# Considering Titanium Road Bike Build



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Hey everyone. Like many of you out there, I've been on this carbon bandwagon for the past 5 years now...meaning I've only ridden and owned carbon bikes (three in the stable at this point). 

Recently, I test rode one of my friend's Ti road bike...just a short 14 mile ride with a little over 1000' of elevation (short punchy climbs). I really didn't have any real expectations, just wanted to try out something different. 

Conclusion: It felt great! Not sure exactly why though? It wasn't any snappier on the climbs than my SWTarmac. It weighed slightly north of 16 lbs (my SWTarmac is at 14 lbs). But it just felt very comfortable and compliant. This was such a short test ride, so I am still unsure if this was just a "placebo" effect; ie., "new" bike effect. I've also talked to several other Ti road bike owners, and they all said that they "love" their Ti bikes, even though they also own Carbon bikes. Not saying that they don't like their carbon bikes, but they just really seem to love their Ti bikes. I know it's a very very small sample size, but just got me to start thinking about building up a Ti bike. 

I was somewhat oblivious to cost though. Higher end Ti bikes are pretty damn pricey too. Not sure why I was surprised by that though? Anyways, I really like the no.22 frame!! Made is USA and seems like they are very well built. Of course, they look beautiful too IMO. I also like their "boutique" nature versus the more well known Ti builders. 

Just wondering:
1. Your thoughts on Ti bikes...ride and build quality.
2. Your thoughts on this no.22 company and Ti frames. 

Thank you!


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

No 22 employs ex Serrotta fabricators. One of the principals is a guy I met a couple of years ago in Toronto riding one that I had a good look at and seemed pretty nice. That being said, I would go with the all-Ti frame. The era of multi-material frames has long passed.









And one other thing - PF30 - ughh

Get BSA if you can


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

bikerjulio said:


> No 22 employs ex Serrotta fabricators. One of the principals is a guy I met a couple of years ago in Toronto riding one that I had a good look at and seemed pretty nice. That being said, I would go with the all-Ti frame. *The era of multi-material frames has long passed*.
> 
> View attachment 311747



That is generally true for entry level frames. It's a lot more difficult and expensive to bond different materials, versus stamping out a cookie cutter carbon frame from a mold somewhere in China. However, if done correctly, multi-material frames are still a piece of art, something still unique, and some people do like to own something for their uniqueness.

Here are some boutique brands still making multi material frames

Holland Exogrid carbon-ti frame:
Holland Cycles ? Holland ExoGrid® Bicycle

Firefly carbon-ti frame:
Road // Ti-Carbon | Firefly Bicycles

Cyfac carbon-aluminum frame:
Nerv DS2 ? Cyfac

And I own a Serotta Ottrot and the Cyfac Nerv. The Ottrott has a sublimness that I have not found ANY carbon frame to match yet. I know it's a cliche these days that pepole are saying their carbon frame is smooth, compliant, and absorb vibration. They haven't ridden the Ottrott yet.

I've also ridden the Holland Exogrid. This too is a very compliant, all-day, kinda of bike that so far I have not found any carbon bike matching.

But these carbon-ti bikes are not meant to be pure racing bikes, they are more of endurance bikes, and folks who buy these bikes are generally older folks not looking to do any local crits anytime soon, and not looking to chase after the latest features on the latest superduper carbon bike.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Cni2i said:


> Hey everyone. Like many of you out there, I've been on this carbon bandwagon for the past 5 years now...meaning I've only ridden and owned carbon bikes (three in the stable at this point).
> 
> Recently, I test rode one of my friend's Ti road bike...just a short 14 mile ride with a little over 1000' of elevation (short punchy climbs). I really didn't have any real expectations, just wanted to try out something different.
> 
> ...



It may be worth your time and effort to look for good used ti frame on Ebay. I've seen some excellent conditioned ti frames sold by older folks who can no longer ride due to health issues or whatever. However, buying on Ebay does have its risks, so do your homework.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Cni2i said:


> Hey everyone. Like many of you out there, I've been on this carbon bandwagon for the past 5 years now...meaning I've only ridden and owned carbon bikes (three in the stable at this point).
> 
> Recently, I test rode one of my friend's Ti road bike...
> 
> Conclusion: It felt great! Not sure exactly why though? It wasn't any snappier on the climbs than my SWTarmac.


Probably rode nicer than your Tarmac for two main reasons. 1) Probably quite a bit more flex. 2) Titanium as a metal IMO mutes road buzz in a way unlike anything else.

Except my 2006 Roubiax and a Bianchi Infinito CV out of what I rode which seemed as muted. The 2005 Roubiax had lots of flex, the Bianchi did not and was the best riding bike I have ever ridden and I test rode it with 125lb air in 23mm tires [I am 215].

Likely there are a bunch of bikes I have not ridden also worth mentioning, but I can't of course mention them empirically.


----------



## Richard L (Jun 16, 2014)

I had only owned steel bikes until I got an Eriksen RCR (endurance) all ti bike. At 17.5 lbs., the Eriksen weighed an almost insignificant two lbs. less than my steel bike at the time. In what are highly subjective statements, my steel bike felt snappier and livelier. The Eriksen's smooth, chatter free acceleration combined with what was for me just the right amount of road feedback made the Eriksen my favorite bike. 

I should note I am an older rider who rides for recreation, and because I have a variety of physical problems, a comfortable bike is at the top of my priorities. I don't dispute the argument that how a bike rides and feels is more about design than materials. To some extent, that is the case with my Eriksen. Nevertheless, like many ti bike owners, including the ones mentioned in your post, I love my ti bike.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

bikerjulio said:


> No 22 employs ex Serrotta fabricators. One of the principals is a guy I met a couple of years ago in Toronto riding one that I had a good look at and seemed pretty nice. That being said, I would go with the all-Ti frame. The era of multi-material frames has long passed.
> 
> View attachment 311747
> 
> ...


Yeah, I thought about the no.22 Great Divide also. I spoke to an owner of one (worker at LBS) who wanted the Reactor but was too pricey. He loves his Great Divide though...slightly less aggressive geometry but according to him, still very responsive. He is more of a endurance (200+ mile endurance events/races throughout the year) rider than a crib racer. Since I will still be riding my Tarmac, I was considering the Reactor, which has a similar geometry setup as the Tarmac. 

Yeah...PF30 is a hit and miss with me, but not a deal breaker at this point.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> And I own a Serotta Ottrot and the Cyfac Nerv. *The Ottrott has a sublimness that I have not found ANY carbon frame to match yet. I know it's a cliche these days that pepole are saying their carbon frame is smooth, compliant, and absorb vibration. They haven't ridden the Ottrott yet.*
> 
> I've also ridden the Holland Exogrid. This too is a very compliant, all-day, kinda of bike that so far I have not found any carbon bike matching.
> 
> *But these carbon-ti bikes are not meant to be pure racing bikes,* they are more of endurance bikes, and folks who buy these bikes are generally older folks not looking to do any local crits anytime soon, and not looking to chase after the latest features on the latest superduper carbon bike.


Thanks for the links! I am new to the Ti bike area, so it's nice to check out all these other brands. Now I am more confused ;D. 

What you said in *BOLD* is exactly what I hear from Ti bike owners! Interesting how that is such a consensus among Ti bike owners. And like you said, many of the Ti bike owners that I've met (beside my friend) are generally older....50s and up. They do club rides and the occasional centuries/fondos...no racing. For some of them, making a jump to Carbon was a big deal. They swear by their Ti bikes, but just wanted to see what all the hype is about Carbon. 

Having said that, I think some of the younger "hipster" cyclists are trending towards Steel/Ti bikes...no?


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

robt57 said:


> Probably rode nicer than your Tarmac for two main reasons. 1) Probably quite a bit more flex. 2) *Titanium as a metal IMO mutes road buzz in a way unlike anything else.*


I think you hit the nail on the head. That is what I was trying to say. As you and Richard L above said, there is just less chatter and less "noise" overall. It's almost like riding in well-built V6-V8 SUV versus a modified 4 cylinder tubo-charged sports car. The SUV is mostly quiet and smooth but can go fast confidently once it picks up speed; whereas the sports car is more nimble and more responsive but inside cabin noise is louder and you can feel every little bump on the road.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> And I own a *Serotta Ottrot and the Cyfac Nerv.* The Ottrott has a sublimness that I have not found ANY carbon frame to match yet. I know it's a cliche these days that pepole are saying their carbon frame is smooth, compliant, and absorb vibration. They haven't ridden the Ottrott yet.


Man, that Serotta Ottrot is definitely a looker too! Would love to see yours :wink5:


----------



## Lelandjt (Sep 11, 2008)

I have a carbon/Ti bike with similar construction to that .22 and it's unreal how it mutes bumps and vibrations compared to my aluminum or carbon bikes. I notice it immediately every time I take it out.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

+1 on getting a threaded bottom bracket. as far as the two pounds, I doubt you'll feel it in the context of your body-weight and bike weight its simply too small a percentage. i'm in the process of getting a firefly. there are great bikes made of carbon, titanium and steel out there, one is not superior to the other but titanium sure does have some nice properties that make it ideal in many circumstances.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Cni2i said:


> Man, that Serotta Ottrot is definitely a looker too! Would love to see yours :wink5:











Bike is about 16 lbs as seen, granted those are tubular wheels but I'm also using the older and heavier DA 7800 shifters and derailleurs (which are noticeably heavier than DA 7900 or DA 9000). I do have a full carbon bike, but the Ottrott is my favorite from day 1.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

There are some Ti bikes out there that ride like a jackhammer. I think Ti gets a good reputation for ride quality mainly because it can't be produced by a total hack, like steel or carbon could be, so Ti is mostly being made by companies and individuals who know a ton about bike design and understand their customers who can afford Ti are generally those that can benefit from comfort at the expense of being crazy stiff. 

By all means get a Ti bike, there are some great options out there. But concentrate on getting the right fit and design because bikes aren't a certain way just because of what they are made of.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

I've been riding the same titanium bike frame for 15 years. It's a Litespeed Ultimate. It's on it's second set of components/wheels/fork. I have a carbon bike, and a steel bike as well. The titanium bike gets the most use. I was riding a carbon Kestrel 200 Sci back in the early 1990's when "steel was real". A lot of years of bike riding has convinced me that titanium bikes are the best. 

On a lark, I bought a 2002 Litespeed Classic frame with a Reynolds Ouza Pro fork last week for $740 off ebay. Right now, I don't have plans for it, but I'm sure I'll do something with it. Maybe try to get one of my kids interested in biking. There's lots of well made, used titanium frames out there for a fraction of what a new one costs. Maybe get an Ultegra group for $550 on Ribble and a set of November Nimbus wheels for $600 -- I could do the whole thing nicely for around $2000.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Cni2i said:


> Higher end Ti bikes are pretty damn pricey too. Not sure why I was surprised by that though? Anyways, I really like the no.22 frame!! Made is USA and seems like they are very well built. Of course, they look beautiful too IMO. I also like their "boutique" nature versus the more well known Ti builders.
> 
> Just wondering:
> 1. Your thoughts on Ti bikes...ride and build quality.
> 2. Your thoughts on this no.22 company and Ti frames.


Historically, Ti bikes have always been expensive relative to steel, aluminum or carbon. Much has to do with the cost of the material, and the expertise required to weld Ti.

Modern Ti frames are less noodly than many of the vintage Ti frames (although some vintage Ti frames like the Litespeed Ultimate were pretty stiff), and I can use my now sold Litespeed Tuscany as an example. Great bike. Great ride. A little noodly.

Carbon forks used today also have better strength/stiffness-to-weight ratios than many of the forks used on the vintage Ti bikes.

I agree with the recommendation of correct fit over material choice mattering most in a great riding frame.

I also agree with the recommendation of purchasing a frame with threaded bottom bracket, if that's an option on the frames you are considering.


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

Go Ti if you want to join the 50+ year Olds. 

Oh, fyi, the hipsters are into fixed gear regardless of frame material.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

Keoki said:


> Go Ti if you want to join the 50+ year Olds.
> 
> Oh, fyi, the hipsters are into fixed gear regardless of frame material.


You'll only be welcomed if the bike has Campy on it.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> By all means get a Ti bike . . . concentrate on getting the right fit and design because *bikes aren't a certain way just because of what they are made of*.


Word! They ARE a certain way as results of design and implantation...



pmf said:


> On a lark, I bought a 2002 Litespeed Classic frame with a Reynolds Ouza Pro fork last week for $740 off ebay.


If anyone ever buys my Blade and old Classic with a 1-1/8" head tube be on my short list.  Even a Tuscany maybe... 

I will just stick with my Reynolds 753 with Henry James fittings for now...


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Not sure what's your size is, but here's a nice 55cm Lemond Tete de Course frame with 550 miles on it. Price is about $1000. (btw the cheapest Chinese ti frame you'll find on the net is about that much). Shame it's not my size or else..


