[Finx]

FWIW- steel was better for low production craftsmen/artists, carbon fiber was better for aero, lightness, ride quality, fatigue life, ease of production scaling, and design flexibility, and Aluminum took over the low end. Ti didn't have much left. Ti is like Campy, a sub-optimal choice made because of what it is to the buyer. Ti isn't a logical choice, its an emotional one for the buyer.

Also FWIW, in my opinion the Ti bikes I have owned were no better than the Steel bikes I owned, nor decidedly better than the CAAD5 I owned (but were way more expensive). The Ti bikes were better than the early carbon bikes I owned, and not nearly as good as the last two generations of carbon bikes I have owned.

All Ti bikes are not created equal. I have no idea what (Ti bike) you are comparing here in terms of bike type (racing, touring, MTB, etc..), design and engineering, manufacturing, etc...

 

[exracer]

Originally Posted by Waspinator

"If you’ll read my original post, you’ll note that I mentioned the UCI weight limit, and that a titanium bike can easily be built to weigh less than this limit.

Moreover, you have to realize that there hasn’t been a lot of development with regard to making metal frames, because all the bike industry really knows how to do with metals is make it into straight tubes, cut it, weld it, and polish it, and little else. "

I have this wild idea, yo waspinator, instead of going back and forth with us; why don't you shoot an email to Ernesto or Giovanni or Mr. Sinyard and ask them the very same question. Get the answer directly from the horse's mouth. Errrr so to speak. And when they give you an answer you don't like and tell you that "well you can start your own bike company and you can start building titanium frames for the Pro Peloton, good luck" you wont hold it against them will you?

You can also impress Ernesto and Giovanni by telling them what a couple of fools they were for using short round (for the most part) tubing to build bikes with all those years.

 

[PBL450]

From a performance standpoint, Ti can be made to perform really well. Steel can too, as can aluminum. You can build any of these materials into a very respectable race bike. That said, each has its own set of trade-offs when you're seeking performance, Maybe it's weight. Maybe it's comfort. Maybe it's cost.

At this moment, carbon is the most infinitely tune-able material for frame design. It's also cheaper to experiment with different layups within an existing mold to achieve a desired result that can be replicated time after time. Metal bikes rely much more heavily on the skill and knowledge of the builder (machinist, welder...) to ensure a predictable outcome.

My point is not detracting from Ti being a capable material for a race frame. It is, rather, that if it, in the hands of the very finest metallurgists the world has ever known, had a performance advantage, it would be being exploited. Same for Al or freaking magnesium for example... It is a failure from a racing perspective. Not because of the cost or magical abilities required of the welders, but because it just isn’t good enough to warrant the effort. “Some dude raced on it” is far from a rave. It is the definition of damned by faint praise. If you are interested in elite race materials in your hobby/amateur bike, Ti is a wholesale failure. If you love it, good for you, I’m not concerned with our use. It isn’t raced because it sucks.

 

[Waspinator]

So what? The UCI weight limit has nothing to do with strength to weight ratio.

lol You haven't heard of hydroforming? Never seen a CAAD12?


So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven? Seriously?

I am fully aware of hydroforming tubes. But the frame is still a collection of tubes welded together.... much like the old carbon fiber bikes that consisted of carbon fiber tubes bonded into metal lugs. There are other ways to make metal structures lighter and stronger. While metal doesn’t have the directional strength they carbon fiber does, it can be combined in other ways than welding to improve strength. But it requires technology and expense the bike industry doesn’t have. It’s somply easier for them to build CF frames because the technique is simple.

But again, there is a UCI weight limit that a bike of any material can meet, while delivering a perfectly stiff ride.

 

[Waspinator]

Looked at your own bike lately? Not exactly straight, round tubes.

The tubes are straight. And they’re welded. Litespeed was able to make a 6/4 tapered top tube by rolling and welding a sheet of metal, but in the end, the frame is just welded tubes.

Trek, it seems, has made some fancy-shaped aluminum tubes. Alas, these frames too are welded tubes.

 

[tlg]

But again, there is a UCI weight limit that a bike of any material can meet, while delivering a perfectly stiff ride.

Of course the UCI weight limit has nothing to do with the strength to weight ratio. They can make larger aero shaped frame designs for less weight. And apply the weight saved to other areas like handlebars.


How many times must I ask? So you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven?

 

[Waspinator]

He did mention that his dad had a PhD, but never divulged his own education or profession. Hmmmm.

I’m a doctor (eg physician). And I’ve taken courses aplenty in physics and materials science along the way. And I read. A lot.

 

[tlg]

And I’ve taken courses aplenty in physics and materials science along the way. And I read. A lot.

With all those courses and reading.... you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven? :skep:

 

[Waspinator]

With all those courses and reading.... you still believe the strength/stiffness vs weight argument hasn't been scientifically proven? :skep:

As an absolute? No. Within the limitations of the bike industry’s abilities. Yes.

I think there is a lot left to discover about the ability of metals and more manufacturing techniques to develop, but the bike industry doesn’t have the wallet or the education for it. Hopefully technology will trickle down from bigger industries.

But once again, and for the umpteenth time: an aluminum or Ti frame can be built light and stiff enough and even dip below the UCI limit.

 

[tlg]

As an absolute? No. Within the limitations of the bike industry’s abilities. Yes.

So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

But once again, and for the umpteenth time: an aluminum or Ti frame can be built light and stiff enough and even dip below the UCI limit.

And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?

 

[Waspinator]

So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?

I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.

Want proof?

Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.

Why do pro riders ride bikes heavier than the UCI limit? Sponsorship.

