CF bikes is becoming too costly for people to keep swallowing the same poison pill, people are looking for a bike frame that will last a long time and is fairly light, TI offers all of that. The only drawback to TI over any other material is the weight is the 2nd lightest bike material with Carbon fiber being the lightest although low end carbon fiber is just as heavy as TI and some are even heavier than ti.


Have data to support that claim?

Since nearly all of the major bicycle production companies have chosen to build in carbon fiber composites, and the options for Ti remains pretty much limited, I wonder how you've come to your conclusion.

If you believe Ti doesn't fatigue, you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

ibericb said:


> That's pretty much true, but it's not really infinite for steel or Ti. It is a very high number though, which practically seems infinite.


Worth mentioning, alloying spec of different tubes designs not withstanding...



> One of the problems with comparing carbon fiber composites to traditional metal arises from the constructed, engineered, anisotropic nature of C-fiber composites vs. isotropic standard metal alloys. With C-fiber composites there is always the caveat about how they are made, including matrix resin, fiber, layup and consolidation. That's why I always say "well made", and I want to know who is behind both the design and the construction of any composite material in a critical application.


I've wondered how close [or far] even my HMX Scott Addict recipe is from what gets used on airframes in design and spec. Even if this bike frame was $7k MSRP in 2009, arguably among the most expensive for bike use?? [then ?, now ??]


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> If you believe Ti doesn't fatigue, you are sadly mistaken.


That said, I don't think I've ever heard of a Ti road frame wearing out. If it happens, it's probably an uber-light one (i.e. is loaded beyond its fatigue limit at times), but too-light carbon frames may not exactly be durable either. 

With any material, there's 'cutting-edge', and then there's 'bleeding-edge'. 

On the steel front, well... I've known some old guys with 40-year old Italian bikes that they still ride often, and with no frame issues. The bikes will likely outlast them.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> That said, I don't think I've ever heard of a Ti road frame wearing out. If it happens, it's probably an uber-light one (i.e. is loaded beyond its fatigue limit at times), but too-light carbon frames may not exactly be durable either.
> 
> With any material, there's 'cutting-edge', and then there's 'bleeding-edge'.
> 
> On the steel front, well... I've known some old guys with 40-year old Italian bikes that they still ride often, and with no frame issues. The bikes will likely outlast them.


I've never known of any well cared for bicycle frame actually failing from true fatigue. It's usually accident damage, corrosion (steel), or weld failure (Al or Ti). Given the length of time Al has been widely in use I would suspect it has happened in Al, but not in any of the other commonly used materials. As best I know and can judge, fatigue isn't an issue for a well made frame of steel, Ti, or carbon composite. All the talk is only a red herring.

It took me a few tries to resurrect this but I believe it is insightful. It comes from the boat building world: _The Gougeon Brothers on Boat Construction_. In that there is a very reasonable discussion on fatigue as it pertains to epoxies and composites (Appendix C, page 379). On page 380 there is a graph showing typical S-N curves for a number of materials used in boat construction, including aluminum, steel and carbon fiber composite. A 3Al 2.5V Ti alloy would be intermediate between steel and carbon fiber composite, probably around 10[sup]7[/sup] cycles at 50% of tensile strength for good sports grade quality material. One of the issues with Ti is the actual value in a frame can be degraded appreciably depending on how the tube and frame were fabricated, and how the tubes are finished.

One of the problems with the curves for glass and carbon composites is that a given material can be quite different depending upon how the composite was built, and then there is the anisotropy issue. But for a well made composite typical of modern bicycle frame production, 10[sup]7[/sup] at ~60% of tensile strength would be pretty typical.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

SystemShock said:


> That said, I don't think I've ever heard of a Ti road frame wearing out. If it happens, it's probably an uber-light one (i.e. is loaded beyond its fatigue limit at times), but too-light carbon frames may not exactly be durable either.
> 
> With any material, there's 'cutting-edge', and then there's 'bleeding-edge'.
> 
> On the steel front, well... I've known some old guys with 40-year old Italian bikes that they still ride often, and with no frame issues. The bikes will likely outlast them.


Old Italian bikes? Sure, even 40 plus year old Schwinns that were made in America. I have a 31 year old Trek 660 with 84 Suntour Superbe components that has over 160,000 miles on it that I can get on it and ride as far as I want without worrying about the frame or the components for that matter!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> I've never known of any well cared for bicycle frame actually failing from true fatigue. It's usually accident damage, corrosion (steel), or weld failure (Al or Ti). Given the length of time Al has been widely in use I would suspect it has happened in Al, but not in any of the other commonly used materials. As best I know and can judge, fatigue isn't an issue for a well made frame of steel, Ti, or carbon composite. All the talk is only a red herring.
> 
> It took me a few tries to resurrect this but I believe it is insightful. It comes from the boat building world: _The Gougeon Brothers on Boat Construction_. In that there is a very reasonable discussion on fatigue as it pertains to epoxies and composites (Appendix C, page 379). On page 380 there is a graph showing typical S-N curves for a number of materials used in boat construction, including aluminum, steel and carbon fiber composite. A 3Al 2.5V Ti alloy would be intermediate between steel and carbon fiber composite, probably around 10[sup]7[/sup] cycles at 50% of tensile strength for good sports grade quality material. One of the issues with Ti is the actual value in a frame can be degraded appreciably depending on how the tube and frame were fabricated, and how the tubes are finished.
> 
> One of the problems with the curves for glass and carbon composites is that a given material can be quite different depending upon how the composite was built, and then there is the anisotropy issue. But for a well made composite typical of modern bicycle frame production, 10[sup]7[/sup] at ~60% of tensile strength would be pretty typical.


I had a Ridley Scandium (which was suppose to be tougher than aluminium even though aluminium was the overwhelming major alloy in the metal) that failed about 3 years after I got it. A crack formed at the top of the headtube and extended about 1/4 of inch past the headset. Ridley would not warranty it because they first said it had to have been involved in crash for that to happen problem was all the stock components and the frame had no damage whatsoever, they later backed down from that and said fatigue caused the issue and thus no warranty adjustment. Fatigue after only about 15,000 miles? I've actually seen quite a few aluminum bikes fail with cracks, mostly from where the bike was welded at the BB's, and some at the down tube and head tube weld area, and some at the dropouts, and from those and various forum reports getting a AL frame warrantied was like pulling teeth. I think the only positive report I can recall hearing was people who had AL Trek bikes seemed to either get it warrantied completely or 1/2 off the cost of a new frame. Oh, I forgot, a friend of mine broke 2 Kleins and Klein warrantied all of those as did the same guy who broke 2 Vitus's and Vitus warrantied all of those, and so did Cannondale for the same guy twice. But Cannondale in later years started to hassle people with warranty claims.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

ibericb said:


> It took me a few tries to resurrect this but I believe it is insightful. It comes from the boat building world: _The Gougeon Brothers on Boat Construction_. In that there is a very reasonable discussion on fatigue as it pertains to epoxies and composites (Appendix C, page 379). On page 380 there is a graph showing typical S-N curves for a number of materials used in boat construction, including aluminum, steel and carbon fiber composite. A 3Al 2.5V Ti alloy would be intermediate between steel and carbon fiber composite, probably around 10[sup]7[/sup] cycles at 50% of tensile strength for good sports grade quality material. One of the issues with Ti is the actual value in a frame can be degraded appreciably depending on how the tube and frame were fabricated, and how the tubes are finished.
> 
> One of the problems with the curves for glass and carbon composites is that a given material can be quite different depending upon how the composite was built, and then there is the anisotropy issue. But for a well made composite typical of modern bicycle frame production, 10[sup]7[/sup] at ~60% of tensile strength would be pretty typical.


Wow, someone who actually reads the appendices! Great info, I particularly like:

"Carbon fiber is one of the more fatigue-
resistant materials, with a fatigue endurance limit of
approximately 60% of its one-time load capability. *But
this is only in the exact direction of the fiber itself; in
comparison, steel has a structural advantage in that it
exhibits the same properties in all directions.*"


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Here is an interesting read done by this forums parent company; see: Why You Should be Riding Steel and not Carbon | Road Bike News, Reviews, and Photos


----------



## Charlie the Unicorn (Jan 8, 2013)

They're bikes, to each their own. I tried to go the ti route this time, ordered a lynskey frame and it weighed in over half a pound heavier than what they told me. It wasn't that light to begin with. I guess they can be made light enough, but it's dead weight to me and having ridden aluminum, carbon and ti I'm sure the material and layup and all that crap makes some difference, but I've found fit and the rest of the build has more to do with how the bike rides (especially fit).