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> Not sure what's your size is, but here's a nice 55cm...



That is too small for me for sure. But I am not big on having bonds over welds. That is too nice for me to add in N+1. Considering I have gotten the stable down to a dozen finally...


----------



## Braavos (Oct 31, 2015)

pmf said:


> You'll only be welcomed if the bike has Campy on it.


That's all I heard about Ti.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

I know a local frame builder and test rode his bike made from Columbus Spirit.
I like CF and usually don't like steel but this was very nice. I only rode it a few minutes and it was too big for me but I could imagine liking a bike like this. It could easily weigh 16 lbs or less. He doesn't make any Ti frames and didn't have good things to say about it.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

if you are looking at titanium , i think the safest choice out there will be to go with seven. if you want a road bike they do the aiom in three basic configurations and have a huge database of custom fits.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Trek_5200 said:


> if you are looking at titanium , i think the safest choice out there will be to go with seven.


Why is Seven a safer choice than Moots?


----------



## DHerz (Apr 27, 2014)

I'm pretty pleased with my Lynskey. Less expensive than the Moots or the Seven. Those boys in Chattanooga have been building Ti for as long as anybody.


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

DHerz said:


> I'm pretty pleased with my Lynskey. Less expensive than the Moots or the Seven. Those boys in Chattanooga have been building Ti for as long as anybody.


Too bad they suck now...


----------



## DHerz (Apr 27, 2014)

Keoki said:


> Too bad they suck now...


Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Not mine.


----------



## waterlogged (Aug 29, 2009)

I'm convinced that Lynskey needs a cool cast, milled or laser cut head tube badge. Then they could charge as much as Moots or Seven. I don't think you could tell the difference between the three in a blind test. If you go custom, then Seven would be my choice.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Not sure what's your size is, but here's a nice 55cm Lemond Tete de Course frame with 550 miles on it. Price is about $1000. (btw the cheapest Chinese ti frame you'll find on the net is about that much). Shame it's not my size or else..


A little too big for me. My Tarmacs are all 54s. I can go smaller like a 52 or 53 but prefer not to go bigger. Thanks 4 looking out.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

DHerz said:


> I'm pretty pleased with my Lynskey. Less expensive than the Moots or the Seven. Those boys in Chattanooga have been building Ti for as long as anybody.


The bike I tried was a Lynskey Helix. It felt great. I prefer traditional downtubes however.


----------



## Lookbiker (Sep 2, 2006)

Cni2i said:


> The bike I tried was a Lynskey Helix. It felt great. I prefer traditional downtubes however.


I've been riding a Lynskey Helix OS for six years and have been very pleased. Very stiff frame and Lynskey has good customer support. Moots, Seven, IF, etc. Lots of good frames out there


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

tvad said:


> Why is Seven a safer choice than Moots?


Not to speak for him but they weren't recently sold to a telecommunications guy like Moots could be one of his reasons for thinking Seven is a safer choice.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Not to speak for him but they weren't recently sold to a telecommunications guy like Moots could be one of his reasons for thinking Seven is a safer choice.


New owner is "a passionate mountain biker and road cyclist", according to the Velo News article, and has good business credentials as well as serving on the board of trustees of The Nature Conservancy of Arkansas.

I don't see anything to suggest Moots would not continue strongly going forward.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

If you want the original Moots, the guy is still in business Welcome to Kent Eriksen Cycles - Custom titanium bikes and frames


----------



## biker (Apr 2, 2004)

Here are some pics of Kent Eriksen operation in Steamboat Springs:


----------



## biker (Apr 2, 2004)

Here are some pics of Moots operation in Steamboat Springs:]


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Cni2i said:


> A little too big for me. My Tarmacs are all 54s. I can go smaller like a 52 or 53 but prefer not to go bigger. Thanks 4 looking out.


Don't rule out Habanero without ruling them out with some perusing and research...

Titanium Road Frames from $995

Classic Road Frame only $995 plus $40 shipping ($70 to most of Europe)

Options with reasonable waits as well. Standard frames ship pretty fast as I understand it. The crash policy is pretty liberal too!

Also look for the silver series Lynsky offerings if you are a lighter cyclist and don't ride huge long tubes frames. 

I have spoke with Habanaro and nibbled but went steel instead personally.
Seems like he would be a good guy to do business with is what I was left with... YMMV.. No affiliation.


----------



## BikerTex (Jan 20, 2016)

I'm glad I found this thread. I feel like everywhere I read Ti is dead and carbon is the only material to build bikes from now. Anyhow, I've been thinking about building up a new all-around-bike (using up some older parts) and I found a Litespeed Copenhagen at The Racery for only $799. It looks like a sweet deal and with free shipping it's even sweeter . 
I was on an aluminum C'dale for awhile and then switched over to a carbon Specialized, and both were good bikes. But I'm thinking for some longer days in the saddle a Ti bike might be the best option. I noticed the Racery had a few Ti mountain bikes too, but I don't have enough cash for that right now. Someday.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Man, I'm learning a lot about Ti bikes...thanks for all the responses thus far. 

One recurring sentiment about Ti versus Carbon is that Ti bikes are "better" for longer endurance type of rides (centuries, gran fondos, and X racing) or as a commuter bike; whereas carbon bikes are more geared towards racing (crits or fast and spirited testosterone-filled group rides). As I have mentioned earlier, I am so used to riding with my SWTarmacs and I love the lively feel of the bikes. I don't do a lot of long endurance rides (maybe two centuries yearly), but do a lot of hill climbs (about 800,000' annually recorded on my Garmin 510 not iPhone or corrected Garmin elevation...lol, but that's for another thread) and spirited group rides. So I am a little bit concerned that the Ti bike may not feel as lively or responsive as my Tarmac??? Since I am still leaning towards the no.22 Reactor frame set, I don't want to spend that can of $ and find out I don't like the "feel" of the bike. I would be swapping out my components from one of my Tarmacs, so that would all stay the same...just the frame and fork would change. Both will have PF bottom bracket. The only other difference would be that the Reactor would have an ISP. Aaarggghh....such a hard decision. Nevertheless, love seeing all this interest and information about Ti bikes!


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Cni2i said:


> Man, I'm learning a lot about Ti bikes...thanks for all the responses thus far.
> 
> One recurring sentiment about Ti versus Carbon is that Ti bikes are "better" for longer endurance type of rides (centuries, gran fondos, and X racing) or as a commuter bike; whereas carbon bikes are more geared towards racing (crits or fast and spirited testosterone-filled group rides). As I have mentioned earlier, I am so used to riding with my SWTarmacs and I love the lively feel of the bikes. I don't do a lot of long endurance rides (maybe two centuries yearly), but do a lot of hill climbs (about 800,000' annually recorded on my Garmin 510 not iPhone or corrected Garmin elevation...lol, but that's for another thread) and spirited group rides. So I am a little bit concerned that the Ti bike may not feel as lively or responsive as my Tarmac??? Since I am still leaning towards the no.22 Reactor frame set, I don't want to spend that can of $ and find out I don't like the "feel" of the bike. I would be swapping out my components from one of my Tarmacs, so that would all stay the same...just the frame and fork would change. Both will have PF bottom bracket. The only other difference would be that the Reactor would have an ISP. Aaarggghh....such a hard decision. Nevertheless, love seeing all this interest and information about Ti bikes!


To quote myself: "But concentrate on getting the right fit and design because bikes aren't a certain way just because of what they are made of."

Ti bikes aren't good for long rides because they are made of Ti and Carbon bikes aren't snappy and responsive just because they are carbon. It just so happens that a lot of ti bikes are comfortable and a lot of carbon bikes are responsive but you really need to get it out of your head that a certain material rides a certain way and don't expect that just because a bike is a certain material it'll ride a certain way. Bikes ride the way they do not because of what they are made of but because of how they are designed.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Jay Strongbow said:


> To quote myself: "But concentrate on getting the right fit and design because bikes aren't a certain way just because of what they are made of."
> 
> Ti bikes aren't good for long rides because they are made of Ti and Carbon bikes aren't snappy and responsive just because they are carbon. It just so happens that a lot of ti bikes are comfortable and a lot of carbon bikes are responsive but you really need to get it out of your head that a certain material rides a certain way and don't expect that just because a bike is a certain material it'll ride a certain way. Bikes ride the way they do not because of what they are made of but because of how they are designed.


Point taken Jay. So in theory, if a Ti frame and a Carbon frame had the exact same geometry and components (and all fitting measurements were the same), they should pretty ride the same way...and the only real/noticeable differences would be the weight difference and the aesthetics?


----------



## biker (Apr 2, 2004)

BikerTex said:


> I'm glad I found this thread. I feel like everywhere I read Ti is dead and carbon is the only material to build bikes from now. Anyhow, I've been thinking about building up a new all-around-bike (using up some older parts) and I found a Litespeed Copenhagen at The Racery for only $799. It looks like a sweet deal and with free shipping it's even sweeter .
> I was on an aluminum C'dale for awhile and then switched over to a carbon Specialized, and both were good bikes. But I'm thinking for some longer days in the saddle a Ti bike might be the best option. I noticed the Racery had a few Ti mountain bikes too, but I don't have enough cash for that right now. Someday.


Looks like that frame is priced only for a small size if I read their site correctly.


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

Cni2i said:


> Point taken Jay. So in theory, if a Ti frame and a Carbon frame had the exact same geometry and components (and all fitting measurements were the same), they should pretty ride the same way...


I disagree with that assessment. Tube selection has a great deal to do with how a bike rides; shape, thickness, and carbon lay-up all make a difference. Are the tubes selected for stiffness, flexibility, damping (of road buzz)?

Tube selection and its relation to ride quality applies equally to Ti, carbon and steel.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

> The only other difference would be that the Reactor would have an ISP


Sorry, but I have to say that ISP, like multi material frames, is not only passe, but a really stupid idea, that really has no advantages whatsoever, but plenty of drawbacks.


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

bikerjulio said:


> Sorry, but I have to say that ISP, like multi material frames, is not only passe, but a really stupid idea, that really has not advantages whatsoever, but plenty of drawbacks.


bikerjulio,
I guess I should've asked everyone's opinion 2 years ago before commissioning this build ... At least I got the groupset correct. 


















Very respectfully, Tim

P.S. Should I 'chop' the seatmast off my 2015 Trek Madone 7s and mash a seatpost in the hole to remove all the associated seatmast/ISP disadvantages?


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

Yes you got the group right. I realize it's your baby, but nothing I see changes my opinion of ISPs. And opinions are what one gets on the interwebz.

The orange theme looks suspiciously like an homage to my orange Ti bike that was posted a few years ago


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

bikerjulio said:


> Yes you got the group right. I realize it's your baby, but nothing I see changes my opinion of ISPs. And opinions are what one gets on the interwebz.


bikerjulio,
It's all good. This is just one of many bikes in my garage ... I don't associate my identity with any of them so I don't take anything personal. And yes, I realize one has to have a thick skin to play on "the Interwebz."

I just have dozens of bikes with seatposts so I figured since Trek was using ISPs on all their newly fangled carbon bikes; I should give it a go. once I got my seat set to the correct height (took all of about 30 seconds) I've never touched it. I really don't notice it unless someone asks about it. 

No real downside to an ISP for me as most of my rides leave from my driveway and I have two Ritchey travel bikes in case I need to fold something into a suitcase for a trip. 

I think the important thing to remember is, "Campagnolo Rules!" After that, everything else falls into place. 

Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

You either need more orange, or less.

I ended up taking all the orange off mine, but here it is in all it's orangeness









Very funny BTW


> I figured since Trek was using ISPs


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

bikerjulio said:


> You either need more orange, or less.
> 
> I ended up taking all the orange off mine, but here it is in all it's orangeness
> 
> Very funny BTW


Orange is the old... something, right? 

What is your beef with ISP? I tried a search for you username and ISP and got nada.

I have one ISP, carbon. I do not see any reason it is a bad thing, I did not nor will I yearn for it on a future bike. OH, one bad thing might be how selling it used folks see to avoid making it less sell-able probably. 

I have to say a Ti ISP would concern me if not stiff enough, not a problem on my Addict LTD carbon ISP. But in the scheme of expensive carbon flexy make ride nice posts doesn't it make some sense?


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

mrwirey said:


> bikerjulio,
> It's all good. This is just one of many bikes in my garage ... I don't associate my identity with any of them so I don't take anything personal. And yes, I realize one has to have a thick skin to play on "the Interwebz."


Especially here. 

I also have a decent [indecent?] stable, and also high expectations of what I perceive that I want in each. So I get that totally.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

What is to like about ISP?

No weight saving.

Ugly mast topper.

Harder to adjust.

Impossible to fit in hard travel case.

Much harder to sell.

