Well everyone, what do you think? I need to get a new bike and I have been on steel for many years. Time to upgrade. Some say Ti is too heavy others say carbon is not responsive enough. What is your experience?
I have a Ti road bike, a carbon TT bike, and a carbon tri bike. Honestly, they are all beautiful bikes. You may find the feel of a Ti bike more like your steel (depends on the bike of course), but some of the new carbon bikes are light, stiff and very responsive. Both materials can make a great frame, depends on what you are after - both can ride smooth or both can be harsh depending on how it’s put together.
For day to day riding, I wouldn’t trade my Litespeed for any other bike out there right now.
Ask Ves for the bike he posted…you need that one.
for the past 4-1/2 years, I’ve ridden a litespeed classic over 20k miles. its always been a good bike. I recently bought a bianchi carbon, and I must say I like it even more. lighter, more responsive, handles low level road noise better for a better overall ride. the litespeed does handle large hits (potholes, railroad tracks, etc.) better.
I try not to get too involved in the materials debates since they are futile. Here’s why:
This school of thought that says “Carbon rides like this, Ti rides like that, Alumnium rides like this and cro-moly rides like that…” Is just plain, dick-in-the-dirt, butt-assed wrong.
Those are uninformed, stereotypical generalizations that amount to little more than lore in abscence of fact.
Bob Jenny, a former employee of Seven Cycles, said it best: “You can make anything ride like anything.”
With the myriad of manufacturing techniques available to the bicycle designer and manufacturer today it is impossible to generalize as broadly as saying one material rides a certain way.
Also, this absurd notion that frame material weilds so much sovereignty over ride quality is also uninformed. Want to utterly change the ride character of a bike? Change the tires and wheels. It does nothing to change the bottom bracket or down tube stiffness, but it utterly modifies your perception of the bike’s ride quality.
With this debate about materials off the table once and for all (in my dreams), here is what influences your perception of how the bike “rides” (or the visceral feedback you get through the three contact points with the bike). In order of significance:
-
Bike fit and position. Nothing influences ride qulaity more. This includes saddle, handlebar and pedal choice.
-
Wheels and tires. Mavic Ksyriums with Vredestein Fortezza Tri-Comps run at their maximum 175 psi are an utterly different beast than Spinergy PBO spoked wheels with Michelin Race Lites at 110 psi. The difference is *much, much *more significant than any difference in frame material.
-
The fork. Not only does this influence ride quality (visceral feedback you get through the three contact points with the bike), but it can change handling for better or worse. Even having the approved or originally intended rake and trail for a given frame may not insure that the crown of the fork is the same height. A higher crown may exert the effect of slackening both head tube and seat tube angle of your frame. You may or may not want that effect.
-
The three contact points: Saddle & seatpost, handlebar and stem and pedals and shoes. This is the spinal cord of your connection to the bike and the place you will get and send all the information from and power to the bike. These items exert a profound effect on your perception, and in fact, the reality of how stiff or flexible your bike is and how it rides. The variation in stiffness on handlebar/stem combinations alone is enormous, especially with both 26.0 diamter and 31.8 diamter systems widely available now. Same with saddles and seatposts- although the effect of cetain seatposts on ride qulaity is frequently overstated. And finally, a well-configured pedal/shoe interface has an enormous amount to say about how it feels to get power to your drivetrain.
My advice to people, and this goes against all the armchair “expert” and crappy bike salesman advice, don’t worry about materials. Get good fit and worry about the above list.
People always look for the easy answers, the convenient generalization. It doesn’t exist here. Anything can ride like anything nowadays.
I coulda sworn you said carbon fiber was better.
Precisely, Tom.
But you do understand that this is FAR, FAR too much subtlety for this forum, don’t you? ;->
Folks here want one word answers…preferably validating their most recent big $ purchase.
Carbon. Period.
Steel. Period.
Aluminum. Period. (Oh, wait…no one EVER says “Aluminum. Period.” The closest anyone comes is “Cervelo. Period.”)
Anyway…well-written. I’d still like to know how to present this argument to folks who are relatively new to cycling/multisport…in a way that they will pay attention and give credence to the lessons. Or, said otherwise, how do you combat the marketer’s fluffy lines of drivel that reinforce the materials arguments? You will say this stuff to me, and I will understand it…because I have ridden bikes seriously for over 20 years now. You can say this stuff to the brand new guy looking for their first real bike at age 35 or the gal who just took up triathlons last year upgrading her Giant OCR to a Quintana Roo Tiphoon…and either one is probably coming into your store, or just to the discussion, armed with advertiser’s biasing statements about ti/carbon/alu/steel…and is sure that the Tiphoon or whatever bike they have their sights set on will be the difference… Or you get the types that come in to the shop, convinced that their Dual is the WORST RIDING bike they’ve ever had…and that it is all due to the frame…even though they have a super-skimpy saddle that doesn’t fit their wide sit-bones, some super stiff set of wheels with low-thread count, cheap tires inflated 10 or 20 psi above recommended pressure, and a fit that jacks up their weight distribution over the front wheel…but SWEARS the Dual’s aluminum frame is the culprit…“Aluminum is dead-feeling and jarringly stiff” they’ll say…
You say getting involved in the debates is futile, though…perhaps even you, bike hawker extraordinaire that you are, are powerless in the face of the marketer’s juggernaught.
