# In praise of titanium - and Spa Cycles



## Pale Rider (16 Jul 2015)

A visit to Spa Cycles in Harrogate today has all but converted me to titanium as a frame material.

As part of my get fitter, ride longer, campaign I've been looking for something a bit more sporty than my mountain bike.

I've managed to lose a stone or two - still a work in progress - but a bit less flab makes a drop bar bike a possibility.

Trawling the net, I came across the Spa Ti Adventure bike and decided to have a look.

Spa isn't far from my static caravan in Bedale, so I didn't bother ringing in advance.

The owner of the shop had taken the medium Adventure demo home, but one of the staff nipped round to get it for me.

In fact, Spa couldn't have been more helpful - I had the impression I could ride as many bikes as I liked for as long as I liked.

The ride on the Adventure was something of a revelation.

I've never ridden a titanium bike, and not ridden a drop bar one in 40 years, but I got on with it almost immediately.

All that stuff I've read about titanium being smooth, soaking up bumps and just plain nice to ride is true.

The Adventure made my ally frame bikes seem harsh and tinny in comparison.

Not so sure about drop bars, they felt a tad narrow, and I clouted my knee on the drops a couple of times when setting off.

That's probably down to pilot error, and the bars being lower on the demo than I would like.

Steering in tight spaces wasn't so easy, although once again I'm sure I could master it.

I did an easy 10 mile return trip to Ripley, so not much climbing, but the bike seemed to roll along nicely.

At the shop's suggestion, I also had a go on a steel tourer.

It felt harsh in comparison, possibly partly due to the narrower tyres.

On the plus side, it rolled a bit better than the Adventure.

A new bike is a heart as well as head decision, and I can't quite shake the notion that steel tourers are for CTC-type beardies.

I'm also more confident on the podgier, wider tyres of the Adventure.

So have I bought one?

Not yet, but I can see where this is heading.

Any thoughts on the bike welcome, and I'm also interested to hear what others think of titanium as a frame material.

http://www.spacycles.co.uk/products.php?plid=m1b0s21p3104


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (16 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> A visit to Spa Cycles in Harrogate today has all but converted me to titanium as a frame material.
> 
> As part of my get fitter, ride longer, campaign I've been looking for something a bit more sporty than my mountain bike.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure that our own @ianrauk was considering selling a very good Spesh because he's now riding the tit as the default bike.


----------



## ianrauk (16 Jul 2015)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I'm pretty sure that our own @ianrauk was considering selling a very good Spesh because he's now riding the tit as the default bike.


Very true. My Ti is coming up to three years old and every time I take it out for a ride it still feels like a new bike. Every time. Paid a lot for it but it was worth every single penny. 

In regards to Spa Cycles, I have only ever heard good things about them, their bikes and their service.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jul 2015)

You say all thoughts are welcome, so here goes.
Titanium in an inappropriate frame material. It has no benefits over steel, aluminium or carbon and is more expensive to manufacture than any of them.
Titanium's reputation as a super-strong material is ill-founded. It is half as strong as steel but half as heavy. It is twice as strong as aluminium, but twice as heavy. Strength is not the crux of the story though since even aluminium (four times weaker than steel*) is strong enough.
Titanium tubing is very expensive and it is an expensive material to work with. It readily work-hardens so that it's properties change as the piece is milled or drilled or bent. Without proper heat treatment, those pretty welds do crack and rather quickly too, if the job is not perfect.
Other materials are better at doing the job of a modern frame. Aluminium can be hydro-formed into organic shapes (think smooth tapered head tube and special blending end-pieces where one tube meets up with another). Carbon is of course the ultimate organic-shapeable material. it can be made into just about any form and we see these smooth, flowing forms on today's carbon frames. By comparison, titanium frames are agricultural. The bottom bracket is just a piece of pipe, as is the head tube. Yes, they've fiddled a bit with the downtube nowadays but even that looks bolted on, it just doesn't mimic the organic forms we have come to love on modern bikes.
Yes it is rust-proof, but CroMo steel bikes just about never rust through either and of course, aluminium is equally corrosion proof (except for seatposts, but that happens with Ti too).
To make everyone realize you have a ti bike, you have to leave it unpainted, otherwise no-one will know. It smacks a bit of the Rolex syndrome to me.
Titanium bikes are not light - not that I mind, but I do not like the way they attempt to control the weight by fitting carbon forks.

In summary, it is expensive, solves no known problem and applied to the job at hand purely for its mystical iron-curtain military connotations.

Then, as for its shock-absorption properties. Those are non-existent. A double-diamond frame bike is essentially an inflexible truss that does not absorb shock due to it's shape. It cannot be distorted (not enough to soak up bumps in anyway), so that is a myth. Most shock absorption properties of bikes and tyres are a psychological by-product of the acoustic feedback from the bike/tyres.

Trusses are laterally flexible but that's not how a bike absorbs shock and vibration.

Sorry Pale Rider.

But....years ago I lusted after a Merlin ti/carbon hybrid bike where the lugs were ti and the tubes carbon.




* I am loosely basing my "co-efficient of strength" on a combination of tensile and compressive strengths of an average alloy of all the materials.


----------



## Andy_R (16 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> blahblahblah


Why do they make airframes out of Ti alloys then?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jul 2015)

Andy_R said:


> Why do they make airframes out of them then?


Do you really want me to explain why it may be appropriate for airoplanes but not bicycles?
Why don't you save the blaah's for when you look in the mirror first thing in the morning. Critique my statements on their content and contribute to the debate.


----------



## DanZac (16 Jul 2015)

I'm not in a position to comment on the benefits of Titanium from a bike sense having not owned a Ti frame, but kind of agree with @Yellow Saddle in some ways, I do however know that I prefer the ride and feel of steel over Ally mainly in the way that steel appears to take the harshness out of the road surface so suspect that there must be some flex in the frame build to allow for this (in fact I know there is as you can feel the flex when you put the power down or try to flex the frame). As such I would suspect that knowing how Ti behaves in a aerospace way that utilising these properties in a frame must be possible and you should end up with a frame that takes the harshness out of the road in the same way that steel does but is slightly lighter. Having never owned a carbon bike I cannot comment there, but again know full well that it is possible to design just about any property you wish into a composite lay up by varying materials so suspect that that could be even better than Ti.

I have however dealt with Spa and have been mightily impressed with their products and would not hesitate to recommend them, however please be warned that they are not your run of the mill supplier (as you are no doubt aware having been there) and whilst you will get the best bike you have probably ever owned you may end up waiting a bit longer than they promised


----------



## StuAff (16 Jul 2015)

Thread title is 'in praise of titanium', not 'throw a strop and disagree with everything the OP says'. And there are painted titanium frames.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jul 2015)

StuAff said:


> Thread title is 'in praise of titanium', not 'throw a strop and disagree with everything the OP says'. And there are painted titanium frames.


OK, I'll praise titanium. When oxidized, it makes great white paint pigment. It is also a fantastic metal for dental and orthotic implants because bone bonds very nicely to it and of course, it doesn't corrode.


----------



## Pale Rider (16 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> You say all thoughts are welcome, so here goes.
> Titanium in an inappropriate frame material. It has no benefits over steel, aluminium or carbon and is more expensive to manufacture than any of them.
> Titanium's reputation as a super-strong material is ill-founded. It is half as strong as steel but half as heavy. It is twice as strong as aluminium, but twice as heavy. Strength is not the crux of the story though since even aluminium (four times weaker than steel*) is strong enough.
> Titanium tubing is very expensive and it is an expensive material to work with. It readily work-hardens so that it's properties change as the piece is milled or drilled or bent. Without proper heat treatment, those pretty welds do crack and rather quickly too, if the job is not perfect.
> ...



No worries, I didn't post on here for a vindication of an almost made buying decision.

It was the style of the bike that drew me to it originally.

I like the sloping top tube, which has little practical benefit because the bit you stand over - near the head tube - is just as high as on a horizontal top tube frame.

Plenty of clearance for biggish tyres and mudguards is another plus point.

As is more bosses than you can shake a stick at.

I've no plans at present to do tours involving overnight stays, but one thing I've learnt during my relatively recent return to cycling is that my requirements change over time.

I also like Spa as a retailer because they build the bike for you which allows a choice of component spec - I'm looking at slightly wider bars and hydraulic activated brakes, and possibly one or two other things.

The ride of the titanium frame did impress me.

I like to think that impression was genuine, not just a case of the emperor's new clothes.


----------



## Andy_R (16 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Do you really want me to explain why it may be appropriate for airoplanes but not bicycles?
> Why don't you save the blaah's for when you look in the mirror first thing in the morning. Critique my statements on their content and contribute to the debate.



Someone doesnt like to be told they might not be right!


sooo....airframes need a light strong structure that can cope with stresses during normal expected use (landing and taking off for example, along with rotational forces in excess of 2-3G during flight - average rotational forces during turning in flight, not to mention 6-10G in military aircraft). So demonstratably, TI is a suitable material for airframes. Why does this differ for bicycle frames? Is it too weak, too soft, too heavy when properly formed? Or do you just have an opinion based on nowt but bias?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jul 2015)

DanZac said:


> I'm not in a position to comment on the benefits of Titanium from a bike sense having not owned a Ti frame, but kind of agree with @Yellow Saddle in some ways, I do however know that I prefer the ride and feel of steel over Ally mainly in the way that steel appears to take the harshness out of the road surface so suspect that there must be some flex in the frame build to allow for this (in fact I know there is as you can feel the flex when you put the power down or try to flex the frame). As such I would suspect that knowing how Ti behaves in a aerospace way that utilising these properties in a frame must be possible and you should end up with a frame that takes the harshness out of the road in the same way that steel does but is slightly lighter. Having never owned a carbon bike I cannot comment there, but again know full well that it is possible to design just about any property you wish into a composite lay up by varying materials so suspect that that could be even better than Ti.
> 
> I have however dealt with Spa and have been mightily impressed with their products and would not hesitate to recommend them, however please be warned that they are not your run of the mill supplier (as you are no doubt aware having been there) and whilst you will get the best bike you have probably ever owned you may end up waiting a bit longer than they promised


Frame flex is present in all frames. If it wasn't, you would not be able to make the chainring grind when pedaling hard and you would not need FD trim. All of the popular frame materials can be configured to more, or less flexible. Flexibility comes at a price. With steel, you can still design the structure to be durable even though it has lots of flex. With aluminium and titanium you can't, there being no minimum fatigue limit.

"Road harshness" is often mentioned but never quite explained, basically because it can't. Remember, a bicycle frame is NOT compliant in the vertical axis. Not a steel one, not an aluminium one, not a carbon one. This means that NONE of these materials can absorb shock transmitted to the seat or handlebars via the fork or seatpost. Think about it, what part to do think flexes in order to absorb that shock?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> No worries, I didn't post on here for a vindication of an almost made buying decision.
> 
> It was the style of the bike that drew me to it originally.
> 
> ...




It sounds like a nice bike.
As for the "titanium ride". That was purely due to the particular bike configuration. An aluminium, steel or carbon frame with the same wheels, tyres and other components would have felt the same.


----------



## Pale Rider (16 Jul 2015)

DanZac said:


> I'm not in a position to comment on the benefits of Titanium from a bike sense having not owned a Ti frame, but kind of agree with @Yellow Saddle in some ways, I do however know that I prefer the ride and feel of steel over Ally mainly in the way that steel appears to take the harshness out of the road surface so suspect that there must be some flex in the frame build to allow for this (in fact I know there is as you can feel the flex when you put the power down or try to flex the frame). As such I would suspect that knowing how Ti behaves in a aerospace way that utilising these properties in a frame must be possible and you should end up with a frame that takes the harshness out of the road in the same way that steel does but is slightly lighter. Having never owned a carbon bike I cannot comment there, but again know full well that it is possible to design just about any property you wish into a composite lay up by varying materials so suspect that that could be even better than Ti.
> 
> I have however dealt with Spa and have been mightily impressed with their products and would not hesitate to recommend them, however please be warned that they are not your run of the mill supplier (as you are no doubt aware having been there) and whilst you will get the best bike you have probably ever owned you may end up waiting a bit longer than they promised



Thanks Dan.

I am aware that Spa can be a bit, er, eccentric, when it comes to customer service.

A couple of remarks made to me today could have been taken the wrong way by a different customer.

At the moment, we are getting on fine, but we shall see what we shall see.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jul 2015)

Andy_R said:


> Someone doesnt like to be told they might not be right!
> 
> 
> sooo....airframes need a light strong structure that can cope with stresses during normal expected use (landing and taking off for example, along with rotational forces in excess of 2-3G during flight - average rotational forces during turning in flight, not to mention 6-10G in military aircraft). So demonstratably, TI is a suitable material for airframes. Why does this differ for bicycle frames? Is it too weak, too soft, too heavy when properly formed? Or do you just have an opinion based on nowt but bias?



Rotational forces in excess of 2-3Gs hey? There are lots of big words in that sentence of yours, but lets stick to the questions you ask.

Weakness? Strong enough is strong enough. Aluminium is 100 times cheaper but still strong enough. Therefore it is more appropriate. For instance, you could make your yellow Bic pen from ti insteak of yellow plastic - it would be much, much stronger. but why? By asking why strong is not better, you first have to point out where the other materials are not strong enough for their application in bicycles.
Too soft? Who mentioned material hardness? Where did you get that from. Red herring.
Too heavy when formed? Who mentioned a weight penalty when formed? Red herring.

Your argument is weak and your hostility exposes your ignorance of the topic.


----------



## DanZac (16 Jul 2015)

Fully agree with your points there @Yellow Saddle however whilst no frame (and not many materials) will be flexible in the vertical (compressive direction) there is plenty of vertical flex available through both the fork and rear stays which are in theory acting in the longitudinal plain which is not acting in compression and is therefore far easier to flex (like flexing the frame from side to side). Possibly (although I suspect that you may prove me wrong as it is not my area of expertise) like the big manufactures are trying to achieve by putting dampers and flex points at the top of the stays on their (Roubaix / cobbles branded frames).

Appologies @Pale Rider for high jacking you thread.


----------



## Profpointy (16 Jul 2015)

Whilst I do agree that tyres will flex far more than frames,


Yellow Saddle said:


> Rotational forces in excess of 2-3Gs hey? There are lots of big words in that sentence of yours, but lets stick to the questions you ask.
> 
> Weakness? Strong enough is strong enough. Aluminium is 100 times cheaper but still strong enough. Therefore it is more appropriate. For instance, you could make your yellow Bic pen from ti insteak of yellow plastic - it would be much, much stronger. but why? By asking why strong is not better, you first have to point out where the other materials are not strong enough for their application in bicycles.
> Too soft? Who mentioned material hardness? Where did you get that from. Red herring.
> ...




Don't quite follow the argument - surely "light but strong" is a good thing for bicycles just as it is for planes.
But not particularly biros.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jul 2015)

DanZac said:


> Fully agree with your points there @Yellow Saddle however whilst no frame (and not many materials) will be flexible in the vertical (compressive direction) there is plenty of vertical flex available through both the fork and rear stays which are in theory acting in the longitudinal plain which is not acting in compression and is therefore far easier to flex (like flexing the frame from side to side). Possibly (although I suspect that you may prove me wrong as it is not my area of expertise) like the big manufactures are trying to achieve by putting dampers and flex points at the top of the stays on their (Roubaix / cobbles branded frames).
> 
> Appologies @Pale Rider for high jacking you thread.


