indyfabz

Rides like a dream.

DangerousDanR

​​​​​​My Ritchey Breakaway is a 60 cm top tube with a 130 cm stem and my Lynskey R.350 is a 61 cm top tube with a 120 cm stem. Both have alloy bars. The Lynskey has a carbon seatpost, while the Ritchey has a Thompson alloy post since I don't like the idea of carbon in shear.

Both bikes have Campagnolo group sets. EPS on the Lynskey and mechanical on the Ritchey. Both are rim brakes. Both have flat stiff saddles. Both have carbon forks.

The ride quality of the two is very similar. I use the same wheel sets on both. The wheel set used makes much more of a difference in the ride than the frame. Both wheel sets run Continental GP5000TL tubeless at 105 PSI.

Both are good for 50 mile rides. My times for both bikes are in the same range.

But the Lynskey has not a chip or scratch, while the Ritchey has flown a bit and it shows.

sweeks

I bought a "budget" titanium bike 20 years ago. The Airborne "Carpe Diem" was pretty much customized to my preferences, so it's a bit weird: mountain bike brakes and pedals, drop bars with STI shifters, a 3 x 9 Ultegra drivetrain, fenders and a steel front fork (Co-Motion "Americano"). It is a very comfortable bike to ride, and I've done several centuries on it. I can't really say the comfort is because of the titanium frame, though; I may not be sensitive enough to tell the difference. It's been a good bike, though.

Halfway through a 35-mile weekend loop.


Steerer extension shim for headlight mount.


Airborne... lasted a few years, then morphed into Flyte and eventually Van Nicholas.

Camilo

I have two ti bikes, a CF, a steel and an aluminum, all have aluminum wheels. I personally don't believe any material gives any sort of magical ride. It might be argued that one material is less susceptible to damage when traveling or knocking around, but that's a different story.

My bikes are:

1996 Litespeed Classic built up with a new all-CF fork (Columbus) and a mix of Sram Force and Shimano Dura Ace 10 speed parts. CF seat post and handlebars. 30mm tires
Brand new Lynskey GR300 built up with Sram AXS "Wide" Etap, CF seat post, alloy handlebars, 36mm tires
mid-80s Sannino built with 8 speed Campy, alloy seat post and handlebars. 25mm tires
10-12 year old Felt Z built with Sram Red 10 speed, CF seat post, stem, handlebars, 25mm tires
10-12 year old Jamis Nova Pro frameset built with Ultegra 9 speed triple parts, alloy seat post, stem, handlebars, 36mm tires. This bike has a full CF fork and the seat stays are CF too.

I use the same saddle on all of them, and try to get the fit dimensions as close to the same as possible, within 1/2 cm in any direction.

All are very comfortable with the steel Sannino being less so. It's a full-on criterium racing frame and, to me, feels harsher than the others. If I could get 28mm or 30mm tires on it, I think it would be right on par with the others. The others are all a toss-up for comfort and I just kind of rotate on whim.

The tires are mentioned because it's the geometry, fit, contact points, and tire size and quality that make a bike comfortable or not. My aluminum bike is perfectly comfortable. I've never felt any sort of difference in "road buzz" that can't be attributed to tire size. Second to tire size for "road buzz" might be handlbars - but that is almost all attributed to the tape, not the handlebar material.

rekmeyata

I'm not sure what I can add to this conversation, but I owned, and have owned steel, scandium, and titanium, I've have ridden quite a few different brands and models of carbon fiber. What I observed is that scandium and AL is not only buzzy but larger cracks and holes in the road bangs through the bike, all that buzz and banging wore me out. CF does eliminate the buzz to some degree better than AL or steel, but what most people don't talk about is when a CF bike hits a crack or hole in the road it bangs into the frame much like AL does. Steel mutes the cracks and holes really well, it does have a buzz but more like in between that of AL and CF in my experiences. A TI bike on the other hand mutes the buzz and the banging better than any other material I've rode on, some of that buzz muting could be from the use of CF forks found on all TI bikes.

My experience compares Ti bikes like riding in a full-size luxury car vs other frame material, steel is more like a medium sport luxury car, CF is like a sport touring car, and AL is like a sports car. If that makes any sense! LOL!! I'm trying to explain the differences and that's the best I could come up with.

Some say TI bikes are flexy, but that has a lot to with the geometry of the bike.

TI has the highest strength to weight ratio of any metal. TI can survive harder impacts than CF can without cracking, because of TI's nature in the long run it's cheaper to own a TI bike. The weight difference between titanium and carbon fiber frames is pretty insignificant in the mid-price levels, but get into the higher price ranges and there can be a 1 1/2 or so pound difference with CF being the lightest.