For me the weight was just too much. Well, that and Don Erwin @ lynskey is an arrogant sob. Sent the frame back and stuck with carbon.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

froze said:


> Here is an interesting read done by this forums parent company; see: Why You Should be Riding Steel and not Carbon | Road Bike News, Reviews, and Photos


That article is _interesting_. No mention by the author about Ti at all. The comparison is between a production carbon bike and a custom steel bike. It seems to me the article was simply a justification for the author's desire for to buy a custom made steel bike. The comments suggest the article was originally published in 2009, and the publisher prefaced this last reprinting last November with the following:

_Update: Nov 29
Here’s one of the most engaging articles we’ve ever published. Is it still relevant now with advances in carbon and carbon repair? _​


----------



## Chaz955i (Mar 13, 2006)

froze said:


> That's why you should have read the articles it would have explained some things, but whatever.
> 
> Ti for me, just my opinion, offered a better ride quality then any aluminium, carbon fiber, or even my steel bikes except my touring bikes that feel better but only when loaded with another 50 pounds in the rear. TI also lighter than steel and feels snappier than steel, doesn't fatigue like AL or CF and is repairable in the event of an accident far easier and cheaper than AL (which really isn't repairable) or CF. Aesthetics wise I prefer the look of lugged steel over anything else currently on the market, in fact the TI bike I ride looks too industrial for my taste but that doesn't prevent me from riding it. I like TI also because of where I live I encounter rain a lot and didn't want my steel bikes to start rusting, or in the case of aluminium, corroding.
> 
> Ti bikes are increasing in marketing presence and in sales because the failure rate of CF bikes is becoming too costly for people to keep swallowing the same poison pill, people are looking for a bike frame that will last a long time and is fairly light, TI offers all of that. The only drawback to TI over any other material is the weight is the 2nd lightest bike material with Carbon fiber being the lightest although low end carbon fiber is just as heavy as TI and some are even heavier than ti.


You actually answered the question in your very first response, but whatever.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> Wow, someone who actually reads the appendices! Great info, I particularly like:
> 
> "Carbon fiber is one of the more fatigue-
> resistant materials, with a fatigue endurance limit of
> ...


Yep, that's the anisotropy issue wit composites. That's why design and layup of the composite is so critically important.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> Yep, that's the anisotropy issue wit composites. That's why design and layup of the composite is so critically important.


Could be part of why composites don't react so well to 'unplanned' loads, and such. 

Such as wacky German guys standing on carbon stays.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

The old EFBE site from Germany had lots of tests. I will look for it again.
They did the same fatigue tests on bikes of different materials. They had three levels of testing based on number of stress cycles until failure. 
Carbon generally did the best, last time I looked only carbon frames passed the maximum number of cycles. A few did the test more than once without failure.
They had a steel De Rosa split its downtube at the shifter braze-ons.

Unfortunately they have taken almost all their data off the site. They do too much contract work for manufacturers now.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Charlie the Unicorn said:


> They're bikes, to each their own. I tried to go the ti route this time, ordered a lynskey frame and it weighed in over half a pound heavier than what they told me. It wasn't that light to begin with. I guess they can be made light enough, but it's dead weight to me and having ridden aluminum, carbon and ti I'm sure the material and layup and all that crap makes some difference, but I've found fit and the rest of the build has more to do with how the bike rides (especially fit).
> 
> For me the weight was just too much. Well, that and Don Erwin @ lynskey is an arrogant sob. Sent the frame back and stuck with carbon.


Funny, I spoke with Don Erwin about the bike I eventually got a couple of times and he didn't come across to me like that all, in fact he recommended that I get the bike through Adrenalin because of some changes I wanted to make and they couldn't do those changes and even told me who to speak with at Adrenalin. Don Erwin was very pleasant and informative. After I got my bike I wanted a head badge for a desk paperweight that I ended up attaching to a block of Cherry wood and again Don Erwin was very cordial about it and sent me a flat exact duplicate of the curved one my bike. So I don't know what you said to him, but I have feeling it was all about you.

Weight? My Peloton weighs 17 1/2 pounds which is a bit heavier by about 1/2 of a pound more then they quoted...but my bike I got slightly deeper dished wheels then it would came from Lynskey and I weighed it with my seat bag, computer, pedals (which manufactures don't put into their weights even though it's a component but a component that is not usually sold on a bike because not everyone wants the same pedal), and bottle cages, so there in lies the 1/2 pound, so I disagree with you, I think their weights are darn close, to within 1/8th of a pound plus or minus.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Couple of observations in no particular order.

Rode with two guys who were lightning fast up hills. They weighed in the 130's and were taller than I. Such an advantage is huge compared to the roughly one pound weight difference between Ti and Carbon. In the rides I've done, I've not noticed any real world rider performance based on one on a lighter verse heavier frame. Rider weight and strength are far more important factors.

Folks are generalizing too much. There's a huge quality difference between a Parlee z-zero and other carbon frames. That said while a Seven Axiom may not ride as nice as the Parlee just mentioned it probably is a better frame than 98% of Carbon frames sold today.

Lastly while Carbon can be made into a strong frame material, if one is looking for a durable frame that will survive club rides with unpredictable new riders or multiple packing and unpacking with trips around the world, that frame material is Titanium


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

Trek_5200 said:


> Couple of observations in no particular order.
> 
> Rode with two guys who were lightning fast up hills. They weighed in the 130's and were taller than I. Such an advantage is huge compared to the roughly one pound weight difference between Ti and Carbon. In the rides I've done, I've not noticed any real world rider performance based on one on a lighter verse heavier frame. Rider weight and strength are far more important factors.
> 
> ...


I don't get it... Really. Weight matters right? I started riding at 6'2" and 180lbs. I stripped off 15 lbs to be at 165 now. My bike weight is still the same? If I ride my 22lb. CAAD 8 or my 17lb. Scott Foil 30 the difference is in the weight of the bike? Your weight is what it is, the bike is a variable. Strip off weight from the rider.. Sure.. But a 23lb. Bike is a 23lb. bike regardless of rider weight? Whatever we do as riders the weight of the bike is what it is... So keep it as low as it can go?


----------



## cohiba7777 (Jul 6, 2006)

Keoki said:


> The future of Titanium bikes will disappear for good. Majority of Ti bike owners are 55+ years old. As they die off due to old age, so will the demand of Ti bikes. The majority of the younger generation are tech savvy thus going after the lastest nano tube carbon technology.


Completely disagree - Ti bikes will become MORE popular as the youngers of today - who are even more active than I was (52) in my youth - continue their good-health habits into their latter years beyond that of my generation and realize the economy of the Ti frame will outweigh that of its carbon sister. I'd even go as far as to say the SS will get a bit of a reboot - again looking purely at the economy of scale comparison.

I love carbon bikes & think they are swift, sassy-looking, and downright fun to ride - my frame crack from simply crossing a RR track at a leisurely pace and though I got 7 years out of it, I made the Ti move and never regretted it a minute. I don't race and ride only for the pure fitness and fun benefits it gives me. My ride today (Moots Vamoots CR) isn't as quick as was my Madone, doesn't climb with reckless abandon and isn't nearly as flashy - but it's immensely more comfortable and and a better fit for at this stage of my life.

As the Velominati say - it REALLY is about the bike. It's most important to ride at the end of the day - what you ride is really a personal choice.


----------



## cohiba7777 (Jul 6, 2006)

ibericb said:


> Complete rubbish. It is well known and established then it comes to cyclic fatigue strength in common bicycle frame materials, carbon is generally superior to Al, steel and Ti.


I agree - BUT:

- Not all carbon is the same - 
- well-made carbon is arguably strongest and offers best strength/weight ratio but is also by far most expensive option
- even small scratches to a carbon frame can affect durability and performance re: fatigue depending where they occur and impact on the fibers


----------



## cohiba7777 (Jul 6, 2006)

Respectfully disagree with your last point - you (normally) can not modify a Ti frame for disc brakes as the rear stays aren't designed for the load. In fact, Moots will invalidate your lifetime warranty for modifying for disc or Di2 and, from what I have read, most frame-builders won't take on the added liability either.