There is no vertical flex through the fork - even a curved one. If you have ever hammered a headset race onto a fork you will know that it is rock solid. No road incident mimics a headset installation.
Yes, a truss is laterally flexible and that's why the chain rubs when you pedal hard - on all bikes. The design does not allow that flex to improve move from steel to carbon. Besides, that's not where comfort comes from.
There is zero compliance in the rear triangle. It is a triangle.
Spez dampers - now there's the biggest folly I've seen in a long time. They called them "zerts" IIRC but in engineering they have no known function and cannot, even theoretically, dampen any vibration. it was a great marketing trick though. I think Spez discontinuted them and no other manufacturer duplicated the dupe.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Whilst I do agree that tyres will flex far more than frames,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Light but strong is good, but the point I make is that strong enough is strong enough. Aluminium is lighter, but still strong enough. Why go stronger but heavier? The extra strength is not needed.


----------



## Andy_R (16 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> It sounds like a nice bike.
> As for the "titanium ride". That was purely due to the particular bike configuration. An aluminium, steel or carbon frame with the same wheels, tyres and other components would have felt the same.


utter bollox. You obviously do not actually ride bikes..Alu bikes are very rigid and unforgiving, Steel frames flex and spring, carbon - I can't comment on as I don't have experience as a rider.


----------



## Profpointy (16 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Light but strong is good, but the point I make is that strong enough is strong enough. Aluminium is lighter, but still strong enough. Why go stronger but heavier? The extra strength is not needed.



why would you go stronger but heavier - surely if the material is stronger you use less of it


----------



## Smurfy (17 Jul 2015)

The section entitled 'Metallurgy for Cyclists' is worth a read.

http://pelotonmagazine.com/wisdom/materials-and-construction-part-i/


----------



## winjim (17 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> OK, I'll praise titanium. When oxidized, it makes great white paint pigment. It is also a fantastic metal for dental and orthotic implants because bone bonds very nicely to it and of course, it doesn't corrode.


Variable oxidation states make it a handy reducing agent, and its d-d electron transitions absorb visible wavelengths giving it some rather pretty colours.


----------



## Booyaa (17 Jul 2015)

I think it looks cracking, it is almost tempting me to look at Ti frames now!


----------



## Tail End Charlie (17 Jul 2015)

I have a titanium bike, although not a Spa one, and am very pleased with it. However I do think any vibration soaking characteristic is due to the wheels and tyres more than the frame material.
That said, I would buy another titanium frame, if in the market for a new bike.
I can also give a thumbs up to Spa, they are a friendly bunch, very knowledgeable and won't sell you something you don't need. Their wheelbuilds are excellent.
Whatever you get, you'll have a whale of a time on.


----------



## Venod (17 Jul 2015)

I have had 4 Titanium Frames (still have 2) The first one I sold to friend in a moment of weakness, (it still looks & rides like new at 20+ years old) the second one I bought of ebay it was super light with double butted tubes, this one cracked but not at a weld, it cracked at the butting transition (very thin tubing) as it was second hand the frame builder couldn't offer me a replacement frame but did offer a generous discount off a new one if I returned the cracked frame to him so he could investigate the failure.
As I was familiar with working with titanium and knowing what a super metal it was (the reason I bought Ti) I decided I could repair the crack, a friend a t work was the best Ti welder I know so he welded it for me, we had all the facilities for weld examination and the weld passed with flying colours, in the meantime I bought a carbon frame and put all the bits from the Ti on it, so I built the welded up to run fixed & ran it for 2 years before selling it, I think its back on gears now & still running.

The carbon was a decent bike, but the ride with exactly the same components that were on the Ti wasn't as good and just as heavy, so it had to go, the 2Ti I have now are a dream to ride both very light, a lot easier to keep looking good than a painted frame, (why add the weight of paint & lacquer when its not needed) I also have 2 aluminium frames these are decent frames but again not as forgiving as Ti,

The Spa Ti looks a comfortable frame & if you like it I would say get it as long as you are happy with the ride, Ti frames can be made stiff but I don't think Spa is one of them.

The bottom bracket & head tube are just tubes because that's all you need, IMO they look a lot better than the over sized ones on some carbon frames.

Aluminium is not corrosion proof, subject a bare aluminium tube & a bare Ti tube to the elements salt spray etc for a year & see which one survives,

Aluminium seat-posts corrode & expand to stick in the frame, titanium picks up on titanium and if this happens you have a big problem, I have had titanium collars pick up on titanium shafts on several occasions, the trick for both Aluminium & Ti is cleanliness & the right anti scuffing paste, I only use carbon posts in my Ti frames.

Of course the down side is the expense, but in my opinion worth it.


----------



## Fab Foodie (17 Jul 2015)

Here's a thought; the way a material absorbs or transmits vibration will also have an impact on how rough or smooth a ride is perceived. Different materials will transmit or absorb shock and vibration differently even if as asserted that a double diamond frame doesn't flex in the vertical plane (and that assumes that the vibration is always applied in the vertical plane).
The other area I think affects ride feel is the interaction between frame and fork - the materials used, the contact area, the solidity if the contact, the angles involved, the compliance of the system and how vibration is propagated from through frame. 

I'm not convinced that (carbon apart) that different metals for frames do not feel different ...


----------



## ianrauk (17 Jul 2015)

Such a whiff of the Dusty Bins... and we all know how that ended up.


----------



## hatler (17 Jul 2015)

I'm a part-time corrosion geek. Ti doesn't corrode (sort of, I'm not going to bother with the specifics). Nor does it fail if you happen to drop your bike and hit one of the tubes on a random rock in an inappropriate place (the frame I mean). Those two rule out steel and carbon. Aluminium ? I'm uneasy with the idea that Al has no lower fatigue limit (all stresses are fatiguing the material). I wanted a bike for life. Ti was the answer.

Seven years in and 3000 miles/year and it's still wonderful. (And it's not rusty.)


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jul 2015)

ianrauk said:


> Such a whiff of the Dusty Bins... and we all know how that ended up.


What?


----------



## ianrauk (17 Jul 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> What?




Indeed.


----------



## Globalti (17 Jul 2015)

I've always thought there was a good B.Sc engineering thesis in the way different materials transmit vibration. Identical pieces of steel, aluminium, carbon and titanium and different alloys of those metals could be clamped rigidly and their vibration characteristics measured, much in the same way as when you boinged a ruler on the desk at school. Not sure if any useful information could be gleaned from this test but it would certainly show up some differences.


----------



## winjim (17 Jul 2015)

User said:


> Coupled with knowing which frequencies people tend to find more fatiguing, that could be very relevant here.


I find A flat to be particularly fatiguing.


----------



## ianrauk (17 Jul 2015)

Afnug said:


> titanium picks up on titanium and if this happens you have a big problem, I have had titanium collars pick up on titanium shafts on several occasions, the trick for both Aluminium & Ti is cleanliness & the right anti scuffing paste, I only use carbon posts in my Ti frames.



I have Ti frame, collar and seatpost. All I have used is a bit of Coppaslip and all is fine. As you quite correctly state, cleanliness is the trick. Once a month I take the seatpost out and give it a good clean including a wipe inside the seat tube. Nearly three years down the line and no problems.


----------



## Fab Foodie (17 Jul 2015)

Andy_R said:


> utter bollox. You obviously do not actually ride bikes..*Alu bikes are very rigid* and unforgiving, *Steel frames flex and spring*, carbon - I can't comment on as I don't have experience as a rider.


The statements in bold are of course very sweeping generalisations .... and are not without substance, BUT.
My Aluminium TCR was very sweet riding when the headset worked .... which it rarely did well. My pals Aluminium Bianchi Pantani replica is smooth as silk and nicely bouncy over rough stuff. My Nivachrome Omega roadie and my 531 MTB tubing Saracen Evans even with fat tyres will take your fillings out. The Planet X Ti that I consisdered before the Rourke also had a reputation for having a stiff and harsh ride. So I wouldn't be quite so vehement about the charactersitics of different materials, it's a bit more complicated than that.
My 531 Holdsworth and 853 Rourke ride just lovely though and will outlast me :-)


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Jul 2015)

Spa have been very good to me, both pre- and post- sales. Not just for my bike either - they've given me good advice by email on component purchase in the past too.

I don't know anything about metallurgy but one of the many bikes I test rode at Spa was Ti. I liked it but went for steel on price and (possibly unfounded) fear of welds cracking.


----------



## mythste (17 Jul 2015)

@Yellow Saddle - Without derailing the thread too much, if what you're saying is true and comprehensive (which I have no grounds to disagree with) Then what is it that makes some bikes feel so inherently different from others? Am I to believe that given all materials have zero flex vertically and will make no difference to ride "dampening" (or give it a name, as appropriate") that 2 bikes with similar gemoetries and the same wheels/contacts points but different materials will feel the same?


----------



## ACS (17 Jul 2015)

I have a Spa Ti Audax and compared to my commuter (09 Tricross) it's like riding a cloud. The frame has a 10 year warranty and so long a Spa continue trading I think its just about covered.

I have competed about 2500 audax miles on it and still think my purchase was correct even when I consider the discussions above.

I have nothing but good things to say about Spa and their services levels.


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Jul 2015)

User said:


> They can be superb. I ordered rims and spokes from them. A few days later I got a phone call asking what the hub was because the numbers didn't fit anything they used. I explained what it was, he checked and agreed it was OK.


I still treasure Mickle's description of the place;


> The shop is something of a legend. I've known about them for years but only recently had the opportunity to drop in. I was somewhat taken aback by the appearance - the window display appears not to have been changed in years, full of old crap. Old crap which had a thick layer of dust on it.
> 
> You walk in to an area which looks like someones front room has been turned into a messy bike shop. Which is what it is. Greeted by a beardy man you wander through into an area which looks like a kitchen - complete with sink and dining room table at which someone, another beardyman, sits lacing a wheel. I didn't visit the upstairs, but I'll wager they look like bedrooms whcih someone has filled with cycle clothing. It wouldn't have surprised me to find a member of staff having a kip.
> 
> ...



Frame materials - eh. I have an aluminium bike (Giant SCR2) that I find very comfy. It's comfiest with Michelin Pro Race, or 25c Krylion Carbons. I have a steel tourer that's also very comfy, rolling on 42c tyres (Continental Comfort Contact for preference).

I reckon that if you like the way a bike rides, it is a good bike, so long as bits don't spontaneously fall off it, disintegrate or break under the use you intend.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> why would you go stronger but heavier - surely if the material is stronger you use less of it


Yes and no. Firstly, titanium is not stronger than steel, only half as strong. Also half the weight in steel. But that's not the real issue here.
The issue is how thin you can draw the tubing. Already, steel tubing is drawn to approximately 0.6mm (the Reynolds historians can help me out here). Tubing this thin, even when butted (made thicker at the ends) pose problems with welding, attaching fixtures such as water bottle cages etc. The drawing process also cannot proportionally thin out a material according to its strength to just any arbritary figure. There is a practical limit. I'll use an extreme example of some super-strength steel that's drawn so thin that you can squash the down-tube with your hand like a beer can.
Although ti can be hydro-formed like aluminium, it is very expensive and difficult to do it, leaving us with limited shapes, tapers and butting. Hydroforming is a process where a piece of tube is put inside a mould and literally inflated by pumping liquid into it under pressure until it has stretched and conformed to the mould. Modern aluminium bicycles display nice examples of this technique where a slip top tube flares out to mate nicely against a fat head tube for a smooth, organic look. This is not only about looks but also about getting the weld interface just right. If you look at old Cannondales from the 1990s, you'll notice that they managed to get the fat downtube right but where I meets the slim head tube (which was just a straight piece of pipe), they had to do a lot of fillet welding to get it reasonable. Compare that to today's joints where both pieces are hydroformed.
This restricts titanium to relatively small tubes and a distinctive style. part of the style is then a mismatched carbon fork. Ti forks of the right strength are heavy - as heavy as steel forks. Of course there is nothing wrong with the style but it is kinda retro and has an effect on sales.
I quite like the look of a nice titanium weld. The bead is much, much better than alu weld beads and has that distinctive look. Do most people see it? I doubt it. Can most people distinguish between brushed ti and brushed alu? I doubt it.
Titanium is a niche material for frames chosen purely for its aesthetics and cognoscenti appeal. Therefore I say it is an inappropriate material. We could also craft beautiful bicycles from wood and just because the Spruce Goose was made entirely from wood and it could withstand the famous G-forces quoted by the aggressive man above, it doesn't mean we should.


----------



## Profpointy (17 Jul 2015)

umm, what does half as strong but half the weight mean in practice - same strength for a given weight? So why aren't aircraft made of steel rather than ti? I realise "strenght" is a somewhat vague term in engineering, but I think the point is fine for our purposes

The difficult to work, and only available in certain sizes points are perfectly valid


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Fab Foodie said:


> Here's a thought; the way a material absorbs or transmits vibration will also have an impact on how rough or smooth a ride is perceived. Different materials will transmit or absorb shock and vibration differently even if as asserted that a double diamond frame doesn't flex in the vertical plane (and that assumes that the vibration is always applied in the vertical plane).
> The other area I think affects ride feel is the interaction between frame and fork - the materials used, the contact area, the solidity if the contact, the angles involved, the compliance of the system and how vibration is propagated from through frame.
> 
> I'm not convinced that (carbon apart) that different metals for frames do not feel different ...


This vibration issue is one raised relatively often. Engineers are very concerned with vibration since it is a very destructive force. They measure it and understand how to work around it. I have not yet seen anyone do a vibration analysis on similar frames built from different materials but I bet the minute I hit enter someone will find one on google.
Anyway, until that happens I'll give you a little thought experiment on the vibration issue.
You have ffive tubes of equal dimension and equal mass. Say 30mm dia and 900mm long.
Tube one is a steel pipe.
Tube two is a carbon pipe
Tube three is an alu pipe
Tube four is a wooden pipe
Tube fie is a titanium pipe

You have some sort of vibration machine handy - something that really creates a buzz of sorts. You place the tube's one end on the machine and you place your chin on the free end. You switch the machine on and feel the vibration in your jaw.

Do you really think you will feel any sort of difference amongst the various materials? If you say yes, you have to explain where the compliance takes place in the system.


----------



## Profpointy (17 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> This vibration issue is one raised relatively often. Engineers are very concerned with vibration since it is a very destructive force. They measure it and understand how to work around it. I have not yet seen anyone do a vibration analysis on similar frames built from different materials but I bet the minute I hit enter someone will find one on google.
> Anyway, until that happens I'll give you a little thought experiment on the vibration issue.
> You have ffive tubes of equal dimension and equal mass. Say 30mm dia and 900mm long.
> Tube one is a steel pipe.
> ...




not saying it'll change the answer (not my field) but shouldn't the tubes be same strength rather than same mass?


