Hey all, DBtheCyclist again, still considering a Litespeed Tuscany (have made 2 other recent posts on that). Well, something else to consider, an old cycling pal called me out out nowhere tonight, and I started talking to him about a Tuscany (he used to ride, among many other high-end bikes, a Litespeed), and he says ti is nice, but everyone is buying carbon fiber frames now. He has worked in a LBS off and on for a few years, and he might indeed have knowledge about what is selling, however, I have a hard time believing that "everyone is buying carbon fiber" and that no one is buying titanium.

What can any of you who ride either of these, or even better, those of you who have one of each, tell me about this topic. (Only bike I have ridden in last 9 years is a custom frame all steel Eisentraut).

Thanks so much everyone,
Doug

I would assume that it is accurate to say that CF is greatly out selling Ti at the moment. However, I suspect that over all ride quality that is inherent with the materials has nothing to do with it. While I think it is foolish to call CF a Fad I think that the current craze for the material could be considered that.

I have and do ride CF, Steel, Ti and Alum. I have my preferences between the bikes but I don't think it has to much to do with the materials. The design and the geo is what makes the bike comfortable and ride well. I'm 250+ lbs so my Ti and Steel bikes do seem to be a bit more flexy however I'm not convinced that it a bad thing.

There is always time for another bike. For now get what you think will make you happy.


NONE OF THEM WILL MAKE YOU FASTER!

Many people here will tell you that the material does not determine the riding characteristics, the design of the frame does. That is true in my experience.

I have a 2003 Litespeed Tuscany with a Reynolds Ouzo Pro fork and a 2006 Orbea Opal with the stock Orbea fork. The Tuscany has a comfortable ride and the Opal has a stiffer ride that is less comfortable on rough pavement. I'm sure there are some titanium bikes that are designed to be stiff and less comfortable (LItespeed Ultimate or Vortex) and many carbon bikes that are designed to be very comfortable (Colnago C50).

As much as I prefer the ultra stiff bottom bracket and more precise steering of the Opal, the ride feels quieter and more "dead," which makes the ride less enjoyable to some extent, so I am still in search of the perfect ride, probably titanium, or maybe even steel, but probably not carbon.

I'm currently planning to test ride a Moots Vamoots in the spring to see how close it comes to combining the comfortable ride of the Tuscany with the stiffness of the Opal. If it doesn't seem stiff enough, I"m going to look at a custom Moots, or perhaps something from Lynskey Performance.

I currently ride a high-end Italian carbon-fibre bike and have never ridden Ti, however, I was recently tempted by a very nice looking De Rosa Ti frame at my LBS.

I asked a former Italian Pro rider what his thoughts were on the differences/benefits etc between CF and Ti. He said that a high-end manufacturer in Italy had been finding it tough competing in the market place aganist other companies that had transferring their manufacturing operations off-shore to Asia and so had decided to go on a fact-finding trip to visit most of these factories.

Based on the cost of carbon-fibre raw materials they had been amazed at how cheap these manufacturers were able to produce finished frames for. To check on the quality they bought a stack of frames made in Asia for other respected brands and cut them up to check the quality of the construction. They were horrified at what they found inside some of them and according to what my mate personally saw, some of them (from highly respected brands with big marketing budgets) were down right dangerous with a lot of filler material and very little carbon-fibre at all.

I guess the reason I am recounting this story is to say, like everything, you get what you pay for. If you buy a Ti frame you will know exactly what you have bought, similarly with a good CF frame, however, beware of some of the cheaper mass-produced CF frames.

To answer your question in more general terms my Pro mate told me that Ti was great, with a very smooth ride but a good CF frame pound for pound was lighter and more rigid for racing.

Oh, and the Italian manufacturer that did the investigations is now selling frames made for them in Asia...

Mostly the people who say material doesn't make any difference are those who don't own a carbon bike.

I've ridden steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon. My experience has been that in order of comfort from worst to best it's aluminum, titanium, steel and carbon. My slack angled, long wheelbase, fat tired 26 inch touring bike is aluminum, and it's harder on the hands than my all carbon Scott CR1 race bike. My cyclocross bike which is also aluminum with a more forgiving geometry is also less comfortable on pavement than the CR1 or my old Six13 (two carbon tubes and carbon fork).

