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

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.

cynic-al - Member

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

when did he win the tour on Ti ? (excluding the TT litespeed bike he was always on carbon, even before the Madone.)

Top of P2

anc - Member
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.

Trek didnt have at TT bike and he will have done 3 stages max on that bike (if prologue, 2 if not).

Not sure you can attribute his win to a Ti bike given he was on carbon 95% of the time.

Oh aye fair enough I didn't read it proper.

He did win some TTs though? by more than 1%? 😉

given how much misplaced hype there is about ti frames. I mean even njee who should know better mentions "comfy" in relation to them (when the perception that makes people think "comfy" is actually just "flexy"). We've covered the bit about ti frames breaking sooner than carbon haven't we?

I did say that a 'comfy' ti frame is rather 'flexy' (in that you can't make it both as you can carbon) - I remember trying both an old Merlin Extralite and a Litespeed Ghisallo, when you stood to sprint it felt like the back would overtake the front. Horrible. Would never buy one!

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

leggyblonde - specific model, and which bits are flexing in which direction to achieve that?

aracer - Member
We're clearly back to bicycles breaking known laws of physics here. The stays might flex in isolation - built up into a rear triangle it just doesn't happen.

My carbon roadbike has straight chainstays but curved seat stays.
This is for one purpose and one purpose only: to allow the chainstays to flex on the vertical plain.

to allow the chainstays to flex on the vertical plain

[i]My carbon roadbike has straight chainstays but curved seat stays.
This is for one purpose and one purpose only:[/i] to differentiate my frame from all the other carbon frames out there.