“You say getting involved in the debates is futile, though…perhaps even you, bike hawker extraordinaire that you are, are powerless in the face of the marketer’s juggernaught.”
You’re absolutely right about that Sir.
Although I know I have preferences for one material over another, Tom’s right about there being little uniformity among Alu/Ti/Carbon frames. Heck, the most comfortable bike I’ve ever ridden was a aluminum one. It’s my Redline cross bike. It has the wheelbase of a truck, and I’ve always ridden standard, 32 spoke wheels on it. It can handle downtown Houston streets like nothing else.
As for carbon vs. titanium. I’m going to say titanium because the shop that sponsors my team gave me a Merlin Extralight. Seriously though, it is easily the best frame I have ever ridden in terms of lateral stiffness, responsiveness, and all-around durability. That said, I’ve ridden a carbon bike before, but it was a low to mid-level Look. The best aluminum road bike I’ve ever had was a Bianchi EV2 XL, which lost it’s stiffness within a year of racing. The Merlin is an expensive, but high quality frame. Basically, I’d say just look for a high quality frame that suits your budget…or just buy a super-stiff aluminum frame and add carbon parts until your back stops hurting.
I like aluminum but more importantly, do you have any good zinfandel recommendations.
Red Zin rocks. I like most that come out of Lodi region. The Upper end Rancho Zabaco stuff is great. Try Rancho Zabaco Chioti It’s like a Chocolate rocket.
Thanks. We really like Central Coast CA zins - Tobin james, Castoro, Lion’s Peak, Peachy Canyon etc.
Rancho is actually made by Gallo but hell they own half of Sonoma and the juice is outstanding. I have seen their blader presses and they are really one of a kind. They even removed every 90 degree angle in the pipes that carry the juice so as not to damage the free run.
"The best aluminum road bike I’ve ever had was a Bianchi EV2 XL, which lost it’s stiffness within a year of racing. "
Well, there goes your credibility…
Well, Tom rides more different kinds of bikes in a month than most of us will ride in a lifetime, so I’d take his advice very seriously. But I’d like to expand upon it a little. Being an engineer (electrical, so don’t weigh what I have to say that seriously!), I look at it maybe a little different.
-
No, you can’t make anything ride like anything. I’ve never seen anything similar to my KM40 made out of titanium for instance. I’ve never seen a full titanium fork, but there is no doubt that carbon steerers in forks are lighter than the steel variety. You can adjust the wall thickness, tube diameters, etc, to make any part of the bike stiff or flexible, but the material you chose will affect the weight, cost, workmanship requried, and most likely the shape of that structure. Titanium is, apparently, much harder to work with than carbon to get intricate shapes.
-
If you buy a frame that really works for you, there may be no real reason you EVER have to replace it. Any of the materials can last forever if you are careful, but some of them have finishes that are more durable than others. For me, steel rusts and eventually gets holes clear through it. Some thin walled aluminum bikes have been known to dent. Carbon fiber, when painted, can tend to pick up a lot of knicks, but these can be painted over if you care. I think the brushed titanium finish is just about the most practical and durable finish you could ever get.
-
Adding to Tom now, don’t worry about the material. Find the bike you like the best regardless of what it is made of. All else being equal I would probably take titanium for the durability factor. Plus I have a suspicion that carbon is overhyped and selling at a much higher margin than other materials. From a practical standpoint, you can probably buy an aluminum frame much cheaper and therefore get better wheels, tires, handlebars, and components, and this will ultimately make more difference, assuming you are working on a budget.
Ti is too heavy? That’s the first time I ever heard that one. And you’d have to define what kind of “response” you are looking for in a triathlon bike that carbon cannot deliver (or any other material).
Yeah, great topic, about time someone brought this up 
I have to agree with Tom about riding qualities…
I never rode a full carbon bike and wont comment on the ride qualities yada yada yada…
But I had (have) aluminum bikes and lots of people ride carbon bikes around me and i have to say. Paint chips and looks uncool (and thats impossible to prevent if you ride enough miles), carbon cracks (i have seen top end frames cracking too easily) and cracked carbon frame=garbage. Its quite unbelievable how Ti looks new after each time i wash my bike.
and for the record i ride a tiphoon and a 0Gravity 