While geometry may help to absorb the bumps and lumps, it's the material that dampens the higher frequency road buzz, which is most fatiguing. I think its tough to beat carbon today for comfort and for performance. My wife rides an all carbon Specialized Ruby, she was a skeptic at first, but now, I would never be able to get her back on aluminum or titanium.

I test rode a Cervelo R3 after five years on a Ti bike that was known for comfort. The R3 is magically stiffer and more comfortable, absorbing more high frequency road vibration. It is stiffer on large bumps, but those are relatively infrequent. I liked the carbon R3 so much I bought it and then bought a Pedal Force carbon frame to hang the parts from the old Ti bike on.

I won't be going back to Ti. The only place that Ti might beat carbon is in durability, but since my Ti frame broke and was replaced by the manufacturer, my personal experience would lead me to beleive that manufacturers warranty is more important than frame material.

I think you should figure out your sizing issues first. Then decide what you want to spend and go from there.

I suggest you go to the Strong Frames website (Google it) and read the very informative articles on frame materials.

Aluminum, steel, titanium, and carbon fiber are all great materials to build bicycle frames with. The question isn't so much the material rather than the execution.

The market is right now flush with carbon fiber bikes and titanium is currently quite expensive especially when done optimally with perfect welds and well-crafted tubing. There's alot to like about the possibilities of aluminum frames and steel is simply only a heavier metal, yet one of these, steel and aluminum, is stronger and stiffer. Guess which one.

Personally, with the super light weight of high-end componentry so appealing and the choices in very strong, aero, low mass wheelsets available I wouldn't exempt any of the above mentioned frame materials based on relatively minor weight differences. Or, don't make a frame choice based on light weight alone.

trust me, go with CF. it's the coolest and everyone will envy you while you passed them in a steep climb. that my friend is truely priceless. happy new year, also my birthday.

Mostly the people who say material doesn't make any difference are those who don't own a carbon bike.

I've ridden steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon. My experience has been that in order of comfort from worst to best it's aluminum, titanium, steel and carbon. My slack angled, long wheelbase, fat tired 26 inch touring bike is aluminum, and it's harder on the hands than my all carbon Scott CR1 race bike. My cyclocross bike which is also aluminum with a more forgiving geometry is also less comfortable on pavement than the CR1 or my old Six13 (two carbon tubes and carbon fork).

While geometry may help to absorb the bumps and lumps, it's the material that dampens the higher frequency road buzz, which is most fatiguing. I think its tough to beat carbon today for comfort and for performance. My wife rides an all carbon Specialized Ruby, she was a skeptic at first, but now, I would never be able to get her back on aluminum or titanium.



I suspect that surface quality plays a big role in how much materials matter. On fairly smooth roads the benefit of fat tires can be out weight with skinny tires and frame materials that are more "compliant". I think CF can be more fined turned in this aspect for massed produced bikes.

However as the surface quality decreases the tires and wheels play a larger role in the quality of the ride. At some point the frame material can be mute.

Another reason your friend that works at a shop sees more sales of carbon bikes could be that the availability of carbon bikes is much better than Ti. Every big manufacturer commonly carried by bike shops all have carbon models. How many have Ti models in their lineup? The only one I could think of right off that is a "mainstay" brand that could be potentially stocked is Bianchi. This is of course not counting Ti specialty brands such as Litespeed, Moots, et. al. which in my experience aren't carried by as many shops as Giant, Trek, Specialized, Fuji, Cannondale, and other companies with their top-tier bikes made of CF.

I'd go Ti. I've ridden Ti, steel, Carbon, even a little aluminum. Ti and steel are my favorites. I really like how a good Ti frame is kinda timeless. It's not going to be eclipsed by the next paradigm shift in framemaking like carbon frames are (..everyone have a monocoque carbon frame now?, alright now lets say they need tube and lug carbon! Brilliant!). A Ti frame is always going to look top of the line and last practically forever.

I will add my 2 cents in on the discussion of material properties. For just a second lets ignore marketing and hype, and please dont take this as a sermon. Ride quality is a product of tube shape NOT material. Bike design is the primary determining factor of ride quality, a good bike designer can build a wonderfully comfortable bike out of almost any material. A comfortable is in general a product of the shape and size of the seat stays (which have almost no bearing on the Bottom Brackets stiffness). Trek contracted a lovely study a few years ago that showed which tubes are under stress in which application. Its tough to wade through all the smoke and mirrors concerning bike design, but its well worth the effort.

