Originally Posted by Batavus

I don't get the part about aluminum steerers. They are extremely common on entry to mid-level road bikes and mtbs.

Originally Posted by Eric S.

I was watching titanium come down in price in the '90s, hoping to swoop in but CF became less expensive to produce, I guess. Litespeed had a no-frills frame called a Classic; I seem to remember it getting as low as $1,500 from Colorado Cyclist before I lost track or interest.

Originally Posted by Wilfred Laurier

I think the main thing with Ti BBs was that first splined (ISIS and Octolink), and then external bearing, and most recently several press-fit BB standards took over from the traditional square taper BBs, and with so few bikes using square taper BBs, there is virtually no market for the Ti replacements. And most new cranksets come with a built in spindle. All that, plus that fact that the standard size of spindle, when using a softer and weaker (per unit of cross sectional area) material resulted in unacceptably flexy and weak BBs, hence the reports of breakage and restrictive rider weight limits.



Question: Why are Ti handlebars not popular anymore?
Answer: carbon fibre handlebars

Although there are a few manufacturers who make Ti bars, a lighter and probably stronger set of bars is almost definitely available made from carbon.



Forks with aluminum steerer tubes are still very much available - both suspension and rigid forks. The very highest end forks now come with carbon steerers, but there are plenty with aluminum too. I wonder if you aren't confused about a recent thread about adapting an aluminum steerer tube for use with a threaded headset - aluminum steerer tubes were common, but very rarely threaded.




I always got the impression that those pulleys had a definite negative impact on shifting for the reason you stated (lack of floating top pulley) and their claims of less drivetrain resistance were either grossly exaggerated or completely bogus. As I recall, one manufacturer claimed an energy savings of a 50 foot climb over some distance, but properly maintained bushing derailleurs don't have enough drag to make any sort of measureable or noticeable difference. This was pretty well known back in the days of anodized aluminum parts (early-mid nineties), so the only people that had them were the uninformed, or those who wanted matching purple anodizing on every possible part (you all know who you are, so please take a moment to hang your heads in shame now). Also, the top and second from the top derailleur from Shimano have long used ball bearings instead of bushings, and a whole derailleur doesn't cost much more that some sets of aftermarket pulleys.

Originally Posted by RoadGuy

I haven't bought a "new" bike from a shop since the early 1990s. I was surprised when I read that aluminum steering tubes are not common anymore. Although people are popping up saying that they are still readily available. Aluminum legs on forks are still common as far as I know. It's the aluminum steering tubes that I'm asking about. Maybe the guys that posted that they don't exist anymore were mistaken about the availability. I haven't looked at new bikes or replacement forks lately, so I don't know first hand what the current market is like.

Originally Posted by Batavus

I don't get the part about aluminum steerers. They are extremely common on entry to mid-level road bikes and mtbs.

Originally Posted by RoadGuy

All my bikes still have square taper bottom brackets. I can't believe the number of different bottom bracket designs that have popped up in the past 15-20 years. As far as I can tell, manufacturers are skipping back and forth in an attempt to gain a marketing /patent advantage for the products over the competition without regard for the consumer. Buying a replacement bottom bracket for a newer bike has become confusing mess without any standard like we had when square taper was standard. Pressed in, external, ISI, Octolink, I doon;t see any advantage in any of these over square taper for the riding that I do.

I saw plenty of threaded aluminum steering tubes on on-road and off-road forks at one time, and I never saw any warnings or recalls due to breakage.

While carbon parts may be lighter than aluminum parts and stiffer or stronger in a specific designed for direction, aluminum parts do not damage as easily in an off-direction incident as carbod parts do. Aluminum chainstays are not damaged or ruined when the chain comes off and grainds/rubs on them. Aluminum tubes do not crack or crush as easily if the bikes falls over sideways as carbon tubes do. In my opinion, that makes aluminum framed bikes more practical for everyday utility use, and commuting than carbon frame bikes are. Same problem with carbon handlebars. If you have carbon handlebars and the bike falls over in an uncontrolled manner, the odds of damage are much higher that if the handlebars were made of aluminum.

I have heard of many more carbon steerer failures than aluminum steerer failures. Why is aluminum steerer failure risk unacceptable, while carbon steerer failure is downplayed now?

If I had to take a carbon steerer or an aluminum steerer, I would trust a threaded aluminum steerer more that a carbon. But, that's just me, and I have to pay for my own parts.

Originally Posted by Wilfred Laurier

I always got the impression that those pulleys had a definite negative impact on shifting for the reason you stated (lack of floating top pulley) and their claims of less drivetrain resistance were either grossly exaggerated or completely bogus. As I recall, one manufacturer claimed an energy savings of a 50 foot climb over some distance, but properly maintained bushing derailleurs don't have enough drag to make any sort of measureable or noticeable difference. This was pretty well known back in the days of anodized aluminum parts (early-mid nineties), so the only people that had them were the uninformed, or those who wanted matching purple anodizing on every possible part (you all know who you are, so please take a moment to hang your heads in shame now). Also, the top and second from the top derailleur from Shimano have long used ball bearings instead of bushings, and a whole derailleur doesn't cost much more that some sets of aftermarket pulleys.

Originally Posted by RoadGuy

......standard like we had when square taper was standard.

Originally Posted by rydabent

IMO titanium frame bikes will be on the road decades after CF frame bikes are reduced to junk.

Originally Posted by MichaelW

Switching the material but keeping the design/dimensions is almost always a bad move. The strength/weight ratio of steel/Ti/alu is about the same but they vary in density. If you use the small cross-section of a design made for steel and swap for the same volume of Ti, you have less weight and less strength.

Originally Posted by HillRider

We certainly agree here. My oldest Litespeed was purchased in late 1995, has over 70,000 miles and shoukd last forever.

Originally Posted by Wilfred Laurier

My Ti MTB, although a Russian built frame of unknown alloy, is the only MTB to ever last me more than two years without breaking - going on 11 or 12 years old now. And most of the miles over the past two years have been with a rigid fork on rough singletrack. To be fair, I never had an aluminum mtb frame that fit me well enough for my liking, and so I got rid of them before I had a chance to evaluate long-term durability. I recently broke my first aluminum frame - a touring bike I had been riding extensively off-road. All my other broken frames were supposedly good quality steel.

Originally Posted by Dan Burkhart

All your other broken frames? Maybe you're just hard on stuff?

Originally Posted by cycle_maven

The Landrider autoshifting bike. There's one that deserved to die- a bike for people too lazy to shift gears, but energetic enough to actually move the pedals in a circle.

Originally Posted by RandomTroll

If it got more people out of their cars, motorcycles, motor-assisted bicycles (yuck!), it was for the good.

Originally Posted by HillRider

Those Autoshift bikes were so dreadfully bad that I expect they discouraged anyone who bought one from ever bicycling again. One of the problems with this and most other X-Mart BSO's is that they give a terrible first impression to potential riders, most of whom never come back and try something better.

Originally Posted by sickz

i see no benefit from titanium handlebars other than changing up the natural frequency of your handlebars (when compared to alum, steel, carbon)

Originally Posted by arex

Why? Is titanium prone to cracking?

Originally Posted by FBinNY

CF also works, but also calls for larger diameters, which is why we've moved from the old 26mm clamp size to 31.8mm