• 01-17-2019
    Fredrico
    Quote:

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

    Same with steel, aluminum and carbon.

    Well, the first ti frames built with the same tubing diameters as steel of the day were known for having too much "modulus of elasticity" under maximum efforts. LeMond's first carbon bike was also allegedly "flippy" compared to the steel bikes, largely because it had aluminum lugs. Builders manipulated the tubing to compensate and dropped aluminum lugs. Now they're manipulating the weaves and layups, so carbon finally rides "better" than steel and as comfortably as ti.

    So agree, ti's are outliers. Get one you like and it'll last forever, even better than steel! :D. But why smash it up in a race? Then again, they're also very crashworthy, aren't they?
  • 01-18-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    Not being familiar with an abbreviation isn't the same thing as not knowing what something is. And yes, I looked it up, and yes, I know what drag coefficient is. Just haven't seen it written as CdA before.

    Keep exposing your ignorance and confirming why your baseless made up opinion is meaningless. It's hilarious.

    CdA isn't drag coefficient. Derp
  • 01-18-2019
    pmf
    As someone else here noted, the answer to Waspinator's question is purely economic. Titanium bikes are more expensive to produce that the Chinese mass marketed bikes that Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, etc. are selling. The money is in carbon fiber. Whether carbon fiber is a better material than titanium, aluminum, steel or bamboo is a secondary concern. The titanium bike industry is pretty much a small cottage industry compared to the big bike manufacturers.

    It costs a lot of money to sponsor a World Tour team. It goes beyond providing 'free bikes'. Firms like Litespeed can't afford that level of marketing. Judging by the number of guys I see riding high end Specialized, Trek and Pinarello bikes around here, it must work. And there's no convincing these guys that some 'old hat' titanium bike is the thing to have. Gotta have those $2500 carbon clinchers as well.

    Waspinator periodically visits us, makes an @ss of himself and disappears. He evidently bought a Litespeed T1sl bike for big bucks. I suspect he has buyer's remorse. Titanium was the gee whiz material 25 years ago. Now its seen by most people as a bit dated, like steel. He's also convinced that Litespeed has somehow evolved titanium fabrication to some mystical level where in reality, nothing has changed in decades. But good luck convincing him of that because he's swallowed Litespeed's marketing BS hook line and sinker. I've got five bikes and only one is carbon fiber -- a classic C40. I still have a Litespeed Ultimate made when Michael Lynskey owned the company. I like steel and titanium bikes, but I sure wouldn't make a troll of myself defending those choices with any argument other than its what I prefer.
  • 01-18-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmf View Post
    As someone else here noted, the answer to Waspinator's question is purely economic. Titanium bikes are more expensive to produce that the Chinese mass marketed bikes that Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, etc. are selling.

    That's simply not true. A high end Litespeed Ti frame is the same price as a Madone frame. Yea yea... but carbon is produced in China bla bla. Well you can get a Ti frame from China for $330 too. There's not some great magical mystery to Ti.
    And even if a Ti frame cost $1k more, if it were lighter and more aerodynamic than carbon, then the Pro's would be using it. But it's not so they don't. $1-$2k in the scheme of a $12,000 bike is irrelevant.
  • 01-18-2019
    pmf
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    That's simply not true. A high end Litespeed Ti frame is the same price as a Madone frame. Yea yea... but carbon is produced in China bla bla. Well you can get a Ti frame from China for $330 too. There's not some great magical mystery to Ti.
    And even if a Ti frame cost $1k more, if it were lighter and more aerodynamic than carbon, then the Pro's would be using it. But it's not so they don't. $1-$2k in the scheme of a $12,000 bike is irrelevant.

    No, the pros use what they get paid to use. And when you get down to it, the bikes they ride aren't the determining factor in the results they get. There's UCI weight limit, so that's not a factor anymore.