----------



## cohiba7777 (Jul 6, 2006)

As a former tube maker, I can factually tell you that it isn't as much the cost of the titanium alloy but more the very high cost of Ti tube manufacturing.

Most metal bike tubes are manufactured by the cold-drawn over mandrel (DOM) process. The tube starts as a 2" hollow, usually 12-20' in length, and then squeezed through a die (mandrel) usually with some type of ID support (plug). This brute force reduction in the OD/ID creates metal grains in stress, which is relieved through annealing furnaces that turn the grains back from a martensitic to austenitic state. With Steel this is an easy process and way to form seamless tube in a variety of OD/ID ratios.

Ti is a little different and much tougher - the Ti process needs to have heat applied in the draw process and the hits/reductions the manufacturer can take are much less/lighter than that of steel. Ti has a more complicated grain structure that is metallurgically more sensitive to cold work & while you can warm-draw Ti, you need the proper amount of cold-work in the material to gain the structural strength at a usable for bikes ratio (Big OD, relatively thin Wall). 

Economically and simply stated, more passes are required to reduce Ti to a usable size, which increases the labor and processing/WIP time, which increases cost - dramatically.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

cohiba7777 said:


> I agree - BUT:
> 
> - Not all carbon is the same -


We agree. Been saying that, trying to make the point throughout. 




> - well-made carbon is arguably strongest and offers best strength/weight ratio but is also by far most expensive option


Well made carbon (e.g., Trek OCLV 400) is about the same as a quality Ti. The high end for maximum lightweight (e.g. Trek OCLV 800) is obviously more expensive. The two are mostly pretty competitive on cost and quality. There are, of course, the usual exception, typically by manufacturer.




> - even small scratches to a carbon frame can affect durability and performance re: fatigue depending where they occur and impact on the fibers


For scratches to be significant they really need to extend to and damage the fibers. For a painted frame those typically won't be "small scratches". but any visible scratches deserve attention and follow-up inspection to assess the possibility of underlying damage.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Pilger processing?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

cohiba7777 said:


> Completely disagree - Ti bikes will become MORE popular as the youngers of today - who are even more active than I was (52) in my youth - continue their good-health habits into their latter years beyond that of my generation and realize the economy of the Ti frame will outweigh that of its carbon sister. I'd even go as far as to say the SS will get a bit of a reboot - again looking purely at the economy of scale comparison.
> 
> I love carbon bikes & think they are swift, sassy-looking, and downright fun to ride - my frame crack from simply crossing a RR track at a leisurely pace and though I got 7 years out of it, I made the Ti move and never regretted it a minute. I don't race and ride only for the pure fitness and fun benefits it gives me. My ride today (Moots Vamoots CR) isn't as quick as was my Madone, doesn't climb with reckless abandon and isn't nearly as flashy - but it's immensely more comfortable and and a better fit for at this stage of my life.
> 
> As the Velominati say - it REALLY is about the bike. It's most important to ride at the end of the day - what you ride is really a personal choice.


Utter non-sense. Steel and Aluminum have not disappeared. Why would Titanium. While I agree Titanium will never take Carbon's market share, it's actually appreciated by a fair number of riders and not everyone buying a Ti Frame is over 55.


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

^yea, that's right! Not everybody is an old geezur......I've got me some Titanium frames, and I am young whipper snapper of only 53 yrs :thumbsup:


----------



## cohiba7777 (Jul 6, 2006)

ibericb said:


> Pilger processing?


very good - pilger to reduce from 2" OD to about .75" OD in one quick shot (for steel) - then DOM rest of the way.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

cohiba7777 said:


> Respectfully disagree with your last point - you (normally) can not modify a Ti frame for disc brakes as the rear stays aren't designed for the load. In fact, Moots will invalidate your lifetime warranty for modifying for disc or Di2 and, from what I have read, most frame-builders won't take on the added liability either.


Well guess what? You can't take a CF bike designed to use rim brakes and convert it to disk brakes in the rear either. And the problem is both rear stays, just one. So I doubt any frame builder be it steel, AL, CF, or TI will honor a warranty after a conversion to disk brakes. This doesn't mean however that changing a bike to disk brakes is going to automatically break your frame, it could work fine for a long time, or not. The fork is a much larger problem than the rear stays, a stock fork will not handle a disk brake at all so you would need a new fork regardless what the old fork is made of.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

cohiba7777 said:


> very good - pilger to reduce from 2" OD to about .75" OD in one quick shot (for steel) - then DOM rest of the way.


Somebody had to really want Ti tubing badly to figure out the reliable process to form the stuff. There sure area a lot of steps along the way. Then there's 6-4, which as best I know is still welded rolled sheet.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> Somebody had to really want Ti tubing badly to figure out the reliable process to form the stuff. There sure area a lot of steps along the way. Then there's 6-4, which as best I know is still welded rolled sheet.


Here is what Tom Kellogg of Spectrum has to say about this subject (posted the important parts you can read the whole article by clicking on the link below):

"...Many people assume that since 6/4 titanium alloy is stronger, all Titanium frames should use it, but it is not that simple. Because 6/4 is stronger than 3/2.5, the mills who draw titanium tubing have a very difficult time working the 6/4 alloy. In addition, strength of these alloys is not the issue that many people think it is. Quite simply, the high quality 3/2.5 bicycle frames on the market simply do not break. Therefore, making a frame from 6/4 alloy simply for increased strength doesn't make sense (it just costs more money). Please note that there are 6/4 frames on the market but most of them have seamed 6/4 tubing. The fact that their 6/4 tubing is seamed is very significant. There are three problems with seamed 6-4 titanium. First, in order to make 6-4 plate into tubing it needs to be annealed, lowering the strength by about 20%. Second, the grain structure of the plate, when rolled into the tube shape is altered and no longer appropriate for optimal alloy strength. Indeed, it lowers the tube's strength considerably. Third, the weld area that runs down the length of the tube has a completely different grain structure from the rest of the tube and has surface irregularities that lower the fatigue strength of the tube. While these tubes can have well finished external welds, the inside surface of the welds are not finished and the grain structure and surface irregularities present inside the tubes create stress risers that can lead to premature failure.

In addition to the strength of the alloys, the modulus (or measurement of stiffness) is also important. 6/4 and 3/2.5 have effectively the same modulus of elasticity. In simple terms, the two alloys have the same effective stiffness. This in turn means that the ride between frames made out of the two alloys will be the same assuming all other frame specifications are the same. 

Another factor to consider is the modulus (or stiffness) of titanium. Though a fairly technical concept, I'll do my best to explain it. In measuring modulus of a titanium tube, one has to measure it in both bending and torsion to fully evaluate it. Of the two titanium alloys used in bicycle tubing, 6-4 and 3-2.5, the 6-4 is clearly stronger over-all. However, top shelf 3-2.5 and 6-4 tubes compare in some interesting ways.

Although 6-4 sounds great at a glance (and indeed is pretty neat stuff) it is not necessarily better than other titanium alloys in all situations. As expected the stronger 6-4 tubing has a slightly higher modulus in bending compared to the 3-2.5 tubing. However, the 3-2.5 alloy has a higher modulus in torsion. Moreover, if you average the two modulus strengths of the alloys, you end up with a surprisingly even match. Its seems then that to build the most rigid frame with the lowest weight, a builder should use a mixture of both 6-4 and 3-2.5. Of course there is more to it than that though. One must not forget notch hardness.

Now to notch hardness or fatigue strength. Notch hardness refers to a way of quantifying how well the crystal structure of an alloy will hold together under repeated cyclical stresses. This is where 3-2.5 alloy starts to really make sense when compared to the seemingly better 6-4 stuff. Not only does 6-4 have a lower notch hardness than 3-2.5, but the way most 6-4 tubing is manufactured causes additional negative outcomes related to tube strength. The seamless 6-4 titanium tubing on the market is quite well made and finished. It still has the notch hardness problems that all 6-4 has, but its seamless manufacturing eliminates some of problems of seamed 6-4 tubing. Currently, seamless 6-4 tubing is available in very few diameters and gauges, again reducing its usefulness.

In short, I'll say this, 6-4 titanium alloy has no advantage (other than for marketing) over 3-2.5 alloy when it comes to bicycle tubing applications..."