Idea is passe, with zero benefits really at all.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

Well OK, thanks for chiming back in. I do agree with harder to sell, but nothing else that applies to me I guess. Travel case is something that I don't do, especially when you ride a 61CM bike it is even harder probably. 

As far as passe, I have had my Addict for years an got it used for dirt. Is anyone even still doing it production wise?

It seems to me with carbon it will actually make the bike heavier than a normal post really. Not that this is any kind of complaint for me with the Addict LTD.



bikerjulio said:


> What is to like about ISP?
> 
> No weight saving.
> 
> ...


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

bikerjulio said:


> You either need more orange, or less.


bikerjulio,
Ti-ISP's steel brother got the preponderance of orange. I go through phases. Please excuse the Shimano.









Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> To quote myself: "But concentrate on getting the right fit and design because bikes aren't a certain way just because of what they are made of."
> 
> Ti bikes aren't good for long rides because they are made of Ti and Carbon bikes aren't snappy and responsive just because they are carbon. It just so happens that a lot of ti bikes are comfortable and a lot of carbon bikes are responsive but you really need to get it out of your head that a certain material rides a certain way and don't expect that just because a bike is a certain material it'll ride a certain way. Bikes ride the way they do not because of what they are made of but because of how they are designed.


Don't know why you say how a bike rides only depends on design and not material. Design and material go hand in hand. Usually when people design something, eg, a car or building, part of the design process is to think about what material to use at some point. Design doesn't just exist mutually exclusive from material.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

tvad said:


> I disagree with that assessment. Tube selection has a great deal to do with how a bike rides; shape, thickness, and carbon lay-up all make a difference. Are the tubes selected for stiffness, flexibility, damping (of road buzz)?
> 
> Tube selection and its relation to ride quality applies equally to Ti, carbon and steel.





aclinjury said:


> Don't know why you say how a bike rides only depends on design and not material. Design and material go hand in hand. Usually when people design something, eg, a car or building, part of the design process is to think about what material to use at some point. Design doesn't just exist mutually exclusive from material.


That's why I was a little surprised by JS response. I realize the material of the bike is obviously not the only factor influencing its overall ride and feel characteristics, but bikes are "a certain way" b/c of what they are made of (their DNA)...yeah?


----------



## theregoesmybus (May 7, 2014)

I'm new to Ti bikes, and this is my first Moots that I just finished building up:

- 2015 Moots Vamoots CR (56)
- Campagnolo Super Record RS group
- Campagnolo Bora Ultra 50 wheels
- FSA K-Force seatpost, stem, bars
- Chris King headset (mixed colors)
- Specialized Power S-Works saddle
- Look Keo 2 carbon pedals


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

theregoesmybus said:


> I'm new to Ti bikes, and this is my first Moots that I just finished building up:
> 
> 
> [/COLOR]
> ...


Very nice build. Final weight as pictured? Did you come from a carbon road bike? If so, would love to hear your comparisons between the two. Congrats!


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

theregoesmybus,

I believe you nailed it. 

I used the Moots CR geometry on my custom Cysco Cycles Ti build; I 'pirated' the details directly from the Moots website. 

Beyond the geometry our bikes share, I wanted to specify a few small details for my build, which drove me to a custom rather than standard build. 

I wanted to ensure sufficient frame clearance for 25mm tires when mounted on wider (H Plus Son Archetype) rims. Additionally, I specified hourglass shaped seatstays (personal preference) and explained to the builder (Richie Moore at the time) I valued responsiveness over compliance and weight; I can't appreciate a flexy bike. This drove him to recommend specific tubing choices and dimensions as well as an oversize headtube and a tapered front fork. I also wanted external cable routing and a BSA bottom bracket. I gave him literary license with regard to the finish hence the 'blasted' frame with shiny logos. The one thing I was adamant about was I wanted a real honest to God headbadge (his normal routine was to use a logo decal). He commissioned a run of headbadges and mine was the first frame to get the official (screwed on) Cysco Headbadge.  If not for those details (and the desire to throw a very small builder my business) I'd be riding pretty much your bike right now (minus the 'very cool and desirable' Boras). 

From the tip of my saddle to the center of my stem/bar intersection is 22.5" and the top of my saddle is 30.5" from the center of my bottom bracket (measured along the seat tube/seat post). I'd bet I could fit on your bike with only a slight saddle adjustment ... oh, and I use Keo pedals as well. 

Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

That's what I'm talking about - classy - just Ti - no garish paint job - and no ISP


----------



## theregoesmybus (May 7, 2014)

Cni2i said:


> Very nice build. Final weight as pictured? Did you come from a carbon road bike? If so, would love to hear your comparisons between the two. Congrats!


Thanks! It came in at 16.1 lbs.
I'll get back to you on comparisons, as it's still early for me.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Don't know why you say how a bike rides only depends on design and not material. Design and material go hand in hand. Usually when people design something, eg, a car or building, part of the design process is to think about what material to use at some point. Design doesn't just exist mutually exclusive from material.


Like you said, material selection is part of design. Which makes it confusing why on one hand you know material selection is part of design yet on the other you don't understand why I haven't specifically separated the two.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Cni2i said:


> That's why I was a little surprised by JS response. I realize the material of the bike is obviously not the only factor influencing its overall ride and feel characteristics, *but bikes are "a certain way" b/c of what they are made of* (their DNA)...yeah?


I give up. Sure, yeah. All Ti bikes ride the same because they are Ti.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

tvad said:


> I disagree with that assessment. Tube selection has a great deal to do with how a bike rides; shape, thickness, and carbon lay-up all make a difference. Are the tubes selected for stiffness, flexibility, damping (of road buzz)?
> 
> Tube selection and its relation to ride quality applies equally to Ti, carbon and steel.


Right.

Between that response (crom CnI2I) and ACL's I guess I shouldn't have assumed people would realize that design means more than just measurements.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Like you said, material selection is part of design. Which makes it confusing why on one hand you know material selection is part of design yet on the other you don't understand why I haven't specifically separated the two.


Maybe I just didn't understand what you were saying completely. Anyway point is material and design go hand in hand. The real issue is no one (not even the builder) really knows QUALITATIVELY how much of a percentage of how a bike ride depends on material, and how much depends of design. Nobody knows. However, there are GENERAL properties of materials that we know, and we also know how such properties tend to lend itself in a certain design style, and we can certainly make a good initial educated guess. Ti tend to lend itself to designing a soft riding bike, that's why when people think of endurance bike, they ask about using ti, which is perfectly the right path. They wouldn't ask about using aluminum as a starting material because it takes more design thought and hours to make an aluminum bike ride "soft" while with ti the design much easier and naturally. Another example is track bikes. No one would design a track bike around ti material. They design around carbon fiber and steel. 

A person asking about using ti for an endurance frame is heading in the right path. A person asking about using ti in a track frame is heading in the difficult path. But just because ti can be used in both cases, doesn't mean one should use ti in both cases.

And then there is also the issue of cost. Ti involves more cost to it, from raw material to the skill required. So cost is a factor, then this too will play into the design process.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Maybe I just didn't understand what you were saying completely.


I suppose I could have been more clear.

My only point really was that it's not a good idea to approach bike buying like this: "I want a smooth bike so I'll get any titanium bike because titanium is smooth."

Choosing Ti might increase the odds of getting a smooth bike but it doesn't insure it. Ti could, and had been, made super stiff and to ride like a jackhammer. Just like there's plenty of carbon bikes with cooked pasta level stiffness despite the material being known the it's ability to produce a super stiff bike.
One needs to choose the whole package not just material.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

bikerjulio said:


> Sorry, but I have to say that ISP, like multi material frames, is not only passe, but a really stupid idea, that really has no advantages whatsoever, but plenty of drawbacks.


I'm not arguing with you on ISP, but ok this is the second time in this thread you emphatically said multi-material, specifically carbon-ti (I'm not talking carbon-aluminum of old), is bad. Yet there are still top builders such as Holland cycles and Firely making them in their premier frames. Pretty sure there are other premier builders doing it too that I'm not aware of. Reviews on these carbon-ti frames have been nothing but positives. So your statement doesn't jive with top builders, doesn't jive with reviews.

The fact of the matter is, multi-material, particularly carbon-ti, is difficult to work with, it takes real skill to bond carbon-ti correctly, and the cost of raw material and skill are higher. You can't easily train Chinese villagers under low salary to work with carbon-ti eh. Chinese would be doing it if it was easy and cheap. Get it wrong, and you've just spent a lot of money making a junk frame. It is a lot easier to work with a pure ti frame or a pure carbon frame. Carbon-ti takes real skill, and with real skill comes the associated higher cost.

But from a performance point of view, it's the best of both world. Even from a structural point, the carbon-ti bonding is stronger than either material alone. From an endurance bike point of view, carbon-ti is one of the best, if not the best, mix of material to use.

Aesthetically, most carbon-ti frames are some of the best piece of work, from welding to painting. That's because when builders decide to make a carbon-ti frame, they tend to go all out with their effort. It's not something you want to put a halfassed effort it making, that's why most of them look great. But aesthetic is always in the eyes of the beholder. Personally, I find a bike such as Moots with pure gun metal ti color to be quite boring to my eyes, not evoking much emotion, other than the fact that I know it's a ti frame that costs a lot because it's a Moot. But some people get a hardon when the see unpainted gun metal ti. Different stroke.

Just about the only "bad" thing about making a carbon-ti frame is the higher cost. But like anywhere else in this world, skill requires cost. If you want to pick on cost, then fine, but it doesn't appear from your tone that cost was an issue you were trying to raise. It just appeared to me that you were just bashing carbon-ti like it's carbon-aluminum of old, lumping them all together under the umbrella of multi-material frames. Might as well say a Chinese carbon knockoff frame is the same as the real frame thing since they're both made from the same material carbon fiber and have mostly the same shape.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> But from a performance point of view, it's the best of both world.


I'm not going to name drop but I have it on good authority that, with this particular builder anyway, the only purpose of carbon in their ti/carbon frame is weight reduction in response to customer demand and their all Ti version of the same frame performs identical.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I'm not going to name drop but I have it on good authority that, with this particular builder anyway, the only purpose of carbon in their ti/carbon frame is weight reduction in response to customer demand and their all Ti version of the same frame performs identical.


I'm not going to argue with your builder.

But here's just one quote of what Holland cycles says about their Exogrid and how carbon-ti makes their Exogrid unique



> The Ti/C ExoGrid® structure has unique vibration damping qualities due to the dissimilar natural frequencies of the carbon and titanium. When these elements are molded together, some of these frequencies cancel each other out, a phenomenon called constrained layer damping. When ExoGrid® is used in substantial bike frame elements such as the top tube, seat tube and down tube, the built frame delivers improved road feel and exceptional ride quality that are unobtainable from a titanium or carbon fiber frame on their own.


Holland Cycles ? Holland ExoGrid® Bicycle

And interestingly, they didn't mention anything about weight as one of the reason.

Serotta used to say the similar qualities about their carbon-ti Ottrott model (which I bought a year before the company went out of business).

Here's one quote of the review of the Firefly carbon-ti by Peloton magazine



> On the road the Firefly Ti-Carbon provided an interesting combination. The titanium dampened the road noise in a way that is impossible to do with carbon alone. The ENVE 2.0 fork is a great compliment to the Ti-Carbon frame with its progressive steer matched with the oversized titanium head tube. It was particularly stiff and made for a great driving experience down winding descents. The enlarged tubing in the chain stays definitely stiffened up the power transfer from the cranks but did not quite meet the level of most full carbon rear triangles. This was most noticeable in out of the saddle sprints during initial acceleration.
> At speed on the flats and descents the Ti-Carbon got better the faster we rode. Some cars begin to drive better at higher speed; the Firefly lit up over 30mph. The titanium lugs were stand out as they soaked up all the road chatter and eased the pain of potholes on roads long ago forgotten by local government.


Also interestingly, no where in the review did Peloton magazine emphasize about the weight difference between carbon and ti.

If the builder you talked to said the ONLY reason he used carbon is for weight reduction, then he is essentially saying that the ONLY difference in properties between carbon and ti is simply their empirical weight. Now I've taken some higher level chemistry classes in my college days, and I think I know that carbon and ti are more than just a weight difference, this I can emphatically say. Metals and organic materials (carbon) certainly definitely have distinct and unique characteristics.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

I didn't say bad, I said passe. An idea whose time has come and gone.

It's just my opinion that mixed material frames were always a bit of a gimmick from the last decade, and I prefer a frame to be one material.

When one comes on the internet as OP did, looking for opinions, one is liable to get them.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

bikerjulio said:


> I didn't say bad, I said passe. An idea whose time has come and gone.
> 
> It's just my opinion that mixed material frames were always a bit of a gimmick from the last decade, and I prefer a frame to be one material.
> 
> When one comes on the internet as OP did, looking for opinions, one is liable to get them.


ah gotcha. But I think that time was the early era of carbon-aluminum, when builders (not chemists themselves) didn't fully understand galvanic corrosion between carbon and metals, and furthermore the epoxy used back then has also improved. Today bonding and science has improved.

