[Waspinator]

"I'm not willing to do my own research, so I will demand you do it for me and when you refuse I will assume it's because you are wrong. But if you do give me information, so you know, here are the ways I will discredit it"

Of course. That’s how it works. Someone making a claim (or accepting a claim) should support that claim with research.

 

[Alaska Mike]

The OP has very entrenched opinions about the superiority of titanium, Litespeed, and the T1SL, which he has made clear in previous threads. This is all perfectly fine, as it's always nice to love what you ride. You may or may not agree with him, but I doubt you will sway him.

As much as I love my high-end titanium bikes, they can't compete with my plastic bikes- all "superbikes" of their respective years. The ability to precisely tune the carbon layup just simply cannot be duplicated in production on a metal frame. They're just very, very different animals, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

 

[masont]

https://imgflip.com/i/2r2x43

 

[Jay Strongbow]

The OP has very entrenched opinions about the superiority of titanium, Litespeed, and the T1SL, which he has made clear in previous threads.

yes, troll level stuff but he's serious. Worth considering before banging your head against the wall and telling him anything other that his bike is the best and far superior to any other bike.

 

[tlg]

The only thing you cannot do with them is build them to be “aero”, which I think most of us agree is a bunch of BS anyway.

Of course. That’s how it works. Someone making a claim (or accepting a claim) should support that claim with research.

Daaanngg. Do you need a sponge to soak up all that irony?

YOU made the claim... in Post #1.
So PLEASE follow your advice and support your claim with research.

 

[Coolhand]

No Dentists in the ProTour. . .

 

[velodog]

No Dentists in the ProTour. . .

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Coolhand again.

 

[taodemon]

Daaanngg. Do you need a sponge to soak up all that irony?

YOU made the claim... in Post #1.
So PLEASE follow your advice and support your claim with research.

Pretty much this.

YMSSRA.

Aero has only been tested by everyone from PHDs at bike companies to independent PHDS, to independent bike mags to joe blow all unscientific on his local strava segments...

Just because you choose to ignore something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But don't let that stop you from enjoying your slower non aero ti bike.

Nothing to do with Ti but Spesh is trying to race their new Al at TDU. I think that’s pretty cool.

Peter Sagan to debut alloy frame and tubeless tyres in Down Under Classic - Gallery | Cyclingnews.com

Sagan managed second on it I guess. "New" is subjective though as the sprint frame has been around for a few years, the only new part being the disc brakes.

 

[exracer]

I already told you there was, and even told you specifically when it happened and who manufactured it.


Why do you ask questions on this forum...then argue with answers you clearly haven't read?

Even though it happens to be the reality of things, he didn't like your answer therefore it has to wrong.

 

[Notvintage]

Also, remember that professional road racing (at least) is a marketing tool and rolling billboard.

Hence the carbon clinchers that are no better (typically worse) than aluminum rims and idiotic disc brakes (driven largely by the carbon clinchers they pushed).

 

[Notvintage]

I don’t think your strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven.

Young's modulus of Toray T700S (common in road bikes) is 230 Gpa, and garden variety Ti-6AL-4V is around 115 Gpa. Cooked pasta noodle to uncooked respectively.

 

[Notvintage]

At this point I must ask. . Does Trek make good titanium frames? LOL

 

[Alaska Mike]

Don't get me wrong, I loved my Moots Compact so much that I bought a Vamoots RSL to build up as a race bike. At my level, the bike isn't what's making me progressively slower. The trade-offs in performance are compensated by the durability, serviceability, and aesthetics (yes, I'm shallow). And again, the trade offs are minimal at my level, which is far, far below the professional level, and nobody is paying me to ride their bikes.

I love titanium as a bike frame material, but it has it's limits- as does every material.

 

[TimV]

Titanium bicycle frames are expensive to produce, even in mass quantities. Carbon fiber frames are much less expensive by comparison and can be built to be nearly as light, stiff, strong, etc.

All of the big name companies build high end carbon road bikes and therefore race high end carbon road bikes. This is simple marketing (race on Sunday sell on Monday). Whether or not titanium might be marginally better than carbon is frankly irrelevant.

My primary whip is a custom titanium Kish, btw.

 

[OldChipper]

I don't know of any documentation, but I find this video interesting.

Carbon fiber is now king because the frame can take an almost infinite number of shapes, leading to annual market changes and market driven claims of "stronger, stiffer, lighter, more compliant..." which drives demand and sales. Titanium is not amenable to such shaping (nor does it need to be, to be competitive).

Outstanding example of flawed experiment. The tubes were not designed for having a truck driven over them, they were designed for the stresses experienced by bicycle frames.

This is the same flawed argument that the disc brake fans make. It’s not a questions of “better” it’s a question of “good enough for the application.”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[OldChipper]

I’d be very curious to talk to a company that has real engineers.... ie individuals with PhDs in material sciences who have conducted well-designed research into various building materials. Boeing, for example, would have actual engineers who have carefully studied the various materials such as Al, Ti, and CF and know their properties well.

Boeing, Airbus, etc.? You mean the companies whose latest/greatest plane design incorporate copious amounts of carbon fiber composites???


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[tlg]

I don’t think your strength/stiffness vs weight argument has been scientifically proven.

Uhhh yea... it's been scientifically proven.

I’d be very curious to talk to a company that has real engineers.... ie individuals with PhDs in material sciences who have conducted well-designed research into various building materials. Boeing, for example, would have actual engineers who have carefully studied the various materials such as Al, Ti, and CF and know their properties well.

I'm a real engineer. Although I don't have a PhD in material science. But you could ask a Boeing engineer why they make airplanes structures from carbon fiber and not from titanium. :thumbsup:

 

[mfdemicco]

As much as I love my high-end titanium bikes, they can't compete with my plastic bikes- all "superbikes" of their respective years. The ability to precisely tune the carbon layup just simply cannot be duplicated in production on a metal frame. They're just very, very different animals, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages.

That's if you buy that "tuning" really accomplishes anything but market speak. To me, a frame is supposed to be rigid and is a structure to enable the attachment of components in the proper locations. Tires and tire pressure has more effect than frame material. People say that steel rides better, Ti rides better, carbon fiber is too stiff; it's all BS.

 

[cxwrench]

That's if you buy that "tuning" really accomplishes anything but market speak. To me, a frame is supposed to be rigid and is a structure to enable the attachment of components in the proper locations. Tires and tire pressure has more effect than frame material. People say that steel rides better, Ti rides better, carbon fiber is too stiff; it's all BS.

I pretty much agree w/ this, same thing when people talk about wheels and 'ride quality'. So many other things contribute to ride quality before wheels and to be honest frames unless you have some kind of mechanical pivot built into the frame somewhere ala iso-speed.

 

[Alaska Mike]

That's if you buy that "tuning" really accomplishes anything but market speak. To me, a frame is supposed to be rigid and is a structure to enable the attachment of components in the proper locations. Tires and tire pressure has more effect than frame material. People say that steel rides better, Ti rides better, carbon fiber is too stiff; it's all BS.

Have you ever ridden a bike that was too soft in the tail, that flexed the wheels into the brake pads? How about too stiff, that transmitted too much road vibration to the rider or rode like a cement block? Two extremes that the tuning I speak of mitigates. When you're trying to shave weight, where you put your structural strength is very, very important, no matter what material you use. The ability to make very small tweaks to a layup give carbon fiber a very large advantage in this regard.

I've owned all of the common bike frame materials, across a wide spectrum of performance profiles- usually with the same components attached as I tore down one frameset and built up another. Wheels, tires, and air pressure certainly do matter for ride quality, but frame design does have a very real impact. Certain combinations of parameters are much easier to meet with certain materials.

I don't chase the latest and greatest. I've said it before- the last real advances in road bike frame design were ten years ago. I prefer simple, reliable, and easy to work on. We'll see how I deal with the PF30 bottom bracket on my RSL (adapted to a GXP crank). I'm tired of fishing cables through frames or press-fitting much of anything. I just want to ride my bike, do a quick clean-up and lube afterwards, and get on with life.