Jesse Stevens

Those who concerned about ti frame stiffness read here:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard_frametest.html

http://www.roadcyclinguk.com/news/article/mps/UAN/735/v/2/sp/

I think you should figure out your sizing issues first. Then decide what you want to spend and go from there.

I think he should work on his wife first...

I will add my 2 cents in on the discussion of material properties. For just a second lets ignore marketing and hype, and please dont take this as a sermon. Ride quality is a product of tube shape NOT material. Bike design is the primary determining factor of ride quality, a good bike designer can build a wonderfully comfortable bike out of almost any material. A comfortable is in general a product of the shape and size of the seat stays (which have almost no bearing on the Bottom Brackets stiffness). Trek contracted a lovely study a few years ago that showed which tubes are under stress in which application. Its tough to wade through all the smoke and mirrors concerning bike design, but its well worth the effort.

Jesse Stevens

Bicycle frame design is not really exactly rocket science, as the "design foundation" is already there a long time ago...some designers or builders just tweak and tune it slightly with different materials and tubing sizes for different riding purposes or also for marking hype. You can be a lousy frame designer on a frame and it still will come out fine. It is baffeling to hear some ordinary riders able to detect the amount of flex or precieved ride quality between well built modern race-ready frames objectively.

By varying geometry, tube size and other parameters, a clever designer could probably build frames of carbon, titanium, bamboo, aluminum, steel, etc. that would all have the same flex/stiffness; however, the frames would still ride differently in terms of comfort because of the difference in acoustic impedance of each material.

In simple terms, the acoustic impedance of a material is its resistance to the transmission of energy in the form of vibration. The acoustic impedence of carbon composite is higher than that of aluminum, titanium or steel, thus less vibration is going to be transmitted through a carbon frame than through the others. Bamboo, might actually be the winner here.

Baseball bats are a great example of this phenomena. No one who has ever hit a ball wrong with a metal bat will dispute that the "sting" is orders of magnitude greater than with a wooden bat.

You are right. Even a lousy frame designer can build a good frame (like a blind squirrel finding a nut) Tube shaping differences can be detected however its not something your going to percieve in a 10mile test ride, its something that you will most likely only notice once you return to an old bike. Although most people have no idea what actually causes percievable flex (its normally in your component choices) A great framebuilder can easily design a bike to do exactly what any individual wants it to as long as the person knows what they want. As a great man once said "knowing is half the battle"

Jesse Stevens

I currently ride a high-end Italian carbon-fibre bike and have never ridden Ti, however, I was recently tempted by a very nice looking De Rosa Ti frame at my LBS.

I asked a former Italian Pro rider what his thoughts were on the differences/benefits etc between CF and Ti. He said that a high-end manufacturer in Italy had been finding it tough competing in the market place aganist other companies that had transferring their manufacturing operations off-shore to Asia and so had decided to go on a fact-finding trip to visit most of these factories.

Based on the cost of carbon-fibre raw materials they had been amazed at how cheap these manufacturers were able to produce finished frames for. To check on the quality they bought a stack of frames made in Asia for other respected brands and cut them up to check the quality of the construction. They were horrified at what they found inside some of them and according to what my mate personally saw, some of them (from highly respected brands with big marketing budgets) were down right dangerous with a lot of filler material and very little carbon-fibre at all.

I guess the reason I am recounting this story is to say, like everything, you get what you pay for. If you buy a Ti frame you will know exactly what you have bought, similarly with a good CF frame, however, beware of some of the cheaper mass-produced CF frames.

To answer your question in more general terms my Pro mate told me that Ti was great, with a very smooth ride but a good CF frame pound for pound was lighter and more rigid for racing.

Oh, and the Italian manufacturer that did the investigations is now selling frames made for them in Asia...


You are right Aussie Carl. It is all about business. THis is how italian bike manufacturing used to work. (Before early 1900's) it used to be big steel companies like Dedacciai, Reynolds and Columbus. They used to make tubings and not frames. Kind of what Easton do here in the U.S. with their Scandium and carbon NANO frames. Then families or ex-riders started to buy those tubings to make their bikes with their names atached on it. Now tubings companies required and Italian manufacturer to have a certified person form their company to make their frames because of liabilites issues. But old big companies like Colnago, Pinarello, Derosa and Willier Triestina became so big that they do not need to buy tubings from any of those companies and started to produce them them selfs in their factories. This is when its gets complicated. Some of those companies can not keep up with the demand and had to go far east to be able to keep suplying buyers like the Americans of their name bikes. For example I saw on a factory that my friend get his frame painted a big amount of Pinarello and Opera and BTwin (New Frech bike) frames that they were coming from Taiwan to be painted there. There are still hand made Italian bikes but most of them stay in Italy or Europe. Now I saw $3,000 carbon frames and $800 carbon frames. The difference is between weight and color quality. That is why I do not buy a $3,000 frame anymore. Be sure that you get really informed before you buy.
At least you will not go wrong with titanium, just be sure is a good welder. And in Carbon be sure that you get a Seal on the frame from one of those companies I mentioned before. Please do not get confused to what the Profesional riders are using. The companies and paying $$$ for having the team using their frames. Remember like it or not Bike buying is more of what I want to park on the Starbuck on the weekend than what benefits me or not.

I did not mean to get too scientific on this subject, as I am not a scientist, but I would say that the acoustic impedance of material is just part of the equation and the natural resonant frequency of the frame/bike as a whole will determine the riding characteristic result. Thanks!

By varying geometry, tube size and other parameters, a clever designer could probably build frames of carbon, titanium, bamboo, aluminum, steel, etc. that would all have the same flex/stiffness; however, the frames would still ride differently in terms of comfort because of the difference in acoustic impedance of each material.

In simple terms, the acoustic impedance of a material is its resistance to the transmission of energy in the form of vibration. The acoustic impedence of carbon composite is higher than that of aluminum, titanium or steel, thus less vibration is going to be transmitted through a carbon frame than through the others. Bamboo, might actually be the winner here.

Baseball bats are a great example of this phenomena. No one who has ever hit a ball wrong with a metal bat will dispute that the "sting" is orders of magnitude greater than with a wooden bat.

and upgraded bikes every 1-2 years I'd buy a quality CF

if I had a little $$$$ and bought bikes every 5 -10 years I'd buy Ti.

I will go along with that...Thanks!

You are right. Even a lousy frame designer can build a good frame (like a blind squirrel finding a nut) Tube shaping differences can be detected however its not something your going to percieve in a 10mile test ride, its something that you will most likely only notice once you return to an old bike. Although most people have no idea what actually causes percievable flex (its normally in your component choices) A great framebuilder can easily design a bike to do exactly what any individual wants it to as long as the person knows what they want. As a great man once said "knowing is half the battle"

Jesse Stevens

and upgraded bikes every 1-2 years I'd buy a quality CF

if I had a little $$$$ and bought bikes every 5 -10 years I'd buy Ti.

And I buy steel cause you can get the quality of ti at half the price. Steel frame + can of Boeshield = just as durable as ti.

Here's why I don't buy carbon (including carbon forks).

http://www2.trekbikes.com/Assets/Carbon_Care/06TK_Carbon_Care_Flyer.jpg

I think he should work on his wife first...

Good point.

I had a fairly large mail order/bike shop in Boulder tell me one time that if you buy a carbon frame, they'll "see you again". If you buy a Ti frame, they never "see you again".

And I buy steel cause you can get the quality of ti at half the price. Steel frame + can of Boeshield = just as durable as ti.

Here's why I don't buy carbon (including carbon forks).

http://www2.trekbikes.com/Assets/Carbon_Care/06TK_Carbon_Care_Flyer.jpg

cause I plan on riding the same frames for a decade plus (still have an 80's era Merckx doing just fine)

cheap, great ride (IMHO superior to all materials, doesn't have quite the HF vibration dampening of CF but has better big bump absorbtion) and that springyness combined with stiffness for all day power and comfort.

though I do buy CF forks. fairly cheap to replace if they fail, especially if ya shop wise, but no CF bars and stems

If 'twere me, I think I'd keep my custom steel Eisentraut, and forget about getting something 'better'.

Mostly the people who say material doesn't make any difference are those who don't own a carbon bike.

I've ridden steel, aluminum, titanium and carbon. My experience has been that in order of comfort from worst to best it's aluminum, titanium, steel and carbon. My slack angled, long wheelbase, fat tired 26 inch touring bike is aluminum, and it's harder on the hands than my all carbon Scott CR1 race bike. My cyclocross bike which is also aluminum with a more forgiving geometry is also less comfortable on pavement than the CR1 or my old Six13 (two carbon tubes and carbon fork).

