http://www.whytitanium.com/

Discuss....


Editors Note: Couple of interesting things on this site (which is really backed by Litespeed).


1) They make the old claim about steel getting soft over time. This is a topic that has been discussed/debunked ad-nauseum on the internet many times. There is no conclusive evidence thus I am suprised they would bring it up...

2) No mention of the new ultralight stainless such as Reynolds 953 and the new Columbus Stainless that Pegoretti is working with.

3) The stuff about carbon and resin is pretty interesting.

Let's see, you can overcome the inherent flexiness of Ti with "good design" but lightweight steel is flawed no matter what? I have a 2004 Cervelo with Columbus thin wall steel that rides as well as the day I bought it. It's a 3 lb frame made with 2 different steel alloys, and an ovalized top tube and biovalized down tube, which I notice is very similar to what True Temper does with it's new S3 alloy. It's stiff and comfortable. Good engineering is the key to any good bike, no matter what material is used.

"The stuff about carbon and resin is pretty interesting."

Only as it shows how desperate the buggy whip makers are getting. I have several CF frames that are lighter and more comfortable than my Moots Vamoots. You can't make a Ti frame as light as the last few generations of CF frames without destroying its efficiency. So what Litespeed is writing on that site is the product of desperate minds spinning half thoughts to what they hope are uninformed readers.

[QUOTE=Steve-O]http://www.whytitanium.com/

Discuss....


The key is "backed by Litespeed" Meanwhile I've been tooling around on my lugged steel Cinelli Supercorsa and CF Orbea the past few weeks while my Litespeed is back at the factory having a crack at one of the welds repaired....never crashed or dropped.

Anectodal, yes, but I remain unconvinced Ti is the end-all-be-all of frame building materials.

I agree- there are no citations to back up the MARKETING garbage. Show me the science.

It tries to debunk the myth that Ti if flexy by saying it isn't---- all while citing all the myths of Carbon, Aluminum, and Steel. All rubbish.

When that doesn't work, try scare tactics:

"Durability of carbon fiber is perhaps the biggest area of concern. Crashes, or even dropping a carbon fiber bike may result in unseen damage to the integrity of the frame—damage that may result in sudden and catastrophic frame failure and serious injury to the rider. Recent litigation against carbon fiber products has led many bike manufacturers to issue stringent warranty statements that preclude them from any liability."


"The stuff about carbon and resin is pretty interesting."

Only as it shows how desperate the buggy whip makers are getting. I have several CF frames that are lighter and more comfortable than my Moots Vamoots. You can't make a Ti frame as light as the last few generations of CF frames without destroying its efficiency. So what Litespeed is writing on that site is the product of desperate minds spinning half thoughts to what they hope are uninformed readers.

Show me the science - that's kind of how I felt after reading the website.

I own a Ti bike and love the durability. 10K miles with no paint chips, no corrosion.... The bike even has several hundred miles towing a Burley Trailer (imagine that with a CF chainstay / Seatstay!).

Also I feel that no other company has pushed titanium as far as Litespeed with their tube shaping, use of 6/4 ti, etc. etc. Thus they have a lot of money into the material and their position is understandable...

BUT the text on the website seemed too FAR general and vauge for the seasoned bike buyer (and I would assume that someone with the scratch to buy a Litespeed would have probably done the research before-hand).

Hopefully titanium won't go the way of the eight track tape. The website didn't give me enough arguements to curtail my concerns...

Here is another sage quote taken from the site:
"It’s inherently absorbent, that’s what catches people out. Shock prefers to travel around the outside of titanium molecules, not through the center like it would in, say, aluminum. The path of the shock is disrupted and altered, dissipating it’s effects before it reaches the rider. So here’s what you can do. You can build a titanium bike that accelerates like a dragster, but still smooths out the road."

