Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 60
  1. #26
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    254
    Care to back up your comment? Or are you content to just hurl insults?

  2. #27
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    841
    Wel by that logic why buy a Litespeed instead of a Ti frame from Giant or Trek?
    All the gear and no idea

  3. #28
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Care to back up your comment? Or are you content to just hurl insults?
    Welding ti is a one person job that requires skill and care. Let's start by you backing up your comment that an employee of a big company is likely to do a better job and take more care than a small company (where it's often the owner or someone with a big vested interest doing the welding)?

  4. #29
    pmf
    pmf is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by mik_git View Post
    Wel by that logic why buy a Litespeed instead of a Ti frame from Giant or Trek?
    Well, for one, Giant or Trek don't make titanium bikes.

  5. #30
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by pmf View Post
    Well, for one, Giant or Trek don't make titanium bikes.
    Yes, but not sure that wasp has figured that out yet...

  6. #31
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    193
    To me, carbon is an all out manufacturing process heavy with R and D and CAD engineering.

    Ti is an art and a skill that you hire a CRAFTSMAN for. Think manufacturing process v artist creation.

    Part of the lure of Ti is that not only custom made to fit YOU but the 1 on 1 with the guy building it. Larger company ti just doesn't have that connection. I like that I get to deal with the guy building mine.

  7. #32
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,739
    Quote Originally Posted by biscut View Post
    To me, carbon is an all out manufacturing process heavy with R and D and CAD engineering.

    Ti is an art and a skill that you hire a CRAFTSMAN for. Think manufacturing process v artist creation.
    There are a lot of different ways to make a carbon fame. Your comment seems to assume they are all molded. They aren't all made that way. In this context tube to tube carbon really isn't any different from steel or Ti in the sense it's selecting the right tubes and joining them together at the correct angles.

  8. #33
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    There are a lot of different ways to make a carbon fame. Your comment seems to assume they are all molded. They aren't all made that way. In this context tube to tube carbon really isn't any different from steel or Ti in the sense it's selecting the right tubes and joining them together at the correct angles.
    I thought that was predominately early carbon. Are there any major manufacturers doing carbon without molds? Who is doing tubes in carbon?

    No argument here. I'm looking to learn about it. Is it a mostly small custom carbon shop doin it this way to avoid the heavy cost of a mold for 1 build?? Any benefits to tubes over mold?

  9. #34
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,739
    Quote Originally Posted by biscut View Post
    I thought that was predominately early carbon. Are there any major manufacturers doing carbon without molds? Who is doing tubes in carbon?

    No argument here. I'm looking to learn about it. Is it a mostly small custom carbon shop doin it this way to avoid the heavy cost of a mold for 1 build?? Any benefits to tubes over mold?
    Colnago is the most well known. I think Time and Cyfac do also. And pretty much every custom builder.
    I'm not aware of any advantage of than the obvious for custom (being able to select lengths and thickness individually for each bike they make).
    But many would argue Colnago's top of the line is the best there is and they are not custom so maybe there's more to it. And Time and Cyfac are awesome too.. I'm not sure exactly what they do but I'm pretty sure they are not using molds.

  10. #35
    pmf
    pmf is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Colnago is the most well known. I think Time and Cyfac do also. And pretty much every custom builder.
    I'm not aware of any advantage of than the obvious for custom (being able to select lengths and thickness individually for each bike they make).
    But many would argue Colnago's top of the line is the best there is and they are not custom so maybe there's more to it. And Time and Cyfac are awesome too.. I'm not sure exactly what they do but I'm pretty sure they are not using molds.
    You can get a custom C-60. I have a custom C-40. They make the lugs so you can get any geometry you want. I was in Italy on my honeymoon on a bike tour and the shop supporting the tour was a Colnago dealer. He took a bunch of measurements of us (my wife got one too) and the bike frames/forks came about 4-5 months later.

    Most carbon bikes were bonded early on. The Trek bikes that Lance rode were bonded. Kestrel was one of the few manufacturers that did a true monocoque frame. Molds are expensive and relegate you to a limited number of sized. The big Asian manufacturers are the leaders in molded frames. That's why their so prevalent today.