I think the main reason multi-material has gone away much is because of 
1) they are expensive and difficult to get it right
2) cheap and light Chinese made carbon cookie cutter frames

Today's multi-material frames aren't gimmicks, passe maybe (but mainly due to economical and financial reason), but certainly not gimmick in the way they work.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> I'm not going to argue with your builder.
> 
> But here's just one quote of what Holland cycles says about their Exogrid and how carbon-ti makes their Exogrid unique
> 
> ...


You're way over thinking it.

If you ride two bikes one after the other they either perform the same or they don't.

This builder/bike company owner that I happen to know says the performance is identical. that's it. You don't need to be a material scientist to tell how a bike feels.

If Peloton had done a compare with an all ti version of the same bike and saw differences you might have just made some sort of point by posting their review. But attributing ride qualities to a mix of materials is pure guess work on their part when they haven't compared it an all ti version of the same thing.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> You're way over thinking it.
> 
> If you ride two bikes one after the other they either perform the same or they don't.
> 
> ...


Sorry if I'm overthinking on an issue that your builder seems to over simplying. I guess if he made the same frame out of wood, bamboo, steel, plywood, paper, they too would all have identical performance. I think I'm done making my point regarding this.

And if I may, I would like the name of the builder thru private message. This is something I would be interested in knowing for future reference.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Sorry if I'm overthinking on an issue that your builder seems to over simplying. I guess if he made the same frame out of wood, bamboo, steel, plywood, paper, they too would all have identical performance. I think I'm done making my point regarding this.
> 
> And if I may, I would like the name of the builder thru private message. This is something I would be interested in knowing for future reference.


He is not "my builder" but "a" builder/bike company owner that I happen to know by coincidence for reasons other than my interest in bikes. Again I'm not going mention names but it's really hilarious that you seem to think you know more than this guy.

No, I'm will not PM you. It's probably best that you go on thinking you know best and either the builder I mentioned doesn't know what anything or that I'm just making this up. Take your pick. I have no interest in convincing you of anything.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

aclinjury said:


> Today's multi-material frames aren't gimmicks, passe maybe (but mainly due to economical and financial reason), but certainly not gimmick in the way they work.



I always prefer a one material build myself, for the frame. Even back in 2000 I choose the previous year Fuji Team Issue Scandium to get all welds and no bonded and bolted on seat stay unit.

Except I do have a Canondale Six13 of early ilk with 3 carbon keyed/inserted main tubes. Which is basically an upper end CAAD# dejour which the aforementioned 'economical and financial' factors made it's center ALuminum tube/carbon keyed insertion in the 3 main frame tubes extinct. It certainly has a lot more engineering than the straight round carbon tubes glued into main frame portions. Although I never heard of a Serotta having the round tubes pullout form a glue failure. And know of a few folks that still love those original Serottas of that design, Odrotts??

It is a nice riding bike that feels like no other ALuminum bike I have ridden. I confess that I like the made in USA factor.

Oh, I had a Q-Carbon Klein for a while which also was ALuminum with a bonded in carbon seat stay cluster which IMO had a refined ride [as it were].


----------



## willstylez (Sep 15, 2011)

Here....these should suffice, regarding my opinion of Ti....


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> He is not "my builder" but "a" builder/bike company owner that I happen to know by coincidence for reasons other than my interest in bikes. Again I'm not going mention names but it's really hilarious that you seem to think you know more than this guy.
> 
> No, I'm will not PM you. It's probably best that you go on thinking you know best and either the builder I mentioned doesn't know what anything or that I'm just making this up. Take your pick. I have no interest in convincing you of anything.


I'm not trying to sound condescending or thumping my knowledge. But builders are like fitters. Some are excellent, some are medoicre, and some are hacks. If there's a reason for him to think that material doesn't matter, then let him say why he thinks material makes little difference, and let him show the performance parameters showing his conviction. Let the science resonate or not resonate in his reason. His claim that the difference between carbon and ti is ONLY weight... is a pretty extraordinary claim from a material science perspective, and extraordinary claim requires extraordinary data. Otherwise, it's just another "trust me, I know what I'm talking abut because I'm a builder",

And I'm ridiculous for asking and raising such doubts? I guess so are the guys from Firefly and Holland and Serrota. What were they thinking in building a carbon-ti frame. I guess Holland is just posting a bunch of false advertising on their website too. Cmon man.

And btw, the difference in weight between carbon and ti is much less than carbon and say steel. So if his reason is to use carbon ONLY for weight saving, then the reason isn't even a sound one to begin with. I mean how much saving is he looking to save for his client by using a carbon downtube or top tube vs a ti one? Maybe 100-200 grams on the whole frame? Does 200 grams even make a major difference for people who would ride these sort of custome frames? I don't know, I have no ill intention to call out the builder, but I'm seriously questioning his reasoning.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> I'm not trying to sound condescending or thumping my knowledge. But builders are like fitters. Some are excellent, some are medoicre, and some are hacks. If there's a reason for him to think that material doesn't matter, then let him say why he thinks material makes little difference, and let him show the performance parameters showing his conviction. Let the science resonate or not resonate in his reason. His claim that the difference between carbon and ti is ONLY weight... is a pretty extraordinary claim from a material science perspective, and extraordinary claim requires extraordinary data. Otherwise, it's just another "trust me, I know what I'm talking abut because I'm a builder",
> 
> And I'm ridiculous for asking and raising such doubts? I guess so are the guys from Firefly and Holland and Serrota. What were they thinking in building a carbon-ti frame. I guess Holland is just posting a bunch of false advertising on their website too. Cmon man.
> 
> And btw, the difference in weight between carbon and ti is much less than carbon and say steel. So if his reason is to use carbon ONLY for weight saving, then the reason isn't even a sound one to begin with. I mean how much saving is he looking to save for his client by using a carbon downtube or top tube vs a ti one? Maybe 100-200 grams on the whole frame? Does 200 grams even make a major difference for people who would ride these sort of custome frames? I don't know, I have no ill intention to call out the builder, but I'm seriously questioning his reasoning.


I think you're now arguing with what you want argue with not what he actually said.

as a reminder what I said was: "I'm not going to name drop but I have it on good authority that, with this particular builder anyway, the only purpose of carbon in* their* ti/carbon frame is weight reduction in response to customer demand and *their *all Ti version of the same frame performs identical."

He never said to me material doesn't ever or couldn't ever matter or that it doesn't in some bikes or that other builders don't use it for any reason other than weight reduction. He said it doesn't make any performance difference in HIS COMPANIES bikes. 
And looking at which sections are carbon and which are Ti in THIS PARTICULAR bike, it would make sense to me logically that the carbon isn't having an impact on performance. That's not to say I don't think it could if used in other places. And for all I know he chose a particular type of carbon with the intent of mimicking his Ti bike, while other builders might not. We didn't get into that.


----------



## jnbrown (Dec 9, 2009)

aclinjury said:


> I'm not going to argue with your builder.
> 
> But here's just one quote of what Holland cycles says about their Exogrid and how carbon-ti makes their Exogrid unique
> 
> ...


I live where Bill Holland bikes are made (San Diego) and they are quite popular here.
I know several people that ride them. I think Bill is a smart marketing guy as well as a master frame builder. I hear he sells these frames for $5K and sells as many as he can build. Personally I think its a gimmick and many CF frames that cost well below that would blow it away in terms of weight and performance. If he was just building straight Ti frames like he had been doing i don't think he would be getting the price or demand he is getting and people think they are getting something unique and special. Bill is also now making custom CF frames which again shows his ability to adapt to what the market demand is. If it was me I would go to another local frame builder I know and get a Columbus Spirit frame for $2k.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I think you're now arguing with what you want argue with not what he actually said.
> 
> as a reminder what I said was: "I'm not going to name drop but I have it on good authority that, with this particular builder anyway, the only purpose of carbon in* their* ti/carbon frame is weight reduction in response to customer demand and *their *all Ti version of the same frame performs identical."
> 
> ...


Thanks for the reply. At this point I'm not debating with what you said he said anymore. Without him talking directly, this is going no where. It was a fun thought exercise for me, that's about it.

Having said that, I think "perfomance" is a hard parameter to quantify and measure. I mean, what is performance? If we're talking about going at a speed of 17-20mph on the flat at zone 3, then at under this condition, weight doesn't matter much, even tires doesn't matter much, aero doesn't matter much. A person riding a lightweight 23 lbs hardtail mtb with skinny tires can pretty much keep up with another equivalently fit person riding a 17 lbs roadie. Performance is one of those thing that depends on protocol and testing condition, and without knowing the detail, we might as well just say "trust me".


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

aclinjury said:


> Thanks for the reply. At this point I'm not debating with what you said he said anymore. Without him talking directly, this is going no where. It was a fun thought exercise for me, that's about it.
> 
> Having said that, I think "perfomance" is a hard parameter to quantify and measure. I mean, what is performance? If we're talking about going at a speed of 17-20mph on the flat at zone 3, then at under this condition, weight doesn't matter much, even tires doesn't matter much, aero doesn't matter much. A person riding a lightweight 23 lbs hardtail mtb with skinny tires can pretty much keep up with another equivalently fit person riding a 17 lbs roadie. Performance is one of those thing that depends on protocol and testing condition, and without knowing the detail, we might as well just say "trust me".



100% spot on. The rider matters far more than the bike. Aero is a rounding error, as is wheel choice. Two or three pounds of bike weight simply won't matter much on the flats.


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

jnbrown said:


> I live where Bill Holland bikes are made (San Diego) and they are quite popular here.
> I know several people that ride them. I think Bill is a smart marketing guy as well as a master frame builder. I hear he sells these frames for $5K and sells as many as he can build. Personally I think its a gimmick and many CF frames that cost well below that would blow it away in terms of weight and performance. If he was just building straight Ti frames like he had been doing i don't think he would be getting the price or demand he is getting and people think they are getting something unique and special. Bill is also now making custom CF frames which again shows his ability to adapt to what the market demand is. If it was me I would go to another local frame builder I know and get a Columbus Spirit frame for $2k.


You think that's a gimmick, but then and you bring up CF frame as an example of being the better frame at a lower weight. Yet you don't define what is your performance parameters, nevermind what the actual buyer's performance parameters, and don't know what the buyers are wanting or looking for. Perhaps the buyers is an older guy who is tired of riding all the highend CF frames he had owned, and now wants something artistic to his eyes, in addition to decent but not all out performance in a bike. It's like the Ferrari buyer vs the Mustang buyer. It is generally true that a Mustang buyer can mod his car to out perform the Ferrari in almost every imaginable way, especially performance in a 1/4 mile, at a fraction of the cost of owning a Ferrari. But the Ferrari buyer probably has zero, none, zilch, nada interest in what the Mustang can do, and no matter how much the Mustang guy wants to throw up his performance numbers, he won't persuade the Ferrari buyer one bit. People who buy toys for both arts and performance usually are people not looking at just the "performance value" side of the equation.

I'm sure your $2k Columbus bike will be a fine bike, but there are Taiwanese brands that will sell you a CF frame for half that price, and at a better performance if we list weight and stiffness as parameters. But I can guarantee you there is no freakin way your $2k frame will have the kind of details and intricacies of the Exogrid. $2k is just about the mininum of what most custom builders will charge for a simple frame with basic paint scheme. But at $5k, it's no longer about just performance anymore. It also about arts and personalization, and these subjective values almost never scale in a linear fashion with the money you're asked to fork over. Always was, is, and will be, for highend toys, and the higher end the toys, the more the money will scale up. If you can't afford it, then move on. No need to call something gimmicky if you can't or don't want to pay for it, that's just disrespecting the builder, don't you think. Now if Holland is chargning $15k for his frame and he's claiming it'll make turn you into a local hero on the Saturday club ride, then you have something to bag on. But Holland is not charging any of a higher price than what the big brands are charging for their top end models. Last I checked, top end bike models from the likes of Trek, Pinarello, Colnago, BMC go for anywhere from $12k - $20k.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

aclinjury said:


> Thanks for the reply. At this point I'm not debating with what you said he said anymore. Without him talking directly, this is going no where. It was a fun thought exercise for me, that's about it.
> 
> Having said that, I think "perfomance" is a hard parameter to quantify and measure. I mean, what is performance? If we're talking about going at a speed of 17-20mph on the flat at zone 3, then at under this condition, weight doesn't matter much, even tires doesn't matter much, aero doesn't matter much. A person riding a lightweight 23 lbs hardtail mtb with skinny tires can pretty much keep up with another equivalently fit person riding a 17 lbs roadie. Performance is one of those thing that depends on protocol and testing condition, and without knowing the detail, we might as well just say "trust me".


