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

Just wondering if Ti rd bikes are so good why do all the pros ride carbon?

is it just a comfort thing?

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, and 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?

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

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

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.

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

(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.

“It’s more about what makes sense commercially – what the sponsors are pushing that year.“

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

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.

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?

“Pedals etc sure – but frames?“

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

Riders win, not frames

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.