View Single Post
Old 07-14-18, 12:47 AM
  #32  
Danny01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Earth
Posts: 372
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 127 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Originally Posted by Metieval
after riding the same wheels, same group, same tires back to back RLT RDO and the RLT 853..... the 853 is far more comfortable.

imo the argument should be Ti vs 853 rather than carbon. Both frames will be obsolete before the 853 frame rust out. I had no interest in steel until I rode the 853 RLT.
Might as well throw 631, 520 and heck even 4130 in the mix as all steel alloys ride the same given the geo, wall thickness and tube diameter is the same. You can get the RLT Steel frameset for around 1200 on Backcountry/competitive cyclist. It is a sweet bike for sure, but I would have a hard time not going for a custom geometry Gunnar at that price. For $850 you can get a Jamis Renegade 631 frameset with VERY similar geometry to the Niner.

Also, Ti made it's name in the bike scene when the material was produced exclusively for aerospace. As such, tolerances were very strict. Nowadays, tubes are made specifically for bike frames and the need for 100 percent accurate composition has gone down brought quality with it. Pretty important when considering Ti. Ti isn't forgiving of less than ideal frame building techniques, tools and environments. These are some reasons why we see cracked titanium frames all over the forums. Ti is only a lifetime frame when built with proper tooling, environment, welding etc. Otherwise a mass produced steel frame will outlast it and probably even the owner given proper maintenance (frame saver every year). If I had less than 3-4 grand to spend on a frame, Ti would not be not be it. Perhaps a Waterford Reynolds Stainless would be nice at that price point. For me when it comes to Ti, its top end (Seven, Moots, Firefly etc) or nothing.
Danny01 is offline