The word performance was being used in the feel, handling, vibration, bumps, ect. sense of the word, not speed.

You're now mostly talking about performance of the rider, his/her set up, tires, ect. and resulting speed. Which is kind of weird because at first you were arguing with my saying performance was the same and now you'e making the case that performance wouldn't be different (from a speed perspective).


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

OP,

These two pictures provide an example of the back and forth I had with Cysco Cycles to determine my custom Ti build:















(Note: The 'geometry charts' in both of the pictures was a direct lift off the Moots homepage for the Moots Vamoots CR.) 

I really enjoyed the process of having my bike built with design aspects, which were important to me (geometry, heel clearance, hourglass seatstays, BSA bottom bracket, breezer style dropouts, screwed on headbadge, etc.) and I greatly appreciated the engineering input provided by the builder with regard to the specifics of frame materiel, tubing sizes/dimensions, etc. to ensure I got the responsiveness I was looking for. Overall, I was/am very happy with the process.

Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

mrwirey said:


> OP,
> 
> These two pictures provide an example of the back and forth I had with Cysco Cycles to determine my custom Ti build:
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing Tim. Wow, that is great customization. How does she ride?


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

Cni2i said:


> How does she ride?


Cni2i,

She rides exactly as I'd hoped. I have lots of carbon frames, which have spoiled me from a responsiveness perspective (mash on the pedals and the bike rewards with no wasted effort; only forward momentum); my Cysco has not disappointed. 

My two most responsive bikes are my 2014 Giant TCR Advanced SL and my 2015 Trek Madone 7s. The oversize front fork on my Giant (1-1/4" top and 1-1/2" bottom) makes for a very stiff front end, which is awesome when pushing hard to keep a wheel (sometimes the difference between continuing on with the group or riding home alone). My Madone 7 is just as good; maybe a tick behind. I'd say my custom Cysco Ti is as close to my Giant and Trek as a titanium bike can get.

On the flipside my least responsive serious road (vice commuter) bike is my titanium Lynskey Rouleur, which I use to rack up lunch ride miles when riding solo. Although fairly new (2013-14), this bike is an older school design (small diameter, straight gauge tubes in both front and rear triangles, longer wheelbase, 1-1/8" non-tapered fork with small diameter headtube; similar to an older Litespeed). The Rouleur is very 'compliant' and works well at speeds where I can still converse, chew, drink, and swallow comfortably, whereas my Cysco Ti works well (best?) when the speed and effort increases and those things become increasingly difficult to manage.  

My Giant::blush2:








Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

Cni2i said:


> Your thoughts on this no.22 company and Ti frames.


Cni2i,

My thoughts on the No.22 Reactor.

1. BLUF: What's not to like? Design screams race bike (which in my mind is a good thing). The design blends responsiveness and compliance traits perfectly.

2. Oversize toptube, downtube, headtube, plus HUGE 1" (!!) chainstays. This bike will be extremely responsive to rider input.

3. Carbon Seattube and pencil thin seatstays will likely provide a bit of compliance along the lines of a Trek ISO-coupler system; maybe not so much, but probably just enough.

4. Breezer style rear drop outs ensure seat- and chain-stays do not have to be crimped; less tubing manipulation for reliability and maximum contact area to reduce flex.

5. Must be utilizing an oversize PF30 or BB30 bottom bracket to accomodate Cannondale crankset; provides maximum surface area to attach seat-, downtubes and chainstays (although I'm not a fan of those particular BB standards. That said, one could specify the new T47 threaded BB standard and that would be cool.

6. It's freakin' beautiful!

7. Great! Now I want one...

Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## aclinjury (Sep 12, 2011)

Jay Strongbow said:


> The word performance was being used in the feel, handling, vibration, bumps, ect. sense of the word, not speed.
> 
> You're now mostly talking about performance of the rider, his/her set up, tires, ect. and resulting speed. Which is kind of weird because at first you were arguing with my saying performance was the same and now you'e making the case that performance wouldn't be different (from a speed perspective).


hmm maybe I wasn't being clear.

Here's to summrize the chronology of our discussion


1)
initial claim was that the builder said performace would be identical whether he uses ti or carbon. This claim by the builder itself is pretty hard to believe from a material science point of view, because how could 2 frames of identical design but different in materials could have identical "performance"? Carbon fiber and ti are vastly different materials, with vastly different properties.

2)
however, at this point, you had not yet stated what this "performance" parameter that the builder is talking about. So I went ahead and asked the the question, "what is performance?". Is it speed? Is it weight? I asked about weight because the builder stated that the *only* reason he would use carbon is because it would save his client some weight (vs titanium). I then stated that the weight saving between carbon and ti would be minimal, and with the (presumably) intented use of these sort of custom frame (ie. mostly as an endurance bike, not a crit bike, not a Tour bike for Alps D'Huez), the weight saving between ti and carbon would be pretty much meaningless.

3.
I then further went ahead and conjecture that if we define the "performance" parameters as speed, weight, aero, tires, and the condition of riding that these sort of custom frames are likely to be used, then the difference in ti and carbon would *not* affect performance much. I use these parameters because these parameters are easier to quantify and measure.

4.
yes, if we use the quantifiable paramaters like I stated above, then the performance would not differ much. There is nothing weird about this statement.

5.
but then at this point you also said that the word "performance" used refers to feel, handling, vibration, bumps absorption, etc,. basically all factors that are mostly subjective and hard to quantify. But then how does the builder know all these subjective factors are *identical* if he cannot measure them? At best, he is relying on the subjective feedback from his clients, or himself, and this is not just a reliable way to quantify performance because of different skillsets among people, not to mention the placebo effect of riding a new frame (which might make the buyers feel positive since he just spent a lot of money on it).

I also mentioned other major and respected builders like Serotta, Firefly, Holland using carbon-ti, and also posted a review from Peloton praising the Firefly. But somehow you seem to dismiss these pretty quick. But you stoutly defend your builder, on the basis that he is a builder, and therefore he must know better than me. What about Serotta, Holland, Firely, Peloton magazine? Surely, these builders I mentioned and the guys at Peloton magazine must have combined to ride and own A LOT more highend bikes than your builder.

If anything, your builder should *not* have encouraged his clients to use carbon-ti just for the sake of weight saving. The process require to build a proper carbon-ti frame is too expensive and complicated versus a few grams of saving, especially considering that these types of frame will most likely not be used as a racing frame (so weight saving means nothing). 

If there is any reason to use carbon-ti, it would be for the subjective feeling, the handling, the smooth ride, all subjective factors... BUT... you said your builder said they feel all identical... hence identical performance. Which brings me back to my original stance, how could they be identical if the materials are different while design is kept the same. It's just hard for anyone to accept this if she/he even knows a little bit about the science of the properties of carbon fiber vs ti.

I don't believe I have said anything contradictory to myself thusfar.

(note: I'm only using "your builder" as to distinguish from other builders I bronght into the conversation. It's meant for clarification, not meant to say he was the actual guy who built your bike).


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

^Jeebus, let it go already. 

You and Jay Strongbow made your points many posts ago.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

For crying out loud dude, fcking relax.

A guy I know who owns a bike company told me in passing over a coffee what I already mentioned. Neither he nor I anticipated defending or elaborating on a simple comment made in passing because some stranger on the internet has a thirst for arguing minutia and semantics. So I'm afraid I'm both unprepared and unwilling to address your concerns. 

I know what he told me. I haven't ridden either bike so don't have an opinion myself. I don't care what you think. I doubt he would either. So I'd say that's a wrap on this.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

mrwirey said:


> Cni2i,
> 
> She rides exactly as I'd hoped. I have lots of carbon frames, which have spoiled me from a responsiveness perspective (mash on the pedals and the bike rewards with no wasted effort; only forward momentum); my Cysco has not disappointed.
> 
> ...





mrwirey said:


> Cni2i,
> 
> My thoughts on the No.22 Reactor.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the feedback Tim. It's great to hear from someone who owns and rides race-type carbon road bikes because I am in the exact same position. As noted earlier, I own a 2013 SWTarmac and a 2015 SWTarmac. Before that, I owned bikes like the Cdale SuperSix Hi Mod and the Wilier Zero.7 as well as other Tarmacs. My only non carbon bikes were my MTBs. Needless to say, I was a little bit hesitant to try a non carbon bike because I wasn't sure how the overall dynamic/feel of the bike would be. As argued above by other members, I do realize that the MATERIAL of the bike is NOT the only factor when it comes to ride quality, but I believe that it does play a role in the overall ride characteristics of the bike.

Man, your review/observation of the no.22 frameset is better and more thorough than many of the "professional" reviews out there on this bike. I don't blame you for wanting this bike too . Would love to see a pic of your Ti bike.


----------



## Pedro S (Mar 28, 2011)

I'm glad to see No.22 getting some airtime in this thread as I've been considering Ti for my next bike too, in particular, The Great Divide. My concern with a purchase like this, and its not at all unique to No.22, is not being able to take a proper demo ride prior to committing. I actually do have a No.22 dealer within an hours drive, but I don't think they carry them in stock.

That said, I still think this is going to be my next ride. I just need to decide which finish to get, raw or blue anodized.
<img src="https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0220/2502/files/Great_Divide_Double.jpg?7096" alt="Lamp" width="800">


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Pedro S said:


> I'm glad to see No.22 getting some airtime in this thread as I've been considering Ti for my next bike too, in particular, The Great Divide. My concern with a purchase like this, and its not at all unique to No.22, is not being able to take a proper demo ride prior to committing. I actually do have a No.22 dealer within an hours drive, but I don't think they carry them in stock.
> 
> That said, I still think this is going to be my next ride. I just need to decide which finish to get, raw or blue anodized.



Seems with high end bikes this is a huge problem. I bought my c-59 without a test ride. it worked out, but I wound up doing the same with my Firefly. With custom maybe you have to buy on faith since geometry matters a great deal anyway and someone else's geometry would not feel right anyway.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Yeah, from what I've read and seen, the no.22 bikes appear to be great bikes. I have seen the Great Divide in person but did not ride it. It was a 56 and I ride a 54. Plus, a quick ride around the block on a bike that is too big for me won't due the bike any justice. I am of course more interested in the no. 22 Reactor rather than the GD. And your concern is legitimate...these custom frames are not cheap, and they're built-to-order so unless you know someone who owns one or a local shop just happen to have a return full build...it's very difficult to get a true test ride . For me personally, I researched and really looked at the geometry of the bike and printed out the 54 cm dimensions of the no. 22 Reactor and compared them to my SW Tarmac 54. I also discussed this "issue" with the co-owner of no.22, and he recommended the Reactor for me as well vs the GD based on my riding preferences/style. Once I sell one of my carbon frames, I will be putting down a deposit for the Reactor. 

As for your color decision.... although I think the anodized blue frameset looks pretty damn cool, I'd personally go with the raw Ti finish as I think that look never gets boring especially IF you intend to keep the bike for years to come.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

i just went on the site. What's with the press fit bottom brackets?
Don't they do English threaded?


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> i just went on the site. What's with the press fit bottom brackets?
> Don't they do English threaded?


Yeah, I hear ya. Threaded would've been a better option, but it is what it is. I am pretty sure they don't have a threaded BB option at this point. The Reactor also has an ISP...which I have mixed feelings about too...but not a deal breaker for me at this point.


----------



## Pedro S (Mar 28, 2011)

I seem to recall one of the No.22 guys chiming in on a thread on a different board, saying they can do English thread BB. It would be worth asking the question before putting money down.


----------



## 4slomo (Feb 11, 2008)

If you can't find a standard Ti road design that works for you, a custom builder is the way to go. I selected Davidson Bicycles ? Titanium Road | Davidson Handbuilt Bicycles and recommend him. My frame is a Sport Touring, but his road frames are designed for racing.



Cni2i said:


> Hey everyone. Like many of you out there, I've been on this carbon bandwagon for the past 5 years now...meaning I've only ridden and owned carbon bikes (three in the stable at this point).
> 
> Recently, I test rode one of my friend's Ti road bike...just a short 14 mile ride with a little over 1000' of elevation (short punchy climbs). I really didn't have any real expectations, just wanted to try out something different.
> 
> ...


----------



## willstylez (Sep 15, 2011)

I agree, regarding asking about English threaded BB. That's the route I took on my Moots, as I def did not want to deal with the press-fit BB garbage that I had to put up with on my S-Work Tarmac frame. 

Threaded BB is a joy to work on, and maintenance free.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

willstylez said:


> I agree, regarding asking about English threaded BB. That's the route I took on my Moots, as I def did not want to deal with the press-fit BB garbage that I had to put up with on my S-Work Tarmac frame.
> 
> Threaded BB is a joy to work on, and maintenance free.