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> This vibration issue is one raised relatively often. Engineers are very concerned with vibration since it is a very destructive force. They measure it and understand how to work around it. I have not yet seen anyone do a vibration analysis on similar frames built from different materials but I bet the minute I hit enter someone will find one on google.
> Anyway, until that happens I'll give you a little thought experiment on the vibration issue.
> You have ffive tubes of equal dimension and equal mass. Say 30mm dia and 900mm long.
> Tube one is a steel pipe.
> ...




Interesting image!

I've got no idea what the answer would be and I'm not about to build the test in real life, but presumably if there *was* a difference felt then the compliance in the system, or rather the variability of it, would be found in the pipes because the pulsator and the chin would be unchanged?


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jul 2015)

User said:


> With different densities, how can they have both equal dimension and equal mass?


If they had different wall thicknesses maybe?


----------



## Mugshot (17 Jul 2015)

winjim said:


> I find A flat to be particularly fatiguing.


Underappreciated post


----------



## jazzkat (17 Jul 2015)

winjim said:


> I find A flat to be particularly fatiguing.





Mugshot said:


> Underappreciated post


Agreed, it works on a couple of levels!


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

mythste said:


> @Yellow Saddle - Without derailing the thread too much, if what you're saying is true and comprehensive (which I have no grounds to disagree with) Then what is it that makes some bikes feel so inherently different from others? Am I to believe that given all materials have zero flex vertically and will make no difference to ride "dampening" (or give it a name, as appropriate") that 2 bikes with similar gemoetries and the same wheels/contacts points but different materials will feel the same?


You raise a good point and some of the answer lies in @Fab Foodie's post above. Very few people have identical bikes in different materials. Think about that for a minute. Only then can we actually compare the rides.
I am in a kinda unique position here but a position that is by no means conclusive.
I bought myself a Cannondale CAAD4 bike way back when and thought it was a great bike. I then took up touring and decided that the Cannondale wont work - it having no bosses for racks and the chainstays being too short for panniers. I then made myself a steel bike with the exact same dimensions as the Cannondale. Because knew nothing about framebuilding and design at the time, I didn't want to experiment with angles etc and I copied the CAAD4 exactly - except for one thing - I made the rear chainstays as long as the tubeset I ordered allows. Obviously this was now a steel bike. The only difference in the frame was the rear end which had a super long chainsta - so long I could fit my fist between the rear wheel and the seat tube.
Opinion in the "squad" at the time had it that the new bike would be super flexy, soft to ride and slow to steer but more stabe - all standard bike magazine mantra.
The reality was that I could not tell you which bike I was riding. Ridiculous maybe but I had plenty moments where I was looking straight ahead, immersed in my thoughts and then coming back to the present, I couldn't tell which bike I was on until I looked down.
There were some differences. The alu bike had 28-spoke wheels, the steel one 32. The alu one had a Ti seatpost, the steel one, an alu one. The bars were a different brand but gruppo was identical. I could not perceive any difference in steering, vibration, flex etc.
Obviously this is not conclusive but it did get me thinking about how much pre-conception affects our perception of the ride experience. I think vibration is over rated. When on the drops, a bike is very well damped and only rough bumps come through. I just don't get this road buzz that's so often mentioned.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> not saying it'll change the answer (not my field) but shouldn't the tubes be same strength rather than same mass?


My assumption is that all the tubes have no vertical compliance to speak of and therefore only the mass has an effect on how it vibrates. But if you want, change the experiment so that they all have the same compressive strength but whatever the required mass for that strength is.


----------



## Globalti (17 Jul 2015)

Here's a little story: I had a titanium Global mountain bike and the RH chainstay had been badly gouged by chainsuck. I wanted to sell it but felt it would sell better if I got it repaired and explained clearly in the ad. So I began phoning around local engineering firms and eventually found one who said he could do titanium. Took the frame along one lunch time and walked into a filthy engineering shop with some quite interesting bits of work lying around, to be told: "Ah - you want Mr 'arris, over there!" I wandered over to where a bunch of guys were sitting on old chairs reading their papers and up stood a youngish man with quite a lot of hippy jewellery and a really spaced-out look in his eyes. I showed him the damage and he just called out: "Fred! Have we got any of those ti welding rods?" This was confirmed and Mr 'arris told me: "Twenty quid. Come back tomorrow". I left with my heart in my mouth, thinking either Mr 'arris is a genius and he's going to amaze me with his craftsmanship or he's a plonker and he will ruin the frame, in which case it's toast and I might be able to sell it for a few quid. Oh well.

There followed a worrying 23 hours and the next lunchtime I drove back. Mr 'arris presented me the frame with a near-perfect repair, you could just make out a different colour of metal where he had melted it into the gouges and ground it flat. His only comment was to the effect that the titanium had worn out quite a few sanding belts. I gave him the cash, went home happy and advertised the frame complete with clear photos and got good money for it.


----------



## Venod (17 Jul 2015)

ianrauk said:


> Coppaslip



Copperslip is good stuff & less messy than the Rocol ASP we used at work.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> umm, what does half as strong but half the weight mean in practice - same strength for a given weight? So why aren't aircraft made of steel rather than ti? I realise "strenght" is a somewhat vague term in engineering, but I think the point is fine for our purposes
> 
> The difficult to work, and only available in certain sizes points are perfectly valid


Yes, approximately that's what it means.
The assumption that aircraft contains no (or little) steel is incorrect. There is plenty of steel in an aircraft and without steel, it will not fly. Same for aluminium. Wing spars for instance, are made of aluminium and wings are covered in alu, not ti. My brother has an airplane with wooden spars and fabric wing covering. It is strong enough and making his Piper Cub from ti will achieve nothing. Horses for courses.
Engineers use the material most appropriate to the application. All materials have limitations of sorts and some are simply manufacturing limitations. Cost, fatigue limit, corrosion etc all play a part in choosing a material for the application.
In your mind, why not design a ball-point pen for yourself. Use a standard Parker ink cartridge at the centre and design the form around that. You'll quickly see that the wealth of materials at your disposal - wood, plastic, gold, stainless steel, carbon , ti, alu etc all have merit but don't all make sense.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

User said:


> With different densities, how can they have both equal dimension and equal mass?


Equal OD it should read. But don't get hung up on the dimensions. I just want to raise the thought whether or not we really think that little pieces of pipe can display radical different vibration throughput.

I'll now let the cat out the bag and put a 5th tube in there. This one is made of silicone.


----------



## winjim (17 Jul 2015)

Mugshot said:


> Underappreciated post


I'm here all week.


----------



## Profpointy (17 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Yes, that's what I
> 
> Equal OD it should read. But don't get hung up on the dimensions. I just want to raise the thought whether or not we really think that little pieces of pipe can display radical different vibration throughput.
> 
> I'll now let the cat out the bag and put a 5th tube in there. This one is made of silicone.



Haven't done the experiment as stated, but for musical instruments "vibration characteristics" is material dependant.

Also on your original experiment you will feel more vibration through a steel bar than a wooden bar or foam rubber bar to be extreme


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Globalti said:


> Here's a little story: I had a titanium Global mountain bike and the RH chainstay had been badly gouged by chainsuck. I wanted to sell it but felt it would sell better if I got it repaired and explained clearly in the ad. So I began phoning around local engineering firms and eventually found one who said he could do titanium. Took the frame along one lunch time and walked into a filthy engineering shop with some quite interesting bits of work lying around, to be told: "Ah - you want Mr 'arris, over there!" I wandered over to where a bunch of guys were sitting on old chairs reading their papers and up stood a youngish man with quite a lot of hippy jewellery and a really spaced-out look in his eyes. I showed him the damage and he just called out: cut cut cut cut...


Keep Mr 'arris' details in a safe place.
You were lucky to find him. Welders don't like to do jobs like that because they are so difficult.
Unfortunately he probably would not have been able to successfully repair a crack in the same area as that would have required heat treatment afterwards to anneal the weld.
The different colour of the new material is merely because the alloy was different to what the frame was made of.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Haven't done the experiment as stated, but for musical instruments "vibration characteristics" is material dependant.
> 
> Also on your original experiment you will feel more vibration through a steel bar than a wooden bar or foam rubber bar to be extreme


I just added a silicone bar to the experiment. I wanted to leave that for last to make a dramatic (tadaaaaa) entrance.

I agree that in your case - guitar boxes, tuning forks, cymbals and violin strings, the material makes a difference. But the structure of what we're talking about is different. On a tuning fork you have a free end that's vibrating and by changing the materials the node will be at a different place, producing a different note.
I'm basically demonstrating that chisels of different but similar materials will all transmit shock and none will damp the shock that's transmitted along the plane of the tube.
Your case is relevant at handlebar ends that are not help encased by your hand. As soon as you touch that handlebar you've dampened it and the vibration is gone, as if you've touched your singing tuning fork.


----------



## Venod (17 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Unfortunately he probably would not have been able to successfully repair a crack in the same area as that would have required heat treatment afterwards to anneal the weld



Or maybe he had access to the correct preheat & post heat treatment required for a successful weld, you also need a gas purge at the back of the weld to keep a clean environment, a dirty weld usually fails post weld examination.


----------



## Fab Foodie (17 Jul 2015)

winjim said:


> I'm here all week.


Oh no!


----------



## Fab Foodie (17 Jul 2015)

Another small point .... a double diamond frame is not truly 2 triangles, it's one Triangle and one Rhomboid, so it's not unrealistic to suggest that a frame has vertical compliance and this will be dimension and material dependent.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Fab Foodie said:


> Another small point .... a double diamond frame is not truly 2 triangles, it's one Triangle and one Rhomboid, so it's not unrealistic to suggest that a frame has vertical compliance and this will be dimension and material dependent.


Correct.
Also, the rear "triangle" is not a truss, but a spaceframe, assuming good contact between frame and hub. But we have to be realistic about how much flex it gives. The answer is less than the individual flex in tyres, or saddle. There's a good reason why MTBs have suspension. Frames just don't provide any.


----------



## Globalti (17 Jul 2015)

More on that Ti Global.... it was bike shop Ride On's first attempt at a titanium hardtail and it rode nicely, with the exception that the top and downtubes joined the headtube together, so close that the headtube was poorly braced and titanium being a pretty flexible material, you could be riding along and look down to see the entire fork, head tube and stem springing back and forth alarmingly. I was worried that fatigue would eventually make something break. The next batch had a longer head tube with top and downtube separated by a couple of inches so as to brace better. I bought the Mk2 frame and found that this stiffened up the front end and improved the handling noticeably, which showed me how a designer has to take account of the characteristics of the material. I still have it, though I don't ride off road nowadays; can't be bothered with the driving and the mud.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Jul 2015)

Van Nicholas, who of course are trying to flog ti frames, list the benefits here:

http://www.vannicholas.com/32/2/material comparison/content.aspx

And a bit more here:

http://www.vannicholas.com/34/2/titanium properties/content.aspx


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Van Nicholas, who of course are trying to flog ti frames, list the benefits here:
> 
> http://www.vannicholas.com/32/2/material comparison/content.aspx
> 
> ...


I had a quick look at the benefits and they are all bogus except for the corrosion issue.

I hope I didn't piss on your battery with this discussion on titanium. Lust should always over-ride logic. If you like it, get it.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I had a quick look at the benefits and they are all bogus except for the corrosion issue.
> 
> I hope I didn't piss on your battery with this discussion on titanium. Lust should always over-ride logic. If you like it, get it.



As I said earlier, no worries.

Cycling is about freedom and should be a broad church.

Equally, posters on here should be able to post what they genuinely think about a topic, which is all you've done.

Even though Van Nic clearly have a vested interest in titanium, they are also a respected bike maker.

You will struggle to convince me - and I suspect most posters on here - that their listed benefits are 'all bogus'.

Some marketing puff, sure, but the ride quality of the Adventure bike was obvious to me.

I didn't set out to buy a ti bike, and don't especially lust after it.

Painted ally or steel - in colours I like - looks just as well to me.

I might test a couple of other bikes locally.

You may rest assured I will buy the one I like best, whatever it is made of.


----------



## jowwy (17 Jul 2015)

Isnt it strange how a person continually rebukes everyones claims as bollocks and only his opinion should stand

I have Ti bikes, alloy bike and no longer a steel bike. All bikes were 54cm frames.

All bikes had the same 28spoke, h son rims on novatech hubs, with 25mm tyres

All 3 bikes had the same length headtube, top tube and seat tube

All 3 bikes had the same length wheelbase and all angles of headtube, seattube and fork rake.

The Ti was by far the most comfortable and smoother of the 3 too ride.......go figure


----------



## mythste (17 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> Isnt it strange how a person continually rebukes everyones claims as bollocks and only his opinion should stand



I just want to make note that a lot of the information/opinion was backed up with some quite interesting facts. I've learnt something from this thread and will use the information appropriately and proportionately when I inevitably start thinking about N+1.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Jul 2015)

mythste said:


> I just want to make note that a lot of the information/opinion was backed up with some quite interesting facts. I've learnt something from this thread and will use the information appropriately and proportionately when I inevitably start thinking about N+1.



Wise words.

What I describe as the 'comfort and smoothness' of ti may not suit everyone.

Some riders might prefer a more 'connected' ride.

But I would recommend anyone to have a go on a ti bike, assuming there's something suitable in their budget.


----------



## Onyer (17 Jul 2015)

I have owned an alli bike in the past - never again as the road buzz made my hands go numb and I just felt tired after every ride. I have ridden a number of carbon bikes and they all felt much better. I own a Spesh Roubaix, which is a great bike. I have also owned an Enigma Etape Ti bike that had the same groupset and wheels as the Spesh. A great bike and very comfortable to ride, with the added bonus that it can carry a rack and panniers for light touring. I now have a Ti bike that I had made in China - also a great bike and very comfy to ride.
CTC did a very favourable review of Spa cycles Ti bike http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_member/201107062.pdf
Also one comparing to Van Nics Mistral http://www.ctc.org.uk/sites/default/files/file_member/201103054.pdf


----------



## potsy (17 Jul 2015)

User said:


> You imagined it, that is the only rational explanation


Mmm, I always imagined that my 'forever' bike would be a nice comfortable Ti bike at some stage.

Maybe I need to reconsider if YS's comments are true, though most of the people on here that ride Ti seem to contradict that opinion, surely they can't all be wrong?


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Jul 2015)

Warning: Non scientific, "I may not know much about engineering, but it's common sense innit" post follows.

Somebody may have said this above, but to my non-engineering eye, the vast majority of vibration absorption will be done in the tyres, the wheels, the saddle and the handlebars. Possibly also the fork if it's an old fashioned curved one. Any contribution of the frame is going to be small compared with these, because it's made of stiff material with lots of triangles. There'll be some give in the joints, and possibly flex in the chainstays/give in the seatstays (esp if they are those wibbly seat stays). 

But overall it's the springy things that are going to do most of the absorbing. Not the rigid things. So you're only going to get a relatively small advange (dare I say "marginal gain") from different frame materials.


----------



## Milkfloat (17 Jul 2015)

User said:


> I don't think we have really dealt with the issue of vibration fully. I suspect that the compliant ride is the one that doesn't have resonant frequencies we find unpleasant.



