[Closed] If Ti rd bikes are so good why dont the pros race them?

easy; you can't make a light Ti tubeset with a big enough downtube to plaster with logos and branding.

carbon frames can be made light, [u]and[/u] with a dirty great downtube that can take a size 200 font.

Because the pros ride what they're paid to ride and the companies who pay them want to sell lots of replicas.

Also a Ti bike is a keeper, and pros get through quite a few bikes in a season.

It's a good question. I know nothing about Ti frames, never needed to. The only thing I've ever noticed about Ti frames is that they almost seem old school in design - could that be it?
The design of modern race bikes is very optimised, but apart from the odd tweek and fancy headbadge they don't seem to be any better than an old Reynold frame.

Some used to didn't they? late80s - 90s...

Then of course composites meant they could have similar weights and tune the stiffness/vibration damping of the frame...

That and the fact that CF is what manufacturers/sponsors are promoting from the top end of their product lines, Trek don't sell a Ti road bike do they, so it's Madones or nothing if they are providing you with bikes...

because carbon can be made lighter/stiffer/more comfortable/more aerodynamic and a whole bunch of other things that a Ti bike can't be that are important in a race frame

they used to ride Ti frames when they were supposed to be steel bikes under the paint though

I'm guessing the profit margins are far higher on carbon frames.

I'd guess there's more profit in carbon etc and easier to keep bringing out "improvements" so its more commercial than ti, and of more interest to the big players.

ok interesting - I suppose the bike sponsors don't supply bike just for the hell of it!

Cos the pro's arn't having a midlifecrisis

coincidentally, I'm getting my first decent road bike this year & going Ti rather than carbon. Carbon seems fine for the pros who aren't paying for their frames, but I don't fancy worrying about dropping a carbon bike or having to replace the frame every couple of years. Was chatting to a bloke who hit a pot hole and put his rear mech through the chainstay of his Cervelo. Snap, game over. To hell with that. I'm sold on the toughness of mtb carbon frames (I own an LTc), but the constant drive to release lighter and lighter road frames gives me no confidence whatsoever that they're built to survive any kind of minor spill. All debatable I accept, but I know where my money's going.

I honestly don't think it was carbon over Ti for financial reasons first and foremost. Carbons simply been a dream come true for designers.
Feel free to prove me wrong, but I've not seen anything new in Ti road frame design. Perhaps a funky tube here and there, but nothing that different to what Colnago and Fondriest were doing with Columbus twenty years ago.

Go on then, I'll bite (this is a troll right?)

Because carbon is better (for the pro)?

You might want a bit of spring/zing/give/insert ti/steel marketing bolloks here in your frame, he/she justs wants the most efficient frame he/she can get.

You might not mind a 1500g frame, he'd rather not spend the winter getting down to 3% body fat then have to drag another 1.5lb of frame up 3 alps a day for 3 weeks.

You might want a bike for life (ignoring the 101 cracked ti frames on here at the moment), he just wants it to last a season*, if it is still going for the spring classics its a bonus.

*the average rider probably isnt doing 100mile training rides every day so carbon frames probably last the same 'lifetime' as Ti anyway.

You might not want/need an aerodynamic frame, he'd quite like to be in the breakaway, get some TV time and make sponsors happy.

Cos the pro's arn't having a midlifecrisis

lol 😆

aerodydnamics

not trying to troll here, but do the aerodynamics of a frame really make a significant difference once you've got a gangly bloke sitting on top of the thing thrashing his legs about?

"[i]but do the aerodynamics of a frame really make a significant difference[/i]"

it can do, it's all about the acculumation of 1% performance gains, and when you're riding a bike 6+ hours a day for three weeks it all adds up

IIRC, it's a little over 1%? There was a paper written at sheffield uni a few years back on it.

And when was the last time the TDF was won by less than a 1% margin?

Fair enough 1% at that level is a big deal. Probably of less significance to your average club rider though I suppose.

And when was the last time the TDF was won by less than a 1% margin?

Last year.

but do the aerodynamics of a frame really make a significant difference

Yes, You only need to look at what testers ride and the results they get to see that. And though STWers seem to obsess over light wheels, just look to see how heavy some of the fastest wheels are.

There's a team of elite riders that turn up on ti frames at castle combe every thursday

[img] [/img]

surely it is that none of the big players make a top end ti road frame. why would you want to promote something you dont supply. it would be like lynskey sponsoring a team and themall riding carbon frames. and before you start i know that the bikes the pros ride are not production, but they at least resemble something in the range of their respective supplier/sponsor.

'[i]when was the last time the TDF was won by less than a 1% margin?[/i]"

(does maths)
last year's Tour was won in 91h 58mins, which is 5518 minutes, 1% of that is 55.18 minutes, the difference between 1st and 2nd last year was 39 seconds, so it was last year

28 riders finished within 1% of the winners time

and i said it was the accumulation of 1 per-cents, not saying aerodynamics was 1%, a more aero frame might be 1%, an aero wheel another 1%, a more aero helmet another 1%.....

Carbon can be made STIFFER - and kept lighter.

I remember speaking to a Ti bike designer - and he told be that every season his riders came back asking for more & more stiffness in the rear of the bike (Pros put out a lot of power) - so he had to BEEF up the bike - adding qute a bit to the weight.

*Edit ^ It was actually the Qoroz designer - as pictured above!

IIRC - Chris Chance of Fat Chance fame, never wanted to build a Ti bike as he viewed it as too flexy and inferior to steel in bike frames

There's a team of elite riders that turn up on ti frames at castle combe every thursday

There's a few up and down the country, mainly small elite outfits with Ti frame sponsors. That outfit, is that the one with the brothers in it?

I bought a Fat Chance Yo Eddy "back in the day" I loved that bike, and I bought the T-Shirt too, hahaha
And
I bought the first ever Marin Team Titanium in the UK too.

Out of the two, the FC was a way better bike, it just felt right on the singletrack I used to ride on, the Marin got nicked by some nobhead when I did a race in Cannock Chase.. grrrrrr (I don't hold many grudges, but that one still to this day bites me)

Still got my Yo Eddy hanging in the garage, brilliant bike.
Seem to remember Keith Bontrager being none too keen on Ti as a frame material for mountain bikes either. History has proved them right as the vast majority of Ti mountain bikes from that era have long since cracked and gone to mtb heaven.

JoB - Member
it's all about the acculumation of 1% performance gains, and when you're riding a bike 6+ hours a day for three weeks it all adds up

It's more about what makes sense commercially - what the sponsors are pushing that year.

No large-scale manufacturer is likely to have an interest in selling ti frames - the small guys can do it better.

does maths)
last year's Tour was won in 91h 58mins, which is 5518 minutes, 1% of that is 55.18 minutes, the difference between 1st and 2nd last year was 39 seconds, so it was last year

28 riders finished within 1% of the winners time

Maybe I phrased the question wrong, I meant to imply that 1% advantage is several places (28 in fact).

We developed some new ski's at uni that knocked about 1.5%* off an olympic downhill run. Excluding crashes/mistakes thats from last to first pretty much!

The manufacturer we were working with weren't interested as they saw 2 options, patent it and it would be banned as everyone else would suddenly be un-compettative, not patent it but then whats the point in having it.

*on a dryslope the results were even better, gave it the same 'feel' (and speed, ~30% faster) as fresh snow!

It's more about what makes sense commercially - what the sponsors are pushing that year.

You mean what wins? Trek's bank ballance owes a hefty credit to Lance riding Maddones, so everyone buys them.

Make the madone from ti, make Lance 1% slower, and suddnely you go the way of GT and Schwinn.

"[i]It's more about what makes sense commercially - what the sponsors are pushing that year.[/i]"

i'm not 100% certain about that, there are plenty of examples still of Pros choosing non-sponsored kit over what they're supposed to be using if they think it makes them faster

[i]riders came back asking for more & more stiffness in the rear of the bike (Pros put out a lot of power) - so he had to BEEF up the bike - adding qute a bit to the weight.[/i]

and also reducing any advantage a Ti frame might give over a three week stage race in terms of 'comfort' - what's the point in riding a heavy, dull ti frame because that's the only way you can get something stiff enough to deal with the power?

carbon frames can be designed so the bike comes in underweight (UCI minimum) and then mass is added - normally to the BB area to bring the weight up. this gives low CoG & better handling.

Composites are much better (if more complicated) than materials to work with.

For example the underpans of F1 cars have the density concentrated in the middle. can't do that with a metal

stiffness and weight, with aero a third minor benefit. Pro riders push out big power and dont want a single joule of energy wasted flexing a frame. Ti is very elastic so to get stiffness you need huge diameter tubes, even with thin walls that equates to more weight.

Back in the days before CF took off and frames were aluminium alloy IIRC a few of the pros rode rebadged litespeeds, but Ti cant compete with CF on stiffness/weight, moreso as its so easy to tune the stiffness with different fibre lay ups. The pro CF bikes are coming in under the UCI weight limit and they were gluing weights to the bottom of the BB shell to get to the legal minimum, which makes a mockery of the safety aspect of the rule.

thisisnotaspoon - Member
You mean what wins? Trek's bank ballance owes a hefty credit to Lance riding Maddones, so everyone buys them.

Make the madone from ti, make Lance 1% slower, and suddnely you go the way of GT and Schwinn.

Riders win, not frames. Any evidence that a carbon frame is 1% faster? Or any faster?

JoB - Member
i'm not 100% certain about that, there are plenty of examples still of Pros choosing non-sponsored kit over what they're supposed to be using if they think it makes them faster

Pedals etc sure - but frames?

"[i]Pedals etc sure - but frames?[/i]"

certainly TT frames recently when their sponsor didn't have a suitable/suitably good frame, less common nowadays now everyone has The Fastest Bike in their line-up, but more commonly wheels, lots of de-stickered wheels out there

[i]Riders win, not frames[/i]

If two riders are putting out 400watts but one is gaining 10m every 1km due to a 1% 'faster' frame then over the course fo a 3 week race it's going to make quite a difference to their finish positions?

TT frames fair enough. Road stages - totally different story.

wwaswas - indeed - no one has provided any evidence of this 1% (or any) difference in speed from a carbon frame to a ti one. Factors other than aerodynamics matter too - personal preference, comfort etc.

Lance won is 1999 tour TT'ing on a Trek branded Litespeed. Used to be quite common but much less so now, as the big bike brands put a lot of money into developing there TT and road bikes in wind tunnels etc.

if this rider is gaining 10m every 1km he wont win. will be riding on his own for far too much of the race and will be knacked.

its more about putting out less energy for same pace than full on 100% effort for 100% of the time.

otherwise it might as well be a set of ITT's...

[i]if this rider is gaining 10m every 1km he wont win. will be riding on his own for far too much of the race and will be knacked.[/i]

I agree, I coudl have framed it as putting out 360watts instead of 400 too.

Cynical, this is a bit of "proof" that aerodynamic frames do make a difference on a road stage:

Specialized have conducted track testing with the Venge against their current top-line race bike, the Tarmac SL3. Claimed watts saved by the Venge range from 3W at 20km/h to a whopping 23W at 45km/h, and presumably a lot more than this at Mark Cavendish's sprint speed of around 70km/h. Giving a professional rider that sort of advantage is incredible and should be apparent from very early on in the season.

I'd wager that getting Ti into that shape would be nigh on impossible or weigh a ton.

Sure leggy - does it take account of the mitigating effect of bunch riding?

Wasn't it claimed that if Laurent Fignon had cut his pony tail off he would have won the 1989 TdF?

If the boffins get good test results by lubing hubs with light oil as oppossed to the correct grease, then testing carbon lay ups must cause en massé spaffing.

I don't think it does Al, but to win a race you have to be in the wind at some point. Even if it's only for the last 150m, bunch sprints have been won by mm, every little helps!

perhaps Tesco should sponsor a team...

perhaps Tesco should sponsor a team...

Will their bikes be made out of recycled carrier bags and then dumped in the nearest river?

I'm amazed that this is even being discussed! Carbon is by far the superior frame-building material in the right hands.

Ti frames are inherently flexy - just put your toe against the BB shell and push. Carbon fiber frames are laid up so that this sideways deflection is almost eliminated, whilst still maintaining vertical compliance to soak up road vibration.

Compared to steel, ti is a much nicer material to ride, and is obviously lighter, but it's nowhere near carbon in terms of versatility.

As for the weight issue, under-weight frames are popular with pro-teams because they allow them to 'bulk up' with stronger and stiffer bars, stems etc that are less likely to fail in a crash.

I'm amazed that this is even being discussed! Carbon is by far the superior frame-building material in the right hands.

This. It's lighter, stiffer and more aero. You don't need any more reasons.

Carbon is not the superior frame material for me, I guess cos no one (that I ma aware of ) makes a frame that I want to ride out of it.

Doesn't make me wrong.

me me me me me me.

The OP asked about pros, not nodders. That makes you wrong

yeah I think for pros it's a no-brainer, but what about the rest of us? I just couldn't live with what I perceive to be the fragility of a carbon road frame. Alternatives...could a 953 steel frame be made stiff enough to be an efficient racer, but without being stupid heavy I wonder?

[i]I just couldn't live with what I perceive to be the fragility of a carbon road frame[/i]

That just about hits the nail on the head. It's all about perception when talking about the resilience of carbon frames. I have broken well over six steel frame bikes, four aluminium and two ti bikes (mostly not from crashes either, just general fatigue) and the only bike I have yet to break is my carbon road bike which is five years old this year!