There are so many good builders around that I would simply look elsewhere. There's Kelly Bedford, Seven & Mosaic, Firefly to name just a few.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Pedro S said:


> I'm glad to see No.22 getting some airtime in this thread as I've been considering Ti for my next bike too, in particular, The Great Divide. *My concern with a purchase like this, and its not at all unique to No.22, is not being able to take a proper demo ride prior to committing*. I actually do have a No.22 dealer within an hours drive, but I don't think they carry them in stock.


While I'm not sure about no 22 in particular many of these high end custom builders (Indy Fab, Seven, Firefly and the like) are pretty expert in translating what you or the shop as a middle man tell them into exactly what you want. So IF you choose a good builder and shop I wouldn't worry about it too much. That's a big IF though. I know plenty of people who have less than ideal custom bike fits because the shop didn't successfully relay to the builder the ideal measurements or the rider didn't have an accurate picture of what they wanted/needed.

It's important that you know yourself and be honest about what your needs are. For example just because you might like to sprint and are decent at it compared to who you ride with, don't tell them you need an ultra stiff bike because you're such powerful sprinter if when in reality about 1% or your riding is sprinting and you'd be much better served with more of an all-round design than something designed for sprinting first and foremost. Same goes for fit. Most every road riders likes to ride aggressive but that doesn't mean an all out aggressive fit will be the fastest bike for them if flexibility ain't so great.

Same goes for stock bikes for that matter. It's pretty common to see guys who's 'thing' is weekend century rides on bikes designed for Cavendish level power getting beat up and uncomfortable because they weren't honest about their needs.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

this is why i'd go with seven. they get the highest volume of custom frames and have good experience listening to or not listening to and advising the customer. What some people do is tell the builder they like and do well on say a colnago c series and use that as the starting point.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

I spoke to no.22 and they said that they can definitely do the threaded option...










The T47 Standard. It is essentially a PF30 but is threaded. I like that idea, b/c I like the large 68 mm BB shells (I believe allow builders to make a stiffer BB) with the reliability of the threads. I guess you can say it's the best of both worlds?

On that note, would I then need to buy an adapter to fit an sworks crank set or a cannondale SiSl crankset on this T47 standard bb? If so, do you guys know the cost of these adapters (e.g, Chris King)? 

Thank you.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

sounds like what colnago is doing on the c60 if i'm not mistaken.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

The 30mm version of the T47 appears to put the bearings within the 68 mm wide shell, meaning it works with regular BB30 cranksets. No adapter needed. See first image.

First Look: T47 Bottom Bracket Standard | Bicycling


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

bikerjulio said:


> The 30mm version of the T47 appears to put the bearings within the 68 mm wide shell, meaning it works with regular BB30 cranksets. No adapter needed. See first image.
> 
> First Look: T47 Bottom Bracket Standard | Bicycling


Thanks for the clarification. That would be great!


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

The advantage for someone like No 22 is that there is zero change to any tooling or fab procedure in going from PF30 to T47 since the shells are identical externally.


----------



## theregoesmybus (May 7, 2014)

I wanted to get bigger tires on it, so I made a few changes to my initial new build from a couple weeks ago. Added EE Cycle Works brake calipers, Zipp Firecrest 202's and 28mm Zipp tires.

- Moots Vamoots CR (56)
- Campagnolo Super Record RS group
- EE Cycle Works brake calipers
- FSA K-Force carbon seatpost, stem, bars
- Zipp Firecrest 202 wheels
- Zipp Tangente Speed R28 tires (28mm)
- Chris King No Threadset headset
- Specialized Power S-Works saddle
- Look Keo 2 carbon pedals
- Campagnolo Super Record 11-27 cassette
- Campagnolo Record chain & cables
- Arundel Mandible carbon bottle cages
- Fizik Performance bar tape


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

theregoesmybus,
I have to say, "You've nailed it with your build ... period." Aesthetically and mechanically perfect.

You even posed it beautifully for the photo ... edgy background, but not distracting ... both valve stems in same position ... right side crank arm facing forward ... in the big ring. Very well done. :thumbsup:

Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

dude, sweet. 
Regarding 28mm tires. I recently got a CX bike and use 28mm tires when I ride it on the road with it (usually use 23 or 25 for fast road riding). At first I thought; These bigger tires don't slow me down much. But As I ride more on them I actually feel as if they may be a little faster than 23 or 25, and they are certainly more comfortable. The roads around here suck so that probably makes 28mm more appealing than other areas with good roads but still. I only weigh about 145 but definitely sold on 28mm tires myself.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Definitely one of the nicer Ti builds I've seen. Congrats!


----------



## tvad (Aug 31, 2003)

theregoesmybus said:


> I wanted to get bigger tires on it, so I made a few changes to my initial new build from a couple weeks ago. Added EE Cycle Works brake calipers, Zipp Firecrest 202's and 28mm Zipp tires.
> 
> - Moots Vamoots CR (56)
> - Campagnolo Super Record RS group
> ...


That's a nice top-shelf build.

Clearly, you don't work the counter at Long John Silver's.


----------



## SantaCruz (Mar 22, 2002)

mrwirey said:


> (and the desire to throw a very small builder my business)


Love this comment.

I stayed out of this discussion because while I ride carbon & Ti bikes (and steel), mine are not the latest high zoot frames being debated. I will say that I always attempt to support small independent framemakers. The last 3 purchases I have made were customs (by choice, not necessity) with Craig Calfee, Jon Tallerico and Co-Motion.

I'm glad to know there is at least one other person who prioritizes supporting our American craftsmen. It is nice to specify the small details that matter to the experienced buyer.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Update:

Well I finally ordered my first Ti bike! Put in an order for no.22 Reactor frame set. The wait will be agonizing. I still will be riding my SW Tarmac and just switch between the two. 

I was initially unsure about getting another frame set with PF30 bottom bracket. But since I have the SiSL2 crankset to use for this new build, I thought I was stuck with building up another bike with PF30 bottom bracket. BUT BUT....after discussing my concerns with one of the owners at no.22, he told me that he can design the Reactor with a threaded BB! I was like...great, but I have the SiSL2 cranks (bb30)!?!? SOLUTION: He is going to install the new T47 Threaded BB (fits 30 mm) with the Reactor so that I can run the SiSL2 crankset! If all works well...should have the benefits of both an oversized BB and a threaded BB. 

Will post pics as the build comes along....TBC.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Congrats. I just picked up my Firefly, outfitted with English bb, 32 mm tires, thru-axle, disc brakes and Ultegra. I'll be getting rid of my Trek as it doesn't hold a candle to either the Firefly or the C59 and it simply serves no purpose at this point. 
I had a nice two hour ride in Greenwich today on the Firefly and its an interesting bike. I can already see how great it is on gravel or going over small debris. Not as snappy as the C-59 and not likely to climb as well, but it feels great. Titanium frame feels very solid and the bike is super comfortable.


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

Cni2i said:


> Update:
> 
> Well I finally ordered my first Ti bike! Put in an order for no.22 Reactor frame set. The wait will be agonizing. I still will be riding my SW Tarmac and just switch between the two.
> 
> ...


That SiSL2 crank is the best crank on the market. I'm so glad that you've made the bike fit the crank!


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

Trek_5200 said:


> Congrats. I just picked up my Firefly, outfitted with English bb, 32 mm tires, thru-axle, disc brakes and Ultegra. I'll be getting rid of my Trek as it doesn't hold a candle to either the Firefly or the C59 and it simply serves no purpose at this point.
> I had a nice two hour ride in Greenwich today on the Firefly and its an interesting bike. I can already see how great it is on gravel or going over small debris. Not as snappy as the C-59 and not likely to climb as well, but it feels great. Titanium frame feels very solid and the bike is super comfortable.


Make the Trek your backup emergency bike.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

no room in the apt. four bikes is just too much.


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

Cni2i said:


> Update: Put in an order for no.22 Reactor frame set.


Cni2i,
Congratulations! Because of you and this thread I've decided to order a Reactor as well! 

I've already been acquiring parts for the build. I received my Enduro T47 bottom bracket in the mail last week. I already received my Cane Creek 110 headset and a new Cannondale Hi-Mod Synapse fork as well. I've got an almost new set of Zipp 30 Powertap wheels I'll be using. The rest of the parts are laying around in my workshop.

I'll be building mine up specifically as my 'keep at work for lunch rides' bike. I have a couple of training courses I ride, laps really, which work out to around 25-30 miles with between 1,600-2,100ft of elevation gain. This bike will get used.


I will be building it as a mechanical 1x11 (Shimano not SRAM) with a 50t (or 44t) up front and a 11-32 (or a 11-28) out back; I like both. 

I too am excited, but I'm not sweating the wait as I will be in Majorca the last week of April for a ride camp and I will be too busy with other stuff between now and then. If I can get it in May I'll be good. 

I'll post pictures of mine when done as well. I look forward to seeing yours. Again congratulations!

Very respectfully, Tim Hunter


----------



## Keoki (Feb 13, 2012)

Trek_5200 said:


> no room in the apt. four bikes is just too much.


Hang it on the wall.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

original postal team colors too. White wit blue lettering. I still think its beautiful. Upgraded the bar and the wheels three years back.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> Congrats. I just picked up my Firefly, outfitted with English bb, 32 mm tires, thru-axle, disc brakes and Ultegra. I'll be getting rid of my Trek as it doesn't hold a candle to either the Firefly or the C59 and it simply serves no purpose at this point.
> I had a nice two hour ride in Greenwich today on the Firefly and its an interesting bike. I can already see how great it is on gravel or going over small debris.* Not as snappy as the C-59 *and not likely to climb as well, but it feels great. Titanium frame feels very solid and the bike is super comfortable.


Congrats to you as well on the Firefly. Definitely one of the Ti manufacturers that I looked at too. Very nice bikes!

My biggest concern in going with a Ti bike (coming from race model Carbon bikes) was exactly what you (and others have mentioned) said above about being less "snappy". I have ridden SW Tarmacs for the past 5-6 years now, and they are very snappy and responsive (IMO)...especially on climbs when the gradient kicks up. I do a lot of climbing (all relative I understand...but about 800K'/year recorded on Garmin 510). When the gradient kicks up, I feel that the Tarmac is very responsive to a change in effort; i.e., it accelerates well. And on the descents, the Tarmac is just very well composed. I am sure you can say this with a lot of other bikes (not just the Tarmac). 

Now, I realize the material of a bike is not the only factor here...but I will be using an almost identical setup with the no.22 Reactor as my other SW Tarmacs. I was informed that the Reactor is designed as their "race" bike, so I am hoping it is as responsive as the Tarmac?!?!?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Correct!
I didn't get racing geometry and the Mavic's while good wheels are not as stiff as Enve 3.4 SES wheels I could have gotten. I went Gravel bike geometry and spec here too.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> Correct!
> I didn't get racing geometry and the Mavic's while good wheels are not as stiff as Enve 3.4 SES wheels I could have gotten. I went Gravel bike geometry and spec here too.


Got it...thanks!


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Cni2i said:


> Congrats to you as well on the Firefly. Definitely one of the Ti manufacturers that I looked at too. Very nice bikes!
> 
> My biggest concern in going with a Ti bike (coming from race model Carbon bikes) was exactly what you (and others have mentioned) said above about being less "snappy". I have ridden SW Tarmacs for the past 5-6 years now, and they are very snappy and responsive (IMO)...especially on climbs when the gradient kicks up. I do a lot of climbing (all relative I understand...but about 800K'/year recorded on Garmin 510). When the gradient kicks up, I feel that the Tarmac is very responsive to a change in effort; i.e., it accelerates well. And on the descents, the Tarmac is just very well composed. I am sure you can say this with a lot of other bikes (not just the Tarmac).
> 
> Now, I realize the material of a bike is not the only factor here...but I will be using an almost identical setup with the no.22 Reactor as my other SW Tarmacs. I was informed that the Reactor is designed as their "race" bike, so I am hoping it is as responsive as the Tarmac?!?!?


Congrats.

Sorry I got to wonder though, why would you get another race bike and set it up the same as what you already have? Wouldn't you want a second bike fill a need your first one doesn't? Like take big tires and allow for off road, be more or less aggressive or something different.

Why go for duplication?
I'm not trying to be a tool and rain on the parade here, I'm just curious as I'm sure you have your reasons.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Keoki said:


> That SiSL2 crank is the best crank on the market. I'm so glad that you've made the bike fit the crank!


Thanks! I really like the looks and weight of the SiSL2 setup. I was just hesitant with the potential creaking issues with BB30 and PF30 BBs...but with the new T47 Threaded BB, I am even more excited.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

mrwirey said:


> Cni2i,
> Congratulations! Because of you and this thread I've decided to order a Reactor as well!
> 
> I've already been acquiring parts for the build. I received my Enduro T47 bottom bracket in the mail last week. I already received my Cane Creek 110 headset and a new Cannondale Hi-Mod Synapse fork as well. I've got an almost new set of Zipp 30 Powertap wheels I'll be using. The rest of the parts are laying around in my workshop.
> ...


Awesome Tim!!! I ended up ordering the Reactor frame set, so will have the 3T Rigida LTD, custom painted fork, Cane Creek 110, and No. 22 seat mast titanium topper with Enve hardware. It will be one of my main two bikes so I will have it set up with DA 9001 2x11 and Enve 3.4s. My LBS had a set of Etap, and I was so tempted, but spent enough $ already, and just using the DA 9001 that I already had from a previous build. 

What seat mast will you be using? And more importantly, will you be riding in Majorca??!?!?


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

Cni2i said:


> What seat mast will you be using? And more importantly, will you be riding in Majorca??!?!?


Cni2i,
I'll have the same seat mast/seat topper as you; It comes with the frameset. I thought about getting their custom 3T fork, but changed my mind as I really like the Synapse Hi-Mod fork as it's light and takes some of the road buzz out of our chip seal here in sunny southern AZ.

I'm tempted to order an additional seat topper for my other custom Ti with ISP ... but that'll have to wait. I'm a bit impulsive sometimes...

Yes I will definitely be riding in Majorca as it will be a TREK Travel ride camp. I went last year and fell in love with the place. Majorca is a cycling paradise. The Sa Calobra should be on every cyclist's bucket list.The funny thing is I've been working hard to build base so I can enjoy my ride camp! Crazy!

Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Congrats.
> 
> Sorry I got to wonder though, why would you get another race bike and set it up the same as what you already have? Wouldn't you want a second bike fill a need your first one doesn't? Like take big tires and allow for off road, be more or less aggressive or something different.
> 
> ...


All good Jay. Fair question. Honestly, I oddly don't mind that they will ride somewhat similarly. I just enjoy having different bikes...that's all. And although the cockpit will be very similar between my Tarmac and the Reactor, I would think that the ride quality/characteristic between the two would be somewhat different based on the frame material and geometry of the bikes. Again, I don't mind that they may ride similarly. In fact, I hope that they do as I really enjoy the ride characteristics of my Tarmac. I would hate that the Reactor's ride quality differed a lot from the Tarmac's.

Will likely become my new travel bike too.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Hey guys.

Just a couple of questions regarding BottomBrackets and Ti frames. I am going back and forth between leaving the Ti frame bb as a PF30 versus having it threaded. 
These are some of the pros and cons that I came up with while debating the two:

*PF30*: *Pros*- lighter and less expensive. *Cons*- potential creaking noises especially with Ti frames (more flex in the BB area versus a carbon frame??? Not sure, just what I've read)

T47 threaded shell: *Pros*- likely will eliminate issues with annoying creaks. *Cons*- heavier and more expensive ($199 for enduro T47 MSRP). 

I hear the T47 shell is pretty heavy (?100 grams or more?). I honestly wouldn't mind a little extra weight if it's a known fact that Ti bikes with PF30 bbs will creak badly. But if there are ways to minimize or avoid these creaks altogether by finding the "right" bearings and/or skilled mechanic to press the bearings in correctly...I could save some money and weight by just leaving it as a PF30. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

for me there was no question . english threaded bb. great solution no downside.


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

Cni2i,
The advantage of a larger bottom bracket tube is it is stiffer and provides more surface area to attach larger tubes to it. This is necessary for a stiff bottom bracket and to attach the larger than standard-sized tubes used on the Reactor. 

The Enduro T47 bottom bracket I have in my possession is minimalist and incredibly light. If it weighs more than the PF30 equivalent I would be surprised. It did cost me $189 plus $7 shipping. They told me I can install it with the same Shimano bottom bracket tool I've been using for a dozen years. Yea! No new tools and simple. 

I have a Chris King PF30 bottom bracket on my Litespeed T5. I think it cost about the same as the T47. It was very well made and lightweight as well. I had a shop install it as I did not have the correct tools and didn't want to invest in them at the time. Additionally, I didn't want to risk damaging this expensive piece of equipment. It has never creaked. The Pro: I got the larger bottom bracket tube. The Con: I still need to invest in special tools to remove it or I become a slave to my LBS. 

Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Just had this firefly built to gravel spec. Calling it Rufus T in honor of Groucho


----------



## kiwisimon (Oct 30, 2002)

Cni2i said:


> Hey guys.
> Just a couple of questions regarding BottomBrackets and Ti frames.
> Any thoughts?


Yeah ask the welder what they recommend and go with that. They know the tubes and your other stuff like weight and intended use e.t.c.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

kiwisimon said:


> Yeah ask the welder what they recommend and go with that. They know the tubes and your other stuff like weight and intended use e.t.c.


After doing a bunch of reading about the T47 threaded shell and talking with both mrwirey (very knowledgeable forum member) and one of head guys at no.22, I did decide to go with the T47 threaded shell to be used with the SiSL2 crankset. I intend to keep this bike for a very long time, and just wanted a setup that seemed most reliable. The small weight penalty is a non issue for me at this point and the extra cost for the shell wasn't too bad for peace of mind.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Glad it worked out for you. For me BSA works and incorporating an alternate solution was way down on the list of design considerations. In no way did I need the extra stiffness and BSA is extremely battle tested and reliable. I simply do not put out the kind of power that proponents of non-BSA BB's claim it brings to the table. I'm really loving the look and feel of my new Firefly , I hope you feel the same about your #22.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Cni2i said:


> After doing a bunch of reading about the T47 threaded shell and talking with both mrwirey (very knowledgeable forum member) and one of head guys at no.22, I did decide to go with the T47 threaded shell to be used with the SiSL2 crankset. I intend to keep this bike for a very long time, *and just wanted a setup that seemed most reliable. *The small weight penalty is a non issue for me at this point and the extra cost for the shell wasn't too bad for peace of mind.


Not sure going with an unproven (but promising) product that just hit the market is the best approach to your objectives but okay. 

You seem to have entered "I'm building a frame around a crankset" logic here. If that's what you want to do that's cool. If not get an English BB and be done with it, forever. T47 was designed to be a "solution" to the problems created by non-threaded. If you don't have a problem you don't need a solution.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> for me there was no question . english threaded bb. great solution no downside.


Yeah, if you've got the choice this isn't even a question in my mind. IMO, the presence of a threaded BB is a major selling point for a frame.


----------



## Hiro11 (Dec 18, 2010)

mrwirey said:


> Cni2i,
> The advantage of a larger bottom bracket tube is it is stiffer and provides more surface area to attach larger tubes to it. This is necessary for a stiff bottom bracket and to attach the larger than standard-sized tubes used on the Reactor.


I don't disagree that PF BBs allow for wider BBs which in turn allows for more leeway in designing downtubes. However, the real world benefits for the average rider are hardly this clear cut. This is debatable at best.



> The Enduro T47 bottom bracket I have in my possession is minimalist and incredibly light. If it weighs more than the PF30 equivalent I would be surprised. It did cost me $189 plus $7 shipping. They told me I can install it with the same Shimano bottom bracket tool I've been using for a dozen years. Yea! No new tools and simple.
> 
> I have a Chris King PF30 bottom bracket on my Litespeed T5. I think it cost about the same as the T47. It was very well made and lightweight as well. I had a shop install it as I did not have the correct tools and didn't want to invest in them at the time. Additionally, I didn't want to risk damaging this expensive piece of equipment. It has never creaked. The Pro: I got the larger bottom bracket tube. The Con: I still need to invest in special tools to remove it or I become a slave to my LBS.


Again, a few grams of "weight advantage" to a PF BB might be real (I largely doubt it) but the benefit is extremely debatable at best.

Meanwhile, threaded= $13 tool to install a $25 BB using a process that even a mechanical moron like me couldn't screw up. Once it's installed, never think about it again... or at least until tens of thousands of miles later when it needs replacing. I can't see why we'd mess with that.


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

*My Zwei Pfennige ...*



Jay Strongbow said:


> T47 was designed to be a "solution" to the problems created by non-threaded. If you don't have a problem you don't need a solution.


Jay,

Yes and no.

Full disclosure: Like our forum brother cni2i, I've ordered a No.22 Reactor with a T47 bottom bracket shell and corresponding Enduro T47 threaded bottom bracket. 

So, "He already drank the Koolaid and he's just trying to rationalize his choice and lead us down the path to disc brakes!" 

Not so. 

The following are my reasons for choosing the T47 bottom bracket standard; not my attempt to convert the unconvinced.

That said, I currently own bikes with the following bottom bracket standards:
- 73mm Italian threaded (with Campagnolo Record bottom bracket and with Campagnolo external cups)
- 68mm BSA (with Shimano, with Campagnolo, and with SRAM external cups)
- BB30 (with pressed in bearings and with Campagnolo pressed in external cups)
- BB30a (with pressed in bearings)
- BB86 (with Campagnolo pressed in external cups)
- BB90 (wtih pressed in bearings)
- PF30 (with Chris King pressfit bottom bracket and with Campagnolo press-fit external cups) 
- I'm sure there is one or two I'm forgetting ... 

I've not had a problem wtih any of the aforementioned standards, but I did find the need for a whole host of new installation/removal tools to be a bit galling ... and I've still a few new tools to acquire.

I will wholeheartedly agree a threaded bottom bracket (even the older square tapered bottom brackets) offers a very solid and trouble free bottom bracket foundation when installed properly; however, the introduction of larger, thinner, and butted frame tubing to increase stiffness and reduce weight has led to some crowded 'real-estate' issues for frame builders in the bottom bracket area. 

Additionally, larger tubes are inherently stiffer than smaller tubes (of the same diameter and length); therefore the larger bottom bracket shell (BB30, PF30, T47, etc.) solves two problems when working with a aluminum, titanium, or steel frame material: it stiffens the bottom bracket due to the larger tube size and provides the builder more contact area to attach the myriad of frame tubes (seat tube, down tube, and chain stays) at the bottom bracket junction ... without overly extensive tube manipulation and overly 'creative' tube shaping/cutting. 

Finally, the T47 is threaded so it brings all the trouble-free goodness of the tried and true standards we've been using for years. By all accounts the T47 is a win-win.

I write this with one caveat: If a frame builder is using standard sized tubing; the oversized T47 threaded bottom bracket shell is probably an unnecessary design feature.

Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

mrwirey said:


> Jay,
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> ...


So, in other, and less, words: Allows for bigger tubes.

okay, fair enough.


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

Jay Strongbow said:


> So, in other, and less, words: Allows for bigger tubes.
> 
> okay, fair enough.


Jay,
In a word, "Yes."

Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

this speaks to designing a bike around the bb or designing a frame and then choosing appropriate parts. also if bigger tubes are part of the design there should be clear discussions between builder and buyer on why that's appropriate.


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

Trek_5200 said:


> this speaks to designing a bike around the bb or designing a frame and then choosing appropriate parts. also if bigger tubes are part of the design there should be clear discussions between builder and buyer on why that's appropriate.


Trek_5200,
As you are keenly aware; one size does not fit all in cycling otherwise there would only be one frame and everyone would have to conform to that standard frame size. (Of course the frame would have to have a 56cm effective top tube, a 170mm tapered head tube with integrated bearings, and ...) 

A builder recommending the use of a larger BB shell is not a case of building a bike around a BB or BB standard, but having the option to select a larger tube (bottom bracket shell), which is in line with the rest of the proposed build based on tube selection and rider profile. This makes sense. Why shouldn't the builder have options for the bottom bracket shell size just like they have options for the down tube, head tube, seat tube, dropouts, etc.? 

As I stated earlier in this thread: "If a frame builder is using standard sized tubing; the oversized T47 threaded bottom bracket shell is probably an unnecessary design feature. One size does not fit all and it is nice to have options."

You had your latest Ti bike built with a BSA bottom bracket standard. That is precisely what was needed for your build based on the input you provided to Firefly and as it turns out you are quite happy with the choice. What would you have done if Firefly would have recommended a T47 standard based on your desire for a threaded bottom bracket and their need for larger bottom bracket shell to meet your desired rider profile?

If Firefly built your same bike for a much powerful rider who insisted on a much stiffer build; Firefly may recommend using larger tubing throughout the frame with different butting profiles to meet that customer's needs. The advantage of including a larger BB shell as part of that particular design would lead to a stiffer and cleaner design with less tube profiling and more actual seat and down tube being attached to the bottom bracket shell rather than to each other through severe tube manipulation. 

Bottom Line: This should not be a case of there is only one good way to do this. Options are good if they result in a better product for the end user (you and I). Having different threaded bottom bracket options for the builder to offer his/her customer only leads to goodness ... as long as their not Italian-threaded. 