Spectrum Cycles | Materials


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Here's the Seven Cycles story on 6-4:

_"6AL-4V
An alloy of 6% aluminum, 4% vanadium, and 90% titanium, 6-4 titanium offers some very favorable raw material properties, which is why Seven uses it to fabricate dropouts and other frame parts. One of the properties that makes 6-4 an optimal material for dropouts is its toughness. But this toughness also makes it unattractive as a material from which to make tubing. Applying the techniques used to draw 3-2.5 tubing to 6-4 tubing costs much more and wears tooling very quickly. In addition, tube wall consistency, concentricity, and finish quality—both inside and outside—are limited. At the time of this printing, no U.S. mill offers seamless 6-4 tubing. However, some do offer 6-4 seamed, or welded, tubing. Applying the techniques used to draw 3-2.5 tubing to 6-4 tubing costs much more and wears tooling very quickly. In addition, tube wall consistency, concentricity, and finish quality—both inside and outside—are limited. 

Two major issues prevent Seven Cycles from favoring this method of tube manufacture. First, seamed tubing is fabricated by rolling 6-4 sheet into a tube shape while simultaneously welding the seam that is created in the rolling process. The result is a tube that has a welded seam—a potential failure point—along its length. This seam acts as both a hard point and a stress riser since the weld bead is thicker than the tube itself and the weld creates an inconsistency in the tube. 

Second, 6-4 sheet is designed to be used as a sheet, not as a tube. If it is formed into a tube, its grain structure can lead to premature tube failure. Indeed, a 6-4 tube will fail through fatigue cycling (repeated flexing) before it should, and independent fatigue tests show that tubing made from 6-4 sheet does not have the fatigue life of a properly drawn 3-2.5 tube. 

In recent years, some seamless 6-4 tubing has trickled into the bike industry from outside the U.S. However, it is only being offered as a few internally-butted tube lengths of limited sizes (as determined by tube diameter, wall thickness, and butting placement). These limited offerings are inadequate for modern high-end bike building, which requires a very wide variety of tubing to ensure optimum ride characteristics. In addition, external butting is preferred to internal butting for the reasons outlined in the Tube Butting Processes section of this document, under Manufacturing Overview. 

One might argue that the strategic use of the limited 6-4 tube sizes available in combination with 3-2.5 tubes would create a better bike. But there is no weight advantage for bikes currently employing 6-4 tubes over the top-of-the-line 3-2.5 bikes available. And there is no appreciable stiffness or strength benefit either, since 6-4's higher bending stiffness is offset by its lower torsional stiffness, and the butting techniques employed in the 6-4 tubes currently available have a negative impact on fatigue strength. So, 6-4 only adds expense. "_​


----------



## cohiba7777 (Jul 6, 2006)

froze said:


> Well guess what? You can't take a CF bike designed to use rim brakes and convert it to disk brakes in the rear either. And the problem is both rear stays, just one. So I doubt any frame builder be it steel, AL, CF, or TI will honor a warranty after a conversion to disk brakes. This doesn't mean however that changing a bike to disk brakes is going to automatically break your frame, it could work fine for a long time, or not. The fork is a much larger problem than the rear stays, a stock fork will not handle a disk brake at all so you would need a new fork regardless what the old fork is made of.


It COULD work fine? That's your argument - it COULD work? Wow....let's modify a multi-hundred or multi-THOUSAND dollar frame for the bet that it COULD work...

I rest my case-


----------



## cohiba7777 (Jul 6, 2006)

ibericb said:


> Here's the Seven Cycles story on 6-4:
> 
> _"6AL-4V
> An alloy of 6% aluminum, 4% vanadium, and 90% titanium, 6-4 titanium offers some very favorable raw material properties, which is why Seven uses it to fabricate dropouts and other frame parts. One of the properties that makes 6-4 an optimal material for dropouts is its toughness. But this toughness also makes it unattractive as a material from which to make tubing. Applying the techniques used to draw 3-2.5 tubing to 6-4 tubing costs much more and wears tooling very quickly. In addition, tube wall consistency, concentricity, and finish quality—both inside and outside—are limited. At the time of this printing, no U.S. mill offers seamless 6-4 tubing. However, some do offer 6-4 seamed, or welded, tubing. Applying the techniques used to draw 3-2.5 tubing to 6-4 tubing costs much more and wears tooling very quickly. In addition, tube wall consistency, concentricity, and finish quality—both inside and outside—are limited.
> ...


great story - thanks for sharing it!!!


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

cohiba7777 said:


> It COULD work fine? That's your argument - it COULD work? Wow....let's modify a multi-hundred or multi-THOUSAND dollar frame for the bet that it COULD work...
> 
> I rest my case-


That was not the intent of what I said, so settle down Francis. I said it could work with the idea of risk involved. There are a lot of people converting bikes to disk and don't realize there is a risk in doing so. I wouldn't convert a bike to disk, but others seem to think it's a great idea.

Now you need to take a rest.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Another consideration... Carbon frames aren't truly recyclable. Maybe it's recyclable once depending on the post-recycle application, but after that it will just fill up the landfill.

Ti, Steel or Aluminum... Pretty much endless life cycles.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

DrSmile said:


> Another consideration... Carbon frames aren't truly recyclable. Maybe it's recyclable once depending on the post-recycle application, but after that it will just fill up the landfill.
> 
> Ti, Steel or Aluminum... Pretty much endless life cycles.


Semantics? where does the slag off the top of the new melt wind up?

And 100% of carbon fiber could/should get shredded into black top...

Which use more electricity, the shredder or the smelting process..

Sorry, I just had to...


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

robt57 said:


> Semantics? where does the slag off the top of the new melt wind up?
> 
> And 100% of carbon fiber could/should get shredded into black top...
> 
> ...


You're clearly confusing refining new aluminum with recycling aluminum. The energy and cost differences are magnitudes apart (20 times less according to Wiki). Only in the fantastical internet world could plastic be as energy and environmentally friendly as a recyclable metal.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

PBL450 said:


> I don't get it... Really. Weight matters right? I started riding at 6'2" and 180lbs. I stripped off 15 lbs to be at 165 now. My bike weight is still the same? If I ride my 22lb. CAAD 8 or my 17lb. Scott Foil 30 the difference is in the weight of the bike? Your weight is what it is, the bike is a variable. Strip off weight from the rider.. Sure.. But a 23lb. Bike is a 23lb. bike regardless of rider weight? Whatever we do as riders the weight of the bike is what it is... So keep it as low as it can go?


Sorry one pound on a bike frame will not materially show up in your ride times. Do you ride faster when you take off your filled water bottle? The effect will be miniscule at best. The pros might obsess since one second might be the difference between winning and losing.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> Only in the fantastical internet world could plastic be as energy and environmentally friendly as a recyclable metal.


Really? What result you get is highly dependent upon the view taken and the assumptions made. Consider this 2009 study  of soft drink beverage containers done by Franklin Associates, within which you will find this table:









That study includes recycle/reuse scenarios typical in the U.S. for each container type.

Getting back to bicycle frames, how many Al, steel, Ti or carbon bicycle frames are recycled for their materials vs sent to landfill? The recycle issue is just another red herring cast by one group to disparage another competing group, when in fact it's generally irrelevant in the real world for both.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

ibericb said:


> Really? What result you get is highly dependent upon the view taken and the assumptions made. Consider this 2009 study  of soft drink beverage containers done by Franklin Associates, within which you will find this table:
> 
> View attachment 305545
> 
> ...


Quoting a white paper prepared for the plastics industry isn't really saying anything. The paper at least is honest about not considering landfills (but only mentions so in the appendix). Landfills of course is the real problem. Also PET is recyclable (probably the most recyclable plastic) unlike most plastics, for example... epoxy in carbon fiber. Thermoset plastics are quite different from thermoplastics. You aren't comparing apples to apples. Of course plastic is cheap and energy efficient to make. That's the reason it's used!

Regarding recycling of CF:

Life cycle energy analysis of fiber-reinforced composites Young S. Song et al. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing Volume 40, Issue 8, August 2009, Pages 1257–1265

"While both chemical recycling and regrinding methods allow materials to be reused, both require considerable processing steps before reuse. Also, particularly in the case of the regrinding method, most recovered scraps cannot be substituted for virgin materials, so the majority is down cycled into much less demanding applications. Overall, the end-of-life phase acts as a major barrier to environmental friendly large scale applications of composite materials owing to no viable restorative recycling methods."