Here is a link to what has been referred to for years now, because it is science and made unerstandable for the masses, by Scott Nichol:

http://www.63xc.com/scotn/metal.htm

Read that, then come to your own conclusions. Anybody that talks about vibrations going around the molecules rather than through them is cracked.:cool:

I found another interesting site that gives facts that little people can understand.

http://uashome.alaska.edu/~jsewk1/physics/references.html

Shock prefers to travel around the outside of titanium molecules, not through the center like it would in, say, aluminum. The path of the shock is disrupted and altered, dissipating it’s effects before it reaches the rider. So here’s what you can do. You can build a titanium bike that accelerates like a dragster, but still smooths out the road."

Should be selling snake oil as well.

I've never owned a titanium bike so maybe I shouldn't comment, but I think that site is full of it. Especially with what they have to say about steel frames. That BS about steel going soft has been debunked for years. I've got a six year old Lemond that feels just as good as it did when I first bought it, and that's a lot of miles on a lot of rough roads ago. In my mind, with their outlandish claims, they hurt the reputation of titanium.

Six year old? It isn't even broken in yet.


I've never owned a titanium bike so maybe I shouldn't comment, but I think that site is full of it. Especially with what they have to say about steel frames. That BS about steel going soft has been debunked for years. I've got a six year old Lemond that feels just as good as it did when I first bought it, and that's a lot of miles on a lot of rough roads ago. In my mind, with their outlandish claims, they hurt the reputation of titanium.

http://www.whytitanium.com/

Discuss....





I would say the article is unbalanced and I've trained myself to discard anything I read in articles,commercials,etc. that don't represent both sides of a topic. That being said, I worked for 10 years as a product manager for a large Swedish company that was the first to produce titanium tubing for the cycling industry. I'll preface this by saying my work was in specialty strip steel products, but my intersest in cycling and inside seat allowed my to develope a pretty good idea of the merits of ti frames. First, the tubing initially used for frame production was slightly out of spec inventory from the nuclear industry. These tubes were used to carry radioactive waste and other destructive chemicals securely and ,of course, with flawless durability. Alittle road salt bad for a ti frame? I think not. If durability is your primary need, you should go ti. The part about the vibration flowing around vs through the ti molecule? I'd like to see the data, and even if there was, I think the vibration issue is a product of wall thickness and tube diameter. If" smoothness per dollar " is key, go steel. Finally, cost. Why is ti more expensive? Not because ti is so much more expensive than other alloys, as you simply don't use that much material in a frame. The cost is in the building of the frame. Ti requires a different welding process, differnet environment, different equipment, different labor skills. Cheapest to make? Aluminium. So if performance/dollar is key, go aluminium.
Me? I train, and do most of my miles, on a ti bike; and race on aluminium. So I guess I practice what I preach. :)

And what was the deal about not buying a bike that rides like your mom
whacking you in the butt? I sense oedipal issues on the part of the marketing
department person who wrote that stuff.

the text on the website seemed too FAR general and vauge for the seasoned bike buyer (and I would assume that someone with the scratch to buy a Litespeed would have probably done the research before-hand).

Hell, I would have assumed that someone with the scratch to buy a Litespeed would have done the research...and then bought a Seven, or a Moots, or a Merlin. But clearly Litespeed has more marketing clout than those companies, if the ubiquity of their bikes is any indication, and so "research" in this case probably just means Reading The Promo Materials

...of which the WhyTi website is just one example.

I will state right up front that I am posting to flame, but...

What type of forks (legs and steerer tubes) does LiteSpeed use?

The bike even has several hundred miles towing a Burley Trailer (imagine that with a CF chainstay / Seatstay!).

I have a carbon fiber seatstay on my trainer bike and I haul my son in the trailer on it all the time. Just through a piece of non-residue leaving tape over the little bit of contact area of the connector. And even if you don't do that it's still only going to rub into the clear coat really.

