Dan or anyone, any comparisons between ABG and Seven?
seven boasts a unique tube fabrication technique and use of various tubes to achieve desired ride charactersitics?
what thinks you?
“seven boasts a unique tube fabrication technique and use of various tubes to achieve desired ride charactersitics?”
here is what i think i know (tho, as i state below, i’m open to correction).
seven has historically had zero titanium tube fabrication techniques, except if you consider the bonding of carbon to titanium tubes. what i believe was the case was that seven bought sports grade titanium from haynes, its tubing supplier. that means, to the best of my recollection, something like 50-thousanths of runout over 6 feet of tubing (straightness). and they were all round, straight-gauge tubes haynes was supplying (you can externally butt these tubes by turning down the wall on the outside of the tubes on a lathe, but that’s another story).
merlin used to require haynes straighten their tubes to something like 20 or 30 thousanths of an inch over 6 feet, which was expensive and, in my view, probably needless.
so i think seven makes fabulous bikes, as good as any ti bikes out there so long as you like the 3/2.5 alloy (which is i believe what they still use), which is what merlin has used and continues to use, to the best of my knowledge.
so as titanium tubes go, i’m not aware of any special fabrication techniques that seven possesses.
but i must add this caveat, that i can certainly be corrected if things have changed in recent years’ editions of seven’s bikes (and again, i’m just talking about ti tubes, not carbon, or carbon/ti).
litespeed, on the other hand, fabricates their 6/4 tubes out of sheet stock, which is a very hard way to go, but if you like 6/4, and/or if you want shaped tubes such as what a blade or tiphoon will be made out of, then this is the way your tubes are likely to be made.
i’d be obliged if this post is passed on to the people at seven, so that they can reply if i’ve gotten it wrong above (or, if you’re knowledgeable and familiar with the processes i’m talking about, and you know that seven does things differently than i’ve suggested, please feel free to pipe up).
in other words, i’m not stating the above as fact, but what i thought to be the case some time back, and to the best of my knowledge still is the case. i could be wrong. don’t assume i’m right.
mr empfield. i am curious as to some of this. isn’t seamed tubing - sheet stock welded together - generally considered inferior to drawn " seamless" tubing? my understanding was that 6/4 is not welded into to tubes for the superiority of the process, but rather because it is EASIER to do with that material or perhaps, the only way to do it.
as for other tube making and specifically, butting, i know that ancotech, ibis, and gary helfrich ( co-founder of merlin) produced true 2:1 internal butts ( in seamless drawn tubes) - something l-speed has yet to do, i think - back in the early 90’s. they also produced double tapered stays in ti, which nobody has done before or since, to my knowledge.
the champions of seamless drawn tubing swear it’s better. as for steel, with which i’m much more familiar, i have real questions about this. the ‘seam’ is rather seamless in a seamed tube. by the time you get through with all the annealling and heat treating processes that occur after welding there is no seam.
i don’t know how it is with titanium, frankly. at merlin, there was no tube manufacture. all life started with round tubes, and you might squish them into a shape, or hog out a little material here or there, but as i had no experience making bikes with welded ti tubes i can’t comment with any knowledge.
as for ancotech, i never saw anything like you describe. merlin used ancotech’s tubes for a cheaper model they made, and i’m not saying ancotech is inferior to haynes as a supplier, just that these were the sorts of tubes that merlin sourced from ancotech.
are you saying that there are seamless cold drawn ti tubes with butts generated on a draw bench?
mr empfield. that is the way i recall the ibis tubes, yes. i remember scot nicol walking around sea otter with a laser cut cross section of ti tubing which clearly showed the internal butt. as i recall it was not a rolled and welded tube - nor did they ever say how they did it.
equally impressive were the double tapered stays, which made for a supremely elegant ti bike.
expensive, too. the thing cost a bundle. ibis is out of business it is no longer made and whatever became of the butted double tapered tubes i do not know - even before ibis folded up shop nicol noted that while the tubes were the best ever produced in theory and execution in ti - you could make a bike ride just as nice for 1/2 the price without them, as i recall. 
other unprecedented ti products seen from helfrich/ibis/ancotech/castenello (sp) included the bowti pivotless susp bike, the silk ti leafspring softail, and of course the fabled ibis butted ti stems which lemond BOUGHT for his entire GAN team.
anyway, as for 6/4 and seamed vs seamless i do note many feel as you say. others still claim there are metallurgical considerations which make a drawn tube superior today, as they have for years upon years. in this debate 6/4 seamed tubing , while ballyhooed by litespeed, can also be seen as an attractive material which is eclipsed by 3/2.5 in practise - specifically in terms of it not being condusive to drawing. thanx for the conversation.
I know there are quite a few misconceptions regarding drawn versus seamed tubing. After testing it has become clear that Litespeed’s shaped and seamed 6/4 titanium tubing is lighter, stronger and stiffer than any drawn 6/4 titanium tubing currently available. As for worries about durability of the tubing, the most hi-tech US fighter plane, the F22 Raptor is constructed to a large degree from welded 6/4 titanium sheet. All Litespeed, Merlin and QR prototypes are tested on a torture device lovingly referred to as the Terminator before they are put into production, and of course we subject competitors bikes to this machine aswell. The Terminator actually puts 400 pounds of torque on the bottom bracket while the headtube is in a fixed position. The average aluminum frame will break in 200000 to 250000 cycles on this machine, the average steel frame in about 300000 to 400000 cycles, our cold-worked 3/2.5 titanium bikes will last a minimum of 750000 cycles and our 6/4 bikes have lasted beyond 2 million cycles. But instead of just giving lip service, we welcome any curious cyclist or triathlete to come by our facility and check out what we
actually do here. We’re quite sure that it will be a memorable and enlightening experience.
Keep riding.
Herbert
Litespeed/QR/Merlin/Tomac/Real-Design
“Hopefully, people have read Herbert’s post the same way I did - as “purposely ambiguous” marketing copy…”
a couple of days ago i spent an afternoon and an evening with the folks at cannondale who are responsible for their 2004 tri bike line. i again told them what i’d previously recommended to them: that they trumpet all the testing they do on their equipment.
very few bike companies do any real meaningful testing. c’dale has 8 full time employees in their testing facility compared to one employee in the facility of another $100 million plus company i know of. the great, great majority of bike companies do no testing, or next to no testing.
so i don’t see why a company has to be quiet about the testing it does, especially if it’s in response to a thread they didn’t start about their own products and processes.
Alright. I’m dense. I admit it. What is so ambigous about Herber’s post?
If Herbert won’t facilitate that, or if Herbert explicitly asks me what I find ambiguous, I will gladly give my perceptions/comments. Otherwise, I run the risk of coming off as pedantic, oversensitive, curmudgeonly, or let’s face it - the second coming of Jobst Brandt.
How ironic that your claims about Herbert’s claims are also purposefully ambiguous.
I am also not sure why my response sounded so ambiguous. Many magazine editors and consumers (including readers of slowtwitch) alike have been to our facility, and they should be all able to attest as to what we do there. Technical journals will also be quite clear about why titanium has such an amazing weight to strength ratio, aluminum is actually a bit lighter as it has a lower density, but for example the tensile strength of 6/4 titanium is almost 4 times that of 6061 aluminum. Either way though, if there is a doubt about what we do, the invitation to check out what we do was extended earlier and still counts.
How do we get in touch with you to come see the process?
EL
What usually happens is that people call us or email us ahead of time when they know that they are going to be in the area on business or pleasure, or if they are driving through. We of course also have people who literally just stop by, but it is better to give us a heads-up. We then will arrange for someone from customer service, sales or marketing to give the tour.
We are located just outside of Chattanooga, TN in a small town called Ooltewah, which is about 1.5 hours by car from Atlanta, GA about 1 hour from Knoxville, TN, about 2 hours and a time zone from Nashville, TN and about 1.5 hours from Birmingham, AL. We can be best reached at 1-423-238-5530 between 8am and 5pm Eastern standard time, Monday through Friday. Then it is best to ask for the brand you are interested in, as each brand has specific sales and customer service staff. Or you can just go to the websites and send an e-mail from there.
Having read, and re-read Herbert’s original post, I now see something that at least strikes me as ambiguos. Though I think the intention was benign, the use of the innocent sounding word ‘average’ carries with it the potential, only the potential mind you, for misinterpretation.
It could lead one to make sweeping generalizations based only on frame material excluding considerations of build and design.
As Gerard has frequently pointed out, you can build a wispy frame out of titanium and a tank out of aluminum. It has so much to do with design.
After all, at the end of the day no one rides an ‘average’ frame but a specific brand and model.
Now I certainly don’t think it was Herbert’s intent was to mislead and I’m glad he posted what he did.
Kudos to Kraig for making me thing a little harder.