I fully agree - should a bike be measured by the amount of deflection of the frame material or is the nature of its deflection? I think it is the nature of the movement (i.e. buzz) rather than the scale of the movement.

I remember the introduction of the rubber band or plug in tennis racket handles. They were a great introduction in my opinion as they minimized vibration significantly. I have experience with different materials in hockey sticks. Here you were guaranteed far more vibration from aluminium sticks (which incidentally had a wooden head and a rubber grip) compared to wood and carbon fibre.


----------



## jowwy (17 Jul 2015)

i wonder why golf club manufacturers changed from using steel in the driver heads to titanium and therefore being able to make bigger heads, for less weight? also with the introduction of the titanium club heads, also came the introduction the COR effect ( due to the springy nature of the titanium clubface).......all those things make me feel that not all findings can be proclaimed to be bullshit/bollocks by the manufacturers of said titanium frames


----------



## Shadow (17 Jul 2015)

Once upon a time, a chap bought a bike - nothing special, it had 2 wheels, served its purpose and did not break. He liked this cycling lark, so bought an entry level road bike - aluminium being the major material. He liked this even more and bought a carbon bike. It broke and is considered irreparable. He bought a replacement - lo, it was titanium. He loves this bike best of all and continually finds nuances on the awful county wide road surfaces that still, 4 years later, satisfy him that buying ti was a good move.
He still uses all the bikes above but the ti is the best. Regardless of the science. Yes, of course, I am biased.

Ultimately, buy what you like. You seem to be of this persuasion. I do not think you will be disappointed.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

User said:


> I don't think we have really dealt with the issue of vibration fully. I suspect that the compliant ride is the one that doesn't have resonant frequencies we find unpleasant.



I agree with the notion and I suspect there is some truth in it. Lots of work has been done on that front in occupational health studies on vibration and industrial tools measure the vibration and recommend a daily exposure limit.

But so far no-one has come up with that range of resonance frequencies that feel unpleasant, or have an effect on fatigue in cyclists. Also unlike occupational vibration, no cyclists have ever been diagnosed with vibrational nerve damage, which has to tell us that the vibration is extremely small on the various contact points. In blind tests that a German cycling magazine did on frame materials, the result was significantly skewed in favour of none of the testers could accurately match the materials to the bike they are riding.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> i wonder why golf club manufacturers changed from using steel in the driver heads to titanium and therefore being able to make bigger heads, for less weight? also with the introduction of the titanium club heads, also came the introduction the COR effect ( due to the springy nature of the titanium clubface).......all those things make me feel that not all findings can be proclaimed to be bullshit/bollocks by the manufacturers of said titanium frames


Jowwy old pal, you are grumpy again. Take your medication.
At your age you should know that you cannot apply the solutions to one problem to another problem unless the two are very closely related. I don't see how a golf club compares to a bicycle but I'll ask you to list the similarities if you have any such in mind.


----------



## jowwy (17 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Jowwy old pal, you are grumpy again. Take your medication.
> At your age you should know that you cannot apply the solutions to one problem to another problem unless the two are very closely related. I don't see how a golf club compares to a bicycle but I'll ask you to list the similarities if you have any such in mind.


*i see no-one else making personal insults within their posts - so i will kindly ask for you to remove yours from this thread.......*

the comparison is the material used, in this case titanium and its ability to flex under load, being able to be made thinner, yet still being able to be strong and lightweight at the same time.

you say in one of your posts that titanium's super strength is unfounded, yet golf club manufacturers have found different ( and no i can't be bothered to look it up, so dont ask)


----------



## Jenkins (17 Jul 2015)

As a Ti bike owner (Van Nicholas Ventus) can I also give praise for the subjective ride qualities of this frame material. Previously my "best" bike was a Boardman Carbon which I thought was a decent ride, but on the first few outings on the Ventus I found out what a compliant ride it was. 

Then I swapped the wheel & tyres (Campagnolo Zonda & GP4000s) from the Boardman to the Ventus and the (basic) Mavic Aksium wheels & Schwalbe Lugano tyres the other way round and the ride seemed to improve on the Ventus and deteriorate on the Boardman. So it seems to be a mixture of the frame and wheel/tyre combination that give the comfort. 

One area of patched road that vibrated the Boardman violently as if riding on a washboard is smothed on the Ventus to make me look down to check the tyres haven't gone soft.

With regards to the vibration testing machine on page 3, there are a few other things that may effect the result so surely you can't generalise that all the materials will give the same result? 
What grade of steel pipe?
What lay-up of carbon as this can give different strengths or flexibility?
(don't know much about aluminium)
Which wood?
Which grade of Titanium?


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> *i see no-one else making personal insults within their posts - so i will kindly ask for you to remove yours from this thread.......*
> /QUOTE]
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Jul 2015)

...."Isnt it strange how a person continually rebukes everyones claims as bollocks and only his opinion should stand...

If that's an insult, I'm buying a bike made of bamboo.


----------



## jowwy (17 Jul 2015)

Higlight the personal insult towards anybody within that quote????

Name of said person?
And any quote stated within said post?


----------



## potsy (17 Jul 2015)

Is cyclist33 YS's minder?


----------



## Profpointy (17 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> Higlight the personal insult towards anybody within that quote????
> 
> Name of said person?
> And any quote stated within said post?



c'mon you two - disagree vehemently but it's boring if we go down this road


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> ...."Isnt it strange how a person continually rebukes everyones claims as bollocks and only his opinion should stand...
> 
> If that's an insult, I'm buying a bike made of bamboo.



Of course it is. a) it is aimed personally, b) it is toned in a sardonic way, b) it attempts to position the target person in the category of "strange" in the minds of the reader, which is a classic bullying technique, and c) it uses inflammatory rhetoric and slang to position the target person as belittled to the reader.


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> Higlight the personal insult towards anybody within that quote????
> 
> Name of said person? Yellow saddle, obviously, even if you thinly veiled that.
> And any quote stated within said post? All of it.
> ...


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jul 2015)

potsy said:


> Is cyclist33 YS's minder?



He doesn't need one but why should a forum receive public ridicule if they come out in support of one viewpoint or other?

That is what seems to be the case.


----------



## Profpointy (17 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> i wonder why golf club manufacturers changed from using steel in the driver heads to titanium and therefore being able to make bigger heads, for less weight? also with the introduction of the titanium club heads, also came the introduction the COR effect ( due to the springy nature of the titanium clubface).......all those things make me feel that not all findings can be proclaimed to be bullshit/bollocks by the manufacturers of said titanium frames



Probably not the best analogy as I suspect golf club manufacturers have even more scope to sell bling to gullible punters with too much money than do cycle makers. And I confess to having Ti parts on my bike, albeit not the frame


----------



## jowwy (17 Jul 2015)

You merely make an assumption based on non-fact........


----------



## vickster (17 Jul 2015)

The OP seems happy with the different viewpoints being discussed, so why not just put the handbags down and stick whoever you don't like on ignore...there are a few of you in this thread within my esteemed but not that exclusive ignore club... Means I get the sensible discussion and not the bitching


----------



## jowwy (17 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Probably not the best analogy as I suspect golf club manufacturers have even more scope to sell bling to gullible punters with too much money than do cycle makers. And I confess to having Ti parts on my bike, albeit not the frame


My analogy was merely about strength and weight of said material....


----------



## mythste (17 Jul 2015)

I really did try to bring this to a nice conclusion a few posts ago!


----------



## mythste (17 Jul 2015)

vickster said:


> The OP seems happy with the different viewpoints being discussed, so why not just put the handbags down and stick whoever you don't like on ignore...there are a few of you in this thread within my esteemed but not that exclusive ignore club... Means I get the sensible discussion and not the bitching



It's a crying shame because there has been some pretty sweet discussion that's really made me think!


----------



## vickster (17 Jul 2015)

mythste said:


> It's a crying shame because there has been some pretty sweet discussion that's really made me think!


Indeed


----------



## potsy (17 Jul 2015)

Maybe we need a type of restraining order, certain posters not allowed to post on the same threads as each other?
Sadly they seem to follow each other around ready to start the next argument


----------



## vickster (17 Jul 2015)

Or perhaps there can be a 'padded cell' area of the forum where they can argue...when it's about something other than helmets and headphone usage!!


----------



## rb58 (17 Jul 2015)

Well, I've read this thread and I'm still not selling my Enigma.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Jenkins said:


> With regards to the vibration testing machine on page 3, there are a few other things that may effect the result so surely you can't generalise that all the materials will give the same result?
> What grade of steel pipe?
> What lay-up of carbon as this can give different strengths or flexibility?
> (don't know much about aluminium)
> ...




Any grade of steel pipe.
Any lay-up of carbon.
Any wood, even balsa, if you like
Any titanium alloy.

The point is, to dampen vibration you have to have compliance (flexibility) bigger than the amplitude of the vibration and none of these materials can offer it.
I'll make the point with an example. Let's say the vibration has an amplitude of 1mm. That means that the little bumps move more one mm up and one mm down. For the material to dampen that vibration it has to flex in the longitudinal direction by at least one mm. None of the materials listed will do that.

Another way to work with vibrations is to put a damper on it. This is typically a heavy weight of sorts with lots of inertia which requires more energy to overcome than the vibration can provide.

Another way to work with vibrations is to put an extension to the end, perhaps with a damper. Think of a tuning fork. We don't like the vibration so we put a blob of heavy rubber at the end or, we weld a long piece of metal to the end. This way the node of the vibration is changed, the resonance has changed and voila, the vibration is gone. When you are sending a shock pulse along a tube, the material makes very little difference, other than the obvious material change like by going to a piece of wet sponge.


----------



## EltonFrog (17 Jul 2015)

vickster said:


> The OP seems happy with the different viewpoints being discussed, so why not just put the handbags down and stick whoever you don't like on ignore...*there are a few of you in this thread within my esteemed but not that exclusive ignore club..*. Means I get the sensible discussion and not the bitching



How do you know they are posting then?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> *i see no-one else making personal insults within their posts - so i will kindly ask for you to remove yours from this thread.......*
> 
> the comparison is the material used, in this case titanium and its ability to flex under load, being able to be made thinner, yet still being able to be strong and lightweight at the same time.
> 
> you say in one of your posts that titanium's super strength is unfounded, yet golf club manufacturers have found different ( and no i can't be bothered to look it up, so dont ask)




Jowwy, all materials flex under load. There is no such thing as a perfectly rigid material. Titanium is not special in that regard.

If you like the fact that a material can be made thinner, yet still strong enough to do the job, as well as provide a lightweight structure, aluminium is your first port of call. It can be extruded, drawn, welded, hydroformed and bent into the required shape. Aluminium bikes, for a given strength, are lighter than a titanium bike.

I said titanium is half as strong as steel and also half the weight of steel. Do you see the dilemma? To make a steel or titanium bike of the same "Strength" requires the same weight in materials. This is of course an approximation but one that holds true for bicycle frames.
I am not sure what golf club manufacturers are supposed to have discovered. You make it sound like they know something that no-one else knows. But like you say, you are not bothered to define your claim so I can't really refute a non-claim.


----------



## vickster (17 Jul 2015)

CarlP said:


> How do you know they are posting then?


Cos I can see there is ignored content, and posts quoting ignored posts make little sense or the flow makes no sense, so have to sneak a peek at ignored content...and then wish I hadn't!!


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> ...."Isnt it strange how a person continually rebukes everyones claims as bollocks and only his opinion should stand...
> 
> If that's an insult, I'm buying a bike made of bamboo.



Here you go. http://www.zambikeszambia.com/

I'll list the benefits.
Organic
Biodegradeable.
Low carbon footprint to the point of being a carbon sink.
Talking point.
Rust proof.
Can be planted and will grow a bike tree.


----------



## EltonFrog (17 Jul 2015)

vickster said:


> Cos I can see there is ignored content, and posts quoting ignored posts make little sense or the flow makes no sense, so have to sneak a peek at ignored content...and then wish I hadn't!!



Ah right, I didn't know that. I have so many on my ignore list sometimes its not worth reading threads they make no sense at all some of them.


----------



## vickster (17 Jul 2015)

CarlP said:


> Ah right, I didn't know that. I have so many on my ignore list sometimes its not worth reading threads they make no sense at all some of them.


Indeed. I posted something last week and about the first 10 responses were from ignored members...I was feeling unloved!  and later annoyed by the responses


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Here you go. http://www.zambikeszambia.com/
> 
> I'll list the benefits.
> Organic
> ...



My local bike shop acquired a bamboo frame for a reason I cannot recall.

Dreadful thing which weighed a ton because of all the lumps of metal used to hold it together.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jul 2015)

Andy_R said:


> (landing and taking off for example, along with rotational forces in excess of 2-3G during flight - average rotational forces during turning in flight.


Not quite, any maneuver exceeding 1G is an aerobatic maneuver. For regular civilian flight, forces won't exceed 1G.

@Yellow Saddle iirc, on average Titanium is the equivalent strength of steel but at half the weight (comparing to low-grade steel alloys)

To compare specifics, a commonly used 531 tubing for bicycles is around 800MPa (UTS) at around 8g/cm^3 compared to 3AL titanium used on many cycles at around 900MPa but only around 4.5g/cm^3

So it's clear to see that Titanium is almost half the weight for the same strength as steel used in bicycles.

HOWEVER, comparing this to something common like 6061 Aluminium 325MPa at 2.7g/cm^3 you can get a material as strong as steel at 3/4 of the weight.

If you pay a bit more for 7005 aluminium, then you can get around 400MPa at pretty much the same density. You get the same strength of Titanium with around 20% more weight, on a 1.5kg titanium frame, you'll only be looking to save 250g by choosing Titanium.

Raw titanium is heavier than raw aluminium, but 3AL titanium alloy is lighter than both 531 steel tube, and 6061/7005 aluminium, and stronger at the same time.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (17 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Here you go. http://www.zambikeszambia.com/
> 
> I'll list the benefits.
> Organic
> ...



Con: Can be eaten by pandas.


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Jul 2015)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Con: Can be eaten by pandas.


Totes adorbz though.


----------



## jayonabike (17 Jul 2015)

Well *I can *tell a difference between the carbon, steel and titanium bikes I ride. I can even tell a difference between the 2 carbon bikes I ride. I guess I must be special.


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Jul 2015)

jayonabike said:


> Well *I can *tell a difference between the carbon, steel and titanium bikes I ride. I can even tell a difference between the 2 carbon bikes I ride. I guess I must be special.


Is that an inherent quality of the frame material though? I can tell the difference between my Steel tourer and Aluminium roadie, but would hesitate to argue that it's entirely because of the materials they're made of.


----------



## jayonabike (17 Jul 2015)

Same saddle, same wheels, seat post, bars and stem. The only difference is frame material. I am the special one.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jul 2015)

Frame has the exact same geometry too?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> My local bike shop acquired a bamboo frame for a reason I cannot recall.
> 
> Dreadful thing which weighed a ton because of all the lumps of metal used to hold it together.



Every bike shop on the block acquired one of those. I had to assemble one for a customer. Now there was a frame making me with for titanium. The bloody thing was skew and I could not get the front derailer to work, the chainline was way off. It could accommodate a front brake (on the metal suspension fork) only since the rear brake mounts had some issue - I can't remember what. I doubt it ever went round the block. It did get lots of comments whilst it was standing in the workshop though.