  11. #36
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,739
    Quote Originally Posted by pmf View Post
    You can get a custom C-60. I have a custom C-40.
    I stand corrected. That's cool.

  12. #37
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by pmf View Post
    Well, for one, Giant or Trek don't make titanium bikes.
    Yes. I am well aware of that fact. I was using them as an example of companies that had the resources to improve upon current titanium manufacturing.

  13. #38
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by biscut View Post
    To me, carbon is an all out manufacturing process heavy with R and D and CAD engineering.

    Ti is an art and a skill that you hire a CRAFTSMAN for. Think manufacturing process v artist creation.

    Part of the lure of Ti is that not only custom made to fit YOU but the 1 on 1 with the guy building it. Larger company ti just doesn't have that connection. I like that I get to deal with the guy building mine.
    Your assertion is that there is no product development to be made in making titanium frames, and that producing them is simply a matter of welding the tubes optimally. I disagree.

    Remember that nowadays metal tubes can be shaped in ways they couldn't before (or at least, the technology to do so has trickled down to bicycles). It's not just a matter of squeezing, bending, and butting tubes. They can be hydraformed into shapes that weren't possible before. And Litespeed, for example, uses a special machine to weld its 6/4 titanium sheets into tubes. You can be damn sure that some small frame building operation isn't going to invest machinery like that. They'll use straight gauge and butted titanium tubes, and that's about it.

    As for the quality of welding, they'll all do a good job. But for me, I went with Litespeed because they have the best product to offer.

  14. #39
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Your assertion is that there is no product development to be made in making titanium frames, and that producing them is simply a matter of welding the tubes optimally. I disagree.

    Remember that nowadays metal tubes can be shaped in ways they couldn't before (or at least, the technology to do so has trickled down to bicycles). It's not just a matter of squeezing, bending, and butting tubes. They can be hydraformed into shapes that weren't possible before. And Litespeed, for example, uses a special machine to weld its 6/4 titanium sheets into tubes. You can be damn sure that some small frame building operation isn't going to invest machinery like that. They'll use straight gauge and butted titanium tubes, and that's about it.

    As for the quality of welding, they'll all do a good job. But for me, I went with Litespeed because they have the best product to offer.
    ah, the power or marketing. I see you took Litespeeds hook, line and sinker. Small makers don't use sheets and 6/4 titanium for tubes because they believe it's inferior. Shaped tubing it great but it turns out round is the best shape.
    Even makers who use butted tubing, the honest ones, will say all that does is cut weight and round straight gauge is just as good other than weight.

  15. #40
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    ah, the power or marketing. I see you took Litespeeds hook, line and sinker. Small makers don't use sheets and 6/4 titanium for tubes because they believe it's inferior. Shaped tubing it great but it turns out round is the best shape.
    Even makers who use butted tubing, the honest ones, will say all that does is cut weight and round straight gauge is just as good other than weight.
    You're accusing me of drinking the Kool-Aid while making one of the most naive comments of all time?

    Butted tubing has been used on higher end frames for decades..... because they save weight!! That's why they're used - ie to save weight. I don't know if you noticed, but saving weight is a big deal in the bike industry.

    Small makers don't use sheets or 6/4 because it requires additional skill and equipment and isn't worth the cost to them. If you think they shrug off 6/4 because they think it's inferior, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. If they could make 6/4 tubes and do so in a cost-effective manner, then they would in a heartbeat, if for no other reason than to sell it as a gimmick. But they cannot. Litespeed says 6/4 makes a superior tube for certain applications, which makes a lot of sense. It never occurred to you that Litespeed is telling the truth?

  16. #41
    Adorable Furry Hombre
    Reputation: Marc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    24,495
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    You're accusing me of drinking the Kool-Aid while making one of the most naive comments of all time?

    Butted tubing has been used on higher end frames for decades..... because they save weight!! That's why they're used - ie to save weight. I don't know if you noticed, but saving weight is a big deal in the bike industry.