Here's a more objective comparisonof titanium and steel (ya, it's not bike, but much of the principles are the same):

http://swordforum.com/metallurgy/titanium.html

http://swordforum.com/illustrations/titanium-blades.jpg

http://swordforum.com/illustrations/titanium-size.jpg

And if you want to buy a titanium sword:

http://www.google.com/base/a/1351745/D16829548308895406949

Personally I rather have a steel blade.

Funny they didn't mention what I feel are the "other 2" materials for bikes that have very similar riding characteristics:

http://www.paketa.com/technology.htm

http://www.griffenbike.com/About/material.htm

Look at this... the Ti shreaded just like CF.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=814863#poststop

Look at this... the Ti shreaded just like CF.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=814863#poststop

Suggestion is unfair. The pic you link to provides no reason to avoid Ti bikes.

In fact, that is my bike in the pic, and given the size and speed of the car that hit me, I'd expect that any bike would have met a similar or worse fate, irrespective of material. That being said, I prefer Ti to CF, and I have had great luck with Litespeed, even after it was purchased by ABG. I have never encountered the so called "quality control issues" which some on this board have reported, and the customer service provided by Litespeed (Both before and after its acquisition) has been superb. I am also appreciative of Litespeed's innovation with different Ti alloys (6/4) and now with different tube shapes.

I'm reserving comment on whytitanium.com, as I am neither a frame builder nor a metalurgist. I just loved the way my Vortex fit and felt. BTW, I intend to purchase another Vortex by the time I can ride again.

All that shows is that Ti must be about twice as big to give equivalent strength. In bicycle terms that means the wall thickness must be about twice as thick. You could make a similar comparison with aluminum and the aluminum bar would be much bigger than the Ti bar. Totally different application of the material. A sword needs to resist deformation when it strikes something. We aren't using the material in the same way in bicycling, where tensile strength is more important.

BTW, the WhyTitanium site is a crock of pure propaganda for marketing purposes.

Swords needs to resist shattering/breakage first, then deformation. Deformation will still absorb blows and dissipate a great deal of energy.

It's a difference if being killed or getting a boo boo....

Ti is great but so boring to look at. If you want the next steel buy ti. If you want something truly exciting get a carbon bike.

I think there is more value in carbon right now then there is in anything.

Side note - Alu is not a riders friend, anyone who rides more then a few hours on an alu bike and then moves to a ti/carbon or steal bike knows what I'm talking about.

I don't think that the site even pretends to be objective, as its name suggests. Titanium is clearly the worst material in per dollar terms. It can't be mass produced like other frame materials, and you are simply paying a high premium for manufacturing process.

Couple of quotes that struck me from this site:
"Carbon fiber meets the challenges of producing bikes that are light and stiff. Where it fails to deliver is in its ability to enhance the true riding characteristics of any given bike."
I thought that weight and stiffness were some of the most important riding characteristics to begin with :confused:

And how's this for objectivity and analysis depth:
"This has left many experienced cyclists with the feeling that, while carbon fiber bikes feel light, stiff and fast, the ride is largely lifeless and as unforgiving as low-end aluminum."
I think that this authoritative group of "many experienced cyclists" will claim pretty much anything that Litespeed wants it to claim.

Suggestion is unfair. The pic you link to provides no reason to avoid Ti bikes.

In fact, that is my bike in the pic, and given the size and speed of the car that hit me, I'd expect that any bike would have met a similar or worse fate, irrespective of material. That being said, I prefer Ti to CF, and I have had great luck with Litespeed, even after it was purchased by ABG. I have never encountered the so called "quality control issues" which some on this board have reported, and the customer service provided by Litespeed (Both before and after its acquisition) has been superb. I am also appreciative of Litespeed's innovation with different Ti alloys (6/4) and now with different tube shapes.

I'm reserving comment on whytitanium.com, as I am neither a frame builder nor a metalurgist. I just loved the way my Vortex fit and felt. BTW, I intend to purchase another Vortex by the time I can ride again.

