[Closed] Ti isn’t so fly ! Steel is definitely real! (So far)

Two things.

1. Ti isn't as tough as nails, but it does not corrode like some other materials.

2. Steel rusts.

Steel rusts

If you neglect it.

It's all about the construction- just think how much steel varies, you can have an old school whippy springy frame or a gaspipe solid as a rock fat tubes bruiser.

But ti (and carbon) definitely have a tendency to push towards lightness (and thin tubes is how you get the really soft more flexible feel) and that can cause some manufacturers to go too far.

Steel rusts.

Some steels used in bike construction rust, some don't.

All steels used in bikes rust, some to a much lesser, slower extent, It's not however something I'd worry about. Carbon IME is actually about the easiest material to get repaired nicely, wouldn't buy a Ti bike.

Anotyher Pace529 owner here. I love the ride of mine and glad you are liking yours. Pace do treat the frame internals and it will rust..... eventually...

It’s all about the construction-

its all about tyre pressures. they make far more difference in compliance than the material used in a fully welded up triangle.

Wax spray the inside of all the tubes before building.

it all depends on the design. any material can be 'tough as nails' if you design the frame well enough...but this results in a heavy frame (canna beat the laws of physics) so it's always a trade off between weight and durability (tough as nails). If you want it to be durable you add weight, if you want it to be light weight you sacrifice durability.

So not a materials problem but a design and possibly manufacturing problem (material quality or quality of welds). Its not the fault of Titanium.

We are so obsessed with weight on bikes and for us normal folk it really is not the most important factor. For a few addition hundred grams added to the right places in the frame you'd have significantly better durability, but those few hundred grams make the frame heavier than the competition and so wont sell so we're forcing bike companies to make less durable frames then complain when they crack. So we place little value on durability and happily sacrifice it at the alter of weight and for what? an extra minute on a big climb? (more like 45 seconds for most of us). Is there a prize waiting for you at the top? a sponsor to keep happy?

its all about tyre pressures. they make far more difference in compliance than the material used in a fully welded up triangle.

This. the whole frame material to achieve compliance is a nonsense. If you make your frame more bendy you are increasing the stresses in the material and reducing durability (more bend = more stress = more fatigue = less durable), so even frame compliance comes at the cost of durability. Unless you go carbon of course, but even poorly designed carbon frames crack and they have the whole damage tolerance problem on top. If you want comfort and compliance go big tyres or some form of suspension.

My steel road bikes are very good at zuzzing out bad road imperfections. The alloy/carbon bike I had was harsh in comparison. And the road bikes aren't flexy as one is Columbus SLX, the other Reynolds 653.

its all about tyre pressures. they make far more difference in compliance than the material used in a fully welded up triangle.

And the seat post. Frame compliance makes up about 1% of the overall compliance of the bike.
On an MTB the tyres make even more of a difference that a road bike (combined with most having at least suspension on the front)
Any difference in compliance in frame alone is just in your head.

its all about tyre pressures. they make far more difference in compliance than the material used in a fully welded up triangle.

Tyres can be most of the give in going straight over a bump yes, seatposts also but imo a lot of frame feel is from how the BB / seat tube / rear wheel stay lined up with the head tube, how much twisting flex there is.
A frame that is very stiff in torsional will beat me up more than one that is flexible and twists, particularly an off-road bike where I'm riding out of the saddle, leaning and moving around a lot. How rigid a frame feels, 'compliance' etc, I'd say there's more to it than vertical give which is very little (but not insignificant at all).

If you make your frame more bendy you are increasing the stresses in the material and reducing durability (more bend = more stress = more fatigue = less durable), so even frame compliance comes at the cost of durability.

Frame tubes rarely fail where there isn't a weld, or a hole, sudden change in shape or stiffness etc. Generally it would depend on where the flex is. Butted tubes can be more flexible and increase frame durability as the stresses can be reduced at the welds compared to a stiffer straight wall tube. Put a hole for an internal cable in a stressed / flexed area and you're creating a hot spot.
Very much agree on the weight point though - similar for internal cables and poorly placed braze-ons.

I never understood the ti thing. Whatever issues there are with durability are irrelevant when most of us have multiple, frequently changed bikes. Buy one because it looks great or rides well but don't kid yourself it's a bike for life, you'll be lusting after something with the latest standards before too long.

wobbliscott
Full Member

The whole frame material to achieve compliance is a nonsense.

Sorry, no. And tbf it's very easy to test this and see the difference it can really make. I had a mk1 Ragley Mmmbop (very stiff) and a Ragley Ti (much less stiff). I switched the exact same parts from one to the other, and the geometry and sizing was identical, but the difference in ride was huge.

(and if you rode, say, a 456 steel and a ti, or a Soul and a Soda, you'd feel the same. Way more so with the Soda- mine was an absolute noodle, too far out the other side)

And no, not something you can duplicate with tyre pressures. Soft tyres don't work or feel at all like a more compliant frame. But also, obviously I want my tyres at the pressure they work best at, for grip and support and puncture resistance, I don't want to be sacrificing any of that to try and compensate for a stiff frame.

I'm with northwind on this.

I have a ti hardtail but it's not 'a bike for life' because I'm not that naive.

I bought it for ride quality and the ability to spec custom geometry. It's not even huge amount lighter than it's steel predecessor.

I have a Sonder Signal ti that I like but don't love. I think it's down to expectation, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I think I had old tales of ti springiness spinning round my head when I bought it, but with CEN build regs and the trends towards burliness, that ti spring has gone by the wayside.
I also have a Pace RC627, which I do love. I am not sure it is any better but I had lower expectations of it, having owned steel hardtails before.

Ti is meant to be tough as nails

And what do they make nails from again? Ti or steel?

Any difference in compliance in frame alone is just in your head.

Bollards.

Can anyone point me to an advert for a Ti frame/bike suggesting it should last a (human) lifetime? I can't ever recall seeing one but then I've only been into bikes for 20 years or so.

Can anyone point me to an advert for a Ti frame/bike suggesting it should last a (human) lifetime? I can’t ever recall seeing one but then I’ve only been into bikes for 20 years or so.

Aha, it was longer ago than that.

"Bike for life" was as tired a cliché as "long, low and slack" is now.

Bit unfortunate it cracking, but nothing is unbreakable...

I'd fancy a nice ti bike, but they are tricky to weld and I'd want a decent tube set.

We are so obsessed with weight on bikes

Don’t think I’ve ever owned a really light bike and honestly don’t think I’d want to. I’m far too prone to crashing and something a bit burly is better in that respect. Had a couple of Alu XC bikes and they felt fragile. Stopped me from riding like an idiot which could’ve been a good thing.

Pretty much ninety percent of the bikes I’ve owned have been steel. I’m not that fastidious with cleaning and have never had one rust. The only bike where I’ve noticed the weight was a Transition Trans AM. That thing was just sluggish and energy sapping. Never understood obsession with weight from people who aren’t riding for a living or at least competing at a decent level.

I would get a carbon bike and have it painted so it looks like Titanium.

I had more to say on my post above, but somehow didn't say it.

My Ti HT is built to mirror the (steel) Taival its replaced with the exception of a few mm here and there its identical. I stripped the Taival for parts and used them on the Ti, so all other factors were the same.

TBH at regular speeds it feels the same too, but at higher speeds and on chunder, theres a definite yield that the Taival didn't have. I've always struggled to describe the feeling. I always resort to it feeling silky.

Trimix
Free Member

I would get a carbon bike and have it painted so it looks like Titanium.

I would pay a lot for a paint finish that really looked like titanium, it's so dreamy. Nothing like a freshly scotchbrited ti tube with a wipe of oil over it, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

TBH at regular speeds it feels the same too, but at higher speeds and on chunder, theres a definite yield that the Taival didn’t have. I’ve always struggled to describe the feeling. I always resort to it feeling silky.

Posted 4 hours ago

That's exactly what I find too.

Well I have shedloads of bikes and have owned every type, and what I know is my 853 road bike is like a magic carpet.

It's so different from other materials it's spooky.

I remember several tests from the 80s of ti bikes, the things they went on about were the low weight and the magic carpet ride,

higher speeds and on chunder, theres a definite yield

And this, they often mentioned this.
But bike for life? Don’t remember that too often.

I would pay a lot for a paint finish that really looked like titanium, it’s so dreamy. Nothing like a freshly scotchbrited ti tube with a wipe of oil over it, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Steady now, you're 'tenting'. Best sit down behind a desk for a bit.

I've also swapped all the parts from a carbon HT to a steel (653). On a very rocky forestry road i ride the carbon bike was pretty good compared to mates on their gravel bikes who whinged about how harsh it was. But the steel frame is another level again. I wonder if it's all about compliance though, or if the extra weight of the frame plants the bike better so i'm not being thrown around as much. I also feel much better jumping on the heavier bike.

I think part of the feel thing comes from early ally frames. They didn't really appreciate the material differences and so made the same bikes with different material. Which really doesn't work.

I have always been very interested in the design and material side of bikes - I'd love to design and build my own frame one day - so I've read quite a lot on titanium. Almost every article in a cycling publication says it's a bike for life ( I suspect because like steel it has a fatigue limit - the opposite of ally). They also day "almost all" manufacturers offer them with a lifetime warranty on manufacturers defects. Not really sure what that means as far as breaks go. I've certainly seen some makers that offer lifetime in steel and to but a few years on ally

The teenage version of me that existed in the 90s would have loved a Ti frame.

The grown up version can't make the cost/benefit arguments work and is well aware that 'better' materials are available (depending on your criteria).

TBH I always assume the Ti fanbois (or girls) are a bit hung up on some blurb they read in MBR/MBUK 30 odd years ago...

Almost every article in a cycling publication says it’s a bike for life

Links?

The teenage version of me had a Ti framed dynatec in the '90s

... it got a stress bubble at a join (iirc the main tubes were Ti and were bonded into a cromo headtube?) and was replaced under warranty, which got stolen 🙂

I don't think I could even begin to find even 10% of the stuff I've read over time. Sometimes it would be an aside in a interview with a designer or frame maker. A quick Google reveals these two, which I remember. They are light on real detail but mention ti and it's longevity. They may be completely wrong but there are many who share the belief and you'd think someone would pull up a bike mag that said something that bike makers didn't think was right.

https://www.bicycling.com/bikes-gear/a21784287/bike-frame-materials-https://off.road.cc/content/feature/the-ultimate-guide-to-frame-materials-whats-best-for-bikes-664explained/

i always wanted a ti bike since the early 90's,but could never afford one.

i now have 2 ti bikes (a kinesis sync ti ht 27.5" bought in 2019,and a planet x spitfire ti roadbike bought feb this year).

i love both of the bikes i have to say and plan on keeping them for as long as possible.

i agree that no bike is crack proof etc and any bike can fail,but i'm a slow,old lightweght rider (8st 3lbs with cycling gear on lol).

i love the look of ti and the fact it's rustproof. love the ride of my bikes also.

steel is great also 👍

cookeaa
Full Member

TBH I always assume the Ti fanbois (or girls) are a bit hung up on some blurb they read in MBR/MBUK 30 odd years ago…

Well you do you, but I did give 2 examples of ti frames I've owned and the steel and aluminium equivalents I've also owned...

My experience is that once past the manufacturing difficulties of Titanium it's relatively easy to make Ti bike that rides pretty well, feels sprightly to an initial kick-off and generally pleases it's owner...the material gets you 50% of the way. In steel, to get that properly zingy feeling from it, it needs to be just right - the right steel in the right profiles in the right places. That's not to say that you don't have to also do this with Ti, but just that it's more forgiving.

I've owned 6 or 7 steel bikes and maybe 15 titanium ones. The Independent Fabrication Steel deluxe was by far the best of the steel bikes with my Genesis Day One, CDF and OO Pompetamine being the worst. Of the Ti bikes, the best were the Litespeed T5G and Sienna with a Singular Pegasus being a close runner up, the worst were an Ti456 (due to it's geometry), a Cove Hummer (due to its unrelenting stiffness) and a Cotic Soda due to its unbelievably bendiness.

The Litespeeds and the IF had complex changes in tube shapes, diameters and butting a lot of thought had gone into the design and you could FEEL the difference.

I've never cracked a Ti bike.

I've owned 3 ti hardtails, the last one I sold was just too noodly (I could make the rear disc rub just by pulling on the bars) plus it was 26" & straight steerer but I'd have one again coz I'm a sweaty bastard and most of my frames end up corroding horribly on the top and seat tubes if they're steel or ali.

I have a Ti Pickenflick, and would love a Ti HT.

The Pickenflick is a much nicer, 'damped' ride than either the alloy Saracen Hack that preceded it, and the steel Cotic Escapade that I also have for SSCX/commuting duties, whether with gravel wheels and tyres, or road.

I also have two steel HT's, I like both a lot, but neither are 'remarkable' in terms of ride quality, but I don't have a Ti HT to compare to. The (pre CEN) Inbred I had for a while certainly did have a pleasing zing in its ride quality, that neither my BigWig or 45650b possesses.

I tried a Bird Zero 29er a while ago (similar kind of bike to my BigWig). Subjectively it felt harsher than I like a HT to ride, but think it was set up with higher tyre / fork pressures than I like to ride.

But Ti ... looks lovely, doesn't rust. If it can be had for not that much more money, then I would...

I’ve owned 6 or 7 steel bikes and maybe 15 titanium ones.

I was a terrible serial bike swapper and have had more than almost anyone I know, but I've never had a ti bike.

I think because (touch wood) I've never had a frame crack on my watch, I don't want to increase the probability of it happening.

If it can be had for not that much more money, then I would…

My last, custom, Ti frame cost £1,200.

If it can be had for not that much more money, then I would…

My last, custom, Ti frame cost £1,200

My whole bike cost that amount!

I'm sure custom/boutique Ti frames are probably better than my 'stack em high sell em cheap' OnOne, but for value, ride quality and looks, I'm more than happy with mine.

I’m sure custom/boutique Ti frames are probably better than my ‘stack em high sell em cheap’ OnOne, but for value, ride quality and looks, I’m more than happy with mine.

That was kinda my point. Assuming the geometry is equal, even a moderate Ti frame will ride quite nice next to generic steel frame, just by virtue of the material and the frame builders knowing what to do with the tubes they have. Steel and Ti have similar specific stiffness, so to get that zing from steel requires either exotic blends or thin walls or some combination of them.

My IF was only 4.3lbs and the Pegasus was 4.1lbs. If done right steel can be every bit as zingy, but Ti has additional attributes - no corrosion, no need to paint it, easy to clean up and sounds awesome when gravel tings off it.

The only ti bikes I ever wanted we’re a Charge Blender and Global (I think) 4X bike (and still do), although I’d happily settle for a cheap steel Blender now for poor king around the fields, pump tracks and woods with the kids on their tiny first pedal bikes (a slacked out 29er hardtail is a bit overkill for a short pootle with 2 kids under 3, but an old 26 inch single speed hardtail would be fine

Steel and Ti have similar specific stiffness, so to get that zing from steel requires either exotic blends or thin walls or some combination of them.

Or just slim steel tubing? No need to go really thin wall then and passing testing is only really an issue for skinny steel frames if you want long forks, but imho long forks and the slacker geo that they suit just don't go with whippy frames anyway.