    Small makers don't use sheets or 6/4 because it requires additional skill and equipment and isn't worth the cost to them.
    If you think they shrug off 6/4 because they think it's inferior, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. If they could make 6/4 tubes and do so in a cost-effective manner, then they would in a heartbeat, if for no other reason than to sell it as a gimmick. But they cannot. Litespeed says 6/4 makes a superior tube for certain applications, which makes a lot of sense. It never occurred to you that Litespeed is telling the truth?

    No...they don't use it because it is ridiculously expensive as a material, for basically zero benefit as a bicycle piping material...other than upselling the price to the consumer. Certain applications, like slider dropouts, 6/4 is better due to engineering requirements, but that is it.

    And yes, those selling 6/4 framesets (Litespeed) are selling as a gimmick.


    Why are you so riled up in defending them? Seriously. Litespeed are not saints singing the Gospel, they're trying and failing at selling bikes. For a long while they went to reselling Chinese carbon fiber trying and failing at making money. Now they're back at the titanium game. Anyone's guess whether Litespeed is actually making their frames themselves or subcontracting out, and the "expertise" you espouse them as having...they actually employ/have or not.
    "‘Photograph me on horseback,’ wrote Teddy Roosevelt in 1908. ‘Tennis, no. And golf is fatal.’ "

  17. #42
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    841
    No, Litespeed do make their frames in house(well they did as of last year, I assume they still do).

    Thing is, I'd call Litespeed a "small manufacture", big in the realms of Ti builders, but very small in the wold of bike companies.

    For 6/5, Litespeed used to make 6/5 frames, but now they don't,only the top tube. Why is that? the have the know how, but don't.
    To me the 6/5 sheet top tune is like the helix Lynski downtube. Does it do anything, sure, maybe, but its more of a "thing", look at this "thing" we can do, we don't need to, but we can, so we do and hopefully that will entice you to by our stuff over the other guy, because that "thing", it looks cool.

    And yes, Litespeed can do stuff,butting swagging all sorts of stuff that the 1 guy frame builder can't, or doesn't... but then you're buying different things, the Litespeed is an off the shelf, stock frame. The small custom builder is made to measure. It's not about a butt here saving a gram there 2% stiffer overall, it's about an expert crating a bespoke frame exactly for you. Because it it was just about r&d and absolute performance, then just buy a top end Trek or Giant carbon bike, job done
    All the gear and no idea

  18. #43
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    I stand corrected. That's cool.
    You can get a custom c-60 but whether colnago agrees to do the work, is no slam dunk. My understanding is there's a long waiting process and they have to agree on the proposal.


    It's a great bike. I'm very pleased with my C-59 and interested to see what changes occur in the next iteration. Should be soon I would think, maybe 2018 or the year after. C-60 came out in 2014

  19. #44
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    You're accusing me of drinking the Kool-Aid while making one of the most naive comments of all time?

    Butted tubing has been used on higher end frames for decades..... because they save weight!! That's why they're used - ie to save weight. I don't know if you noticed, but saving weight is a big deal in the bike industry.

    Small makers don't use sheets or 6/4 because it requires additional skill and equipment and isn't worth the cost to them. If you think they shrug off 6/4 because they think it's inferior, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. If they could make 6/4 tubes and do so in a cost-effective manner, then they would in a heartbeat, if for no other reason than to sell it as a gimmick. But they cannot. Litespeed says 6/4 makes a superior tube for certain applications, which makes a lot of sense. It never occurred to you that Litespeed is telling the truth?
    Keep digging.

    So what did you think I meant when I said "cut weight" that you felt the need to point out to me that butted tubing is used to "save weight"?

    On the remote chance you'd be interested in what someone who actually knows what he's talking about based on scientific testing as opposed to Litespeeds gimmick marketing there's this:

    "First, seamed tubing is fabricated by rolling 6-4 sheet into a tube shape while simultaneously welding the seam that is created in the rolling process. The result is a tube that has a welded seam—a potential failure point—along its length. This seam acts as both a hard point and a stress riser since the weld bead is thicker than the tube itself and the weld creates an inconsistency in the tube.