    I think you're confusing cost of production with price. Does a Specialized S-Works cost a lot to manufacture? More than any other carbon bike? I can get on the Lynskey website and pay thousands of dollars for one of their frames, and then I can sometimes find them on ebay (sold by Lynskey) for $700. I recall the guy who ran Bikes Direct used to post here. He sources all his frames from China. He had a post about pricing once -- aluminum frames were dirt cheap, next came carbon and then steel and titanium. I'm talking hundreds -- not thousands different. But I bet margins like that matter. Why do you find FSA cranks on $3000 bikes? There's a reason the industry went to Chinese made carbon frames, and that reason is the economics favor that shift. Use your google skills to find a $250 carbon frame from China.

    You are utterly completely full of s#it. You've been destroyed in this thread (and others) and you have nothing, not one shred of fact to support your uninformed made up opinion. Sound familiar?
  • 01-18-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmf View Post
    No, the pros use what they get paid to use. And when you get down to it, the bikes they ride aren't the determining factor in the results they get. There's UCI weight limit, so that's not a factor anymore.

    I think you're confusing cost of production with price...

    There's a reason the industry went to Chinese made carbon frames, and that reason is the economics favor that shift. Use your google skills to find a $250 carbon frame from China.

    Nope. Like I said... you can also buy a Ti frame for $330. Neither carbon or Ti are that expensive to manufacture.


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmf View Post
    Titanium bikes are more expensive to produce that the Chinese mass marketed bikes

    Like I've shown... not true. Ti isn't magical fairy dust.

    Sure it's purely economical. Bicycle manufactures want to sell bikes. Pro teams winning races sells bikes. If they could sell more bikes by having teams win on Ti, they would make them. But they don't so they won't.
  • 01-18-2019
    Lombard
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmf View Post
    Waspinator periodically visits us, makes an @ss of himself and disappears. He evidently bought a Litespeed T1sl bike for big bucks. I suspect he has buyer's remorse.

    I'm going to say I disagree that it was buyer's remorse. More likely, it's the teenager mentality of loving his new purchase and needing to prove to the world that it's better than any other. Sort of like when a teenager buy's his first car which happens to be a Chevy. So now he must prove to the world that not only are Chevys awesome, but all Fords suck.

    I have 7 bikes and my favorite one is my Jamis Renegade 631 Reynolds steel bike. But I'm not arguing that it should be the standard for the TdF. :out:
  • 01-18-2019
    velodog
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    That's simply not true. A high end Litespeed Ti frame is the same price as a Madone frame. Yea yea... but carbon is produced in China bla bla. Well you can get a Ti frame from China for $330 too. There's not some great magical mystery to Ti.
    And even if a Ti frame cost $1k more, if it were lighter and more aerodynamic than carbon, then the Pro's would be using it. But it's not so they don't. $1-$2k in the scheme of a $12,000 bike is irrelevant.

    Where you gonna find an aero Ti frame that's as slippery as an aero crabon frame? And will it be possible to get it as cheaply as an aero carbon frame can be made. Just a guess on my part, but I don't think that building a slippery Ti frame can be done as cheaply as a round, oval or even helix frame can be made.

    And even if it could be done cheaply, why would the big manufacturers bother making the investment now having already decided to butter their bread with crabon. Maybe if the sales of crabon starts to slump there would be a move to "Ti, the next big advancement", but I doubt that seeing as Specialized has plopped Sagan on an aluminum frame at the Race Down Under..
  • 01-18-2019
    DaveG
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Nope. Like I said... you can also buy a Ti frame for $330. Neither carbon or Ti are that expensive to manufacture.

    .

    Do you have a link to these $300 Ti frames? I wanna get me one (I tried Google but that got me Ti eyeglass frames for $300)
  • 01-18-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by velodog View Post
    Where you gonna find an aero Ti frame that's as slippery as an aero crabon frame? And will it be possible to get it as cheaply as an aero carbon frame can be made.

    You're not gonna find one. Which is why pro's aren't riding Ti frames. They can't be made aero.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    Do you have a link to these $300 Ti frames? I wanna get me one (I tried Google but that got me Ti eyeglass frames for $300)

    Ti frame from China for $330
    I don't think you wanna get yourself one.
  • 01-18-2019
    DaveG
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    You're not gonna find one. Which is why pro's aren't riding Ti frames. They can't be made aero.

    Ti frame from China for $330
    I don't think you wanna get yourself one.

    The welds look a bit rough and it's no lightweight at 1600g for a super small. Maybe I will stick with my Lynskey
  • 01-18-2019
    pmf
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
    The welds look a bit rough and it's no lightweight at 1600g for a super small. Maybe I will stick with my Lynskey

    Itís also only available in 46 cm size frame. So unless youíre 4í10Ē itís probably not for you. Convincing argument for the cost of titanium versus carbon fiber fabrication.
  • 01-18-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmf View Post
    As someone else here noted, the answer to Waspinator's question is purely economic. Titanium bikes are more expensive to produce that the Chinese mass marketed bikes that Trek, Specialized, Cannondale, etc. are selling. The money is in carbon fiber. Whether carbon fiber is a better material than titanium, aluminum, steel or bamboo is a secondary concern. The titanium bike industry is pretty much a small cottage industry compared to the big bike manufacturers.

    It costs a lot of money to sponsor a World Tour team. It goes beyond providing 'free bikes'. Firms like Litespeed can't afford that level of marketing. Judging by the number of guys I see riding high end Specialized, Trek and Pinarello bikes around here, it must work. And there's no convincing these guys that some 'old hat' titanium bike is the thing to have. Gotta have those $2500 carbon clinchers as well.

    Waspinator periodically visits us, makes an @ss of himself and disappears. He evidently bought a Litespeed T1sl bike for big bucks. I suspect he has buyer's remorse. Titanium was the gee whiz material 25 years ago. Now its seen by most people as a bit dated, like steel. He's also convinced that Litespeed has somehow evolved titanium fabrication to some mystical level where in reality, nothing has changed in decades. But good luck convincing him of that because he's swallowed Litespeed's marketing BS hook line and sinker. I've got five bikes and only one is carbon fiber -- a classic C40. I still have a Litespeed Ultimate made when Michael Lynskey owned the company. I like steel and titanium bikes, but I sure wouldn't make a troll of myself defending those choices with any argument other than its what I prefer.

    Buyer's remorse? Don't make me laugh. I am extremely happy with my purchase, and I'm contemplating purchasing a second T1SL Disc frame. My current one was built up for sturdiness. I'd like to build a second one as light as possible. No buyer's remorse here whatsoever.

    Your exaggeration of my opinion of Litespeed notwithstanding, I still believe that they are better at it than your average mom-and-pop Ti manufacturer. They have a lot of experience doing it, and being a bigger operation than most, they have the resources to do more with the material.
  • 01-18-2019
    Waspinator
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    That's simply not true. A high end Litespeed Ti frame is the same price as a Madone frame. Yea yea... but carbon is produced in China bla bla. Well you can get a Ti frame from China for $330 too. There's not some great magical mystery to Ti.
    And even if a Ti frame cost $1k more, if it were lighter and more aerodynamic than carbon, then the Pro's would be using it. But it's not so they don't. $1-$2k in the scheme of a $12,000 bike is irrelevant.

    What he's saying is "simply not true", but I'm "full of s***".

    Maybe you need to learn to not take things so personally.
  • 01-18-2019
    taodemon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    What he's saying is "simply not true", but I'm "full of s***".

    Maybe you need to learn to not take things so personally.

    pmf doesn't have a history of posting rubbish flat earther type nonsense like "aero being BS" or "thru axles are stupid". Enjoy your ti bike, nothing wrong with that, just don't make up s%$^ when reality and all evidence says the exact opposite.
  • 01-18-2019
    Finx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tlg View Post
    Yet every single thing you've said is just your unsubstantiated opinion with zero facts to support it.

    So I ask yet again. What do you consider negligible?

    Do you dispute these results? Do you consider this negligible?

    http://img848.imageshack.us/img848/8...elapr2011n.png

    I have no skin in this game, and I'm not taking sides, but everything on that graph is "negligible" as far as the average cyclist is concerned.

    Sure, if you're a super fast TT racer there might be a small difference over a long ride, but for the majority of us on this forum, riding along at 15-20mph, those numbers are "negligible".
  • 01-18-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    What he's saying is "simply not true", but I'm "full of s***".

    Maybe you need to learn to not take things so personally.

    Did I miss his 200 posts of trolling B.S. ? I don't think so.

    Nothing personal about it.
  • 01-18-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Finx View Post
    I have no skin in this game, and I'm not taking sides, but everything on that graph is "negligible" as far as the average cyclist is concerned.

    Title of the thread and topic of discussion:
    Why no titanium bikes in pro peloton?
  • 01-18-2019
    asgelle
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Finx View Post
    Sure, if you're a super fast TT racer there might be a small difference over a long ride, but for the majority of us on this forum, riding along at 15-20mph, those numbers are "negligible".

    In other words, while the quantitative differences in equipment can be presented, and everyone is free to weigh them for their own needs, no one can generalize what's important to others.

    And has already been pointed out, a differences of a second or two can turn into many minutes if it means making the split in a group or not.
  • 01-18-2019
    frdfandc
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Waspinator View Post
    "but I'm "full of s***".

    Finally some truth that you believe instead of the "All the proof you have shown me is not proof at all". All you have been providing is anecdotal evidence, whereas others have posted statistical evidence.

    Sounds like you are having a sissy fit because nobody agrees with you. Do you need a safe space to cry?
  • 01-18-2019
    tlg
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asgelle View Post
    And has already been pointed out, a differences of a second or two can turn into many minutes if it means making the split in a group or not.

    A 1 second advantage for a Pro in a 1km breakaway means he wins by about 12 meters. That's not negligible.
  • 01-18-2019
    Lombard
    1 Attachment(s)
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frdfandc View Post
    Finally some truth that you believe instead of the "All the proof you have shown me is not proof at all". All you have been providing is anecdotal evidence, whereas others have posted statistical evidence.

    Sounds like you are having a sissy fit because nobody agrees with you. Do you need a safe space to cry?

    Maybe one of these will make Dr. Waspy feel better.
  • 01-18-2019
    pedalbiker
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Notvintage View Post
    Hence the carbon clinchers that are no better (typically worse) than aluminum rims

    I've yet to find a 50+mm aluminum rim that didn't weight about 14 lbs. You?
  • 01-18-2019
    PBL450
    I posted early on that Ti has no performance gains to offer or it would be being raced. Face it. It just isnít a particularly good material for bicycle frames. Itís fickle, very expensive, kind of heavy and less aerodynamic than competing materials. Ride whatever you like, but it gets silly when anyone tries to make performance claims that are simply untrue. Itís not in the pro peloton because it isnít worthy, not because pros ride what they are told to by their team/sponsors. There is enough money to be made in elite cycling that teams would be adopting the technology if it translated to wins. Expense is not the reason any more that itís a reason the airline industry chose to make jet wings out of carbon fiber. Itís great that Ti riders love it! Maybe it has some great properties? Performance is obviously not one of them. I know, some dude raced Ti back in like 1975 and won a race... frames are made from a host of materials including bamboo. But the original question is about elite racing. So the answer to the original question, again, is that it isnít good enough.
  • 01-18-2019
    cxwrench
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Notvintage View Post
    Hence the carbon clinchers that are no better (typically worse) than aluminum rims and idiotic disc brakes (driven largely by the carbon clinchers they pushed).

    I missed this...what are you going on about here? 'No better'? In what way? Lighter, more aerodynamic, and stiffer aren't enough? Braking is just about the same w/ rim brake wheels, obviously disc brakes are better on either rim. Nothing idiotic about them at all unless you're a luddite.