This is what is “ambiguous”
-“…the most hi-tech US fighter plane, the F22 Raptor is constructed to a large degree from welded 6/4 titanium sheet”
now let see what is F-22:
**World Air Power Journal #38 **
Page 74:
Construction approach
The heart of the structure is the massive and complex mid-body section, built by Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems in Fort Worth. It incorporates the four weapon bays, the main lending gears and the complex inlet ducts. Made of carbonfibre/epoxy, the ducts curve sharply upwards and inwards from the inlets to mask the engine faces from radar……”
“The mid-body and rear fuselage includes some unusual structural features. The forged and machined titanium bulkheads in the mod-body carry most of the flight loads, and the largest of them weighs more than three tons before machining. The inlet lip and fittings that support the wing and rudder are hot isostatic process (HIP) casting, made from titanium alloy **powder formed **under very high pressure….”
-“…The tailbooms are titanium, welded by an electron beam in a vacuum chamber. The aft fuselage is 67 per cent titanium because of the high temperatures found there.”
-**Wing material technology **
Carbonfibre/bismaleimide (BMI) composite is the primary material in the F-22 wing. BMI resin replaced the thermoplastic-matrix composite used in the YF-22* (see below-vm) because it was stronger and less expensive, and because tougher, more damage-tolerant BMI resins had become available during Dem/Val…
“The multi-spar wings incorporate sine-wave spars – in which the web is an undulating curve – produced by a resin-transfer moulding (RTM)** (see below, vm) process developed by Boeing and Dow/United Technologies. In the RTM process, dry carbonfibre fabric is laid up in a mould and BMI resin is injected at high pressure. One in four of the spars is still made from titanium, a change made after live-fire damage-tolerance tests.”
Page 70:
F119 engine (P&W used on F-22-vm)
“…The F119 nozzles represent a fifth-generation design for P&W and weigh 600lb (272 kg) less than the nozzles on the YF-22. They are largely made of burn-resistant Alloy C titanium …”
*** YF-22 **
World Air Power Journal #6
Page 42
“…About 23 per cent of the YF-22 airframe consists of composite materials; the production aircraft will be nearly 40 per cent composite, including some new materials. Some high-temperature components, such as inlet ducts, frames and bulkheads around the engine bays, and the leading edges of the wings and tail surfaces, are made from carbon fibres in a bismaleimide matrix…”
“Large complex, lower-temperature components as wing skins are made from carbonfibres in a thermoplastic matrix…”
New materials
“Lockheed is also considering metal matrix composite (MMC) materials for parts of the F-22, including the vertical fins. MMC is made from high-temperature silicon carbide fibres in a titanium matrix…” (as you can see this MMC is letter replaced on F-22 with BMI-vm)
** RTM process is currently utilized by ZIPP in manufacturing of their wheels.
As much as “Herbert” would like to see in all this any word about “welded 6/4 titanium sheet”, I have to conclude that such task is simply-impossible.
Titanium alloys used in F-22 (and also in many other jet fighters) are mostly in service of high temperature critical structures and parts. And as you could see they are mostly manufactured by machining, casting or “welded by an electron beam in a vacuum chamber” what as far as I know not a single bicycle frame manufacturer utilize in the production of titanium bicycle frames!
It is relatively disappointing that people without basic scientific knowledge (or aircraft technology knowledge) are imposing their opinion on the public forum about “welded 6/4 titanium sheet”.
Ves Mandaric
and remember- not a single Pro European Team is riding titanium frames in 2003 season.
After reading that, I wouldn’t call what Herbert wrote ambigous, just plain wrong.
Thanks for posting Ves. Your reputation precedes you.
Nise Ves Now can you explain the difference between seamless and seamed tubing for Dan, if i am correct he is not clear and thinks seamless tubing has a seam but after heattreating and finishing it gone
.
As a hairdresser, I get to see many, many walks of life, including aircraft engineers. My location allows me to see see people who work on airplanes such as the F 18, along with other military and some commercial airplanes, but it is generally military applications.
What did they say about titanium? “Why in the (expletive) would you want to use that on a bike frame? It’s so (expletive)ing heavy. You would do better with aluminium, or carbon and aluminum or plain old carbon fibre. Hell, steel could be engineered to be lighter.”
That is the quote from a Boeing engineer* who now works for Lockheed Martin on the newly commisioned fighter.