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> Quoting a white paper prepared for the plastics industry isn't really saying anything.


The source you provided for the energy savings on recycling Al uses data provided by the Al industry. That's the problem - everyone is pretty much equally biased. My point in citing that study for the PET industry was to illustrate that. There is no really good comprehensive consensus view. As I noted, it all depends on the view you take (how you draw the box) and what assumptions you make. You can, by selection, get any answer you want, as every industry advocacy group has demonstrated (add paper and wood products into the mix too).



> The paper at least is honest about not considering landfills (but only mentions so in the appendix). Landfills of course is the real problem. Also PET is recyclable (probably the most recyclable plastic) unlike most plastics, for example... epoxy in carbon fiber. Thermoset plastics are quite different from thermoplastics. You aren't comparing apples to apples. Of course plastic is cheap and energy efficient to make. That's the reason it's used!


Actually, most commonly used thermoplastics are quite recyclable. Those include PET, LDPE, HDPE, PP, PS, PC, ... The usual challenge is collecting and separating, and the attendant cost. But they're all pretty much completely recyclable.

As for thermosets, they can readily be reused in other ways. On option is energy recovery. They make decent fuels, so a reasonable share of thee energy of the petroleum base can be captured after use. Carbon fiber from composites can be recovered separately via incineration of the resin. It degrades the fiber from it's original form, but it is highly reusable. Specialized operates a carbon bicycle recovery and recycle program, and they accept any brand of carbon frame. Others are doing similar composite recycling, and recovering and recycling production scrap as well.

All of that, however, misses the point, so I'll ask again. What fraction of bicycle frames are recycled vs. those sent to landfill? Holding up recyclability as an argument in favor of a particular bicycle frame material is an academic exercise, filled with entertaining hypothetical arguments. Just like industry advocacy groups, you can get whatever answer you want depending on how you define the system, draw the box, and the assumptions you make.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Saying plastics are completely recyclable is a pretty significant distortion of the facts. Considering incineration recycling isn't really appropriate either. One can incinerate almost anything if one doesn't care about the cost or emissions. We haven't even considered plastic health concerns in the equation... 

I do agree that we should recycle more. Austria and Germany recycle over 60% of their TOTAL waste. There is no reason we can't do the same. Saying we shouldn't consider recyclability because no one recycles is a matter of culture not inevitability.

I realize this has gone off topic. My mention of the recycling aspect was merely to state that these materials can easily be recycled, while carbon really can not be.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

ibericb said:


> Getting back to bicycle frames, how many Al, steel, Ti or carbon bicycle frames are recycled for their materials vs sent to landfill? The recycle issue is just another red herring cast by one group to disparage another competing group, when in fact it's generally irrelevant in the real world for both.


That's kind of my take. Who forgoes buying a bike because the frame can't be recycled? Who recycles bike frames? I could chop up all the bike frames I've owned over the last 45 years and fit them into my trash bin that I fill once a week. Years ago, I threw out a 40" tube TV that had the mass of at least 50 bikes.


----------



## cnardone (Jun 28, 2014)

I think the real take away here is that at this point in time, all of the materials that we are talking about here can be made into incredible bicycles. And we are lucky enough that there are more than a few manufactures that know how to get the most out of their chosen material.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> Saying plastics are completely recyclable is a pretty significant distortion of the facts. Considering incineration recycling isn't really appropriate either. One can incinerate almost anything if one doesn't care about the cost or emissions. We haven't even considered plastic health concerns in the equation...


Did I say "plastics are completely recyclable "? 

I believe what I said on incineration was limited to thermosets. Using thermosets as a fuel for energy generation is completely acceptable to the extent that burning fossil fuels for energy production is acceptable. Japan has been doing it for quite a while, on a local scale, and uses the energy produced to recharge their electrically powered trash collection vehicles.



> Saying we shouldn't consider recyclability because no one recycles is a matter of culture not inevitability.


Again, I never said that. Where did that come from?



> My mention of the recycling aspect was merely to state that these materials can easily be recycled, while carbon really can not be.


As I provided two references that illustrate (and there are many others broadly across industry), carbon fiber composites indeed can be reused in a number of ways. This is presently a hot topic in the EU where their ELV mandate is driving recovery and recycling of the even carbon fiber used in composite materials. Compared to the traditional engineering metals, carbon fiber reinforced composites are a very young material, and recycling them is even younger. The uses for the recycled products should be expected to grow, just as it did over decades for the metals and thermoplastics.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

*What is the greenest type of bike frame? | Grist*


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> *What is the greenest type of bike frame? | Grist*


This link will work.

The need to add wood to their list.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> This link will work.
> 
> The need to add wood to their list.


My link works fine for me. You using an old browser? 

And yeah, good catch on the wood. That's very novel. 

Upshot: The most green bike would a used one... and/or bamboo or wood.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

DrSmile said:


> Another consideration... Carbon frames aren't truly recyclable. Maybe it's recyclable once depending on the post-recycle application, but after that it will just fill up the landfill.
> 
> Ti, Steel or Aluminum... Pretty much endless life cycles.


This is true, but they're trying to figure out if they can find some way to recycle it and make it into something else, like grind it up and add it to another compound, I can't see why it couldn't be ground up and added to blacktop, maybe the fiber would reinforce the blacktop? But at least something like that would prevent landfills from filling up with CF material that will take 10,000 years to decompose.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

DrSmile said:


> Another consideration... Carbon frames aren't truly recyclable. Maybe it's recyclable once depending on the post-recycle application, but after that it will just fill up the landfill.
> 
> Ti, Steel or Aluminum... Pretty much endless life cycles.


It all depends on how you draw the box of the system. If you draw it around the planet, then all the materials have an endless lifecycle. Neither C, nor Fe nor Al nor Ti are destroyed. They are merely transformed.

For all things organic (made of carbon), the thermodynamic sink is CO[sub]2[/sub]. It's a matter of reprocessing that back into a useable form. Nature takes care of that via photosynthesis. 

Recyclability all depends on how you define the system.


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

We humans are myopic, no? Ask someone the questions: are you a citizen of of your country? Or the Earth?? Or the Solar System?? Or the Galaxy??? Or the Universe????

How those are answered tells you a lot how a person will respond to many subjects and situations, like the one here. Sure wish we imaginative, dreaming simians could look past the ends of our proverbial noses and not spite ourselves.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> It all depends on how you draw the box of the system. If you draw it around the planet, then all the materials have an endless lifecycle. Neither C, nor Fe nor Al nor Ti are destroyed. They are merely transformed.
> 
> For all things organic (made of carbon), the thermodynamic sink is CO[sub]2[/sub]. It's a matter of reprocessing that back into a useable form. Nature takes care of that via photosynthesis.
> 
> Recyclability all depends on how you define the system.


Not true, read this stuff:

The Dirty Secret Of Carbon Fiber - Science News - redOrbit

In that report it says this: "Carbon Fiber´s Carbon Footprint
Because it is a composite, carbon fiber is difficult to recycle, but it gets worse. By its very nature it is neither biodegradable nor photodegradable."


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

froze said:


> Not true, read this stuff:
> 
> The Dirty Secret Of Carbon Fiber - Science News - redOrbit
> 
> ...


Obviously you don't understand the fundamentals science involved, and your source is truly laughable. Please tell me what I said that you believe isn't true, and if you want to pursue understanding it. I was in the middle of this for 25 years before I retired. I know the issues, the challenges, and the science really well.

Carbon fibers are being recovered and reused from a number of applications already. It isn't trivial, and it is nowhere near as simple or "easy" as recycling steel, Al or even PET bottles. But it is being done, both here in the U.S. and in the EU. 

Part of the issue is the way most people think about recuse/recycling. Many metals and glass can be recycled back into the primary application from which they were recovered. This generally is NOT the case for plastics. Plastics are generally recycled to different applications that pose less critical demands on the material. Some refer to that as downscaling. For example PET from soft drink bottles is often recycled into fiber for insulation,. etc. Carbon fiber degrades in recovery, so that from aerospace and bicycle frames may well show up in automotive applications. The fuel option with energy recovery from the underlying petro base is also a viable option, as pointed out in other posts within this thread.