While geometry may help to absorb the bumps and lumps, it's the material that dampens the higher frequency road buzz, which is most fatiguing. I think its tough to beat carbon today for comfort and for performance. My wife rides an all carbon Specialized Ruby, she was a skeptic at first, but now, I would never be able to get her back on aluminum or titanium.

Ridden and owned. The material is not relevant. Its the design.

As to the higher frequency etc etc. Yeah, I kind of look at the points of contact to the ground. On bikes there are 2. They are called wheels. The rest is design and fit.

Anything else? A marketing tool.

Ridden and owned. The material is not relevant. Its the design.

As to the higher frequency etc etc. Yeah, I kind of look at the points of contact to the ground. On bikes there are 2. They are called wheels. The rest is design and fit.

Anything else? A marketing tool.

You're right. I'm going out right now and rip those useless springs and shocks off my car. It's got four wheels, so it should be fine.

Seriously: You could probably put big enough tires/wheels on any frame so that there would be no problem with vibration, but within the realm of practical sizes, the frame material will make a difference for reasons I've already explained. If the only factor that influenced the feel of a frame is the two points of contact with the ground (wheels as you so eloquently call them) then bike design would be pretty easy.

cause I plan on riding the same frames for a decade plus (still have an 80's era Merckx doing just fine)

cheap, great ride (IMHO superior to all materials, doesn't have quite the HF vibration dampening of CF but has better big bump absorbtion) and that springyness combined with stiffness for all day power and comfort.

though I do buy CF forks. fairly cheap to replace if they fail, especially if ya shop wise, but no CF bars and stems


he said it perfectly.....nothing further to add. Except, I don't give a rats a*s about an extra pound or two on a bike. Most cyclists have been sold a bill of goods by the Big companies telling everyone they should have the stiffest, lightest bike around.....BS..only about 2% of cyclists who race professionally need that. I've ridden a Scott CR1 and I'm glad I don't own one....is it stiff..hell yeah, is it light..very...would I buy one after riding it.....HELL NO.....I'll take a classic Colnago MXL or Pinarello or Merckx ANY day over that.

I've ridden a Scott CR1 and I'm glad I don't own one....is it stiff..hell yeah, is it light..very...would I buy one after riding it.....HELL NO.....I'll take a classic Colnago MXL or Pinarello or Merckx ANY day over that.

You're right. A Scott CR1 isn't for everyone. Weaker, less agressive riders, riders who need a triple on a road bike, riders who tour or commute exclusively, and those who use seats like the one pictured here have no need of a CR1.

If 'twere me, I think I'd keep my custom steel Eisentraut, and forget about getting something 'better'.

I don't plan on getting rid of my Eisentraut, I will ride it from time to time. It has been my trusty friend for 9 years and 19,000 miles give or take, and will continue to be ridden, though not as much. I went ahead with a Litespeed Tuscany, Dura-Ace 10 speed group, Ksyrium ES wheels. Great deal at Colorado Cyclist, $1000 off frame and Easton EC90 SLX fork. NOTE, if any of you are interested, they have now posted it on their site at $1599 frame and fork, HOWEVER when placing the order I was told that the price was for the frame only, no fork, and that the website hadn't been completely updated. They will honor the $1799 for frame and fork ($450 on it's own) thru this week, so I was told. Said it should go out 3-5 days (they said more like 3, as not a busy time of year there for building bikes), UPS ground. I should have it by the weekend after next. Been 9 years since I got a new bike, I am excited, can hardly wait :D :D Did have to make some concessions to my wife, however, such as not talking about another bike for 8 years (ouch, that one may hurt :( ), not eating out so much, especially at lunch, not buying so many DVDs (I have about 600 now, that will slow way, way down), and oh yes, actually put anything / everything I have talked about selling on ebay. Now I have to keep up my end of the bargain. Oh yes, that includes no more bike clothes for 2 years (I have a LOT of clothes, both summer and winter).

Doug

Doug

You're right. A Scott CR1 isn't for everyone. Weaker, less agressive riders, riders who need a triple on a road bike, riders who tour or commute exclusively, and those who use seats like the one pictured here have no need of a CR1.


