Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

Why no titanium bikes in pro peloton?

58K views 279 replies 49 participants last post by  SPlKE 
#1 ·
I realize this sounds like a topic that has been beaten to death, but being the new owner of a titanium bike (Litespeed T1SL), I cant help but wonder why carbon fiber is now king.

It seems you can easily build a Ti bike that is below the UCI weight limit, and that has excellent ride characteristics. 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. (At a mere 30-40mph with a large, clunky object - eg the rider - atop the bike, wind resistance from the bike is comparatively negligible).

Has anyone published any study documenting the superiority of carbon fiber over Al or Ti in the various criteria by which one would evaluate a pro-level bike (eg stiffness, rider positioning, and comfort)?
 
#2 ·
A) Cost of production. CF bikes are easy to mass produce. A Ti bike is not.

B) Strength/stiffness vs weight. To be as strong/stiff the ti bike will weigh more. Sure you can make a ti bike near the UCI limit--but it will be a noodle and not last very long (There were a few years of pre-buyout Litespeeds where they found this out).
 
#3 ·
Also, remember that professional road racing (at least) is a marketing tool and rolling billboard

Ti did have it's day in the Pro Peloton (Armstrong rode a Ti (Litespeed?) framed TT bike rebadged as a Trek in at least one tour) and rebadging prolly still goes on if the Pro has enough clout to choose a specific frame's characteristics (less of an issue these days because of the relatively cheap one off cost of CF).

Back in the day, I recall, that upon his retirement, Indurain walked into a shop and bought a Cannondale CAAD off the peg! Course, that was over 20 years ago.


You might see more varied frame materials still used on the track but that's a real niche.
 
#4 ·
Has anyone published any study documenting the superiority of carbon fiber over Al or Ti in the various criteria by which one would evaluate a pro-level bike (eg stiffness, rider positioning, and comfort)?
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).
 
#35 ·
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
 
#5 ·
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.
Speak for yourself. At any rate there will always be many who are ill- or misinformed.

(At a mere 30-40mph with a large, clunky object - eg the rider - atop the bike, wind resistance from the bike is comparatively negligible).
And you base this on what? The data show at racing speeds the power savings from an aero frame are easily measured and on the order of the difference in placings.

And to answer your question, first, I'm not sure there isn't a team at the Continental or Pro-Continental level that rides one. Second, the reason there are no titanium frames at the Pro Tour level is that no manufacturer is willing to pay a team to ride one.
 
#8 ·
Speak for yourself. At any rate there will always be many who are ill- or misinformed.


And you base this on what? The data show at racing speeds the power savings from an aero frame are easily measured and on the order of the difference in placings.

And to answer your question, first, I'm not sure there isn't a team at the Continental or Pro-Continental level that rides one. Second, the reason there are no titanium frames at the Pro Tour level is that no manufacturer is willing to pay a team to ride one.
Data? What data?

Can you provide me with a reference to this data?

And better yet, can you provide me with a reference to data acquired by someone actually trained in some field of science who knows how to properly carry out a study, as opposed to some bike frame designer who labeled himself an “engineer”?
 
#7 ·
Sponsorship…..Besides the hundreds of frames, the sponsor would have to come up with a large pile of money...….And provide a frame that weighs the same as carbon frames.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwisimon
#10 ·
There might be some Ti bikes, in the past it was not unusual for a pro to go to a frame builder “of honor “ to build a custom frame then paint it to match sponsors.

Now with tech being as state of the art as it is, there’s probably no advantage. The custom magic with steel and Ti is still there but sadly computer algorithm is replacing the hand of the master frame builders for the pros anyway.

Enjoy the ride of your Ti Lightspeed!
 
#14 ·
its expensive to sponsor a team. serotta did years ago and it was a factor in their going bankrupt. if you go to some high end fondos targeted at serious amateurs and pros such as the marmotte and the maratona you will see titanium bikes but these are purchased by the athletes themselves.

the answer has nothing to do about the merits of titanium vs carbon but everything to do with economics
 
#17 · (Edited)
Team Gewiss-Ballan rode titanium DeRosas during the '90s. Drugged up, they kicked butt.

The team produced winners of the Giro d’Italia – Evgeni Berzin and Ivan Gotti as well as top classic specialists Giorgio Furlan and Nicola Minali. Former World Champion Moreno Argentin finished his career with the team on a high note with stage wins at the 1993 Giro d'Italia as well as the impressive win at La Flèche Wallonne in 1994. The team dominated cycling [on DeRosa titanium bikes] during the 1994 season with Giorgio Furlan winning Tirreno–Adriatico (and Berzin second overall) and Furlan winning Milan–San Remo. Berzin then won Liège–Bastogne–Liège which was followed by Argentin’s win in La Flèche Wallonne. The win in the Fleche Wallonne was impressive because the team completely dominated the race with taking all podium places at the race with Argentin, Furlan and Berzin ahead of many greats of cycling at the time including Claudio Chiappucci, Franco Ballerini, Davide Cassani and Gianni Bugno.

After the Fleche Wallonne of 1994, French sports newspaper L'Équipe interviewed the team’s doctor Michele Ferrari. Journalist Jean-Michel Rouet asked Ferrari if his riders used EPO to which Ferrari denied prescribing the drug but said he would not find it wrong, saying that it was not dangerous and compared taking EPO to drinking orange juice. This remark generated controversy and Ferrari later stepped down as team doctor.[2]

Afterwards Berzin won the 1994 Giro d'Italia while Piotr Ugrumov came second overall in 1994 Tour de France. Vladislav Bobrik won the Giro di Lombardia in the late season for the team.

In the following year, the team was not as dominant but still successful. Berzin came second at the 1995 Giro d'Italia behind Tony Rominger and ahead of his teammate Ugrumov. The team set the record speed of the team time trial at the 1995 Tour de France of 54.930 km/h. This speed stood for ten years until Lance Armstrong's Discovery Channel Team broke it during the 2005 Tour de France. The Gewiss team beat Laurent Jalabert's Team ONCE to second place and the defending champion Miguel Indurain’s Banesto to third place. Riis would wear the yellow jersey as leader of the general classification in that year’s Tour before eventually finishing third overall.
--wiki
 
#22 ·
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.
 
#25 ·
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.
 
#28 · (Edited)
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. :p
 
#33 ·
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.
 
#34 ·
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.
 
#44 ·
The takeaway is that it’s expensive and it’s just not that good? If there was some clear performance advantage then someone would be using it. Hell, Sky has no budget limits and lives on “marginal gains.” If there was any incremental advantage they’d be riding it. At that level, no one is leaving an edge on the table. I’ve never ridden Ti and I’m sure it has its merits, they just obviously aren’t falling into the performance category.
 
#47 ·
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.
 
#45 ·
Aluminum makes a good crit frame because it's cheap (crash replacement) and you can get the required stiffness for the constant effort spikes in a weight that is acceptable. It's why the CAAD and Smartweld frames are so popular. It's not a big leap for this particular race. I think it's cool that he would do it.

Given the choice, I don't think Sagan would opt for an aluminum frame by any manufacturer over the current options he has in carbon fiber for normal World Tour Races. While the geometry certainly plays into this, material does matter over a four hour race.
 
#51 ·
I don't buy that Ti frames are too expensive for a pro team. These team budget would hardly be affected by the difference in cost. When I have shopped for frames for myself, it really is the carbon frames which seem to retail for the higher prices. A nice Lynskey Ti frame can be had for as low as $600 these days and commons around $1000 - a made in USA hand-welded legit Ti racing frame, made by the same people who founded and made those Litespeed for nigh on 30 years. When I shopped for a carbon frame last year I had to settle for a 3 yr old leftover model for $1000 (Kona Superjake), and more recently I have been shopping for a full sus trail bike carbon frame and they start at about $2000 for a 2 year old model, and $3-5k for a nice new one. I know an S-Works carbon Road frame on par with what more pro teams us is like $4-5k or so nowadays too - definitely no more than a custom order, high-margin Seven Ti frame.

Carbon frames are also extremely labour intensive to produce, compared to alu and steel, and perhaps similar or more labour intensive than Ti from what I can tell.

I just think Ti isn't used because technology has moved on, the Carbon is lighter and the companies in the business of sponsoring pro cycling want them on the latest carbon steeds because that is what sells. But price is not important in this equation - and even if it was the Ti would not cost more.
 
#55 ·
Here's the deal. There aren't any major manufacturers making Ti frames and marketing them as their 'top of the line'. None. So none of the major brands would want to pay a pro team AND supply them w/ well over 100 frames if it's not something they're wanting to sell a ton of. There has to be a big time ROI to make the deal happen. The companies that do make Ti frames are small. They can't afford to produce a ton of frames, give them to a team, AND pay to play. Not gonna happen. All of the big names settled on carbon many years ago as the material they would use for their race bikes. Once everyone had the :idea: moment and understood how important aerodynamics are they knew that carbon was the only material that would enable them to make the shapes needed. Added bonus: it's very light.
And as much as it will pain @waspinator there are actually real and very experienced engineers throughout the bicycle industry, many of them w/ doctoral degrees.
 
#56 ·
On a perfectly stiff bike and drivetrain (impossible), almost all of the energy put into a pedal stroke would translate into forward momentum. No energy would be dissipated into lateral movement of the frame.

In the case of my BMC's and Cannondale's layup, the rear triangle would deform to the point that the wheel would be forced into the brake pad, thus reducing the power available for forward momentum. Brake pads don't absorb and then release power in a positive way, because we really wouldn't want them to. This wasn't a spring effect- it was a noodle effect. As the frame rebounded, it had to overcome the initial resistance of the brake pad and the inertia of the wheel. As the rear triangle had deformed, some of the energy was projected laterally instead of forward as the wheel straightened out. This was obviously less than optimal for handling and performance.
 
#58 ·
On a perfectly stiff bike and drivetrain (impossible), almost all of the energy put into a pedal stroke would translate into forward momentum. No energy would be dissipated into lateral movement of the frame.

In the case of my BMC's and Cannondale's layup, the rear triangle would deform to the point that the wheel would be forced into the brake pad, thus reducing the power available for forward momentum. Brake pads don't absorb and then release power in a positive way, because we really wouldn't want them to. This wasn't a spring effect- it was a noodle effect. As the frame rebounded, it had to overcome the initial resistance of the brake pad and the inertia of the wheel. As the rear triangle had deformed, some of the energy was projected laterally instead of forward as the wheel straightened out. This was obviously less than optimal for handling and performance.
Remember Newton's third law? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction? If the frame flexes, it will flex back. Where does the energy go? Not into heat, so into the return flex of the frame.
 
#59 ·
Whatever happened to inexpensive Russian and Chinese Ti frames? The Russians have a lot of experience with Ti from their defense industry.

What as always struck me as odd about Ti is that you hardly see any Ti forks. You hear this and that excuse about that. I've always felt that if the material was so much better than the alternatives, you'd see forks made from it. Not to be and thus the myth of Ti being such a great material for bicycles come crashing down.
 
#60 ·
Whatever happened to inexpensive Russian and Chinese Ti frames? The Russians have a lot of experience with Ti from their defense industry.
I have a Russian titanium frame. The welds are as good as any I have seen, but the quality of the raw materials is a big unknown.

There are a lot of companies (mostly boutique) outsourcing their ti manufacturing to Chinese and Russian companies. Why Cycles comes to mind. The quality of the product is often determined by the quality of the sourcing company's oversight of the entire process. Otherwise, the contractor can sub-contract out to other companies, leading to all sorts of mysteries in the supply chains. All titanium is not created equally, even among similar grades.

So far, I've been very happy with my Russian frame. It's held up to TSA many times, which is something I can't say for several aluminum and carbon frames over the years. Other people may not have the same experience, as with any frame made of any material whose parentage is unclear.
What as always struck me as odd about Ti is that you hardly see any Ti forks. You hear this and that excuse about that. I've always felt that if the material was so much better than the alternatives, you'd see forks made from it. Not to be and thus the myth of Ti being such a great material for bicycles come crashing down.
Again, not the easiest or cheapest material to work with. When a company can source a quality carbon fork for $200, why would they want to bother making a titanium fork with similar performance characteristics for more money (think skilled labor man-hours)? Aesthetically, the metal fork is less popular today among the average buyer than the swoopy, aero-looking lines you can create with carbon.

Again, all frame materials have their advantages and disadvantages. Ti is a great frame material in the hands of a true craftsman. A well-made titanium bike is a joy to ride, and some of us greatly prefer their looks over the latest carbon wonderbike. Yes, they can be built to perform at a very high level. Steve Tilford used to race ti exclusively, and did ok for an old man.
 
#63 ·
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.
 
#102 · (Edited)
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top