----------



## John the Monkey (17 Jul 2015)

jayonabike said:


> Same saddle, same wheels, seat post, bars and stem. The only difference is frame material. I am the special one.


Then revel in it, old thing, revel in it.


----------



## Milkfloat (18 Jul 2015)

YS - a a serious question. Surely the damping properties (is this density or how close the fibres are?) of the material itself play a part as well? Let me try and give an example as I am struggling here - I am thinking hammers (my second favourite tool). Hammers come in many different shapes and sizes and many different materials. If I were to get my steel headed hammer out and my rubber headed mallet and hit a massive steel block, I know it is going to hurt a lot more using the steel headed hammer. 

I hate to quote Wikipedia, but here it is stated "Modifications have also been made with respect to the effect of the hammer on the user. A titanium head has about 3% recoil and can result in greater efficiency and less fatigue when compared to a steel head with up to 30% recoil.[10] Handles made of shock-absorbing materials or varying angles attempt to make it easier for the user to continue to wield this age-old device, even as nail guns and other powered drivers encroach on its traditional field of use."

I know a hammer is very different to a bicycle, but it was the best theoretical example I could come up with. Is it the fact that the bike is a pseudo triangle that makes all the difference?


----------



## Venod (18 Jul 2015)

Don't know how the hammer story relates to bike frames but a very interesting analogy, I have used all sorts of hammers extensively, I will have to read the Wikipedia entry.

What is your favourite tool.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Not quite, any maneuver exceeding 1G is an aerobatic maneuver. For regular civilian flight, forces won't exceed 1G.
> 
> @Yellow Saddle iirc, on average Titanium is the equivalent strength of steel but at half the weight (comparing to low-grade steel alloys)
> 
> ...


The most common Ti alloy used in bicycles is 6%AL 4% V and as I warned early on in the post "strength" is a vague definition. However, if I look at all the bicycle failures I've examined, it has always been through cracking. Therefore I choose to compare strengths in fracture toughness. I could use fatigue limits, but a frame builder can easily compensate for that and alu builders of course do. This particular Ti alloy has a fracture toughness roughly correspondent to it's density, if you compare aluminium, titatnium and steel.
However, even if we were to use Young's modulus, where it more or less matches that of steel, it doesn't mean that a Ti frame can be made to the same dimensions as a steel one and therefore be lighter (because it is less dense) but still as strong as the steel one. The tubing can simply not be drawn to those dimensions and still have a reliable end product.
Ti is for instance, eminently unsuitable for sprockets. It just doesn't wear nearly as slowly as steel, yet, it is placed in cassettes for a)bragging point reasons and b) weight reasons. That still doesn't mean it is an appropriate material for the job.
My very premise to the debate is that Ti is an inappropriate material for the job.


----------



## stoatsngroats (18 Jul 2015)

Interesting thread, can have a second to comment?

The phrase horses for courses really is part of the whole metallurgist conundrum, and surely the single most important thing is robust suitability for the task. Whilst any BSO allows some people to enjoy their cycling, and a 1kg carbon frame is necessary for others to derive their enjoyment, whether Ti/carbon/Steel/Alu or wood is used, isn't about the individuals enjoyment that which matters?

would I ride a wooden bike? Maybe, If it rode well, (wow, think about the kudos of sustainable commuting!)

I'm less worried about the strength v weight v compliabiity than I am about how my bike reliably rides wherever I choose to take it?
Aren't you?


----------



## Arrowfoot (18 Jul 2015)

Enjoyed the debate and learnt a lot. Thanks PR, YS and many others.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> YS - a a serious question. Surely the damping properties (is this density or how close the fibres are?) of the material itself play a part as well? Let me try and give an example as I am struggling here - I am thinking hammers (my second favourite tool). Hammers come in many different shapes and sizes and many different materials. If I were to get my steel headed hammer out and my rubber headed mallet and hit a massive steel block, I know it is going to hurt a lot more using the steel headed hammer.
> 
> I hate to quote Wikipedia, but here it is stated "Modifications have also been made with respect to the effect of the hammer on the user. A titanium head has about 3% recoil and can result in greater efficiency and less fatigue when compared to a steel head with up to 30% recoil.[10] Handles made of shock-absorbing materials or varying angles attempt to make it easier for the user to continue to wield this age-old device, even as nail guns and other powered drivers encroach on its traditional field of use."
> 
> I know a hammer is very different to a bicycle, but it was the best theoretical example I could come up with. Is it the fact that the bike is a pseudo triangle that makes all the difference?



Nothing wrong with Wikipedia. It cuts to the chase and greatly helps understanding. It is always a good starting point. I don't quite understand why the Wikipedia hammer head has so much less recoil than a steel hammer. with he article doesn't say. However, I agree and understand that different materials behave differently when used as a chisel. I specifically used the chisel analogy to demonstrate impact transmitted through a long rigid cylinder. And to stretch the analogy a bit further, lets picture the two chisels which transmit the vibration/shock from the road to the rider being the fork and the seat stays.
In order for those to dampen the shocks reaching your sit bones and hands, there has to be significant compliance (give) in those two members. The "give" has to be the range of the impact and impact is easy to measure. Simply look at the road and decide how big the gravel is.
To get back to the recoil example for titanium as mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. I am not sure, and will think about this a bit, why this is so. But I don't think it is relevant since we are concerned with primary force, not a secondary one.
Now if we consider that the "chisels" in question, no matter which of the materials we use, are essentially rigid in the plane we're concerned about. You just cannot concede that they would give as much as the size of a piece of gravel - say 3mm. And if your imagination doesn't allow that picture, materials data sheets will convince you. And remember that a 27% improvement on a 3mm movement (shock amplitude) is hardly perceptible when you already have the tyres and saddle doing most of the work.
We could argue that a fork, being curved (sometimes) would bend and thus give. It doesn't. It is still too rigid over that small curve. As I said, once you've hammered a headset race onto a fork supported at the bottom by a wooden block, you will instinctively know what it is essentially solid even with the huge forces of the hammer. As an expert hammer user you would have developed a feeling for when the workpiece support absorbs too much energy for the hammer to be efficient. Hammer users will instinctively choose to work directly above the leg of a workbench rather than in the sprung centre.
Further, let's use the ruler-on-a-desk analogy. Wood resonates nicely and admittedly you don't feel the vibration on the clamping hand. Translate that to how a frame absorbs shock and you will see that you have an unworkable frame. It is essentially a boiled noodle with no rigidity at all. It won't steer and it won't allow standing pedaling.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> If you pay a bit more for 7005 aluminium, then you can get around 400MPa at pretty much the same density. You get the same strength of Titanium with around 20% more weight, on a 1.5kg titanium frame, you'll only be looking to save 250g by choosing Titanium.
> 
> .



7000-series alu has problems with extrusion and welding and most frame manufacturers will avoid it.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> My very premise to the debate is that Ti is an inappropriate material for the job.


A premise that is not shared by many of the titanium frame manufacturers out there....so why should we accept your opinion over theirs?

Im talking the likes of linskey, sabbath, van nicholas, burls, severn, genesis, moda, condor, dolan

All reputable titanium frame designers, builders who sell hundreds maybe thousands of titanium frames all over europe and the likes


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> A premise that is not shared by many of the titanium frame manufacturers out there....so why should we accept your opinion over theirs?
> 
> Im talking the likes of linskey, sabbath, van nicholas, burls, severn, genesis, moda, condor, dolan
> 
> All reputable titanium frame designers, builders who sell hundreds maybe thousands of titanium frames all over europe and the likes


Jowwy, the fallacy you commit here is called a "call to authority." I cant bother to educate you on that one due to your obstinate hostility and inability to debate. Look it up.
I have stated why I say the material is inappropriate. Why don't you rather attempt to critique the individual components of that list?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Now here's a Ti bike I would consider.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Jowwy, the fallacy you commit here is called a "call to authority." I cant bother to educate you on that one due to your obstinate hostility and inability to debate. Look it up.
> I have stated why I say the material is inappropriate. Why don't you rather attempt to critique the individual components of that list?


Its not my inability to dabate, its my inability to accept that your one eyed opinion is far superior to the rest of us and we are all just suckers.

I look forward to seeing a picture of your gas pipe framed bike, with steel rims and solid tyres. Cause it seems to me anything other than that is marketing bumph to get people to spend money.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> A premise that is not shared by many of the titanium frame manufacturers out there....so why should we accept your opinion over theirs?
> 
> Im talking the likes of linskey, sabbath, van nicholas, burls, severn, genesis, moda, condor, dolan
> 
> All reputable titanium frame designers, builders who sell hundreds maybe thousands of titanium frames all over europe and the likes



And Spa, don't forget good 'ol Spa.

I'm having trouble accepting @Yellow Saddle's arguments in preference to the other information available.

But I think it's always good to examine the accepted wisdom.

Tyre tread is a good example.

Many cyclists, even experienced ones, reckon some tread on the tyre will help in the wet.

It doesn't because a bicycle cannot aquaplane unless you can get it past 120mph.

Counter intuitively, a slick tyre offers marginally more grip in the wet because there is more tyre in contact with the road.

Anyhow, back to ti frames....


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> The most common Ti alloy used in bicycles is 6%AL 4% V


The frame material in the original post though is 3AL



> and as I warned early on in the post "strength" is a vague definition. However, if I look at all the bicycle failures I've examined, it has always been through cracking. Therefore I choose to compare strengths in fracture toughness. I could use fatigue limits, but a frame builder can easily compensate for that and alu builders of course do. This particular Ti alloy has a fracture toughness roughly correspondent to it's density, if you compare aluminium, titatnium and steel.


But you can't pick just 1 form of failure and base a complete argument around that, as you you are clearly intelligent enough to know that it's never that simple. I don't think comparing fracture toughness is entirely an accurate way of doing it either, as fracture toughness is the resistance to brittle failure in a material that already has a crack. We need to look at other material properties to see when that crack will occur. And, unfortunately, there are several unknowns that can cause the cracks, frame geometry, build process, etc.

At the moment the only figures I can find for fracture toughness of 4130 steel is that it is classified as an ultra high strength steel, which would mean it is in excess of 100MPa which is identical to that of 3AL Titanium (at half the density)



> However, even if we were to use Young's modulus, where it more or less matches that of steel


The young's modulus of 4130 steel (which is as close as I can find to the composition of 531 tubes), is nearly double that of 3AL titanium (207 vs 100). So if you compare these, then you will need nearly equal weights of 4130 steel and 3AL titanium, to get the same "stiffness".

Yield is probably more important, I admit, than ultimate tensile strength. As the frame will be pretty useless if it yields. But, the yield strength of 4130 is around the 500MPa mark, which matches 3AL with 500MPa yield also.

Given the above, depending on the frame builder, you should be able to build an identical bike that is just as resistant to brittle failure once a crack has formed, just as likely to yield. But, will not be anywhere near as stiff, *depending on the geometry* that could be used to create a bike with more compliance than a steel equivalent, though this I assume will effect power transfer (Though I have no real information yet to back this up). But with a much lighter frame

OR

You can have a titanium frame that is the equivalent weight and stiffness of steel, but is far, far stronger, in nearly all the definitions of the terms.



> My very premise to the debate is that Ti is an inappropriate material for the job.



I will agree with this, but I think I agree for different reasons. It is only inappropriate because it has no clear benefits.

If you want something lighter than steel, but stiff. Then get carbon
If you want something lighter than steel, but more compliant. Then get aluminium

The only benefit, is if you was in the market to buy a bike for a lifetime, then it's strength properties for an equal mass, and it's resistance to corrosion would make it a good choice. But, there is plenty of old steel frames around that work pefectly well. So steel is a suitable choice here.

Ti is an exotic material, for those who want to buy it. There are better performing materials, or suitably performing materials available at lower prices.


----------



## Venod (18 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> A premise that is not shared by many of the titanium frame manufacturers out there....so why should we accept your opinion over theirs?
> 
> Im talking the likes of linskey, sabbath, van nicholas, burls, severn, genesis, moda, condor, dolan
> 
> All reputable titanium frame designers, builders who sell hundreds maybe thousands of titanium frames all over europe and the likes



Its only his opinion he's not an authority on materials and bike construction, its not an opinion I share as well as numerous manufactures.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> The frame material in the original post though is 3AL
> 
> 
> But you can't pick just 1 form of failure and base a complete argument around that, as you you are clearly intelligent enough to know that it's never that simple. I don't think comparing fracture toughness is entirely an accurate way of doing it either, as fracture toughness is the resistance to brittle failure in a material that already has a crack. We need to look at other material properties to see when that crack will occur. And, unfortunately, there are several unknowns that can cause the cracks, frame geometry, build process, etc.
> ...



Granted I didn't see the exact alloy mentioned in the original post, thanks for pointing it out. I just assumed 4Al 6V. I don't think it changes the issue though,

I specifically emphasised fracture toughness because so many Ti frames fail because of manufacturing defects. Not that they fail left right and centre, but when they fail, it is that. I think it is the weakest of the weaknesses, the Achilles heel. Most steel bikes have lugged frames which are brazed at low temperatures, with all the usual crack propagation issues sorted out. The fingered lugs also serve well to smooth out the stress transition points. Ti frames are welded, with plenty of scope for pre-existent flaws.

I want to point out that I did not base my complete argument around the strength issue. In fact, it is a small point in the overall argument and only became an issue once the "why do they then build missiles from it?" bogus trumpcard was put down.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> The frame material in the original post though is 3AL
> 
> 
> But you can't pick just 1 form of failure and base a complete argument around that, as you you are clearly intelligent enough to know that it's never that simple. I don't think comparing fracture toughness is entirely an accurate way of doing it either, as fracture toughness is the resistance to brittle failure in a material that already has a crack. We need to look at other material properties to see when that crack will occur. And, unfortunately, there are several unknowns that can cause the cracks, frame geometry, build process, etc.
> ...



It may be what I so liked about the Adventure was its 'steely' - used as a general term - ride, and the overall geometry/look/design of the bike.

In other words, if Spa made a steel Adventure, I might like it just as much.

Yet titanium steel is a different steel to steel steel, so it is likely it will have different riding properties when used in a bike frame.

Those differences might well be lost on me as a middle aged plodder, but could be apparent to keener and more experienced riders.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Afnug said:


> Its only his opinion he's not an authority on materials and bike construction, its not an opinion I share as well as numerous manufactures.


I think if you ask the said frame manufacturers off the record whether they think ti is the ultimate frame material, they too will concede that it is not. However, there is a niche market to be carved out for companies who have invested in ti manufacturing techniques and they exploit it. why should they not? There is a ready market for it and it is not as if the product is a failure. I don't rubbish Ti, I say it is an inappropriate material for the job. I want to demonstrate the point by again appealing to do the pen design thought experiment I cited earlier on. What material did you end up with? I bet it was not gold, but in spite of that, there is a market for gold pens.


----------



## Citius (18 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> Its not my inability to dabate, its my inability to accept that your one eyed opinion is far superior to the rest of us and we are all just suckers.
> 
> I look forward to seeing a picture of your gas pipe framed bike, with steel rims and solid tyres. Cause it seems to me anything other than that is marketing bumph to get people to spend money.



That's called a 'straw man' argument, by the way. First we have 'appeal to authority', then 'straw man' - can we go for the full set?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Citius said:


> That's called a 'straw man' argument, by the way. First we have 'appeal to authority', then 'straw man' - can we go for the full set?


Plus _ad hominem_?


----------



## Citius (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Plus _ad hominem_?



Yep - sorry, missed that.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I don't rubbish Ti, I say it is an inappropriate material for the job.



Would you concede the term 'inappropriate' is not, er, appropriate in this case?

It suggests the material is not capable of doing the job, as in chocolate is an inappropriate material for a fire guard.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> a slick tyre offers marginally *more grip* in the wet because there is* more tyre in contact* with the road.
> 
> Anyhow, back to ti frames....



Oh so sorry, but I can't let this one go.

More surface area does NOT equal more grip. Friction is independent to area.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Would you concede the term 'inappropriate' is not, er, appropriate in this case?
> 
> It suggests the material is not capable of doing the job, as in chocolate is an inappropriate material for a fire guard.



Not necessarily. From @Yellow Saddle posts, I guess he either has some personal mechanical engineering knowledge, or comes from a mechanical engineering background.

But an inappropriate material isn't one that is unusable. But one that is obviously not the best choice.

To go back to the biro analogy. You could make it from titanium, it would work. But it's not really, from an engineering view, an appropriate material. It will do the job, it's strong enough, light enough. But there are plastics that are cheaper, easier to manufacture, lighter.

Now, there is no doubt a titanium pen (I have a titanium ring, of course an aluminium ring will do the same job). But, it's a fashion thing. An exotic material for those who want to use it.

It's appropriate to use one on an aircraft, but a bicycle. No, not really


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Oh so sorry, but I can't let this one go.
> 
> More surface area does NOT equal more grip. Friction is independent to area.



Schwalbe would give you an argument:

"On a normal, smooth road, even in wet conditions, a slick tire actually provides better grip than a tire with a tread, because the contact area is larger."

http://www.schwalbe.com/en/profil.html


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Schwalbe would give you an argument:
> 
> "On a normal, smooth road, even in wet conditions, a slick tire actually provides better grip than a tire with a tread, because the contact area is larger."
> 
> http://www.schwalbe.com/en/profil.html


They're wrong

Frictional Force = coefficient of friction * Reactive Force

Nowhere in any equation for friction is surface area a factor.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> They're wrong
> 
> Frictional Force = coefficient of friction * Reactive Force
> 
> Nowhere in any equation for friction is surface area a factor.



They might be wrong, but they are a respected tyre maker.

They also have no vested interest in the sense they couldn't give a stuff if you buy a slick or treaded tyre, provided it's a Schwalbe one.

Seems to me more tyre on road = more grip, all other things being equal.

A couple of posters in this thread need to be wary of applying engineering principles too closely to a bicycle.

It is a strange and wonderful contraption which doesn't always behave in the way a text book might indicate.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> They might be wrong, but they are a respected tyre maker.
> 
> They also have no vested interest in the sense they couldn't give a stuff if you buy a slick or treaded tyre, provided it's a Schwalbe one.
> 
> ...



More tyre does not equal more grip, it never has and never will.

Engineering principles, and basic physics such as friction apply to bicycles as well as everything else on this planet. The laws don't change because it is on a bicycle.

A nice explanation here of why friction doesn't increase with surface area:

"Although a larger area of contact between two surfaces would create a larger source of frictional forces, it also reduces the pressure between the two surfaces for a given force holding them together. Since pressure equals force divided by the area of contact, it works out that the increase in friction generating area is exactly offset by the reduction in pressure; the resulting frictional forces, then, are dependent only on the frictional coefficient of the materials and the FORCE holding them together. "


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> More tyre does not equal more grip, it never has and never will.
> 
> Engineering principles, and basic physics such as friction apply to bicycles as well as everything else on this planet. The laws don't change because it is on a bicycle.
> 
> ...



So why do sports cars - and at the extreme F1 cars - have very wide tyres?

It is surely so they will, in the right hands, go around bends at ridiculous speeds, rather than going straight on.

Another reason must be to get lots of power down without the wheel spinning.

Grip of a tyre on a road, which is what I'm on about, may not be the same as friction as discussed in a classroom.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jul 2015)

Citius said:


> That's called a 'straw man' argument, by the way. First we have 'appeal to authority', then 'straw man' - can we go for the full set?


Oh i have missed the third sibbling in the equation who only picks up on my posts. 

We have the responder = ys
The defender of the responder = cyclist33
Now the trollette of any post by me = citius

In this case the trollette added nothing to the post other than to just quote my posts for his self worth


----------



## Citius (18 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> Oh i have missed the third sibbling in the equation who only picks up on my posts.
> 
> We have the responder = ys
> The defender of the responder = cyclist33
> ...



That's another ad hominem. Does that score separately or is it just added to the previous one..??

As for the bit in bold - obviously you've never ever done that yourself in any thread on these forums. Can we add hypocrisy to the list..??


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> So why do sports cars - and at the extreme F1 cars - have very wide tyres?
> 
> It is surely so they will, in the right hands, go around bends at ridiculous speeds, rather than going straight on.
> 
> ...



They use wide tyres to dissipate the heat. If you had a bicycle size tyre on an F1 car they would melt them pretty damn fast. It is purely to have a large area in which to dissipate the heat.


----------



## Citius (18 Jul 2015)

What I will say in relation to this thread is that 'confirmation bias' has an extremely powerful influence on people. I have suffered from it myself. I remember being slightly underwhelmed when I went for my first ride on a new Ti frame - it was nothing like I was expecting and not obviously better than the steel frame it replaced. I convinced myself it was better though.

I had a similar experience when riding my first carbon frame. I had read all the press reviews of carbon frames and was expecting it to _"surge forward with every pedal stroke" _like all the magazine reviews keep saying. It didn't. It built into a light bike though.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Oh so sorry, but I can't let this one go.
> 
> More surface area does NOT equal more grip. Friction is independent to area.



I thought that was only true for O-level physics classical friction. Rubber on road isn't quite as simple as I understand it - eg racing cars have wide tyres


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> I thought that was only true for O-level physics classical friction. Rubber on road isn't quite as simple as I understand it - eg racing cars have wide tyres



Exactly the same, it also applies to their clutches and brakes. The size is purely to dissipate heat


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

I have also just emailed Schwalbe, asking them to explain how their tyres have more grip for a wider area,



> Hi,
> 
> During a discussion on a cycling forum called cyclechat.net your site and page http://www.schwalbe.com/en/profil.html was quoted as a source of evidence with regards to sick tyre friction.
> 
> ...



I will post any reply I get.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Jul 2015)

tyre widths - try google. Quite a lot of explanations of the variety of subtle reasons wide tyres give more grip - mostly on Physics type websites, not the car equivalent of this place. Heat dissipation didn't feature that highly


----------



## midlife (18 Jul 2015)

Formula 1 clutch is smaller in diameter than the tablet I am holding 

Way smaller than the one in my 1.2 Clio

Shaun


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> I have also just emailed Schwalbe, asking them to explain how their tyres have more grip for a wider area,
> 
> 
> 
> I will post any reply I get.



My I reply on their behalf?

"Because most people believe that it would not do us any good to put counter-intuitive real science in our marketing literature. The same goes for the concept of bicycle tyres with tread which are not better in the rain that smooth tyres, but if we try and market a smooth tyre for all conditions, someone else will bullshit the market and steal our market share."


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

There is confusion.

Wide tyres roll slower. Not due to the additional friction, but due to deformation on the leading edge.



Profpointy said:


> tyre widths - try google. Quite a lot of explanations of the variety of subtle reasons wide tyres give more grip - mostly on Physics type websites, not the car equivalent of this place. Heat dissipation didn't feature that highly



You will have to provide a source for one that claims wide tyres provide more grip due to increase contact patch.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Exactly the same, it also applies to their clutches and brakes. The size is purely to dissipate heat


And to spread wear over a larger surface and therefore last longer.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Would you concede the term 'inappropriate' is not, er, appropriate in this case?
> 
> It suggests the material is not capable of doing the job, as in chocolate is an inappropriate material for a fire guard.


I think @PhilDawson8270 answered that one nicely. I would still like you to complete my pen materials experiment and post the results.
Speaking of inappropriate materials. If you have a fancy for today's large watches with dials and buttons and propellers and things, you'll know that they are really heavy and actually not all that comfortable to wear, especially in active environments for which, ironically, they were designed. They swing around on your arm like a sledgehammer on a necklace. One watch company, Sector, came up with a solution and instead of milling the watch body out of stainless steel or indeed, titanium, they do it from aluminium and then hard anodize it for either a greyish Ti look or a shiny chrome/stainless steel look. Obviously the body is still strong enough for the job and if the anodizing does its job, corrosion won't be an issue. Therefore, I think aluminium is a more appropriate material for a big chunky watch that requires a metal look. The best of the bunch is of course a Casio G-Shock made from plastic. But that doesn't mean a gold Rolex hasn't got a niche market somewhere.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I think @PhilDawson8270 answered that one nicely. I would still like you to complete my pen materials experiment and post the results.
> Speaking of inappropriate materials. If you have a fancy for today's large watches with dials and buttons and propellers and things, you'll know that they are really heavy and actually not all that comfortable to wear, especially in active environments for which, ironically, they were designed. They swing around on your arm like a sledgehammer on a necklace. One watch company, Sector, came up with a solution and instead of milling the watch body out of stainless steel or indeed, titanium, they do it from aluminium and then hard anodize it for either a greyish Ti look or a shiny chrome/stainless steel look. Obviously the body is still strong enough for the job and if the anodizing does its job, corrosion won't be an issue. Therefore, I think aluminium is a more appropriate material for a big chunky watch that requires a metal look. The best of the bunch is of course a Casio G-Shock made from plastic. But that doesn't mean a gold Rolex hasn't got a niche market somewhere.



Yebbut, you've already conceded (I think?) that titanium is strong and light, so why is that a bad thing for bikes, but a good thing for aircraft (the latter point you've said isn't a sensible comparison, but I don't follow the argument why)

OK, titanium is difficult to work with, and may not be readily available in the tubing you'd ideally choose, but neither of these points make the material itself unsuitable.


----------



## stoatsngroats (18 Jul 2015)

If you think about the rear tyre on a bike being braked, and then the front brake being applied additionally, the rear _wheel_ becomes more likely to lock.. true..?
If you agree then ask why, it's because the 'load' on the rear tyre has been reduced by the centre-of-gravity moving forwards because the front brake and tyre are causing deceleration, (nothing else has changed) which means the rear tyre has less load, not necessarily any less contact.... this shows that contact area doesn't necessarily dictate grip (or friction), but the load changing does.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Jul 2015)

stoatsngroats said:


> If you think about the rear tyre on a bike being braked, and then the front brake being applied additionally, the rear brake becomes more likely to lock.. true..?
> If you agree then ask why, it's because the 'load' on the rear tyre has been reduced by the centre-of-gravity moving forwards because the front brake and tyre are causing deceleration, (nothing else has changed) which means the rear tyre has less load, not necessarily any less contact.... this shows that contact area doesn't necessarily dictate grip (or friction), but the load changing does.



If you unload the back tyre (as you indeed will) then the contact patch reduces as well. If you break hard, the back wheel will lift and you'll have zero load, zero friction, and surprise surprise, zero contact patch.


----------



## stoatsngroats (18 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> If you unload the back tyre (as you indeed will) then the contact patch reduces as well. If you break hard, the back wheel will lift and you'll have zero load, zero friction, and surprise surprise, zero contact patch.



Yep, (this is of course if you brake with the front hard enough) but I didn't mention unloading the back wheel, merely reduced the load..... I brake gently  (and with the front brake only! )


----------



## Profpointy (18 Jul 2015)

stoatsngroats said:


> Yep, (this is of course if you brake with the front hard enough) but I didn't mention unloading the back wheel, merely reduced the load..... I brake gently  (and with the front brake only! )



it'll still reduce the contact patch as the tyre will flex / spread less with less weight on it


----------



## Profpointy (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> There is confusion.
> 
> Wide tyres roll slower. Not due to the additional friction, but due to deformation on the leading edge.
> 
> ...



Uh, google - I might add Wikipedia on slip angles


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Jul 2015)

Wide tyres, like for like apart from width - roll better than narrow ones.

Schwalbe again: http://www.schwalbe.com/en/rollwiderstand.html

Continental also say the same.

No doubt some posters will say it's yet more rubbish, this time from two tyre makers.

But why would the companies put rubbish in an information sheet?

Both will quite happily sell you a narrow tyre or a wide one.

Another question: Why have the pros largely switched to wider tyres?

It's not because the team bosses want to give their riders an easier ride.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Wide tyres, like for like apart from width - roll better than narrow ones.
> 
> Schwalbe again: http://www.schwalbe.com/en/rollwiderstand.html
> 
> ...



Their comments with regards to rolling resistance make sense, and seem to be accurate. A narrower tyre with a smaller surface area will have a greater force than a wider tyre, with the *same inflation pressure*, the narrower tyre will have more deformation. It is the deformation that determines how well a tyre rolls. 

But note, even they say that if you run the narrower tyre at a higher pressure they can roll the same. There are many variables, and I will concede my comment was a little too general.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Uh, google - I might add Wikipedia on slip angles



I don't fancy randomly googling for potential sources. If you have seen anything that supports your view, please do post it.


----------



## Citius (18 Jul 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> Another question: Why have the pros largely switched to wider tyres?
> 
> It's not because the team bosses want to give their riders an easier ride.



(slightly) Wider tyres roll better for a given pressure - but the improvement is not linear. In other words, the principle would not extend to running 45mm tyres and expecting to see the same benefit. If it did, I imagine the pros would all be riding fatbikes.

I don't know the percentage of the pro peloton that has gone from 23 -> 25, but it is most likely at the enouragement of their tyre sponsors.


----------



## Milkfloat (18 Jul 2015)

Oh, by the way Pale Rider, congrats on the new bike, it looks like a corker.


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Jul 2015)

Milkfloat said:


> Oh, by the way Pale Rider, congrats on the new bike, it looks like a corker.



Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic.

I started the tyre derailment, but I think we can now continue that in a separate thread if we need to.

As regards the new bike, decision not yet finally made.

But I don't intend to test anything else, so if I'm having a drop bar bike - a big change from the bikes I have - it will almost certainly be an Adventure.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> Yebbut, you've already conceded (I think?) that titanium is strong and light, so why is that a bad thing for bikes, but a good thing for aircraft (the latter point you've said isn't a sensible comparison, but I don't follow the argument why)
> 
> OK, titanium is difficult to work with, and may not be readily available in the tubing you'd ideally choose, but neither of these points make the material itself unsuitable.