...could a 953 steel frame be made stiff enough to be an efficient racer, but without being stupid heavy I wonder?

Nah, riduculous UTS for 953 but also about 75% higher density than Reynolds own 6Al-4V Ti, might be stiffer but would also be heavier, it also looks to be quite a ductile/elastic material so frame stiffness won't be on a par with what many CF frames are managing, simply stronger than a really, really strong thing...

In short it would ride like a steel frame not CF...

I knock the preverbial seven shade of **** out of my carbon thing, and I think I'll tire of it before it does of me.

I wonder if, when the chap that bought my lovely 1958 531 race bike thought that was a keeper back then. Who knows what's around the corner? But if I was building a keeper, it would be pure form over function.

The whole company bottom line thing is twaddle as well - there are bigger companies out there doing ti frames than some of the carbon frame manufacturers.

You can make a ti frame stiff, it's then heavy and harsh. You can make it light and comfy, it's then flexy. You can do little to make it aero in any guise.

With carbon you can do all of that, not hard really!

My carbon road bike is now 8 years old, been utterly thrashed, still going fine!

I'm amazed that this is even being discussed!

The answer to the question posed in the thread title is "because ti bikes aren't so good"

Nah, riduculous UTS for 953 but also about 75% higher density than Reynolds own 6Al-4V Ti, might be stiffer but would also be heavier, it also looks to be quite a ductile/elastic material so frame stiffness won't be on a par with what many CF frames are managing, simply stronger than a really, really strong thing...

In short it would ride like a steel frame not CF...

cheers, looks like that idea is a dead end then.

Seeing that a lot of roadies appear to be on this thread, perhaps I could do some more research. How about crash damage...likelihood of trashing your carbon road frame in a spill...? Clearly (I presume) steel & Ti are going to be less likely to be terminally damaged in a crash, but are broken carbon road frames a common thing? I've kind of bought into the scaremongering (even my LBS, who sells a lot of shiny expensive carbon bikes agrees that I should go for a Ti frame), but perhaps it's all rubbish & in the real world a carbon road frame is perfectly able to handle the odd crash (unless you're unlucky)? For example, I've got a carbon Blur LT, which I wouldn't have a problem crashing on as I have confidence in how overbuilt it is, but with road frames my perception is that they are far more fragile.

I'm totally sold on carbon as an efficient/fast/light frame material, but this is the one sticking point that's preventing me putting £2k into a carbon road frame over Ti. Cheers!

Because a bunch of ti bike would always look the same whereas a bunch of CF bikes looks better? Change the paintjob and you have a frame for the next season. With ti - change the stickers?

I'd still love to see some stats about bike performance ti vs carbon vs whatever. What can feel MASSIVELY faster can be entirely subjective, and what is in fact faster can feel slower.

I don't buy it that ti is slower - W*nkstrong winning the Tour on one surely disproves this "theory"?

So what's a goo dcomfortable but stiff carbon frame? I've only ridden a few, and not really liked them - too harsh.

We've covered the bit about ti frames breaking sooner than carbon haven't we?

The answer to the question posed in the thread title is "because ti bikes aren't so good [u]for pros[/u]"

Do they? Any stats?

Oh and FTFY!

likelihood of trashing your carbon road frame in a spill...?

Look at some of the crashes in professional road racing they're crashing at high speeds but the frames seem to survive if anything it's the wheels that get tacoed.

cycnic-al, open your eyes man.

There are plenty of scientific tests showing the frames such as the Venge, Felt WR, cervelo S1 etc are significantly more aerodynamic than a roundtubed frame. They are often stiffer (German mags test this scientifically) and lighter (easy to find weights if you look...).

Lighter, stiffer, more aero = better no?

Ti bikes haven't been used in the tour for years, composite technology has moved on a long way since then.

Also, for those worried about carbon's supposed fragility, youtube Paris-Roubaix, 95% of riders are on carbon frames and they wouldn't be if they were fragile. Your team car can be too far back in that race to be relied on.

In all honesty does an aero road bike make that much difference... If they did why are all the pro's not on them??

Look at Spec, only a few pro riders are on them. Vino rode one once and went back to the SL3

Due to tube probiles the aero frames are not as stiff laterally as normal tube profiles.

The pros seem to think the added stiffness can give more gains over aero tubes.

As for Ti and carbon bikes. I own a ti bike i train on. Its far more comfy to ride for 4/5hras at a time. Its also not as fast as its nowhere near as stiff!

leggyblonde - Member
cycnic-al, open your eyes man.
Lighter, stiffer, more aero = better no?

Sure but what about comfort and fatigue? I'm not saying ti is fsater, just that [u]no one knows for bunch riding[/u].

Do you remember wheen clipless pedals came in? Plenty trad roadies wouldn't touch them at first. Straight forks too. Pro roadies are not always right.

and savings over venge and SL3 is 23watts over an hour.

Not sure if you realise but a set of shoe covers would give you a higher watt saving over an hour...

Those figures are based on a pro riding at 40plus kph. Savings will be nowhere near that on a club rub.

Those figures are also based on clean air in a wind tunnel and don't take into account group riding.

*bangs head on desk*

Read my previous posts:

OP specifically asked about pro riders.

To win a race you can't be protected by the bunch all the time, otherwise the guys taking the wind in front as you cross the line will have won...
Racers sometimes take a turn on the front, attack, sprint on the front row, drop back for bottles or to help a team leader and chase back on. Sometimes the bunch splits or echelons form. A bunch isn't infinitely wide so a good proportion will be riding on the outside edge etc.

Regarding comfort and fatigue, composite materials can be laid up in such a way to provide vertical flex in a way Ti can't.

Obviously if Ti frame are better (this is STW after all) I suggest you tell the top teams and manufacturers that all their 100s of 1000s of pounds spent on R&D are wasted and they really want an IF or a 456 ti or someother crap.

*bangs head on same desk*

cynic-al - Member
I'm not saying ti is fsater, just that no one knows for bunch riding.

Read my other comments as well - many agree the bikes pros ride is not just about what's fastest.

Leggyblonde I agree totally with what your saying. But if you look at aero savings by watts the difference an aero frame makes as I said above is less than say.

bodypaint kit over standard kit. Those Castelli skinsuits that were used by Cervelo at the roubaix made a larger watt saving than a Venge would over a standard tube road bike.

I'd hazard a guess a pro sprinter hitting 70k the aero advantage would be greatly increased. Prob why the only Sepc pro's that seem to be staying on the Venge are the sprinters!!

IF or a 456 ti or someother crap.

LOL 😀

I would imagine you've caused some outrage with that one.

Regarding comfort and fatigue, composite materials can be laid up in such a way to provide vertical flex in a way Ti can't

BIGMAN - Member

In all honesty does an aero road bike make that much difference... If they did why are all the pro's not on them??

One of the reason some pro's prefer non-aero bikes is weight. Most of the new breed of aero frames are heavier than the non aero versions due to the additional material used.

The technology is really still in its infancy, but with companies like McClaren joining the party, manufacturers are now cottoning on to the fact that there are many factors that need addressing, such as yaw angles, the effect of rotating wheels, the effect of different wheels sets.

A big problem facing teams is that the climbers, sprinters, GC riders all have different needs when it comes to wheels etc, so the sponsor's off-the-peg aero frame might not be the best choice for all of them.

I think that now carbon technology has reached its peak in terms of lateral stiffness/vertical compliance, the next few years will see aero technology introduced across the board as manufacturers learn to apply that technology without compromising the existing advantages brought in by the use of carbon.

You just don't have that flexibility of manufacture with any tubular metallic frames.

I wondered what that echo was Al! 🙂

'tis true that pros are often stuck in their ways or have other concerns over pure speed but I still don't believe a Ti frame would ever better for their all-round needs.

Bigman, I'm not saying that if I rode a Venge I'd be keeping up with Cav, just that even tiny speed benefits can mean the difference between 1st and 2nd. Hence if everything else was equal (skinsuits etc) the rider with a Venge would be slightly faster than a guy on a litespeed.

lateral stiffness/vertical compliance

aracer - Member

Not to a degree which would would make any real difference they can't.

Of course they can... And they are!

leggyblonde - Member

the rider with a Venge would be slightly faster than a guy on a litespeed.

The rider on the Litespeed would still be noodling his way up the Champs Elysee while Cav was sipping Champers with the podium girls!

Look at overhead footage of sprint finishes in the 1980s. The bikes snaked like snakey things beneath the riders. Carbon bikes look completely rigid in comparison, and look at the amount of power you'd lose if you wore a flexible-soled shoe!

Shibboleth - give me an example and tell me how much it flexes vertically.

Erm... Forks and rear stays are laid up specifically to flex more in the vertical plain that horizontal.

I used an ex-pro Mapai Colnago for a while afew years back.

Ugly as sin, but comfy and quick.

Not to a degree which would would make any real difference they can't. In any case to get that wonderful "comfy" ti feel you need lots of lateral flex due to the complete lack of vertical.

wrong I'm afraid

Some of Cannondale's designs provide a few mm of vertical flex whilst staying laterally pretty rigid and they aren't the only ones.