    Second, 6-4 sheet is designed to be used as a sheet, not as a tube. If it is formed into a tube, its grain structure can lead to premature tube failure. Indeed, a 6-4 tube will fail through fatigue cycling (repeated flexing) before it should, and independent fatigue tests show that tubing made from 6-4 sheet does not have the fatigue life of a properly drawn 3-2.5 tube.

    In recent years, some seamless 6-4 tubing has trickled into the bike industry from outside the U.S. However, it is only being offered as a few internally-butted tube lengths of limited sizes (as determined by tube diameter, wall thickness, and butting placement). These limited offerings are inadequate for modern high-end bike building, which requires a very wide variety of tubing to ensure optimum ride characteristics. In addition, external butting is preferred to internal butting for the reasons outlined in the Tube Butting Processes section of this document, under Manufacturing Overview.

    One might argue that the strategic use of the limited 6-4 tube sizes available in combination with 3-2.5 tubes would create a better bike. But there is no weight advantage for bikes currently employing 6-4 tubes over the top-of-the-line 3-2.5 bikes available. And there is no appreciable stiffness or strength benefit either, since 6-4's higher bending stiffness is offset by its lower torsional stiffness, and the butting techniques employed in the 6-4 tubes currently available have a negative impact on fatigue strength. So, 6-4 only adds expense."

  20. #45
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Keep digging.

    So what did you think I meant when I said "cut weight" that you felt the need to point out to me that butted tubing is used to "save weight"?

    On the remote chance you'd be interested in what someone who actually knows what he's talking about based on scientific testing as opposed to Litespeeds gimmick marketing there's this:

    "First, seamed tubing is fabricated by rolling 6-4 sheet into a tube shape while simultaneously welding the seam that is created in the rolling process. The result is a tube that has a welded seam—a potential failure point—along its length. This seam acts as both a hard point and a stress riser since the weld bead is thicker than the tube itself and the weld creates an inconsistency in the tube.

    Second, 6-4 sheet is designed to be used as a sheet, not as a tube. If it is formed into a tube, its grain structure can lead to premature tube failure. Indeed, a 6-4 tube will fail through fatigue cycling (repeated flexing) before it should, and independent fatigue tests show that tubing made from 6-4 sheet does not have the fatigue life of a properly drawn 3-2.5 tube.

    In recent years, some seamless 6-4 tubing has trickled into the bike industry from outside the U.S. However, it is only being offered as a few internally-butted tube lengths of limited sizes (as determined by tube diameter, wall thickness, and butting placement). These limited offerings are inadequate for modern high-end bike building, which requires a very wide variety of tubing to ensure optimum ride characteristics. In addition, external butting is preferred to internal butting for the reasons outlined in the Tube Butting Processes section of this document, under Manufacturing Overview.

    One might argue that the strategic use of the limited 6-4 tube sizes available in combination with 3-2.5 tubes would create a better bike. But there is no weight advantage for bikes currently employing 6-4 tubes over the top-of-the-line 3-2.5 bikes available. And there is no appreciable stiffness or strength benefit either, since 6-4's higher bending stiffness is offset by its lower torsional stiffness, and the butting techniques employed in the 6-4 tubes currently available have a negative impact on fatigue strength. So, 6-4 only adds expense."
    }

    But 6-4 must be better than 3-2.5. "6" is a bigger number than "3".

  21. #46
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    3,125
    Quote Originally Posted by mik_git View Post
    No, Litespeed do make their frames in house(well they did as of last year, I assume they still do).

    Thing is, I'd call Litespeed a "small manufacture", big in the realms of Ti builders, but very small in the wold of bike companies.

    For 6/5, Litespeed used to make 6/5 frames, but now they don't,only the top tube. Why is that? the have the know how, but don't.
    To me the 6/5 sheet top tune is like the helix Lynski downtube. Does it do anything, sure, maybe, but its more of a "thing", look at this "thing" we can do, we don't need to, but we can, so we do and hopefully that will entice you to by our stuff over the other guy, because that "thing", it looks cool.

    And yes, Litespeed can do stuff,butting swagging all sorts of stuff that the 1 guy frame builder can't, or doesn't... but then you're buying different things, the Litespeed is an off the shelf, stock frame. The small custom builder is made to measure. It's not about a butt here saving a gram there 2% stiffer overall, it's about an expert crating a bespoke frame exactly for you. Because it it was just about r&d and absolute performance, then just buy a top end Trek or Giant carbon bike, job done
    This is simply a subjective response, but I looked at Litespeed in a bike shop and the frames do not look like the same quality as when they were owned and run by Lynskey. This is simply my gut reaction to seeing them in stores and comparing to a Seven, Moots or Firefly

  22. #47
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    254
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    Keep digging.

    So what did you think I meant when I said "cut weight" that you felt the need to point out to me that butted tubing is used to "save weight"?

    On the remote chance you'd be interested in what someone who actually knows what he's talking about based on scientific testing as opposed to Litespeeds gimmick marketing there's this:

    "First, seamed tubing is fabricated by rolling 6-4 sheet into a tube shape while simultaneously welding the seam that is created in the rolling process. The result is a tube that has a welded seam—a potential failure point—along its length. This seam acts as both a hard point and a stress riser since the weld bead is thicker than the tube itself and the weld creates an inconsistency in the tube.

    Second, 6-4 sheet is designed to be used as a sheet, not as a tube. If it is formed into a tube, its grain structure can lead to premature tube failure. Indeed, a 6-4 tube will fail through fatigue cycling (repeated flexing) before it should, and independent fatigue tests show that tubing made from 6-4 sheet does not have the fatigue life of a properly drawn 3-2.5 tube.

    In recent years, some seamless 6-4 tubing has trickled into the bike industry from outside the U.S. However, it is only being offered as a few internally-butted tube lengths of limited sizes (as determined by tube diameter, wall thickness, and butting placement). These limited offerings are inadequate for modern high-end bike building, which requires a very wide variety of tubing to ensure optimum ride characteristics. In addition, external butting is preferred to internal butting for the reasons outlined in the Tube Butting Processes section of this document, under Manufacturing Overview.

    One might argue that the strategic use of the limited 6-4 tube sizes available in combination with 3-2.5 tubes would create a better bike. But there is no weight advantage for bikes currently employing 6-4 tubes over the top-of-the-line 3-2.5 bikes available. And there is no appreciable stiffness or strength benefit either, since 6-4's higher bending stiffness is offset by its lower torsional stiffness, and the butting techniques employed in the 6-4 tubes currently available have a negative impact on fatigue strength. So, 6-4 only adds expense."
    You stated that the only benefit of butting tubes is cutting weight, and I took the liberty of reminding you that cutting weight is, in and of itself, a very valid reason to use butted tubes.

    As for the claim about the weld down the middle causing problems, I can very easily argue that it does not. Unlike welds that are used to hold tubes together, the weld along the 6/4 sheet won't endure anywhere near those kinds of forces as it comprises a small part of the tube's wall. It's the cylindrical shape of a tube primarily that imparts strength, and not the tubing material itself. That's why tube walls - even aluminum tubing - can be made so thin. Is the weld weaker compared to the unwelded walls? Possibly. Possibly it's stronger than the thin titanium sheet. But it's not significantly so either way in light of the forces it will endure as a small part of a large cylindrical tube.

    As for the claim that 6/4 is meant to be used as a sheet and not as a tube, this comment shows a real lack of understanding of structures. First, consider this: anything but the most brittle metals can be bent to some extent. A 6/4 titanium sheet rolled into a tube is typically large diameter and has many facets (ie flat surfaces), meaning that the individual bends are modest. So the bending isn't an issue. The individual facets of the tube are for all intents and purposes functioning as "sheets", but the tertiary structure (ie the tube form) has all the properties of a normal large diameter tube made by a material that could be formed into a tube.

    As for these "tests" that showed reduced fatigue life of 6/4 tubes, provide a reference. I want to read these studies.

  23. #48
    pmf
    pmf is offline
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc View Post
    Why are you so riled up in defending them? Seriously. Litespeed are not saints singing the Gospel, they're trying and failing at selling bikes. For a long while they went to reselling Chinese carbon fiber trying and failing at making money. Now they're back at the titanium game. Anyone's guess whether Litespeed is actually making their frames themselves or subcontracting out, and the "expertise" you espouse them as having...they actually employ/have or not.
    Because he just bought a Litespeed T1sl frame that retails for $4000.

    https://shop.litespeed.com/collectio...litespeed-t1sl

    And I'm guessing he's not liking what he's hearing here, but it happens to be true.

    1. 6/4 titanium is a marketing gimmick. There's nothing inherently better about it. it's more brittle and has to be formed from sheets welded together.
    2. Butted tubes are a gimmick that save a tiny amount of weight for a lot of extra money that could be better spent elsewhere.
    3. Litespeed is not a large, cutting edge bicycle manufacturer. Comparing it to Giant or Trek is like comparing the U.S. navy to the Iranian navy. Back when titanium was the cutting edge bike to have, Litespeed was an industry leader. The owner, David Lynskey, sold it to ABG and things took a downhill turn. ABG earned a reputation for poor customer service and failure to honor warranties. When the cheesy Chinese carbon bikes didn't sell so well, it appears that they're going beck to their roots.

    So Mr. Wasp, enjoy the new Litespeed, but don't get on this website and tell everyone that it's so much better than something made by craftsmen like Kish, Erikson, Potts or Kellog, because it isn't. Next time around, do some more research.

  24. #49
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post

    As for the claim about the weld down the middle causing problems, I can very easily argue that it does not. Unlike welds that are used to hold tubes together, the weld along the 6/4 sheet won't endure anywhere near those kinds of forces as it comprises a small part of the tube's wall. It's the cylindrical shape of a tube primarily that imparts strength, and not the tubing material itself. That's why tube walls - even aluminum tubing - can be made so thin. Is the weld weaker compared to the unwelded walls? Possibly. Possibly it's stronger than the thin titanium sheet. But it's not significantly so either way in light of the forces it will endure as a small part of a large cylindrical tube.

    As for the claim that 6/4 is meant to be used as a sheet and not as a tube, this comment shows a real lack of understanding of structures. First, consider this: anything but the most brittle metals can be bent to some extent. A 6/4 titanium sheet rolled into a tube is typically large diameter and has many facets (ie flat surfaces), meaning that the individual bends are modest. So the bending isn't an issue. The individual facets of the tube are for all intents and purposes functioning as "sheets", but the tertiary structure (ie the tube form) has all the properties of a normal large diameter tube made by a material that could be formed into a tube.

    As for these "tests" that showed reduced fatigue life of 6/4 tubes, provide a reference. I want to read these studies.
    Your litespeed is far superior to any not using rolled sheets of 6/4 and/or made by a smaller company. And I'll be sure to let Rob Vandermark know he doesn't know what he's talking about because some guy on the internet who bought a litespeed says so.

    Can you move on and stop embarrassing yourself now?

  25. #50
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    254
    Once you get off of Mr. Vandermark's nuts, maybe you'll take the time to read your own comments and see the folley in them.

    Seven makes great frames, but that doesn't mean Mr. Vandermark isn't vulnerable to using the same business tactics that everyone else does - ie berating the methods of others because they choose not to use them. Maybe the folks at Seven simply aren't comfortable working with 6/4 to make tubes. There's no shame in that. But your assertion that Mr. Vandermark has the final word on 6/4 tubes is downright ridiculous. The folks at Litespeed know a thing or two about titanium, and using 6/4 tubes.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Another Ti Question : Opinion of Steve Potts?
    By tbessie in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-13-2017, 11:05 AM
  2. Firefly Titanium
    By Mr Evil in forum Custom Builders
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-25-2015, 07:28 PM
  3. Eriksen, Spectrum or Firefly?
    By dcgriz in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-20-2012, 11:21 AM
  4. Steve Potts Ti pics anyone?
    By Mike T. in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-08-2009, 04:53 PM
  5. Why Shouldn't I Get A Potts?
    By IRMB in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-24-2008, 06:42 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •