Titanium, can it be improved?

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

Titanium for life was always a marketing ploy. People get bored wit frames and as we've seen with the advent of disc an electronic shifting there's a need for new frames. But Titanium handles getting banged up better and survives scratches better. It's a far more durable material for much of what a bike will see, especially if one travels.

As far as Serotta, they didn't fail because they were high end but because Ben could not control his costs and allocate capital properly.

With regards to Carbon providing a better ride than Titanium, I'm not so sure, it depends on the build. The focus for much of what constitutes carbon offerings is aero , stiffness and weight. I see comfort taking a back-seat. It seems the industry outsources this aspect to wheel builders saying just get a 25 or 28 mm tire(over-simplification perhaps, but only a little)

Last note, In my area of NY, I come across far more Seven's than MOOTS by a significant margin. Titanium will always cede the low end to Aluminum and Carbon. American labor will always be more expensive than what can be done overseas. The unmistakable conclusion is that to be successful with Titanium requires going upscale, and offering the customer a complete experience and offering them something they can't get with the traditional carbon bikes, a tailor made bike.
Last edited by fromtrektocolnago on Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels

highdraw

by highdraw

fromtrektocolnago wrote:Titanium for life was always a marketing ploy. People get bored wit frames and as we've seen with the advent of disc an electronic shifting there's a need for new frames. But Titanium handles getting banged up better and survives scratches better. It's a far more durable material for much of what a bike will see, especially if one travels.

As far as Serotta, they didn't fail because they were high end but because Ben could not control his costs and allocate capital properly.

With regards to Carbon providing a better ride than Titanium, I'm not so sure, it depends on the build. The focus for much of what constitutes carbon offerings is aero , stiffness and weight. I see comfort taking a back-seat. It seems the industry outsources this aspect to wheel builders saying just get a 25 or 28 mm tire(over-simplification perhaps, but only a little)

You make several good points but for those that have ridden most of the modern bikes on the market, some consider Ti last place. There is a reason no top bike company makes a high end Ti bike...all boutique manufactures with the mystic its a great material. Some would argue a steel bike rides better but the industry has further morphed with modern Al. I have owned several of all bike materials...50 road bikes of all brands and materials....Ti, Steel, Al and carbon. Probably the best riding bike I just built is a 2014 Specialized Secteur with 25mm tires on Fulcrum wheels. I built the bike completely with Campy groupset and wheelset for light touring and beach riding. This bike...and its Al has a better ride...certainly in terms of stiffness to vertical compliance...than probably any bike I have owned and btw, I also own a Roubaix SL3 Pro which some consider perhaps the best riding Roubaix created...the SL4 Roubaix is stiffer.
The same applies to the CAAD10 and new Spesh Allez...and even the Trek Emonda in Al has a great ride quality. So the world has changed. What leaves Ti and even Steel behind? Hydroforming, tubing shape and construction. Geometry as it turns out trumps material properties.
Basically the tenants of carbon fiber frame development with differential section modulus have trickled down to Al. Not only that but an Al bike isn't expensive like Ti either. So as much as I thought all the Ti bikes I owned were fine, new Al bikes in my experience are better. What is particularly astounding to me as I continue to ride both my Secteur and Roubaix...the Roubaix is lighter, the Al Secteur has a better ride quality than the Roubaix for small and larger bumps. The Secteur truly has an old Caddy ride quality to it...only with complete control and stiffness out of the saddle...even with the factory Al seatpost...where I run a carbon post on the Roubaix. I am pretty amazed by this have owned older Al bikes that would shake one's fillings...and of course there are current carbon bikes with a very rigid ride as well.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



mattr
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

Can it be improved, yes. Massively. When Ti effectively died you had two basic alloys available, in a (very) limited number of dimensions/tubesets, very little custom drawn stuff and very limited shaping/forming.
Some of the stuff floating round in other industries would have given some significant strides forwards in all the key characteristics. Unfortunately, carbon came around at just the wrong time. So no one big enough to actually have an impact actually invested. So we've gone back to aluminium, which (still) has a lot of new avenues to explore, and the existing equipment is there and needs very little investment to adapt to new varieties of alloy/forming/processing. And CF, which is a far more adaptable material than any of the alternatives.

Even some of those industries that were backing Ti have started shifting away from it. Going back to aluminium and carbon fibre.

The more important question is *Will* Ti be improved.

Easy answer, no.

highdraw

by highdraw

mattr wrote:Can it be improved, yes. Massively. When Ti effectively died you had two basic alloys available, in a (very) limited number of dimensions/tubesets, very little custom drawn stuff and very limited shaping/forming.
Some of the stuff floating round in other industries would have given some significant strides forwards in all the key characteristics. Unfortunately, carbon came around at just the wrong time. So no one big enough to actually have an impact actually invested. So we've gone back to aluminium, which (still) has a lot of new avenues to explore, and the existing equipment is there and needs very little investment to adapt to new varieties of alloy/forming/processing. And CF, which is a far more adaptable material than any of the alternatives.

Even some of those industries that were backing Ti have started shifting away from it. Going back to aluminium and carbon fibre.

The more important question is *Will* Ti be improved.

Easy answer, no.

Cost of Ti...the material itself but moreover, the cost to create the tooling for Ti and even its forming properties to revival the formability of Al is a major hurdle.

You wrote in bold...many new avenues to explore for Al. I am curious what these avenues are matt?...because the industry has 'reinvented' Al in the last 5 years...if you could elaborate with anticipated forming opportunities on the horizon for Al. Mfr's have already been able to make an Al bike look virtually identical to the highly differentiated shape of a carbon bike...so curious what you see in store?

mattr
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

Not much that will be immediately visible, it's mostly "in process" type stuff that I've been dealing with (and a few years ago too, so some of it may have already been introduced!), but there are a lot of alloys that could be used in cycling applications to give different welding characteristics, better hydroforming properties, better ability to be drawn in different thicknesses, 3d printed parts (bottom bracket shells, head tubes?), different heat treatment responses and so on. Some manufacturers are already looking at unusual alloying elements to enable tweaking of the basic material, think scandium and then some!

It's probably quite possible to make a stiff, durable, semi aero aluminum frame at a similar weight to an equivalent carbon frame, if you were to step away from the "standard" 6061-T6 and 7005 type tubes.

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

I sense that some of the responders may be creating an unintentional Strawman argument around Titanium. Nobody is saying that Titanium has a chance to become the dominant bike frame material replacing Carbon or even challenging Aluminum at the low end, however Titanium still has a good future ahead of itself as a niche market material. I can see an argument that Titanium might even gain some market share as the industry reaps their move toward outsourcing to Asia, and a drive to lower costs that sometimes comes at the bike owners expense. These days if you want an threaded bottom bracket there are few choices outside of the custom builders. The mass market bikes come in fewer size increments which also plays nicely to those seeking a custom frame.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels

sawyer
Posts: 4485
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

fromtrektocolnago wrote:Titanium for life was always a marketing ploy. People get bored wit frames and as we've seen with the advent of disc an electronic shifting there's a need for new frames. But Titanium handles getting banged up better and survives scratches better. It's a far more durable material for much of what a bike will see, especially if one travels.


With regards to Carbon providing a better ride than Titanium, I'm not so sure, it depends on the build. The focus for much of what constitutes carbon offerings is aero , stiffness and weight. I see comfort taking a back-seat. It seems the industry outsources this aspect to wheel builders saying just get a 25 or 28 mm tire(over-simplification perhaps, but only a little)



The point you make about suriving scratches etc. is a fair one if considered purely from an aesthetic point of view - of course if both frames are painted it becomes a moot point

Ultimately Ti is probably better suited to taking knocks than carbon yes, but it's not a big advantage ... perhaps it could be in racing where the frame might get written off, but in which case why not just ride alu ... as many people do ...

Have to disagree re ride quality. The best carbon frames have come a long long way in terms of dialing in better ride quality over past 4-5 years. I don't think anyone here would confidently say Ti has a better ride quality than those frames, just different and a bit softer/spongier. Note I am not saying carbon is superior, but it's improving quicker than Ti is ...
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

fromtrektocolnago
Posts: 1145
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:15 pm

by fromtrektocolnago

@sawyer.
yes, 'the best carbon frames', but most of what's carbon is not that.
Colnago C-59 (Dura Ace)
Firefly(Ultegra)
Colnago C-64 disc(ultegra) with Bora 35 wheels

sawyer
Posts: 4485
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2006 7:45 pm
Location: Natovi Landing

by sawyer

fromtrektocolnago wrote:@sawyer.
yes, 'the best carbon frames', but most of what's carbon is not that.