Prof. I didn't concede that titanium is strong or light. I simply place it right between the other two frame metals in terms of strength and density (weight). Strong is subjective as is light.
Who said aircraft are built from titanium? Not me. In fact, I doubt any aircraft is made from titanium. These things, just like cars or bicycles, are generally made from a variety of materials. Aluminium, carbon fibre, steel and indeed titanium can be found in most of them. I, apparently have some titanium bolts in my Campagnolo brake calipers. It doesn't mean that my bike is made from titanium. Same for the fictitious aeroplane. The argument of why titanium is good for a hypothetical airoplane and thus good for a bicycle is drawing non-existent parallels. We can't argue like that in engineering. By analogy, I can say the Spruce Goose was built from birch, therefore it should be good enough for a bicycle. The Spruce Goose was indeed one of the largest aircraft ever built. Or, I could say that I like ice cream and because you're also a male homo sapiens, you also like ice cream. That is a fallacy and not a sensible comparison. Someone threw that one at me but for me to now go and build an argument listing all the components that are suitable for aircraft use and then try and project them onto bicycles is futile. He will nitpick and build a strawman quicker than I can say "grumpy." That's why I rather said it is not a valid argument and invite the proponent of that argument then break the case down into detail, which he is clearly not going to do.

As for your last point: if any material is more difficult to work with than steel/alu/carbon, is more expensive, is less reliable and tubing in the right sizes are not available (they mostly are for certain style bikes) and it cannot conform to the demands of modern frame styling, I like to think the material is unsuitable. Beryllium for instance, can also be used to build frames. However, it needs to be manufactured in an environment where no-one must come into contact with fumes given off when it is heated or even just machined. That makes it an inappropriate material for the job. We can get the same job done better, using different materials.

I hate using this one because it smacks of call to authority, but if ti was so great why aren't the pro's using it? I'll redeem myself for asking it because I think I have answered that question adequately.

Prof, have you done the design-a-pen mind experiment yet? What is your chosen material?


----------



## midlife (18 Jul 2015)

SR71 Blackbird was predominately titanium 

I used to polish a Speedwell frame hanging up in the bike shop in the 70's. Never wanted a Speedwell then but would like to have one now ....

Shaun


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Their comments with regards to rolling resistance make sense, and seem to be accurate. A narrower tyre with a smaller surface area will have a greater force than a wider tyre, with the *same inflation pressure*, the narrower tyre will have more deformation. It is the deformation that determines how well a tyre rolls.
> 
> But note, even they say that if you run the narrower tyre at a higher pressure they can roll the same. There are many variables, and I will concede my comment was a little too general.


I have seen a test done by Jobst Brandt with various tyres rolling on a steel drum and the test confirmed that for a given tyre casing design, wider has less rolling resistance. The test also showed that inflating a tyre harder does reduce rolling resistance (we knew that) but that it is a case of diminishing returns. At 10 Bar you may as well chew rocks, the tyre is so hard that it is uncomfortable but it doesn't improve RR.

BTW, it is not so much the deformation from inflation that produces the rolling resistance but the hysteresis in the casing. For the same deformation but different casing design you will get different RR values. I just wanted to define "deformation". It is the deformation in the rubber and flex in casing material that matters. .


----------



## Smurfy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> The most common Ti alloy used in bicycles is 6%AL 4% V


http://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/enigma-excel-review-1492.html

"Most titanium frames are made from 3AL-2.5V tubing ........."


----------



## Smurfy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> 7000-series alu has problems with extrusion and welding and most frame manufacturers will avoid it.


My Edinburgh CoOp commuter is 7000 series. Seems odd that a supplier of relatively cheap bikes would choose to work with such a difficult material.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

YellowTim said:


> http://roadcyclinguk.com/gear/enigma-excel-review-1492.html
> 
> "Most titanium frames are made from 3AL-2.5V tubing ........."



I am not sure what your point is but I would not quote a magazine that writes this type of tripe.:

"The Excel quickly picks up speed and takes little encouragement to accelerate to cruising pace, from where it rolls along with ease, responding readily to extra pressure on the pedals."

Or this corker: "
Strength has never been a concern with titanium (it’s tough as nails) but the increased strength and stiffness of 6Al-4V means Enigma have been able ...."

Nails are not tough when talking in engineering terms, so this frame is made from soft stuff. Or they're lying...or, the irony of the metaphor escapes them.
Anyway, bicycle magazines are very poor sources of science education.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Rotational forces in excess of 2-3Gs hey? There are lots of big words in that sentence of yours, but lets stick to the questions you ask.
> 
> Weakness? Strong enough is strong enough. Aluminium is 100 times cheaper but still strong enough. Therefore it is more appropriate. For instance, you could make your yellow Bic pen from ti insteak of yellow plastic - it would be much, much stronger. but why? By asking why strong is not better, you first have to point out where the other materials are not strong enough for their application in bicycles.
> Too soft? Who mentioned material hardness? Where did you get that from. Red herring.
> ...



I'm sorry YS, but I still can't follow your logic. Your first post said, and I am paraphrasing / inferring than ali, steel and ti are all the same strength for a given weight. Surely that can't be right can it? (your phrase was along the lines twice as strong but double the weight ). Strong enough - well yes, but lighter for a given strength is a valid goal surely? Not a key issue with the pen thing


----------



## Smurfy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Most steel bikes have lugged frames which are brazed at low temperatures, with all the usual crack propagation issues sorted out.


Can you name any manufacturers that are currently mass producing lugged steel frames?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> I'm sorry YS, but I still can't follow your logic. Your first post said, and I am paraphrasing / inferring than ali, steel and ti are all the same strength for a given weight. Surely that can't be right can it? (your phrase was along the lines twice as strong but double the weight ). Strong enough - well yes, but lighter for a given strength is a valid goal surely? Not a key issue with the pen thing


I just don't see that in my first post. Care to quote directly?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

YellowTim said:


> Can you name any manufacturers that are currently mass producing lugged steel frames?


No, can you? Noddy Badge for you then.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I just don't see that in my first post. Care to quote directly?



here you go:
"It is half as strong as steel but half as heavy. It is twice as strong as aluminium, but twice as heavy"

maybe you meant something else -


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> here you go:
> "It is half as strong as steel but half as heavy. It is twice as strong as aluminium, but twice as heavy"
> 
> maybe you meant something else -


No, that does not mean that they are all the same strength for a given weight. I simply placed Titanium on a scale of strength against steel and aluminium - in the middle somewhere, and then on another scale, density, against the same materials, where it also ended up in the middle. It means that it fall in-between the other materials and has no super strength properties like always inferred.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> No, that does not mean that they are all the same strength for a given weight. I simply placed Titanium on a scale of strength against steel and aluminium - in the middle somewhere, and then on another scale, density, against the same materials, where it also ended up in the middle. It means that it fall in-between the other materials and has no super strength properties like always inferred.



you've really lost me now - all yours mate


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> you've really lost me now - all yours mate



Ok, I'll try again. Here goes.

Weak (Alu), Strong (Ti), Very Strong (Steel).
Light (Alu), Mediium light (Ti), Heavy (Steel).


----------



## jowwy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I hate using this one because it smacks of call to authority, but if ti was so great why aren't the pro's using it? I'll redeem myself for asking it because I think I have answered that question adequately.
> 
> Prof, have you done the design-a-pen mind experiment yet? What is your chosen material?



In 1999 lance armstrong used a titanium time trial bike in the tour de france, it was a litespeed blade, badged up as a trek


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> In 1999 lance armstrong used a titanium time trial bike in the tour de france, it was a litespeed blade, badged up as a trek


Present tense Jowwers, present tense.


----------



## Profpointy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Ok, I'll try again. Here goes.
> 
> Weak (Alu), Strong (Ti), Very Strong (Steel).
> Light (Alu), Mediium light (Ti), Heavy (Steel).



So your original half-as-strong, twice as light thing - wasn't intended to be proper numbers, just stronger / heavier (not quibbling, just trying to be clear)

so, which is strongest for a given weight - surely that's the key thing isn't it

(with strength meaning that combination of strength-related good characteristics for a given purposes)


----------



## Smurfy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> *I am not sure what your point is* but I would not quote a magazine that writes this type of tripe.:
> 
> "The Excel quickly picks up speed and takes little encouragement to accelerate to cruising pace, from where it rolls along with ease, responding readily to extra pressure on the pedals."
> 
> ...


My point is that you were incorrect when you said most Ti bikes are made from 6Al-4V. You may not agree with everything that the article I linked to said, but if you were to compile a list of Ti frames, I'm pretty sure you'd find that very few are made from 6Al-4V.



Yellow Saddle said:


> No, can you? Noddy Badge for you then.


No, but I wasn't the one who tried to claim that the use of lugs in steel frames had 'sorted out crack propagation issues'.

Most, if not all, mass produced steel frames are now welded, same as Ti frames. So how do these frames function without cracking?


----------



## Pale Rider (18 Jul 2015)

Seems to me the best evidence we have is that, weight for weight, titanium is roughly twice as strong as steel - for a bike frame.

This enables a frame builder to use a bit less of it, although welding and extrusion problems lessen the weight advantage to less than double.

Result is a lighter than steel frame, but one with similar riding properties.

If cost can ever be left aside, titanium looks a good choice to me.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Present tense Jowwers, present tense.


Why present tense, titanium has been used in professional bike racing FACT.......


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> So your original half-as-strong, twice as light thing - wasn't intended to be proper numbers, just stronger / heavier (not quibbling, just trying to be clear)
> 
> so, which is strongest for a given weight - surely that's the key thing isn't it
> 
> (with strength meaning that combination of strength-related good characteristics for a given purposes)


Strength is such a difficult word that I just don't even want to attempt the answer unless you give me a very specific example and a bicycle frame is not a specific example.

Material strength is measured in different ways. Basically, we measure pull strength (tensile), push strength (compression) and shear (hold your two fists together clutching a banana. Now move your right fist forward whilst holding the left fist in its original position. This is shear). A high one in one area doesn't mean a high one elsewhere. Then, we get structural strength that has little to do with the material and more with the shape of the material. A long piece of copper sheet cannot be picked up like a fishing rod. It will flop. A copper pipe make from the exact same piece of sheet, will even work as a fishing rod. Here we say the one structure is stronger than the other.
The same for twisting forces. a pipe transmits twisting forces better than a flat sheet from the same metal. In fact, bang the pipe flat and it transform into a poor twisting force transmitter.
Then we have fatigue properties. An item may be very strong but it can only bend twice before it breaks. High strength, low durability.
Then we have mixed strength properties. A biscuit is stiff but brittle.
Other items are tough, yet another property.
Some items become tougher, the more you bang on them - copper and titanium are two excellent examples of materials that work-harden.
Some materials crack very easily if there are pre-existent flaws in them. Here ti is suspect because it gets flaws from manufacturing which cannot be seen and only surface with use.
Some materials crack and allow the crack to travel very quickly. Think windscreens on your car or the material that potato crisps are made from. If you manage to open the package without nicking the edge, you can be sure that the packet will survive until the crisps are finished. But nick that same packet and it will be torn right to the bottom before you are finished.
Many of these "strengths" depends on how the item was designed and manufactured. Search here for a recent post on Specialized pedal extenders. There the design is at fault by 100%. The gadget was made from CroMo steel (strong stuff) but a schoolboy design error make it lethal.

So yes, I did not quote proper numbers and even warned that "strength" is an illusive concept.

If you force me into a corner and hit me on the nose until I give you a single answer, then it has to be carbon.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I have seen a test done by Jobst Brandt with various tyres rolling on a steel drum and the test confirmed that for a given tyre casing design, wider has less rolling resistance. The test also showed that inflating a tyre harder does reduce rolling resistance (we knew that) but that it is a case of diminishing returns. At 10 Bar you may as well chew rocks, the tyre is so hard that it is uncomfortable but it doesn't improve RR.
> 
> BTW, it is not so much the deformation from inflation that produces the rolling resistance but the hysteresis in the casing. For the same deformation but different casing design you will get different RR values. I just wanted to define "deformation". It is the deformation in the rubber and flex in casing material that matters. .



Here is a good source on Rolling Friction.

http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/166/155.full.pdf

It includes a good example of leading edge deformation, and other factors. Though with rollers and belts, the same principles apply, especially from page 5 onwards.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

YellowTim said:


> My point is that you were incorrect when you said most Ti bikes are made from 6Al-4V. You may not agree with everything that the article I linked to said, but if you were to compile a list of Ti frames, I'm pretty sure you'd find that very few are made from 6Al-4V.
> 
> 
> No, but I wasn't the one who tried to claim that the use of lugs in steel frames had 'sorted out crack propagation issues'.
> ...


Why should I believe the article? Why do you believe it? Do you see a source quoted anywhere? My argument is based on the fact that most structural titanium is of a specific type. It is the industry's bread-and-butter alloy.

Further, who said that welded steel frames do not suffer from cracks? I certainly didn't, but I do understand the role of lugs and how they are fitted to frame tubes and how working with them avoids exceeding the heat limits of CroMo steel.

But I guess for every answer you'll have another question, like a child of certain age.


----------



## Citius (18 Jul 2015)

Wow - this is like two or three different threads all rolled into one 

Litespeed and Merlin Ti frames have been used for signature mountain stages in the TdF (and probably other tours too) on a few occasions during the 90s - but these have always been painted up in whatever colours the team was sponsored by. As I understand it, Ti was used mainly for its weight advantage over the lugged steel frames of the day - but because in those days Ti frames were bendy as hell, I don't think they were considered as options for anything other than climbing.

Most teams went from steel frames, to MMC frames and then on to carbon. Literally a handful of riders have used Ti over the years.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Here is a good source on Rolling Friction.
> 
> http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/166/155.full.pdf
> 
> It includes a good example of leading edge deformation, and other factors. Though with rollers and belts, the same principles apply, especially from page 5 onwards.


Thanks, I'll have a look. the document doesn't want to open on my computer. I think BT Internet is dedicating neighbouhood bandwidth to iPlayer at present. The is a very good simulation on leading edge formation on Youtube. I saw it just a few weeks ago but can't remember who/what/where.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jul 2015)

Magnus Backstedt won Paris Roubaix in 2004 on a Ti frame and was riding a Ti frame at least as late as 2006.

At his height, Bianchi didn't have a CF frame that he liked and worked form him.

It was cheaper for Bianchi to custom build a Ti bike for him than make a new mold for a one off CF bike.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Ti is more emotive than wheels, it seems.

I recently wrote about my perspective of the mystic allure of Ti here: https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/environmental-impact-of-frame-materials.182803/#post-3770333

I would like some fleshing out on my take of the rise of Ti as a consumer metal of choice. Can you list other events that glorified titanium?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Thanks, I'll have a look. the document doesn't want to open on my computer. I think BT Internet is dedicating neighbouhood bandwidth to iPlayer at present. The is a very good simulation on leading edge formation on Youtube. I saw it just a few weeks ago but can't remember who/what/where.



It was a little slow to open for me.

A heavy, but interesting read. Rolling resistance is quite complicated, and more than likely beyond the scope of a cycling forum for discussion


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Here is a good source on Rolling Friction.
> 
> http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/166/155.full.pdf
> 
> It includes a good example of leading edge deformation, and other factors. Though with rollers and belts, the same principles apply, especially from page 5 onwards.


Thanks, got it. I started reading and the found some old-fashioned words like India Rubber. I scrolled back up and saw 1875. Now I am super-intrigued but will look at it in the morning. Thanks.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Thanks, got it. I started reading and the found some old-fashioned words like India Rubber. I scrolled back up and saw 1875. Now I am super-intrigued but will look at it in the morning. Thanks.



it is an early paper, but is free from the many complexities that cloud more modern academic research on the topic.

Just to note though, I'm not saying it's a perfect example, or totally correct as knowledge has progressed a lot since 1875  But it does have some interesting ideas on the simple principles of it.


----------



## Citius (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I would like some fleshing out on my take of the rise of Ti as a consumer metal of choice. Can you list other events that glorified titanium?



You'll like this one  http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2006/01/article/memorable-motorcyles-bsa-titanium/


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I would like some fleshing out on my take of the rise of Ti as a consumer metal of choice. Can you list other events that glorified titanium?



In my opinion. The best general public use of Titanium, is medical usage. Because of Titanium, my arm is in 1 piece, since I have two 3" plates fitted in my forearm.


----------



## midlife (18 Jul 2015)

Sat here waiting for someone to mention KIc 

Shaun


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

Citius said:


> You'll like this one  http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/2006/01/article/memorable-motorcyles-bsa-titanium/


I think there is a book to be written about the social history of titanium as an engineering metal.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (18 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> In my opinion. The best general public use of Titanium, is medical usage. Because of Titanium, my arm is in 1 piece, since I have two 3" plates fitted in my forearm.


If you can't see it, you can't brag about it. A Ti exoskeletal device with lots of ornamental capscrews on the other hand....


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> If you can't see it, you can't brag about it. A Ti exoskeletal device with lots of ornamental capscrews on the other hand....



I try to wear T-Shirts everywhere, but scars are fading now too  I always hope that when I'm dead, gone, and cremated. My urn will rattle with the titanium. But knowing businesses these days, the implants will get weighed in


----------



## mythste (18 Jul 2015)

A couple of summations so far

- Ti isn't the most logical material for a bike frame
- that doesn't mean it's a "bad" material for a bike frame
- bikes have lots of variables 
- bums have lots of variables
- some people need to lighten the fark up.


----------



## midlife (19 Jul 2015)

We can't use recycled titanium in humans at the moment AFAIK.

Titanium has poor shear strength, K wires are better for a lot if applications.

Shaun


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> But knowing businesses these days, the implants will get weighed in



You are not wrong about that.

There is a company which collects metal replacement joints from crematoria for recycling.

There's not a lot of money in it, but the business model works on the basis the source material is free.


----------



## Smurfy (19 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Why should I believe the article? Why do you believe it? Do you see a source quoted anywhere?


You don't have to believe anything. Just compile a list of Ti frames that are constructed from 6Al-4V tubing, and those that are constructed from 3Al-2.5V tubing, and see which is the longer list. 



Yellow Saddle said:


> My argument is based on the fact that most structural titanium is of a specific type. It is the industry's bread-and-butter alloy.


Indeed, but there are good reasons why 3Al-2.5V is the dominant alloy in bicycle frames, even if small parts such as dropouts may be 6Al-4V.
http://www.sevencycles.com/buildingbike/techsupplement/ti.php
@Pale Rider may find the above link informative ^^^



Yellow Saddle said:


> Further, who said that welded steel frames do not suffer from cracks? I certainly didn't, but I do understand the role of lugs and how they are fitted to frame tubes and how working with them avoids exceeding the heat limits of CroMo steel.


Nice diversion, but my point was that you said in a previous post that fracture toughness had been sorted on steel frames by the use of lugs. Which of course was largely irrelevant, because lugged construction is now pretty much exclusively the preserve of custom builds.

Oh, and by the way, my lugged, steel, Trek 990 frame died of a crack in the top tube where the head tube lug ended. So you see, lugs can act as stress raisers, and crack initiation sites. I took the frame to a Trek dealer, with the magnetic particle inspection powder from work still present along the crack line, and they ordered me a new frame as a warranty claim.



Yellow Saddle said:


> But I guess for every answer you'll have another question


The answer is for you to stop posting incorrect and irrelevant content..........



Yellow Saddle said:


> like a child of certain age.


..........and have a bit of respect for people instead of posting insults.


----------



## Cyclist33 (19 Jul 2015)

Profpointy said:


> I'm sorry YS, but I still can't follow your logic. Your first post said, and I am paraphrasing / inferring than ali, steel and ti are all the same strength for a given weight. Surely that can't be right can it? (your phrase was along the lines twice as strong but double the weight ). Strong enough - well yes, but lighter for a given strength is a valid goal surely? Not a key issue with the pen thing



Presumably a cheaper way to shed more weight would be to lose weight by eating less lard.


----------



## Cyclist33 (19 Jul 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> If you can't see it, you can't brag about it. A Ti exoskeletal device with lots of ornamental capscrews on the other hand....



The metacarpals would have to be carbon though.


----------



## Cyclist33 (19 Jul 2015)

mythste said:


> A couple of summations so far
> 
> - Ti isn't the most logical material for a bike frame
> - that doesn't mean it's a "bad" material for a bike frame
> ...



You forgot 

- Some people need to post simplistic and incorrect summaries of complex discussions in order to win favour with an idiot herd.


----------



## Venod (19 Jul 2015)

YellowTim said:


> http://www.sevencycles.com/buildingbike/techsupplement/ti.php



Thanks for the link, some nice bikes as well as the informative stuff,


----------



## jowwy (19 Jul 2015)

So - titanium frame anyone

Thinks i'll order me another one


----------



## Tim Hall (19 Jul 2015)

One of many bottom lines: Is a Ti bike lighter than a steel one? Looking at the Spa website, they conveniently have a 753 steel Audax bike and a 3al 2.5v Ti Audax bike. Everything else is identical (it's the Shimano 105 double). The Ti bike is 9.7kg for a 54cm and the steel 10.2kg.

What this means, I've no idea. (All my bikes are steel)

I also stumbled across these articles. Interesting, non hyped, reading.


----------



## Arrowfoot (19 Jul 2015)

This is my take. Ti does have a place within the family of bike frames. When I decided to build a "keeper" I chose the most durable material, lighter than aluminium, low maintenance, no fatigue concerns and that one could take it anywhere without worrying about salt spray and such. I was also aware that Carbon despite its immense value to the pro and most folks for its lighteness and maximum power transmission due to its stiffness was never a lifer as it could break at anytime. It did explain why Wiggo threw his bike.

During my research for a proper Ti frame I quickly realised that its inherent weakness were the welds. From price , the focus quickly turned to companies that were noted for their build quality. The literature started to turn to Soviet submarine welders with deep experience to a company that had background in handling Ti and welds parts for NASA rockets. What was interesting was the price differential between established and the newer ones were actually not much.

I also learnt sometime ago reading Sheldon Brown that only 3 factors impacts quality of ride - saddle, tyre and one's body. He actually used the term "B.S." for all else.


----------



## Citius (19 Jul 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> I also learnt sometime ago reading Sheldon Brown that only 3 factors impacts quality of ride - saddle, tyre and one's body. He actually used the term "B.S." for all else.



Favourite quote of the day so far..


----------



## jowwy (19 Jul 2015)

Citius said:


> Favourite quote of the day so far..


He also quotes that titanium has a place in the bike frame family - but i guess you decided to ignire that bit or yellow saddle would unfriend you and cast you into the abyss and back to bike radar where in inherently belong.


----------



## Origamist (19 Jul 2015)

Stainless steel, anyone?


----------



## Citius (19 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> He also quotes that titanium has a place in the bike frame family - but i guess you decided to ignire that bit or yellow saddle would unfriend you and cast you into the abyss and back to bike radar where in inherently belong.



Sorry, I'm afraid that's not correct. I've never said it didn't have a place. As I've previously said on this thread (you obviously glossed over that post), I've owned Ti bikes and they're 'ok', but don't let the facts get in the way of another ad hominem, eh?

Seriously though - I can live with the fact that you don't seem to like me. But your pathetic attempts at bullying are really really embarrassing. Practically every post of yours in reply to one of mine contains a personal attack of some form or other. There is something particularly virulent about you and it is very, very nasty indeed. You _should_ be ashamed of yourself, but I'm guessing you won't be.

What I do find particularly odd is that the moderators seem to be allowing you to carry on like this with impunity.


----------



## Cyclist33 (19 Jul 2015)

Citius said:


> Sorry, I'm afraid that's not correct. I've never said it didn't have a place. As I've previously said on this thread (you obviously glossed over that post), I've owned Ti bikes and they're 'ok', but don't let the facts get in the way of another ad hominem, eh?
> 
> Seriously though - I can live with the fact that you don't seem to like me. But your pathetic attempts at bullying are really really embarrassing. Practically every post of yours in reply to one of mine contains a personal attack of some form or other. There is something particularly virulent about you and it is very, very nasty indeed. You _should_ be ashamed of yourself, but I'm guessing you won't be.
> 
> What I do find particularly odd is that the moderators seem to be allowing you to carry on like this with impunity.



I think you have to actively report a post or poster before the mods will consider taking action.

Since the decision making process lacks transparency, I can't give you any opinion on whether action would be likely to be taken.


----------



## jowwy (19 Jul 2015)

Citius said:


> Sorry, I'm afraid that's not correct. I've never said it didn't have a place. As I've previously said on this thread (you obviously glossed over that post), I've owned Ti bikes and they're 'ok', but don't let the facts get in the way of another ad hominem, eh?
> 
> Seriously though - I can live with the fact that you don't seem to like me. But your pathetic attempts at bullying are really really embarrassing. Practically every post of yours in reply to one of mine contains a personal attack of some form or other. There is something particularly virulent about you and it is very, very nasty indeed. You _should_ be ashamed of yourself, but I'm guessing you won't be.
> 
> What I do find particularly odd is that the moderators seem to be allowing you to carry on like this with impunity.


You came into this thread on page 10 post 138 - the first thing you did was highlight a quote of mine and throw personal insults, nothing you posted was about the OP. 

Numerous people within this thread and within numerous other threads have called you out for being an internet troll, going through various threads and cycling sites and posting venomous threads about posters, but you call me a bully and very nasty, now i am no more a bully than you are, but i will stand back from your comment and take stock of what i post.

But if you honestly think that your an innocent by stander and are whiter than white, i'm afraid your sadly mistaken.


----------



## Citius (19 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> going through various threads and cycling sites and posting venomous threads about posters,



Can you clarify that bit please?

It's worth pointing out that I have not had a single moderator warning since joining here (how many have you had, incidentally?) - and I do post on BR too - using a username (not this one) which has not changed for several years. I don't have any problems with people like you on BR - probably because there is nobody like you on BR. But I'm fascinated - who is it you think I am?


----------



## jowwy (19 Jul 2015)

Citius said:


> Can you clarify that bit please?


No i dont need to as its within other posts within cycle chat and id rather spend my sunday afternoon watching the tour de france while cooking sunday lunch for my family, than trawling through posts just to put your mind at rest.

Now i have asked you in numerous occassions to be please leave me be, stop dragging my name into posts when i have not been in the thread and to stop constantly quoting everythinh i write, when other posters are saying exactly the same thing but you take it in yourself to ignore and only quote me. I will add the moderators to this post and if they are not happy with my reply they can let me know.

Now i ask you kindly again, please leave me be, let me enjoy my time on cycle chat, let me enjoy reading the threads posted and allow me to post without fear of more trolling from your good self @Moderators


----------



## Citius (19 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> No i dont need to as its within other posts within cycle chat and id rather spend my sunday afternoon watching the tour de france while cooking sunday lunch for my family, than trawling through posts just to put your mind at rest.
> 
> Now i have asked you in numerous occassions to be please leave me be, stop dragging my name into posts when i have not been in the thread and to stop constantly quoting everythinh i write, when other posters are saying exactly the same thing but you take it in yourself to ignore and only quote me. I will add the moderators to this post and if they are not happy with my reply they can let me know.
> 
> Now i ask you kindly again, please leave me be, let me enjoy my time on cycle chat, let me enjoy reading the threads posted and allow me to post without fear of more trolling from your good self @Moderators



So it's perfectly ok for you to make unfounded accusations about me - but you don't have to provide any evidence when asked? That's the kind of blundering arrogance I have come to expect from you. You like to dish it out - but when you get asked to clarify it, you go crying to the mods instead. As I've said before - you seem like a deeply-troubled 'individual'.

Anyway, the mods needn't worry.


----------



## jowwy (19 Jul 2015)

Citius said:


> So it's perfectly ok for you to make unfounded accusations about me - but you don't have to provide any evidence when asked? That's the kind of blundering arrogance I have come to expect from you. You like to dish it out - but when you get asked to clarify it, you go crying to the mods instead. As I've said before - you seem like a deeply-troubled 'individual'.
> 
> Anyway, the mods needn't worry.


More personal abuse i see.........


----------



## bpsmith (19 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> More personal abuse i see.........


I have come to the conclusion that the only way to stop their trolling is to just disregard the quoted posts.


----------



## Citius (19 Jul 2015)

jowwy said:


> More personal abuse i see.........



It's an accurate observation of your character traits. You could always prove me wrong.


----------



## jowwy (19 Jul 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I have come to the conclusion that the only way to stop their trolling is to just disregard the quoted posts.


Think its time to start an ignore list and enjoy posts again without the viteral added by some


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (19 Jul 2015)

@jowwy 

If the posts get to you that much, could you not just set @Citius to ignore and be done with it?

Or have I missed that you may enjoy pushing him to argue?


----------



## jowwy (19 Jul 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> @jowwy
> 
> If the posts get to you that much, could you not just set @Citius to ignore and be done with it?
> 
> Or have I missed that you may enjoy pushing him to argue?


If you read the thread mr phildawson8270 you will find that the pushing was started by the other party on page 10 post 138, until then the said party wasnt even in the thread and when he did join, he did so just to quote my post and make no attempt to answer the OP.........i have now set the other party to ignore and will start enjoying my time on cycle chat again.

But i can guarantee you, that when i do post within seconds the other party will quote me again and again to fulfil his own self worth......hope your having a good day in this sunny sunday weather


----------



## Shaun (19 Jul 2015)

@Citius and @jowwy - give it a rest. If you can't I'll exclude you both from the thread.


----------



## mythste (19 Jul 2015)

Jesus. Sunny Sunday afternoon folks! Go out and ride your bikes!

As long as they're not Ti.


----------



## midlife (19 Jul 2015)

Very slightly off topic, way back when someone in the states built several identical frames out of different steels (,Columbus, 531 etc) and had people ride them.

The upshot was that nobody could tell them apart.....

Shaun


----------



## Citius (19 Jul 2015)

User said:


> It may be a placebo effect but it is still capable of feeling good.



If nobody can tell the difference - that's not a placebo effect.


----------



## Citius (19 Jul 2015)

User said:


> If buying what you want feels good, it is.



Certainly can't dispute a feeling....


----------



## Citius (19 Jul 2015)

User said:


> Exactly, and what we want is an abundance of people riding their bikes and loving it.



What, even if their bikes aren't titanium?


----------