I actually race a little too, albeit, not very seriously, and I would hardly consider myself a weaker, or less aggressive rider. Am I the fastest around, no.....now ask me if I care......the answer is the same...NO. I don't need a triple and only have one bike that sits on my trainer that actually has one on it, although if I do a tour of the rockies, I may take that bike. Also, I wouldn't insult people who ride with those seats, many guys with hundreds of thousands of miles in their legs ride with those. As far as the CR1....well, let's see which one is still being ridden in 15 years...my beautiful steel Merckx, or that ugly matchbox toy. :thumbsup: :idea: :rolleyes: FWIW, both my cross bike and my specialized that I race on are both aluminum.....but if I'm going out to ride for fun....steel or Ti.....just my .02 cents...:rolleyes:

I actually race a little too, albeit, not very seriously, and I would hardly consider myself a weaker, or less aggressive rider. Am I the fastest around, no.....now ask me if I care......the answer is the same...NO. I don't need a triple and only have one bike that sits on my trainer that actually has one on it, although if I do a tour of the rockies, I may take that bike. Also, I wouldn't insult people who ride with those seats, many guys with hundreds of thousands of miles in their legs ride with those. As far as the CR1....well, let's see which one is still being ridden in 15 years...my beautiful steel Merckx, or that ugly matchbox toy. :thumbsup: :idea: :rolleyes: FWIW, both my cross bike and my specialized that I race on are both aluminum.....but if I'm going out to ride for fun....steel or Ti.....just my .02 cents...:rolleyes:

http://www.enr.state.nc.us/its/SecuritySense/6dec05a.jpg

http://www.enr.state.nc.us/its/SecuritySense/6dec05a.jpg


you've been waiting to use that haven't ya..LOL....:eek: :D

You're right. I'm going out right now and rip those useless springs and shocks off my car. It's got four wheels, so it should be fine.

Seriously: You could probably put big enough tires/wheels on any frame so that there would be no problem with vibration, but within the realm of practical sizes, the frame material will make a difference for reasons I've already explained. If the only factor that influenced the feel of a frame is the two points of contact with the ground (wheels as you so eloquently call them) then bike design would be pretty easy.

So terrain, training, your own physiology, bike design, wheels and tires are just ornaments........the design should go along with your inteded purpose, you know, TT's, racing, long distance, the pimp daddy lowrider etc etc

Bike design is very complex. The materials argument is a marketing gimmick meant to make you spend more. IMO. Are the materials better? Better for what? The application is the key and oh yes, its design. Sorry, but your argument is like a chimp on acid. Look, its yellow no orange no blue yes tasty no tired all gone....It is pointless and has no merit. If you cant provide a specific context, referance or application, a bikes material is relly a way of just prostituting ignorance. Wow, you mean the newer the material, the better it must be so I must get it. Man, give me a contract with you as a customer and I will BUY THE BEER.......

I don't plan on getting rid of my Eisentraut, I will ride it from time to time. It has been my trusty friend for 9 years and 19,000 miles give or take, and will continue to be ridden, though not as much. I went ahead with a Litespeed Tuscany, Dura-Ace 10 speed group, Ksyrium ES wheels. Great deal at Colorado Cyclist, $1000 off frame and Easton EC90 SLX fork. NOTE, if any of you are interested, they have now posted it on their site at $1599 frame and fork, HOWEVER when placing the order I was told that the price was for the frame only, no fork, and that the website hadn't been completely updated. They will honor the $1799 for frame and fork ($450 on it's own) thru this week, so I was told. Said it should go out 3-5 days (they said more like 3, as not a busy time of year there for building bikes), UPS ground. I should have it by the weekend after next. Been 9 years since I got a new bike, I am excited, can hardly wait :D :D Did have to make some concessions to my wife, however, such as not talking about another bike for 8 years (ouch, that one may hurt :( ), not eating out so much, especially at lunch, not buying so many DVDs (I have about 600 now, that will slow way, way down), and oh yes, actually put anything / everything I have talked about selling on ebay. Now I have to keep up my end of the bargain. Oh yes, that includes no more bike clothes for 2 years (I have a LOT of clothes, both summer and winter).

Doug

Doug

Cool. Let us know how it works out.

The reason I have upgraded to CF is to show the guys at the cafe what a hard man I am by fitting the Real MAN ® saddle - made from solid granite from Canada's rugged Gaspé peninsula, shaped and smoothed by eons of pounding by powerful Atlantic breakers.

The Real MAN ® saddle is tough enough to stand up to whatever you can dish out!

Bike design is very complex. The materials argument is a marketing gimmick meant to make you spend more. IMO. Are the materials better? Better for what? The application is the key and oh yes, its design. Sorry, but your argument is like a chimp on acid. Look, its yellow no orange no blue yes tasty no tired all gone....It is pointless and has no merit. If you cant provide a specific context, referance or application, a bikes material is relly a way of just prostituting ignorance. Wow, you mean the newer the material, the better it must be so I must get it. Man, give me a contract with you as a customer and I will BUY THE BEER.......

Two posts back, you said that it was all in the wheels, now you say bike design is very complex and throw in an insult or two. Do you really think insults make your inconsistent reasoning appear stronger? Logic supported by facts would do far more to advance this discussion than stream-of-consciousness gibberish.

Materials do make a difference and I've given clear reasons why. If you can give clear reasons why you believe not, then state them. I'll certainly listen. Unsupported nay-saying and conspiracy theories don't constitute much of a case. Do your really think the reason carbon bikes are in ascendancy is that everyone in the bike industry wants to trick you into buying one?

and hence the answers are confusing.

Clearly there are great carbon frames and there are horrible carbon frames.....same for Titanium, steel and aluminum.

The real question is for a particular application, is the best x material frame better or worse than the best Y material frame.....and more important, could you detect it?

To me the things that affect the ride of a bike are the following, in order:

1.) Frame Design
2.) Tire Pressure
3.) Wheel stiffness
4.) Material

By frame design, I mean not only the geometry but also the individual tubes selected (and or laid up in the case of carbon).

To me the most extreme example of all this is the Merckx MX Leader. It weighs a ton (6 lbs frame & fork), it's shaped tubing make you think it's going to be so stiff that it will knock your fillings out......yet, when you ride it, (with 32 spoke OP's, 700X23 tires inflated to 98 lbs for my 165 lb body) you find a bike that is as responsive as any carbon bike I've ever ridden (a few) yet comfortable for 6 hour epic rides, and also (surprisingly) climbs pretty good......and descends wonderfully. The bike shouldn't ride the way it does, but it does......ride one you will see......clearly the design can maximize the advantages of a particular material and minimize it's deficiencies.

As to the "for a particular application" question.....these types of posts always seem to ignore that part of the issue. Use analytical.com some time and look at the difference in climbing time or a 3 lb frame and a 4 lb frame over a 3 or 4 mile climb with the same power output of the rider....it's literally seconds.....now seconds matter if I'm trying to set the record climbing Mt Washington, but they really don't matter for the majority of people on this board. (other than they "feel" like they are climbing faster). I am a 51 year old cyclist that has ridden between 3,500 and 7,000 miles/year for 20 of the last 31 years but who never races. To me, a responsive bike that is also comfortable for long rides & handle responsivly but also neutrally is what I want. I have found this in steel bikes, titanium bikes, carbon bikes and Ti/Carbon mix bikes. I have also owned and gotten rid of steel bikes, titanium bikes, carbon bikes and aluminum bikes that didn't work for me (for other than fit reasons) because of responsiveness, comfort or handling characteristics that I didn't like.

Ride a Lightspeed vortex and a Lightspeed classic back to back over the same course & more than likely one will work for what you want & one won't.....and depending on your predilection, it could be either one.

There is no perfect material.......there is no bike that works well for all applications......but a really good builder experienced with a particular material can make you an excellent bike for the application you want, if he has experience building for that application. You can get a great bike out of any material.

Len

Two posts back, you said that it was all in the wheels, now you say bike design is very complex and throw in an insult or two. Do you really think insults make your inconsistent reasoning appear stronger? Logic supported by facts would do far more to advance this discussion than stream-of-consciousness gibberish.

Materials do make a difference and I've given clear reasons why. If you can give clear reasons why you believe not, then state them. I'll certainly listen. Unsupported nay-saying and conspiracy theories don't constitute much of a case. Do your really think the reason carbon bikes are in ascendancy is that everyone in the bike industry wants to trick you into buying one?

I said that the source of vibration transmission on a bike would be the wheels. Thats because...drum roll please........they are in contact with the road as you ride the bike. They are THE conduit of vibration. (hopefully). As to ride quality.....YOU are claiming its the material and then you go into a mantra about frequencies etc etc etc. Sorry, thats kind of well....lame. BECAUSE, you would not know anything about the ride quality of any bike until you plant your bottom on the seat and RIDE the bike down the road on its 2 WHEELS.

I would suggest reading LenJ's post. There is no better material. If you make a claim about a material and disregard everything else; what do you expect?