Carbon fiber composite recycling is in it's infancy, and in general plastics recycling is relative to metals. Give the technology, applications and markets several decades to mature, as has already been done with metals and thermoplastics, and this too will become commonplace, and not seem so difficult.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

DrSmile said:


> You're clearly confusing refining new aluminum with recycling aluminum. The energy and cost differences are magnitudes apart (20 times less according to Wiki). Only in the fantastical internet world could plastic be as energy and environmentally friendly as a recyclable metal.



MEH, spin it...


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

DrSmile said:


> You're clearly confusing refining new aluminum with recycling aluminum. The energy and cost differences are magnitudes apart (20 times less according to Wiki). Only in the fantastical internet world could plastic be as energy and environmentally friendly as a recyclable metal.


I agree with this, Metal can simply be melted down. Carbon is less likely to be recycled and can't be used as high-grade carbon. I believe the energy footprint for making carbon in the first place is also higher.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Trek_5200 said:


> I believe the energy footprint for making carbon in the first place is also higher.


On a unit weight basis the energy required for making carbon fiber is about the same as that for making Al alloys:

Material -- Embodied energy (MJ/kg)

Carbon fibre -- 183 to 286 
Glass fibre -- 13 to 32 
Polyester resin -- 63 to 78 
Epoxy resin -- 76 to 80 
Aluminium alloys -- 196 to 257 
Stainless steel -- 110 to 210

Source: Howarth, _et al_, "Energy intensity and environmental analysis of mechanical recycling of carbon fibre composite", JCP, 81, 2014, pg46-50. (see Table 1


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> Obviously you don't understand the fundamentals science involved, and your source is truly laughable. Please tell me what I said that you believe isn't true, and if you want to pursue understanding it. I was in the middle of this for 25 years before I retired. I know the issues, the challenges, and the science really well.
> 
> Carbon fibers are being recovered and reused from a number of applications already. It isn't trivial, and it is nowhere near as simple or "easy" as recycling steel, Al or even PET bottles. But it is being done, both here in the U.S. and in the EU.
> 
> ...


Oh gee another argument...yawn. Funny I reported just one of many sites that said the same thing as that one, my bet is on all the other websites being right and you...well anyway, if you read my article they discuss the one point you made and that was that CF is being recovered and reuse BUT, here's your big but you want, it cost more then what they recover versus just starting anew, so most people are not recycling and it and most ends up in landfills.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

ibericb said:


> On a unit weight basis the energy required for making carbon fiber is about the same as that for making Al alloys:
> 
> Material -- Embodied energy (MJ/kg)
> 
> ...


Quite a few things wrong with this:

1) The source is incorrect. The source is the article I previously listed:

Life cycle energy analysis of fiber-reinforced composites Young S. Song et al. Composites Part A: Applied Science and Manufacturing Volume 40, Issue 8, August 2009, Pages 1257–1265

2) If you read the Song article, you will realize that this table is for production of FIBER only, not the composite. It has other tables for production of the carbon fiber resin plastic. 

3) Based on this information the Song article readily admits that carbon fiber is not energy or environmentally useful for anything but large transportation vehicles. The reason it works for large transportation is because of the increased savings based on weight compared to miles traveled. This is a energy COST analysis only, and has nothing to do with recycling or environmental drawbacks.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

I don't know if anyone else agrees with me here -- but this post is almost a parody of the tangents things take off in here. We start three weeks ago with a guy telling us how much he likes his new titanium bike. About 70 posts later, it turns into an argument between a couple of people about how easily carbon fiber bike frames can be recycled.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

pmf said:


> I don't know if anyone else agrees with me here -- but this post is almost a parody of the tangents things take off in here. We start three weeks ago with a guy telling us how much he likes his new titanium bike. About 70 posts later, it turns into an argument between a couple of people about how easily carbon fiber bike frames can be recycled.


Pretty much a typical RBR thread.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

froze said:


> Oh gee another argument...yawn. Funny I reported just one of many sites that said the same thing as that one, my bet is on all the other websites being right and you...well anyway, if you read my article they discuss the one point you made and that was that CF is being recovered and reuse BUT, here's your big but you want, it cost more then what they recover versus just starting anew, so most people are not recycling and it and most ends up in landfills.


Oh, I read the article. It is both alarmist, and either very ill-informed, naïve, or very biased. I'm not sure which. Maybe some combination of all.

That added cost is not unusual with recycling of many plastics. Typically new, virgin material is cheaper than plastics recyclate. That's one of the departures between Al and steel vs. plastics in general. A significant part of the challenge is the cost of collection, separation, and economy of scale. But the point remains, while more challenging today than common metals (steel and Al), which have been recycled for decades utilizing very mature technologies, it is being done, especially in the EU where the ELV Directive provides the needed driver in the absence of straight material economics. An important factor in the movement to growing recycling of all materials, including wood, paper, masonry/stone, metals, plastics, and composites, is driven by a combination of public policy and growing consumer perception of benefit other than economics. The importance of consumer perception is something that was forecast 25-30 years ago. The impact of consumer perception and appeal is now in full swing, and will continue to expand I the U.S. for the next couple of generations.

The bicycle production industry is too small to drive any materials technology development. Basically they are the tail that follows behind the majors which are automotive/truck and aviation. If you find the use of composites in bicycle frames unappealing for environmental reasons, then you probably will be more dismayed with all major automotive producers, as well as Boeing and Airbus. Because recycling is a major issue globally for those industries, and the technology for bicycles tends to trickle down from them, so does the recycling technology, practice, and processing channels. That's basically what Specialized and Trek have done in developing their recovery-recycle programs.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

pmf said:


> ...this post is almost a parody of the tangents things take off in here. We start three weeks ago with a guy telling us how much he likes his new titanium bike. About 70 posts later, it turns into an argument between a couple of people about how easily carbon fiber bike frames can be recycled.


meh, thread drift is just the nature of online postings...

the hard-core 'researchers' who have to start throwing peer-reviewed journal articles into the mix are always amusing.

no one gives a crap about that stuff, but they think it makes them appear intellectually superior.

bfd, you won an argument on an obscure road bike forum...huzzah!! you da man!


----------



## Aladin (Oct 5, 2014)

MtKuna said:


> I disagree completely. Carbon frames are showing their inherent faults and limitations. They break............ It doesn't take someone who has been round 55+ years to figure that out. The advancements in Titanium frame construction ( The Moot RSL weighs in at 2.5lbs ) will outlast any carbon frame you can dream off. Titanium is the future an as you start to see the cost go down, you will see their popularity rise.


*EXACTLY.. nail squarely struck. 

Homerun.*


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Aladin said:


> *EXACTLY.. nail squarely struck.
> 
> Homerun.*


It really depends on what you are going to do with the bike. I feel perfectly safe with my c59, but if I were doing more club rides or frequently taking the bike on trips through airports I would definitely avoid Carbon. Interesting note, I did a trip with some folks who had a chance to evaluate Trek Emondas and their take way is that this frame would not hold-up to years of use or abuse.


----------



## Chader09 (Jun 10, 2014)

Out of curiosity, who were the folks? What is their knowledge/experience with carbon bikes?

Also, which Emonda? There as 3 models (S, SL, SLR). All have different weight and performance with different grades and layups of carbon.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Aladin said:


> *EXACTLY.. nail squarely struck.
> 
> Homerun.*


1000% agree as well.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

froze said:


> 1000% agree as well.


Then stay away from modern Boeing and Airbus aircraft, because the airframes are manufactured using the same C-fiber composite technologies (that's where the bike industry got the technology from). BTW, they are expected to outlast the traditional alloy airframes.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> Then stay away from modern Boeing and Airbus aircraft, because the airframes are manufactured using the same C-fiber composite technologies (that's where the bike industry got the technology from). BTW, they are expected to outlast the traditional alloy airframes.


Yup, that's right, they use the same thickness, the same layering etc etc etc in a huge Boeing airliner as they do in your bike...next please.

They also used aluminum in aircraft for years and yet on bikes they fatigue in 5 to 15 years, so your point is no point at all. And the expectation of a carbon fiber frame in an airplane outlasting an aluminum one is still up for debate and air time. And already the air industry is beginning to rethink carbon fiber for fuselages and are now considering Aluminum Lithium alloy for narrow body airliners, why the sudden interest to abandoned CF fuselages when they haven't even been used very long by a long shot? Maybe they know something we don't? Could it be? Why just narrow body air liners and not wide body airliners (at least not yet)? I have the answer for the narrow vs the wide body, narrow body airliners put MORE stress on the fuselage which requires a more robust airframe to handle the more frequent landing and takeoffs due to short flights that narrow body's are used for. And they're discovering a massive expense that just about evens the expense of the fuel savings of a wide body CF aircraft, they have to x-ray the plane after so many hours to determine if there are any stress cracks in components that must be replace, the military does this all the time but that uses taxpayers money and there are certain advantages to CF in military aircraft that involves taking a hit. Now Boeing said they can make the CF airframe much stronger in their wide body by adding more layers of CF, but they admitted that if they did that there would be no reason to use CF and go back to aluminum instead. The problem with aluminum wasn't so much fatigue as it was corrosion on aircraft. In addition to prevent a fire from lightening strike with carbon fiber they had to put a metal mesh within the carbon fiber layering, when this was done it made it impossible with today's technology to recycle it. And if that wasn't enough, they still don't know how a CF passenger plane will survive in crash, more to the point concerns fire, will be more catastrophic for the passengers? We'll have to wait for one to crash to find out. 

by the way Mr Carbon fiber man, if you want to use airplanes for your examples of how good it is lets use another just as absurd example-I challenge you to duel, I let you use a carbon fiber sword and I'll use a steel sword and lets see who wins.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

They use a comparable thickness for the same loads and design criteria. The engineering criteria being used by knowledgeable bicycle OEMs was drawn pretty much from the aviation industry. Trek's initial designs in carbon fiber composites was done by Radius Engineering, who has been a key player in the development of composite technologies for military and civilian aerospace and aviation well before their were carbon bicycle frames

The only ones rethinking carbon fiber composites in airframes are the alarmist and sensational press. Yes they used Al in airframes for decades, and I flew a bunch of them. Parts of those airplanes were regularly repaired or replaced due to fatigue. I've seen entire fuselages re-skinned because of aluminum fatigue. Inspection, identification of both fatigued and corroded parts, and replacement of those parts is part of normal airframe maintenance schedules, and one of the ongoing costs of ownership. It is one of the expected advantages of carbon fiber composite airframes. If you don't believe fatigue was also an issue, then you don't know much about airframes either. 

The survivability for crash and fire scenarios have been debated for a couple of decades, but have been pretty much settled over the past 5 years. Those, however, are irrelevant for a discussion on bicycle frames. Durability under fatigue and load, and composite design for load are the relevant parallels.

It's not a competition or a duel. If you want to play that game, find someone else. My sole intent is to respond to ungrounded assertions and statements with factually based, relevant information. I'm not here in defense of carbon fiber composites, or any material. I just know them, the technologies and materials generally fairly well from my career in materials research and development. 

Like all materials, they have a place where they bring desirable benefits. A useful paradigm to keep in mind is that there are no bad materials, but there are bad applications for any materials. When it comes to bicycle frames all of the commonly use materials are more than suitable, and each has its advantages and its limitations. Durability in normal use is much more of a limitation for well made Al or steel frames than it is for well made carbon fiber composites. By the same token durability in normal use is a much greater issue for poorly designed or poorly constructed C-fiber composites than it is for well made steel or Al frames. The major weakness of C-fiber composites in bicycle frames is the attendant knowledge, experience and attention to controls and assurance that are required to produce a well made composite. The major bicycle OEMs that have been at it for more than decade seem to have mastered it, and understand the issues. Their remains, however, a number of practitioners who sadly are still learning. I'm repeating myself, but when to comes to carbon fiber composites in critical applications (I include bicycle frames and forks in that) I want to know who is behind the design and construction of the composite.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> Durability in normal use is much more of a limitation for well made Al or steel frames than it is for well made carbon fiber composites.


Well, I'm not as certain about that as you are. Because 'normal use' implies rough handing, scrapes, nicks, gouges, perhaps a minor crash or two. Carbon is very strong (against designed-for/planned stresses), but if you damage it, it becomes quite suspect... 'strong, but not tough' might be a way to put it. 

I remember Grant Petersen of Bridgestone/Rivendell fame (a gent I only agree with about half the time, but still respect) talking about a 'test' he did with carbon and steel forks. Not remotely a controlled test (and not intended to be), but it did illustrate the general point. 

He and a college banged a carbon fork and a steel fork against each other repeatedly, 'sword-fight' style. Petersen fully expected the steel fork to 'win'. But, no, eventually the steel fork dented, then bent, then bent severely, then broke, while the carbon fork survived the abuse just fine. 

But then Petersen cut a small notch into another carbon fork and into another steel fork. New sword fight, and the carbon fork broke almost immediately, while the steel fork was just fine. 

Carbon has a number of great qualities, but I'm not sure if standing up to 'normal use and abuse' is at the top of the list. Sh*t happens, nicks and gouges happen, and it doesn't seem like CF has particularly good 'notch toughness' or toughness versus certain kinds of damage. 

It also seems possible for CF to be damaged in ways that don't show so obviously, and then to fail later on unexpectedly. I know that's fairly rare, but still, I like my peace of mind. I also know I don't treat my bikes quite as well as perhaps I should, nor do I always inspect them after every ride for damage. I know, bad of me. 




> By the same token durability in normal use is a much greater issue for poorly designed or poorly constructed C-fiber composites than it is for well made steel or Al frames.
> 
> The major weakness of C-fiber composites in bicycle frames is the attendant knowledge, experience and attention to controls and assurance that are required to produce a well made composite. The major bicycle OEMs that have been at it for more than decade seem to have mastered it, and understand the issues.
> 
> Their remains, however, a number of practitioners who sadly are still learning. I'm repeating myself, but when to comes to carbon fiber composites in critical applications (I include bicycle frames and forks in that) I want to know who is behind the design and construction of the composite.


Well said, and I certainly concur with that.

Don't suppose you could be a bit specific about which companies do and don't do CF well, or would that get you in trouble? 




.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> Well, I'm not as certain about that as you are. Because 'normal use' implies rough handing, scrapes, nicks, gouges, perhaps a minor crash or two. Carbon is very strong (against designed-for/planned stresses), but if you damage it, it becomes quite suspect... 'strong, but not tough' might be a way to put it.


I wouldn't include "abuse" and crashes in normal use, and I don't believe any bike OEM will either. That's not what they are designed for. Because of the frequency of crashes common in crits, a fairly board consensus is that using carbon bikes in competitive crits should be reserved for those who have way more money than sense.

This is where the design issue becomes critical (in addition to the construction challenge). C-fiber composites will outperform all of the familiar bikes metals in strength, stiffness and even toughness for designed loads. But it is a designed and constructed material with anisotropic properties. Stress a composite part or impact in a manner for which it wasn't designed and it may readily fail. It's why design is so critical in composites. This is where the metals have a potential advantage owing to their isotropic nature.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

Oxtox said:


> the hard-core 'researchers' who have to start throwing peer-reviewed journal articles into the mix are always amusing.


I guess listening to Jenny McCarthy and not immunizing your kids is the better alternative...

Science is all we have, unless you believe in fairy tales.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> I wouldn't include "abuse" and crashes in normal use, and I don't believe any bike OEM will either. That's not what they are designed for. Because of the frequency of crashes common in crits, a fairly board consensus is that using carbon bikes in competitive crits should be reserved for those who have way more money than sense.
> 
> This is where the design issue becomes critical (in addition to the construction challenge). C-fiber composites will outperform all of the familiar bikes metals in strength, stiffness and even toughness for designed loads. But it is a designed and constructed material with anisotropic properties.
> 
> Stress a composite part or impact in a manner for which it wasn't designed and it may readily fail. It's why design is so critical in composites. This is where the metals have a potential advantage owing to their isotropic nature.


For those reading who don't know, 'anisotropic' means directionally dependent, while 'isotropic' means having the same properties in all directions. 

And again, well put. I personally want a 'sh*t happens' bike, and that means steel or Ti, due to their nature/inherent properties. But I understand the reasoning behind wanting a CF bike, and I'm not so egocentric as to imagine that everyone should have the same needs/wants as moi. 

So, hopefully, we will continue to see all four major bike materials continue to be broadly available well into the future. And design and craftsmanship matter just as much as the material used, probably more so.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

DrSmile said:


> I guess listening to Jenny McCarthy and not immunizing your kids is the better alternative...


Jenny McCarthy is awesome so long as you look only and turn the volume off.