Yes if you're talking about cookie cutter open mold rubbish, but there's no question carbon frames are being tuned very successfully for comfort now

It is not just endurance/Roubaix type frames either, I am really surprised how comfortable my Canyon Aeroad SLX is. A few years ago it was confidently asserted that aero frames weren't comfortable, but all that has changed.

No question that the Ti comfort advantage has evaporated over many carbon frames ... it is now more a question of which "feel" one likes ...
----------------------------------------
Stiff, Light, Aero - Pick Three!! :thumbup:

mattr
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: The Grim North.

by mattr

Carbon is changing faster than titanium because titanium is a dead end, no investment, no improvement.

And even some quite ordinary carbon is nicer to ride than ti

Poulidor
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:50 am

by Poulidor

Great discussion. Thank you.

After many frames and even more absurd "fittings", when I ordered my custom Moots SL (4/6 Ti) years ago they got it so right that all my frames since have been built like that Moots. Including a couple of Responsorium Ciavete.

I'm presently in the process of waiting for another Ti frame. Before deciding where to have it made I called Moots. I asked if they would build an SLR with the custom geometry of my SL (including horizontal top tube and English threaded bottom bracket) and they most reassuringly said yes.

I believe Moots is at the very top of the game. And I truly respect their honest price point position. They seem to avoid the disagreeable game of high prices for the sake of exclusivity and the mendacious insinuation of better quality that others play. I wish Moots the very best.

Full disclosure: I ended up ordering my new frame, for purely personal reasons, from Steve Hampsten, built by Kent Eriksen. It really doesn't get any better than that.
Last edited by Poulidor on Tue Oct 06, 2015 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

LionelB
Posts: 1595
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Aix en Provence

by LionelB

I am not sure about nicer or not but it is certainly different. I made a point of having all material in the current stable and I enjoy riding all of them. The generalities about carbon feeling dead, alum being not comfortable and Ti being soft is all BS.

Carbon: F8, Crumpton, Crux
Ti: Spectrum
Alu: Rock Lobster
Steel: Sachs

Poulidor
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2015 3:50 am

by Poulidor

mattr wrote:Carbon is changing faster than titanium because titanium is a dead end, no investment, no improvement.

And even some quite ordinary carbon is nicer to ride than ti


Well, that's somewhat the intention of the original post. Maybe the new owner of Moots might invest in R&D in order to find ways of making better Ti tubes for bicycle frames. Keep in mind that the current 3/2.5 alloy is only one of many Ti alloys. Steel, for instance. has come a long way since Columbus first started manufacturing tubes for bicycle frames. I like Ti frames, I like Moots, I wish them the best.

j_gantzer
in the industry
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 7:30 am

by j_gantzer

As far as custom goes, we stock over 30 different tubes between different diameters and wall thickness. All US made seamless aerospace grade. Plus our RSL tubing that is butted by Reynolds. We do a lot of chain/seat stay swagging and shaping in house. We even have a tube set just for NBA player size bikes.

We make over 36 stock sizes of road bikes including 1cm taller headtubes.

The tubing selection is much more about the style of riding than the rider themselves. IE You can get away with a lighter tubeset on a road bike then you could on a MTB. We make about 1400 bike per year, about 15% of them are custom. Generally with custom we start with a stock model, so we can guarantee its still going to be a good bike. If you are doing 100% custom you are going to get a bad bike every now and then. Our bikes are purpose built to be the best for that kind of riding (gravel, CX racing, road riding, road racing) We use size specific tubing on ever model we make.



Thanks -JG

davidalone
Posts: 622
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:27 pm

by davidalone

It could, but at what cost?

With the latest technology you could certainly make very advanced titanium bikes. But they would be really expensive and not applicable for mass production.


http://www.cnet.com/news/how-a-3d-print ... t-for-you/

3D printing of titainum opens up some interesting possibilities wiht regards to shaping - maybe an aero Ti bike? but it is right now, too expensive to do on a production level.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply