I had the opportunity to test ride the new QR Typhoon, QR Caliente and Cervelo P2K this weekend. The bikes have very similar tubing shapes and geometry and were built with identical parts. I even made sure the air pressure was the same in the tires before the test ride. All I can say is that I could definitely tell a difference between the ride qualities of Titanium vs. Aluminum. The Ti was so smooth and comfortable vs. the feel of the Aluminum bikes. When comparing the two Aluminum bikes, the ride quality of the QR Caliente felt much better than the Cervelo. I attribute this to the carbon seat stays. Just my own 2 cents.
Hmmm, interesting. Were the bikes all set up the same? (same pedals, saddle, saddle height, reach measurments?). When you mentioned the Caliente rode better can you define better? I think you mean you felt less bumps but I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
interesting, jp. i know it is the fashion to say that any material can ride as well as any else but in my experience that is only patially true. it is largely a question of semantics. as tom says, "better’ means. . . .what? fiuther, getting back to my first point - titanium and alumin possess very different characteristics. you can make a bell from titanium, and a very nice spring. you can do neither with aluminum. aluminum is much less dense, and so you can maintain stiffness with less of it. hence, when you whittle down either material to the fine gauges invoved in bike tubing there will be detectable differences in things like resonance, stiffness, and vibration, and other terms such as "snappiness’, “livliness”, and the like. it is in the latter, more nebulous terms that the problem lies when you say “better”. i like the ride of a steel bike myself, but if you like the feeling of a wicked light bike shooting out from underneath you when you pedal you will prefer a new school ultralight aluminum one. ti will have its character, also, and of course they all overlap to a pretty high degree. the differences are real - how can they not be?? they are very different metals !!, but they are small. they make for a nice addition to the enjoyment of riding, but they don’t actually matter one bit where speed is concerned for the most part.
Assuming you had good fits on each bike, I would then ask what wheels/tires each had on it. You say similar yet there are tangible differences between wheelsets and even tire/tube combinations. For my money I can tell a much greater difference between say, a Spinergy Xaero/Michelin and a Mavic/DA 32spoke/Conti GP3000 setup than I ever could with Ti vs Alum frame. I don’t feel any immediate difference between my new Saber with the carbon stays and an old one I tested with ti stays.
You say all were set up for correct fit and similarly equipped. I propose that even if you are set up exactly the same on all three bikes, the feel will be different simply because you will end up in a different weight distribution points vs the wheels. Without checking specs I’d also reckon that all had different headtube angles. The Cervelo definitely puts the rear wheel more under you than the others, at least in the 74-76deg angles.
Yes, I’m second guessing you. There are simply too many variables in the fit/feel equation to make that observation so quickly.
I bet that if you were blind folded you would not be able to tell the difference. CARBON seat stays making a difference bulls_ _ _. I also bet that most people if told a bike was made from some high tech material and would ride sooo much smoother they would feel the difference no matter what the material.
I spent four hours yesterday testing various Tri Bikes. Specifically, I rode:
-
QR Private Reserve (with Carbon Seatstays)
-
Colnago Dream Triathlon
-
Litespeed Sabre 2003
-
Cervelo P3
All I can say is that it was amazing the differences between the feel of the bikes. Further, the two “roughest/harshest” rides both had carbon stays. I’d say that the super-light Colnago was the “smoothest,” and had the finest finish.
However, I set up the best on the Cervelo so it will likely win the battle if Gerard will let my sponsoring shop purchase from him. My biggest criticism of the Cervelo is that the bikes are clearly designed by Engineers. The workmanship isn’t amazing and the paint schemes are pathetic. However, it does’t really take much effort to get it painted and I’m certain that Cervelo’s warranty and quality are acceptable for my needs…Let’s face it, we rarely keep a bike for 10 years (if we do, it becomes a special-occasion bike).
In short, it became clear that design could trump materials IMHO.
I’ve ridden 2 different litespeed road models, and found them both excessively squishy. I now consider myself a non-Ti person.
I just moved from an older Cannondale CAAD 3 (straight seat stays) to a Litespeed aluminum frankenbike (the price was just too good). Cannondales are generally known for beating people up, but this litespeed w/ the carbon stay feels just as rough to me. If that carbon stay does anything besides add some “gee-gaw” to the bike then that bike must be brutal w/ an alum rear triangle.
Tom,
I used my own pedals and shoes for the test ride. I even had them use a Fit-Stick so the set-up (seat height, reach, angle ect.) would be the same for all bikes. In addition, both the QR’s had the same wheelset and parts and when I rode the Cervelo I switched the wheelset from one of the QR’s onto the Cervelo. I definitely know that wheels and tires can make a big difference in ride quality.
As I said the ride was better on the Ti bike vs the Aluminum. The Ti bike absorbed the road vibrations better than the Aluminum bike and just felt more comfortable. I’m not sure that this translates into more speed but the Ti bike sure felt nice. I’m saving my money for the Typhoon.
good on you then, jp. i don’t know why this seems to generate such controversy. they are different materials entirely - why wouldn’t they posses different characters within reason ? it matters more to some people than others, and some don’t feel it at all. all good. i can’t tell the difference between a wal-mart fishing pole and a fine fly rod and don’t care to. but just because i can’t feel it and don’t want to i would not claim there to be no difference. one thing is certain - either one would catch a fish.
I think this is always going to be a tough one given how subjective it is. I’ll throw this tidbit out. The only semi-objective study I’ve ever heard of involved the builder Havnoonian building up identical bikes from the various materials he was experienced with, I think it was steel, Ti, Aluminum, and Metal Matrix.
The bikes were set up identically, painted identically, and a group of riders were let loose. The conclusion was that the riders could not tell between the different materials.
What does this prove? I’m not totally sure, but at least most factors were controlled.
All of this makes me want to buy another bike.
I was in love with my Cervelo P2k last summer but not naive enough to choose it for my ride across America. So I went out and bought a Bianchi San Remo–as different a bike as could be: steel, relaxed seat angle, 32 spoke wheels (versus my Rolf Vector Pros), no aero bar. Campy v. Shimano, too.
On the first ride, the difference was unbelievable. I was comfortable in a way I didn’t recognize. I felt no vibration from the road, the new position made me feel like I was a king surveying my domain, as opposed to the thief trying to steal something from it that I felt like in the aero position.
All I could think was “so comfortable, so comfortable.” Then, of course, I looked down at the computer, and the thought changed to “so slow, wow… so slow.”
There’s always a tradeoff. The idea is to make the trades that best suit your purpose. I’ll do enough training on the Cervelo to retain my comfort in the position (and of course I’ll race on it). Aside from that, I’m doing everything on the Bianchi.