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

And to all those that still think Ti must be best because Lance road a Litespeed in a timetrial well over a decade ago, I think he will have been more interested in the weight and geometry of the Blade rather than the handling characteristics of Titanium.

TT bikes rarely need to climb or sprint to the same extent as a day-to-day race bike, so ti’s shortcomings won’t have been such a problem.

I’m sure he enjoyed the comfy ride though… 😉

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcE4vPyyV2I

this video, 3.24 – watch that if you want to see a carbon frame flex vertically by design

Well found IanPV! I fear that Aracer still won’t believe it – it’s all just marketing hype, you understand… 😉

PS, what a dude Spartacus is!

I’ve got to completely agree with LeggyBlonde and kingkongsfinger. Carbon is a far superior material to build a bike with than Ti – if done properly.

I’ve had carbon road bikes since the early nineties. My first carbon road bike was a Alan carbon. Alu lugs and carbon tubes. It flexed like hell and got terrible speed whabbles. Horrible.

After a few carbon bikes in between I have carbon bike with O/S headset, beefy bottom bracket and it’s a 900g frame. I have no worries about it busting – it may do – but I’ve seen plenty of Ti frames bust too. In fact in the last few years as carbon manufacture has got better you hear much less about breakages.

Ti frames IMHO are only good for smaller sizes. 56cm and above they are too flexy for racing. I have a friend who bought a Litespeed Vortex (supposed to be siff) in a 58cm frame. You could hold the saddle and move the stem laterally. Horrible.

Some carbon race frames are going below 700g and this means Pro’s can ride with power meter cranks and stiff bars/stems and still be on the UCI wieght limit.

Carbon – best material for racing bikes.

And to all those that still think Ti must be best because Lance road a Litespeed in a timetrial well over a decade ago, I think he will have been more interested in the weight and geometry of the Blade rather than the handling characteristics of Titanium.

The reason was Trek didn’t do TT bikes then and they wanted a US brand they/he new to work with.

My point about Lance and the Litespeed was about companies using frames/products other than their own, not that Ti was better faster or whatever… 😉

Firmly in the carbon is better camp here 😉

King Fabu !!

Beaten to it by ianpv after reading all the posts!!….. 👿

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. Do the numbers.

Aracer, would you prefer tea or coffee to wash those words down? 😆

Is the rear triangle flexing in the video? The main triangle is. (Only had a very quick look, I’m at work, so maybe I need to look closer.)

It’s fixed at the BB and the machine is flexing the front triangle/steerer tube. The seat tube in turn moves backwards causing the seat stays to flex.

I would imagine they have a similar way to demonstrate upward movement of the chain stays.

But triangles don’t flex, do they… 🙄

This video should clear up any confusion… 😉

Not really relevant but whilst we are looking at frame destruction