Very respectfully, Tim

P.S. For Jay Strongbow: To be pithy, "Options = goodness." :thumbsup:


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

I don't think we are disagreeing. It's not an advantage, it's an option that will depend more on the frame being spec'ed than a choice of one bottom bracket over another. That said if its not called for the BSA is a great battle tested solution.



mrwirey said:


> Trek_5200,
> As you are keenly aware; one size does not fit all in cycling otherwise there would only be one frame and everyone would have to conform to that standard frame size. (Of course the frame would have to have a 56cm effective top tube, a 170mm tapered head tube with integrated bearings, and ...)
> 
> A builder recommending the use of a larger BB shell is not a case of building a bike around a BB or BB standard, but having the option to select a larger tube (bottom bracket shell), which is in line with the rest of the proposed build based on tube selection and rider profile. This makes sense. Why shouldn't the builder have options for the bottom bracket shell size just like they have options for the down tube, head tube, seat tube, dropouts, etc.?
> ...


----------



## mrwirey (May 30, 2008)

*As long as it doesn't lead to a disc brake debate, I'm good*

Trek_5200,
Roger. :thumbsup:
Very respectfully, Tim


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

I have been riding bikes with PF30 BB for several years now. I like the idea of larger tubing with a larger BB and a 30 mm spindle...in theory, should equate to an overall stiffer and more responsive bike. Whether that translates into real world measurable gains, I personally can't say for certain. But the thought of riding a bike that is potentially more sluggish or less stiff/responsive b/c of smaller tubing and a smaller BB/spindle diameter is enough for me to go with a frame that offers larger tubing and a PF30 BB. 

So, I went with the Reactor model b/c I liked its design, its geometry and of course, its aesthetics. And since I have the SiSL2 crankset (after deciding on the frame, and NOT the other way around; i.e., choosing the Reactor b/c it works with the SiSL2 cranks...no) I thought I would just go with the PF30 route. Then a few members here commented that it would've been even better if the Reactor had a threaded BB due to the advantages of being more easily serviceable, more durable (?), and less likely to cause squeaking noises...then I started to think about it and brought that question up to one of the co-owners of no.22. Is it possible? And that's when I found out about the T47 BB threaded shell. Can the bike be built to have the advantages of both a PF30-type of BB and a threaded BB? I felt like with this "new" T47 threaded shell, that answer was "YES"; hence I decided to go that route. "Unproven", maybe? But enough potential that I am willing to be that guinea pig. I don't say that lightly, b/c I rarely adopt the latest and greatest things that first come out. It's not a priority for me to be the first to have the latest cool gadgets, devices, components, etc. But with the T47, I believe the upside is great and not much downside...but I guess we'll all have to wait and see.


----------



## jmeloy (Jan 22, 2004)

Had this built by Tom Kellogg last year and love the ride. Ti done by one of the best....


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

jmeloy said:


> Had this built by Tom Kellogg last year and love the ride. Ti done by one of the best....


Nice looking bike. I like the look of a painted titanium bike with the seat and chain stays left bare. 

I don't think Kellogg welds his own titanium frames. I know he designs them, but I think he sends them out for someone else to fabricate. 

How long did you have to wait for the frame? I've heard there's over a year wait for the steel ones. I'm assuming it's custom. Did you go to his place in PA to get measured?


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

pmf said:


> I don't think Kellogg welds his own titanium frames. I know he designs them, but I think he sends them out for someone else to fabricate.


You're right. Seven does the welding.


----------



## jmeloy (Jan 22, 2004)

7 months to delivery. Went to the "barn" and got fitted plus a big bowl of spaghetti for lunch. Great fitting experience, result perfect for me. Seven does the welding for Tom.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Well, my No.22 Reactor was delivered and finally built up last Friday. Since then, I've put in 5 rides with approx. 150 total miles and 19,000' of elevation. Just wanted to give my impressions of the bike and the ride. 

Background first: Been riding Sworks Tarmacs for the past 4-5 years. The most current SW Tarmac (2015) is set up very similarly to the Reactor (2016). The main differences (beside the actual frame set of course) are: Tarmac (Ventoux Gipfelsturm), Reactor (Enve 3.4s), Tarmac (SW cranks), Reactor (Cannondale SiSL2), Reactor (Integrated seat post), Tarmac (press fit BB), Reactor (threaded T47 BB). Both have full Enve cockpit and DA 9000 mechanical, ee brakes and LOOK pedals. 

SWTarmac weighs in ~ 14.01 lbs. No. 22 Reactor ~ 15.03 lbs....both with pedals and cages and Enve garmin mounts. 

Okay, onto the ride impressions (remember, just my impressions and opinions):

First of all, the no. 22 Reactor looks stunning...even more so in person. The attention to details is top notch. Maybe this is common with custom built bikes, don't know b/c this is my first. All I can say is that she is definitely a looker. 

Okay, the ride. This may partly be attributed to the new bike syndrome....but the Reactor is just a blast to ride. Hard to pinpoint why, but it's very engaging. Since I enjoy the climbing aspect of road cycling a lot, that's where I was most concerned about when comparing the Tarmac to the Reactor. Unfortunately, I have to say that the Reactor just wasn't as reactive and explosive as the Tarmac. It was only one pound heavier(?), but it just didn't have that immediate surge on the hills that I was accustomed to with the Tarmac, whether in or out of the saddle. Once you get into a steady groove/pace, then the Reactor felt great. It was no slouch on the climbs, just not as explosive IMO. 

On the descents, I finally understand what people say about a bike feeling "twitchy". When descending straight away or around corners, I felt less confident on the Reacto. The words "twitchy" and/or "jittery" again come to mind. It just didn't seem to corner as well; ie., wider turns rather than hugging the corners. Not sure if I was just being more cautious b/c it was a "new" bike and I just didn't know her as well as my Tarmacs. Again, it wasn't that the Reactor was bad in any way, it's just didn't impart that high level of confidence in me that I normally have with my Tarmacs. 

On the flats, the Reactor was on par with the Tarmac. Once the Reactor got going, she seemed to be able to hold speeds just as well as my Tarmacs. A blast to ride! 

I should have mentioned this earlier, but the Reactor saddle height can probably be tweaked just a bit...~0.5-0.6 cm. It has an ISP, so the shop didn't want to be too aggressive and left the saddle height a bit taller than my current Tarmac set up. It was about 1.2 cm taller initially, then I had them sand the carbon post down another 0.5 cm or so. It definitely felt better after sanding down that 0.5 cm. I never had any rear knee pain or felt too stretched, but I could definitely feel that it was higher than what I a accustomed to. I want to ride her a little more before deciding to save off another 0.5 cm. 

Anyways, just a brief summary of my experience thus far with my first titanium bike. Again, I really LOVE the combination of the old school-like Ti frame with modern carbon parts and wheels. Definitely a keeper!!

Final note: no. 22 as a company was fantastic to deal with. One of their owners helped me through the entire process. Ran into some "issues" post delivery (not their fault), and they helped be resolve it quickly! Very responsive to questions and respond quickly to emails...and trust me, I had plenty of questions.


----------



## pmf (Feb 23, 2004)

Sure is a glowing review -- fizzles on the climbs, twitchy on the descents and wide turns that don't hug the corners. Sounds like you spent over $10k on this bike -- better be a keeper. 

I guess to me, a titanium bike is a bike made of titanium. Not a bike with a carbon seat tube that doubles as a seat post. Cut that thing too short and you can never get it back. Kind of limits resale, but I guess since this is a keeper, that's not a problem. 

The discussion on the website (https://22bicycles.com/products/reactor) makes it sound like the number one object in manufacturing this frame is light weight. Super light weight often comes with a cost. I remember years ago, Litespeed came out with this super light weight frame the Ghisallo. It was marketed as the world's lightest production frame. It had a rider weight limit of 160 lbs and was reportedly a noodle. 

Maybe that's why it fizzles compared to your Specialized bike. Titanium frames can't be made as light as carbon frames without sacrificing something. A good titanium frame is going to weigh a few pounds more which amounts to the weight of a full water bottle. 

Interesting looking bike. Hope it grows on you.


----------



## AndyMc2006 (Oct 27, 2006)

Cni2i said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head. That is what I was trying to say. As you and Richard L above said, there is just less chatter and less "noise" overall. It's almost like riding in well-built V6-V8 SUV versus a modified 4 cylinder tubo-charged sports car. The SUV is mostly quiet and smooth but can go fast confidently once it picks up speed; whereas the sports car is more nimble and more responsive but inside cabin noise is louder and you can feel every little bump on the road.


I owned a Moots Vamoots CR for about 18 mos. I absolutely loved it going down hill. I missed the snap of my Landshark Steel bike that I rode for 12 yrs. Overall, I felt the Ti muted a little too much of my ride. I ended up selling it and buying a very good Carbon bike. That was after test riding the carbon bike for a weekend. I still miss the quick, snappy feel of my steel bike. If I had a "do over" I would have bought another custom steel bike. Regardless, I don't think you can go wrong with a good Ti bike.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

pmf said:


> Sure is a glowing review -- fizzles on the climbs, twitchy on the descents and wide turns that don't hug the corners. *Sounds like you spent over $10k on this bike *-- better be a keeper.
> 
> I guess to me, a titanium bike is a bike made of titanium. Not a bike with a carbon seat tube that doubles as a seat post. Cut that thing too short and you can never get it back. *Kind of limits resale, but I guess since this is a keeper, that's not a problem.*
> 
> ...


No on the $10K...LOL. All components (including the wheels) except for the cranks were from another bike that I sold. Got the cranks from a local cyclist so close to 60% less than MSRP (brand new too). But sure, it's not an inexpensive frame set. 

Resale....not really a concern of mine for a bike like this. Specialized bikes and other mass produced bikes...sure I think about resale b/c I don't tend to keep them that long. 

Yeah, and thanks for your concern that the bike will grow on me...it didn't have to. I liked the way it looked from the get go. But if you meant grow on me in terms of ride characteristics...not worried there either. Different feel than the Tarmac, but again, that should be expected. Secondly, only 5 relatively short rides and still have to adjust saddle height a bit.


----------



## Lookbiker (Sep 2, 2006)

Your No. 22 sounds awesome. I have a PF30 on my 2010 Lynskey with no issues. Also, I know of one builder who will convert a PF30 to T47 if someone has problems. i use a Chris King bottom bracket.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Lookbiker said:


> Your No. 22 sounds awesome. I have a PF30 on my 2010 Lynskey with no issues. Also, I know of one builder who will convert a PF30 to T47 if someone has problems. i use a Chris King bottom bracket.


Thank you. Yeah, I was initially going to have it built as a PF30...but then the T47 option was presented to me. To me, it just seemed like the best of both worlds...oversized BB that is also threaded. I wasn't sure at first if I would like how it would look as I've seen a couple that didn't look very "clean". But I am very happy how mine turned out. Most of my previous and current Tarmacs have had PF30 BBs, and for the most part, they have worked fine. I do get some noise down there on one of my Tarmacs, but the other one is fairly quiet. 

Will post up some pics once I have time to take decent ones.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Recent photos. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lyleseven (Nov 15, 2002)

*Ti bikes and 50+*

Sounds like you are a bit younger than the 50+ group and just can't afford the wonders of titanium!


Keoki said:


> Go Ti if you want to join the 50+ year Olds.
> 
> Oh, fyi, the hipsters are into fixed gear regardless of frame material.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Keoki said:


> Go Ti if you want to join the 50+ year Olds.
> 
> Oh, fyi, the hipsters are into fixed gear regardless of frame material.


Sorry this is just silly. Titanium can be made into any kind of road bike to suit any type of riding style. Same thing for steel. If a newer rider isn't on one its most likely that the average Titanium frame costs a bit more.


----------



## Cni2i (Jun 28, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> Sorry this is just silly. Titanium can be made into any kind of road bike to suit any type of riding style. Same thing for steel. If a newer rider isn't on one its most likely that the average Titanium frame costs a bit more.


Agreed. Custom high quality Ti frame set alone often costs more than your run of the mill off -the- self carbon bikes. I think carbon is still the rage, so many "newbie" will go carbon b/c bigger shops sell them and many of their friends ride them. I was one of those too. After riding carbon to awhile, I just wanted to try something different. Ended up with no. 22 Reactor. Let me tell you, it's no "old man's" bike; i.e. If you are fit and like pushing your bike to its limits, you will appreciate it, at ANY age. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Trek_5200 said:


> Sorry this is just silly. Titanium can be made into any kind of road bike to suit any type of riding style. Same thing for steel. If a newer rider isn't on one its most likely that the average Titanium frame costs a bit more.


I know the spirit of his comment was pretty stupid. But the funny thing is I can pretty much guarantee he has no idea how fast some 50+ year olds are and wouldn't have a prayer of hanging with them.
It's an endurance sport not NFL. If you want to insult someone based on demographics being over 50 is a dumb way to do it.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

deleted


----------