As to logic and facts, thats a slippery slope. You can tell a whopper and be perfectly logical. The logical quality of an argument is not a promise of its "truth" or its basis in fact.This is not Star Trek and we are not Vulcans OK?

Does this mean that all bikes made from a material are great? No. Are they garbage? No.

They have to have some considertion as to HOW they are ridden and WHO will ride the bike and HOW they are designed.....Weird huh?

People seem to forget that CF is not single material. CF is a combo of fibers & resin, and the quality and fusion of those two elements is critical to the finished product. CF can be crafted with a much wider range of flex & torque resistance than other materials. This is a potential advantage for frame makers as bikes can be designed to fit a huge variety of riding characteristics. It also makes it difficult to generalize about CF frames. They range from the very soft and compliant that some love to ride on relaxed weekend centuries to the super-stiff frames used by pro sprinters.
When someone asks how CF compares to Ti,AL,steel, or whatever, the answer depends upon the specific CF build.

All that said, fit & design/build are still the most critical elements in geting the best frame to meet your desires. I believe that relatively few riders actually take the time and trouble to directly compare frames. They test ride bikes & think they like frame X over frame Y, but forget they are also comparing wheels, tires, etc. Too many think frame material is a HUGE factor, but for most riders its more marketing than reality. Personally, I think I like Ti best but I'm not done with my homework (research, test rides, etc.). Before I put down as much $$$ on a custom frame which could otherwise get me a reasonable car, I want to be sure I'm choosing the right material and builder.

People seem to forget that CF is not single material. CF is a combo of fibers & resin, and the quality and fusion of those two elements is critical to the finished product. CF can be crafted with a much wider range of flex & torque resistance than other materials. This is a potential advantage for frame makers as bikes can be designed to fit a huge variety of riding characteristics. It also makes it difficult to generalize about CF frames. They range from the very soft and compliant that some love to ride on relaxed weekend centuries to the super-stiff frames used by pro sprinters.
When someone asks how CF compares to Ti,AL,steel, or whatever, the answer depends upon the specific CF build.

All that said, fit & design/build are still the most critical elements in geting the best frame to meet your desires. I believe that relatively few riders actually take the time and trouble to directly compare frames. They test ride bikes & think they like frame X over frame Y, but forget they are also comparing wheels, tires, etc. Too many think frame material is a HUGE factor, but for most riders its more marketing than reality. Personally, I think I like Ti best but I'm not done with my homework (research, test rides, etc.). Before I put down as much $$$ on a custom frame which could otherwise get me a reasonable car, I want to be sure I'm choosing the right material and builder.

Your comments about differences in CF is part of what I include in design. A steel builder (or any good builder), when designing a frame, selects tubes with different butting and shapes to acheive the ride he wants for the rider he is building for.

The other thing that strikes me in your write up on CF is that it's all about potential. Intellectually, CF Should be able to be made the way you describe, but economics of mass prduction limit and homoginize the choices available, so what ends up in the market is not always the best for you.

I think many people buy CF because it can be individualized the way you describe, not because it is.

Len

Personally, I think I like Ti best but I'm not done with my homework (research, test rides, etc.). Before I put down as much $$$ on a custom frame which could otherwise get me a reasonable car, I want to be sure I'm choosing the right material and builder.

That is why I've begun to focus on the builder more than the material, or if I want a particular material, find a experienced quality builder in that material. A Ricard Sachs can choose the right steel tubset for me better than I ever will & design a frame that will work for me. A Bob Parlee or a Crumpton can probably do the same with Carbon. A Kelly Bedford at Serotta of a Tom Kellogg with Titanium.......(I'm not saying these are the only people who can do this, just using them as examples).

YMMV

Len

By varying geometry, tube size and other parameters, a clever designer could probably build frames of carbon, titanium, bamboo, aluminum, steel, etc. that would all have the same flex/stiffness; however, the frames would still ride differently in terms of comfort because of the difference in acoustic impedance of each material.

In simple terms, the acoustic impedance of a material is its resistance to the transmission of energy in the form of vibration. The acoustic impedence of carbon composite is higher than that of aluminum, titanium or steel, thus less vibration is going to be transmitted through a carbon frame than through the others. Bamboo, might actually be the winner here.

Baseball bats are a great example of this phenomena. No one who has ever hit a ball wrong with a metal bat will dispute that the "sting" is orders of magnitude greater than with a wooden bat.

Mis-hit a composite bat sometime. :yikes: