Originally Posted by
ClydeClydeson
Before aluminum was the dominant frame material and steel was still king, failures of steel frames was common, especially very light frames.
There were some growing pains when the industry moved to aluminum, but after those problems were sorted out the overall failure rate per bicycle sold was lower than in the steel era.
Titanium frames, again especially very light ones, had a fairly high failure rate. I have seen about half as many broken Litespeeds as I have seen intact ones.
Early carbon frames often` failed where the carbon was bonded to aluminum lugs and fittings. Other failures are usually due to bad maintenance (overtightening clamps for instance) or due to 'misadventure' that may have been the end of a frame made from any material.
I did not vote because there are pros and cons to each and personal preference is as important as any 'data' people are throwing around.... except for racing - it does seem that carbon is the best material for bikes intended for racing.
Some modern high grade steel such asd the Reynolds 953, 931 and 921 can outlast any titanium frame whether it is in terms of resistance and durability. The cost of a reynolds 953 frame was 4000$ if not more. The 853 pro team was also used in the late 90's by theTVM team who road gazelle made of Reynolds 853 proteam tubes. When you want a high grade steel bike all depends how much you want to invest in it. The columbus genius was a high grade series of tubes but often prone to breaking because the welding techniques and procedures were not always respected .An interesting link about the
columbus steel tubes history and comparison with its competitors . I have never seen an older 753 or 531 reynolds frame being broken but I have seen an important number of columbus genius frames whether MTB or road bike being broken. I can't speak about titanium since I haven't encountered nor don't know a person with a broken titanium bike frame.