 

[MaxKatt]

Okay, with a chance to be pioneer, I think I'll go Pro this year and ride Titanium. Will report back with findings.

Please find me on KickStarter under TiGuyPodiumHigh (Team TGPH) Thanks in advance for your support.

 

[tlg]

I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.

Ahhh because you said so? lmao

Want proof?

Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.

Why do pro riders ride bikes heavier than the UCI limit? Sponsorship.

OMG the irony of those two statements. Now that's just silly. Uhhh yea, manufacturers are making top end bikes that aren't aero. And Pro's ride them. Like the Emonda... which weighs under 14lbs.

So please enlighten us!... why would a Pro choose a 17lb Madone over an 14lb Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. They're sponsored to ride both. )

 

[Waspinator]

So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?

Ahhh because you said so? lmao

OMG the irony of those two statements. Now that's just silly. Uhhh yea, manufacturers are making top end bikes that aren't aero. And Pro's ride them. Like the Emonda... which weighs under 14lbs.

So please enlighten us!... why would a Pro choose a 17lb Madone over an 14lb Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. They're sponsored to ride both. )

The 14lb Emonda isn’t allowed in UCI sanctioned races, if I’m not mistaken.

So that leaves the Madone. And riders will pretty much ride what the team is supplied. Business trumps everything. Including winning.

 

[taodemon]

I already told you, the aerodynamic argument is a bunch of BS. With time trial bikes it makes a difference, but for your regular racing bike, the difference is negligible if any.

Want proof?

Manufacturers are still making top-end road bikes that aren’t designed to be “aero”.

Why do pro riders ride bikes heavier than the UCI limit? Sponsorship.

Why would the pros use a heavier (above uci limit) aero bike at all if they didn't make a difference and they could just use a light weight (at uci limit) bike of the same sponsorship if aero was negligible? The science of aero has been proven and tested repeatedly including independent PHD testers. I would be afraid to be one of your patients given how dense you are about things repeatedly tested and proven. Do you still feel lobotomies are an effective treatment to mental disorders? Maybe you should look into getting one done to yourself as you might see some improvement.:mad2:

You don't even need to be a phd to understand that if something wasn't effective and in fact determental by being heavier it wouldn't be used by pros. I can't imagine Sagan waking up and saying, "today I don't feel like winning so I'll use the aero bike".

Sky only rides aero bikes... they must be doing something wrong.

 

[tlg]

The 14lb Emonda isn’t allowed in UCI sanctioned races, if I’m not mistaken.

So that leaves the Madone. And riders will pretty much ride what the team is supplied. Business trumps everything. Including winning.

:mad2: Sheesh you really don't know how the Pro's work. They add weight to meet the limit. The Emonda is absolutely a bike Pros are sponsored to ride.

Here's Contador's

Now back to the question.
So please enlighten us!... why would a Pro choose a significantly heavier Madone over an Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. They're sponsored to ride both. )

 

[asgelle]

You don't even need to be a phd to understand that if something wasn't effective and in fact determental by being heavier it wouldn't be used by pros. I can't imagine Sagan waking up and saying, "today I don't feel like winning so I'll use the aero bike".

To be fair, pros are pros because of their enormous aerobic engine, not because of their expertise in science or engineering. Read some of Josh Portner or Damon Rinard's stories about how some pros rejected equipment or position improvements even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

 

[Waspinator]

So you clearly don't understand what strength to weight ratio is. It's an absolute. Period.

And for the umpteenth time you could never build an aerodynamic Ti frame and meet the UCI limit. No one will ever ride a Ti bike in the pro peloton. Sorry. You're so hung up on the UCI limit.... which is irrelevant. Weight is pretty much irrelevant in the pro peloton. Some of them are riding bikes over the UCI limit because they know aerodynamics trumps weight. Heck, a Madone SLR 9 weights a portly 16lbs and the disc version is a hefty 17lbs. Geee why would they choose a 16-17lb bike over a svelte 15lb Ti bike?

:mad2: Sheesh you really don't know how the Pro's work. They add weight to meet the limit. The Emonda is absolutely a bike Pros are sponsored to ride.

Here's Contador's

Now back to the question.
So please enlighten us!... why would a Pro choose a significantly heavier Madone over an Emonda? (Hint... it's not sponsorship. They're sponsored to ride both. )

I said “The 14lb Emonda” for a reason. I am indeed aware that they can add weight to make the bike UCI legal.

You’re trying to get me to say aerodynamics, and even if that’s what they believe, they are mistaken.

Show me a study demonstrating the significance of aerodynamics of the bicycle itself in anything but time trials. And I’m talking about the aerodynamics of the frame, and not the wheels, not the rider positioning, etc. Just the frame.

Consider what you’re proposing here...

That a bicycle frame, which has a fraction of the total surface area of the rider and an even smaller fraction of the cross-sectional area of the rider produces a significant amount of drag, and that nearly curving the tubes or adding angles to them, etc, can make a significant difference at speeds as low as 30-40mph.... keeping in mind that the wind resistance experienced by an object is proportional to the square of its velocity.

 

[taodemon]

To be fair, pros are pros because of their enormous aerobic engine, not because of their expertise in science or engineering. Read some of Josh Portner or Damon Rinard's stories about how some pros rejected equipment or position improvements even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Yes, there will be waspinators in all walks of life but the teams with the most wins for 2018, 17, 16 etc all regularly used (or only used in the case of sky) aero bikes. If they were detrimental why would whole teams keep using them?

 

[asgelle]

If they were detrimental why would whole teams keep using them?

3T Strada