Sorry djg - glad to hear that you're in one piece and able to talk about replacing your bike.

My post was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek - my feeble attempt to balance the suggestions made by the "whyTi" website.

Now I'm going to go back to the lounge...

I had a Vortex and it cracked after 6 months - no crashes & was never dropped. The replacement options offered - 2 of 3 require a large payment. I am still riding an old steel Serotta (Colombus SL tubing) with about 30,000 miles.

Let's see, you can overcome the inherent flexiness of Ti with "good design" but lightweight steel is flawed no matter what? I have a 2004 Cervelo with Columbus thin wall steel that rides as well as the day I bought it. It's a 3 lb frame made with 2 different steel alloys, and an ovalized top tube and biovalized down tube, which I notice is very similar to what True Temper does with it's new S3 alloy. It's stiff and comfortable. Good engineering is the key to any good bike, no matter what material is used.

Well, I have a steel bike that was built for me in 1984.

It was my race bike for years.

I now ride it regularly, it has a minimum of 60K miles on it. It rides as well as the day it was built.

I guess I better start preparing for the inevitable failure.

titanium is an alloy not a compound so it doesnt have molacules
it is composed of 3 dimensional network latace as for as l can remember from uni
l also ride a steel bike and its great to ride no regrets (cinelli 1998, euro sport track bike)
road a carbon fiber bike back in 86 was heavy and felt dead but it doesn't mean l wouldn't try one now
the only thing that worries me is them failing and kissing the road
at least with metal it gives you a warning before it implodes
ps l know that some companies use kevlar to give you a bit of warring
bikes are emotional vote with your heart, try one if you like it the extra few grams want matter
if you get one l would be envious

someone said above that you could make a ti frame as light as carbon without destroying its efficiency. is this correct? I noticed that many of the lightest frames out there (at least of those built up, on say, light-bikes.com) are titanium and not carbon. are those frames not as 'efficient' (i'm not sure what that means in this case). I would expect if those builders wanted a lighter carbon frame than some of these ti frames, they would have gone out and found it, no?

Motobecane is adding 5 new Ti bikes next year
1 ATB, 1 cyclo-cross, 3 Road

We will not be referring buyers to whytitanium.com

Why sell steel, Aluminum, carbon fiber, and Ti bikes? They are all different and each is a good alternative for some riders and uses.

We like choices -- customers like choices -- no reason to marry yourself to one material so that you need to bash others.

Most tourists like steel
Most mountain bikers like Aluminum
Many road riders love CF
Some love Ti
Some are affraid CF will crack
Some are affraid steel will rust
I can think of some uses where I would never use CF, some where I would never use steel, some where I would never use Aluminum, and some where I would never use Ti

everyone should just pick which they like and enjoy their bike
simple
we like choices

l agree horses for courses
all of these materials are getting better with devetopment

Hell, I would have assumed that someone with the scratch to buy a Litespeed would have done the research...and then bought a Seven, or a Moots, or a Merlin. But clearly Litespeed has more marketing clout than those companies, if the ubiquity of their bikes is any indication, and so "research" in this case probably just means Reading The Promo Materials

...of which the WhyTi website is just one example.

This is pretty much what I was going to say (sorry, came to the game late).
This site is not directed at the person who does research (comparing good with bad, and considering the upside with the downside). This site is directed at the person who is looking for a reason to buy Ti, and needs 'facts' to back up their decision.

Also, Lightspeed makes Titanium bikes. Of course they're going to downtalk every other material.

"titanium is an alloy not a compound so it doesnt have molacules"

HUH? Titanium is NOT an alloy. It's an element. Also, I'm not aware of any matter that is not composed of molecules. Whether or not the titanium used to make bicycle tubes is combined with another material to make an alloy, I honestly don't know.

Re: Ti looking boring - why not paint it. I don't have a Ti bike, but if I did I'd sure paint it. I'm just not a fan of "field mouse" gray on bikes, cars, clothes or practically anything..