When I asked about tubing, they said that “aluminum is cheaper and generally easier to work on, and it is not as fragile as it would seem. Titanium is generally very difficult to machine and should be left to aircraft where it is used in limited quantities. I would say get aluminium or a really cool carbon fibre frame. You can make some really cool shapes that would weigh a ton in any other material…”.
I do not wish to step on anyone’s toes here, however: I am certain that many titanium bikes are okay for riding, but after this conversation with an aircraft engineer, I am not convinced that Ti is definitely the ultimate frame material. I am, however, convinced that a steel, carbon fibre, or aluminium frame is a better buy. Just my blunt opinion.
- I will protect the identity of the mentioned engineer.
Hmmm… I’ll buy the fact that Ti is usually not a great deal, unless of course you go for a Habanero, $700 frame, but like everything else, I’d take the Boeing engineer’s words with a grain of salt. Unless, that is, he has as much experience building bikes as he does aircraft.
For what it’s worth, I believe I read somewhere that Airborne’s Torch was the first production model to use Reynold’s new seamless 6/4 tubeset.
this thread is an example of the sort of thing i’ve been experiencing during my entire career as a bike maker, and that i continue to see afterward.
as is the case with religion and politics, we’d all be so, so much happier if there was a right way, if someone could please help us out with the definitive way to make a bike (or a steel tube). the fact is, however, there is no definitive way. it depends on what you want out of that bike (or tube), and ESPECIALLY in the execution.
for example, if i wanted absolutely, positively the lightest bike frame on the planet, i might seek it out of carbon, and i’d probably get it out of carbon or aluminum. if, however, i wanted a reasonably lightweight, rust-proof, dent-proof, scratch-proof, travel-friendly frame that will last me the rest of my cycling life, i’ll pick titanium, no question.
except that, again, there’s the old problem of execution. it’s easy to make a ti frame badly, because it’s hard to make a ti frame at all.
carbon is very nice, except if an industry’s thinking re geometry or aerodynamics changes over time. with carbon, you’re stuck with the molds you made for years and years (unless you’re carbonframes, but then you’re dealing with round tubes).
i always have to giggle when i hear people who obviously don’t know the industry talk about the traits of one material or another, or one process or another. until you make bikes for a decade or more, and push the envelope, probably past the point where you should, and gain a seat-of-the-pants knowledge of how you can actually make a bike, you don’t really know what you’re talking about – even though you think you do. and this is the case irrespective of how many degrees you have, and what sorts of bona fides you’ve established in other industries, because bikes are subject to so many stresses and requirements that they defy simple mathematical formulae or pedantic oversimplifications.
if you put together people who’ve had their arses on the line AS PRO BIKE MAKERS for ten or fifteen years, they’ll ALL be in agreement with what i write above. ALL experienced pro bike makers have found out that whether it’s in making the bike, or in using the raw materials that make up the bike, it’s not about materials or specs. its about execution. a well-executed seamed tube is better than one from a seamless tube maker that can’t hold the proper wall thickness. a well mitered and welded 6000-series bike is better than an average #7000, and vice versa. a good all-carbon fork is fabulous, but for every reynolds fork, you should see what’s inside many of the other forks you’re riding – carbon with no resin, or vice versa. (and by the way, you really SHOULD see it, it would cure many of you from riding the forks you’re currently riding).
This whole damn thread is ambiguous. As a former Lockheed Martin aircraft engineer, here is what I know about the application of various titanium alloys to the manufacture of bicycles … jack s*%t. It should be clear to most that from Ves’ rather well-researched post that an aircraft employs quite an array of materials for various applications within the structural framing. Even stating that titanium is used mostly for temperature critical areas is vastly oversimplifying the design.
Claiming that material X is stronger, stiffer, lighter, more fatigue resistant than material Y is like trying to solve two equations with three unkowns, there isn’t enough information. Show of hands, how many people know the wall thickness of your down tube? (You don’t count Ves) Or how many can determine the strong axis moment of inertia of a Cervelo smartwall tube for example?
Titanium alloys generally have a higher strength to weight ratio than the commonly used aluminum or steel alloys. It SEEMS like a logical choice for a structural application where weight is more of a priority than cost. Of course, for the designer there is weldabilty, machinability, etc… to consider.
So, as a consumer, why should I beat my head against the wall trying to determine the best material. A company has rigorous testing procedures and produces bikes with superior fatigue life? Then, they sould put a lifetime guarantee on the structural integrity of the frame. That, to me, speaks volumes.
dave judice