TI bikes are the trickiest material to work on, one error in the welding process could lead to a frame cracking at the weld, but when done right TI (and steel) will outlast all other materials to date; however, CF also has a tendency to fail more often at the bonds. TI hasn't been around as long as steel has, so while we have 100 year plus bikes still around using old gas pipe even, not modern more resilient steel used today, and some of the old gas pipe bikes are still around. The biggest failure point in steel is not fatigue, but rust, TI does not suffer from fatigue just like steel, but it doesn't rust or corrode like steel or AL. CF fatigue is controversial, some say it does and others say it doesn't, we do not have a long track record to be sure, but we do know that when it fails it's catastrophic and sudden unlike steel or TI and even AL; there are also those that say CF is a 6-to-10-year frame, we do know CF is brittle. A bad thing about CF that doesn't affect other materials is the over tightening of a component during installation which can lead to catastrophic failure. Another strange thing, that bothered me about CF, is that I am able to take my thumb and index finger, place it in the middle of any frame tube and make it bend inward, that turned me off.

The following is some videos concerning various materials, they are interesting to see.

PeteHski

Some fair points here. One advantage of carbon over metal is that it's the most versatile in terms of shaping and directional strength with layup design. In recent years the bike industry has matured enough to exploit these advantages pretty well. My background is in motorsport, where carbon has been used for much longer in chassis and suspension components. If I was looking for a bike frame to keep long term and expected it to get knocked around in transit etc then I would probably choose Ti. But otherwise it's carbon all the way for me now, both for mtb and road.

rekmeyata

But a race car chassis is about 2 to 10 mm thick (depending where on the chassis it's being used) vs a bicycle frame that is about 0.5 mm thick depending on the cost of the CF bike, and it's this thin CF in a tube set that I can make bend inward with my bare hands. Also keep in mind that one of the reasons race cars went with CF is due to its ability to break apart absorbing the crash energy instead of the person absorbing it, they didn't choose it for weight because race cars have to meet weight restrictions and requirements. Bike manufactures on the other hand could care less about how the material handles a crash, all they care about is shape and weight.

Since you use to be involved in motorsports, please correct my errors above concerning the race cars.

PeteHski

CF is used in motorsport for many varied applications, not just the chassis, and it is favoured primarily because of its superior stiffness/weight ratio and versatility in shaping - for example it's perfect for structural aero components like wings and suspension wishbones. Some of these components can also be very thin, just like a carbon bike frame.

It is true that you can also make a very effective crash structure out of carbon, but that's not the reason race car chassis are made out of carbon in the first place. That's more of a bonus. I used to oversee carbon chassis crash testing for one of the teams I was working for and that really just comes down to the nosecone design, which is specifically designed to fold up on itself in a frontal impact. Then there's the roll hoop which has to undergo a specific vertical compression test. Again carbon is perfect for that. Now they also have the Halo in F1. Even though there are minimum weight regulations in motorsport, it doesn't mean that weight saving is not important. We used to run around 50 kg of tungsten ballast on our F1 cars to meet the min weight and it was useful for fine tuning front/rear weight distribution. Plus of course it was bolted as low down on the floor as possible for minimum CofG height. So in motorsport you still design for minimum weight for the stiffness you require in any component.

But coming back to bike frames, I agree thin walled carbon frames are more vulnerable to damage than metal equivalents. But in my experience it's not usually a major issue even with mtbs that take a fair old beating. If you are not particularly bothered about weight and/or aero then a carbon frame doesn't really make much sense over a simple steel frame. But then neither does a Ti frame. It's just another option in the realm of marginal gains. I think the main reason people really choose Ti frames is for the looks and exclusivity. Nothing wrong with that of course!

tankist

I used to have steel Bianchi Veloce and now have Ti Motobecane which is 5 years old. Both ride really comfortable, but Moto is noticeably lighter and easier to push uphill. Bianchi is painted and accumulated some scratches and scuffs over the years. Moto is naked Ti and looks like new. I met a couple of cyclist with Ti frames older than 20 years which still looked like new, while components and wheels were regularly upgraded.

ClydeClydeson

In my experience, no material is significantly better than any other in any way that cannot be countered or enhanced by design and construction. I have ridden steel bikes that felt like an oak log, and aluminum bikes that felt like a wet noodle. I have ridden a few ti bikes and they all felt pretty good, but none of them were a truly 'cheap' ti frame, and the expensive steel and aluminum bikes I have ridden all felt pretty good, too.

sweeks

Not *all*... my Airborne has a chromoly fork, actually a Co-Motion "Americano" fork. When I first saw it, I was afraid the bike would ride like a truck; it's a fairly beefy fork. It was a pleasant surprise to find that it's quite compliant and comfortable. I notice that more current Americano models have straight fork legs; I prefer the esthetics of the curved forks.