HUH? Titanium is NOT an alloy. It's an element. Also, I'm not aware of any matter that is not composed of molecules. Whether or not the titanium used to make bicycle tubes is combined with another material to make an alloy, I honestly don't know.

Helium isn't composed of molecules. In its natural form, it's a single atom. 'ts why it's so hard to contain: it's so small. Sure a hydrogen atom is dinky, buy hydrogen isn't found as a single atom. In its natural state, it's found as H2.

In bikes it's alloyed with aluminum and vanadium (thus the 3Al/2.5V or 6Al/4V, where the numbers are percentages of those elements in the alloy.).

FWIW, alloys aren't molecules either. I mean, there isn't a Ti/Al/V molecult. Alloys are mixtures. There's no bonding between atoms going on.

I have CF, ti and aluminum. Like all of them but I like the ti best for comfort and absorbtion of road noise. But I have a friend who points out Ti, CF and other metals can be made to perform in specific ways through material used, geometry and other factors. Making generalizations about any material are just that...generalizations and inaccurate as a result.

IceMan
Lemonds Ti
Giant TCRc1 and a Pilot 1.2

How important is "liveliness" to diluca at the giro, alejet, mcewen, contado, levi, boonen. If it helped so much and was so important, perhaps specialized, trek, colnago, ridley, cervelo, c'dale would sell more of their ti frames. Huh? What? Oh, yeah. They don't have ANY ti frames in there lines, and never had. Oh, yeah, lightspeed made frames for virenque, when he demolished the field.

Why Titanium?

Why a website dedicated to specifically addressing this question? Is there some sort of Titanium crisis going on?

How important is "liveliness" to diluca at the giro, alejet, mcewen, contado, levi, boonen. If it helped so much and was so important, perhaps specialized, trek, colnago, ridley, cervelo, c'dale would sell more of their ti frames. Huh? What? Oh, yeah. They don't have ANY ti frames in there lines, and never had. Oh, yeah, lightspeed made frames for virenque, when he demolished the field.

McEwen seemed to enjoy his ti Litespeed, his whole team was on them.

What you forget is that Diluca at the Giro, Alejet, Mcewen, Contador, levi and boonen ride carbon because the bike companies PAID millions and millions of euros to have the teams ride their bikes. Sourcing good carbon bikes is easy for all of the companies you mentioned above, because there are lots of nameless, far removed, faceless asian companies to make the bikes for them. That is why some guys can decide to make a Velo Vie and lo and behold it looks just like a scott cr1 (they're both nice bikes).

Sourcing good quality Ti on the other hand is more difficult. That is why Litespeed made so many bikes for so many companies like Merckx and other top euro companies. They can make anything you want. Spectrum Ti models are held in very high regard, they're made in the Litespeed custom shop to Toms spec, have you seen the Jeff Jones Ti wonderbike? Litespeed.

Is the site great, no but pro teams are paid to ride what they ride. There are such thing as package deals too, where title sponsor specifies bikes and other equipment.

Helium isn't composed of molecules. In its natural form, it's a single atom. 'ts why it's so hard to contain: it's so small. Sure a hydrogen atom is dinky, buy hydrogen isn't found as a single atom. In its natural state, it's found as H2.

In bikes it's alloyed with aluminum and vanadium (thus the 3Al/2.5V or 6Al/4V, where the numbers are percentages of those elements in the alloy.).

FWIW, alloys aren't molecules either. I mean, there isn't a Ti/Al/V molecult. Alloys are mixtures. There's no bonding between atoms going on.
Thanks Forrest. I stand corrected. Helium is only an atom, and alloys have no covalent bonding.

I was in science when I was in college in the early 60s, but I was an earth science major. I don't know much about atomic structure, electron clouds, valences, etc. Hell, I can't even spell kemystery. :o