I think she's on some truly awful reality show with Donnie Wahlberg now.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> ...I personally want a 'sh*t happens' bike, and that means steel or Ti, due to their nature/inherent properties. But I understand the reasoning behind wanting a CF bike, and I'm not so egocentric as to imagine that everyone should have the same needs/wants as moi.


Certainly steel, Ti,and Al are generally more broadly tolerant of stresses not designed for, and that often includes negligent abuse and rough handling, as well as any number of crash scenarios. The well known German video that includes jumping on chain stays is a good example. For folks who need that, C-fiber is probably NOT the way to go, unless again they are well endowed with money and cost isn't an issue. 

For designed stresses, which typically includes familiar crash scenarios, C-fiber will generally win. The Santa Cruz and Reynolds Composites videos are good examples.

They are all good materials, each with specific advantages and challenges. As a result, they will all likely endure for the foreseeable future. I agree with you, for each design and craftsmanship are generally more important than the specifics of the material.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

what ever happened to carbotanium. wasn't that supposed to be the new hot material?

Carbotanium is a patented composite material invented by Modena Design, the carbon composite manufacturing and consultancy arm of the Italian car company Pagani. It is acombination of beta titanium alloy with advanced carbon composites, having a matched yield strength and moduli ofelasticity ratio. When the combination is adhesivelybonded both parts will approach maximum yield strength and fail at a similar amount of totalstrain. The titanium and carbon composites are combined by first abrading the titanium to be bonded, coating the titanium with platinum, aging .


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

Trek_5200 said:


> what ever happened to carbotanium. wasn't that supposed to be the new hot material?
> 
> Carbotanium is a patented composite material invented by Modena Design, the carbon composite manufacturing and consultancy arm of the Italian car company Pagani. It is acombination of beta titanium alloy with advanced carbon composites, having a matched yield strength and moduli ofelasticityratio. When the combination is adhesivelybondedboth parts will approachmaximum yield strength and fail at a similaramount of totalstrain. The titanium and carbon composites are combined by first abrading the titanium to be bonded, coating the titanium with platinum, aging .


Personally, I think it's time for mithril and adamantium.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

SystemShock said:


> Personally, I think it's time for mithril and adamantium.



Right.... What's a cubit?


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

Graphene is the current buzz material. 

Hold your breath.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

robt57 said:


> Right.... What's a cubit?


1 cubit = 2.097 spans


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

ibericb said:


> 1 cubit = 2.097 spans



Sumarily? [note missing one 'm']


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

robt57 said:


> Sumarily? [note missing one 'm']


If you like weird measurements, see here.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

ibericb said:


> If you like weird measurements, see here.


I wonder which 'Cubit' is plugged into that web app/conversion. isn't ther elike 6 different length cubit in history? Not to mention it's origin is one using one's forearm in the field. Not that ppl have different length forearms or anything..

Not that is thread drift...


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

robt57 said:


> I wonder which 'Cubit' is plugged into that web app/conversion. isn't ther elike 6 different length cubit in history? Not to mention it's origin is one using one's forearm in the field. Not that ppl have different length forearms or anything..


They account for British Imperial, Thai, and Biblical cubits. So there are at least 3.



> Not that is thread drift...


Like most everything else in this thread.


----------



## DrSmile (Jul 22, 2006)

I know they make aluminum isogrid tanks and carbon isogrid tubes, I imagine they could do the same out of titanium using additive metal printing. It would be expensive...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

robt57 said:


> Right.... What's a cubit?


Mithril is 'ancient'. Adamantium is futuristic.

Might as well ask what's a light-year. Or a parallax-second.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> Might as well ask what's a light-year. Or a parallax-second.


1 light-year = 0.3066 parsecs


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> 1 light-year = 0.3066 parsecs


You miss the point. But thanks.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> You miss the point. But thanks.


What point?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

SystemShock said:


> _You miss the point. _





ibericb said:


> What point?



Exactly.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

Trek_5200 said:


> what ever happened to carbotanium. wasn't that supposed to be the new hot material?
> 
> Carbotanium is a patented composite material invented by Modena Design, the carbon composite manufacturing and consultancy arm of the Italian car company Pagani. It is acombination of beta titanium alloy with advanced carbon composites, having a matched yield strength and moduli ofelasticity ratio. When the combination is adhesivelybonded both parts will approach maximum yield strength and fail at a similar amount of totalstrain. The titanium and carbon composites are combined by first abrading the titanium to be bonded, coating the titanium with platinum, aging .


It appears a new alloy may be on it's way, aluminium-lithium, this is suppose to be a lot stronger and stiffer than aluminium or carbon and be lighter than carbon. This alloy will come just when sales of CF start to stagnate and a new WOW is needed in the cycling industry.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

froze said:


> It appears a new alloy may be on it's way, aluminium-lithium, this is suppose to be a lot stronger and stiffer than aluminium or carbon and be lighter than carbon. This alloy will come just when sales of CF start to stagnate and a new WOW is needed in the cycling industry.


And riding a bike made with it cures manic depression too. :lol:


It's not really new, but is now gaining scale. If Alcoa is right then both Boeing and Airbus have made huge investment mistakes. Time will tell.

There have periodically been new metal alloys that could have changed the world once they got past several modest challenges, like machining, fabrication, etc. If any of them are going to make it into the bicycle world, they first need to make it in something that would consume a sizeable quantity and pay for the development period to work out how to design and build with them. Those are typically aviation and automotive. Keep an eye on materials use in those two industries, and you'll have a good idea of what may be possible in bicycle frames.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> And riding a bike made with it cures manic depression too. :lol:
> 
> 
> It's not really new, but is now gaining scale. If Alcoa is right then both Boeing and Airbus have made huge investment mistakes. Time will tell.
> ...


Correct and these issues were the same with carbon fiber and now those challenges are nothing, so it shall be with AL-LI. There's always the potential of some big new discovery of some sort of man made material that could come along and surprise the world, but in lieu of that AL-LI is probably going to be the next bicycle frame material that we see, when we'll see it is up for speculation.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

froze said:


> ... but in lieu of that AL-LI is probably going to be the next bicycle frame material that we see, when we'll see it is up for speculation.


The point was it will only make it bikes in a big way if it makes it first into aviation and/or automotive in a big way. That's where you watch.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

ibericb said:


> The point was it will only make it bikes in a big way if it makes it first into aviation and/or automotive in a big way. That's where you watch.


True dat.

*News Release: Alcoa Opens World's Largest Aluminum-Lithium Aerospace Plant in Indiana*


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

SystemShock said:


> True dat.
> 
> *News Release: Alcoa Opens World's Largest Aluminum-Lithium Aerospace Plant in Indiana*


Yep. It's a very reasonable start. I rather strongly suspect someone is already making tubing with it and figuring out how to fabricate with that.


----------



## froze (Sep 15, 2002)

ibericb said:


> The point was it will only make it bikes in a big way if it makes it first into aviation and/or automotive in a big way. That's where you watch.


I read that point, and this is why I brought up the AL-Li subject because makers of narrow bodied aircraft are beginning to look at this material which Alcoa has been spearheading which is already in it's 3rd generation, so the material is moving ahead in development. It's already been used in aerospace stuff and is now heading into the aviation industry like the Boeing 777-9 and 747-8. Boeing is already admitted that it has experienced many headaches with composites while trying to make the 787 Dreamliner which is being called the Nightmareliner due to all the complications. Airbus is also planning on using AL-Li for the new A320. You can read tons of this stuff about AL-Li in aircraft and other uses on the internet.


----------



## ibericb (Oct 28, 2014)

froze said:


> I read that point, and this is why I brought up the AL-Li subject because makers of narrow bodied aircraft are beginning to look at this material which Alcoa has been spearheading which is already in it's 3rd generation, so the material is moving ahead in development. It's already been used in aerospace stuff and is now heading into the aviation industry like the Boeing 777-9 and 747-8. Boeing is already admitted that it has experienced many headaches with composites while trying to make the 787 Dreamliner which is being called the Nightmareliner due to all the complications. Airbus is also planning on using AL-Li for the new A320. You can read tons of this stuff about AL-Li in aircraft and other uses on the internet.



I already know most of that. I spent half of my adult life in new materials development. All of the pains are pretty typical. If Al-Li alloys are going to be successful, it will take ~10-20 years to know. It may be a great success. I just wouldn't be making any sizable bets at this point.


----------

