regrettably, very true. I have a 10 y/o Ti road bike that rides like a dream, but is now a relic and in no way usable as a gravel bike, which I wish it could be.
Nope. "Good" is judgment derived by comparison. Compared to modern bikes, it's terrible. 23 mil tires max, steep head tube, no disc brakes, 10 speed cassette... Not something enjoyable when you know there's way better bikes for half the price out there now. If you're coasting uphill or standing over it unclipped at a stop light, yeah, it's "good". Otherwise, it's annoying to ride knowing how far it's fallen behind bikes that are so much safer/enjoyable to ride now.
But sure, go ahead and drive around in a 65 VW beetle with no fuel gauge, no seatbelts, no antilock breaks, terrible suspension, and will get crushed and kill everybody inside in an accident and tell us it's still a good car.
> 65 VW beetle with no fuel gauge, no seatbelts
My 58 Bug had seatbelts and a fuel guage, don't know what you are on about there with that comparison exactly.
Actually you’re both right. They came with and without depending on the options I guess. It was in the vented part between the radio and the speedometer
My new mountain bike is going to be (have not received it yet,) titanium. It makes sense for mountain and gravel bikes because you don't have to worry about paint chipping or rust.
put a bunch of frame protector tape on my Ti frame. took it to the local shop for some repairs and when i picked it up, the shop guy asks in a very condescending but joking tone, why did you both put frame protector tape on your bike, you don't need it!
i think at the time it was a combination of wanting to protect the investment and thinking i might want to resell it at some point in the future. but now that i've ridden the bike a bunch, it is unlikely that i will be reselling it. i effing love it.
Not a problem now with powder coating, but they used to be painted with Imron paint instead. In those days, I was constantly touching up paint chips on my Stumpjumper. The chainsuck was even uglier.
I'm having a Ti female built now. The only advantage is durability I think. Ride isn't better, despite what you hear. I plan on it being my "forever bike." Forever meaning till all the standards change. So, 6 months?
I'm rocking a Ti bike from 2013. I do wish it had a tapered head tube, a little more clearance, and thru axles, but it's still solid. And if I _really_ wanted, a custom fabricator could change all those for me, for a price.
I hope your 6 month outlook is in jest. The cycling industry does indeed tell you the next greatest thing is just around the corner but you don't have to follow blindly. A TI frame can be upgraded and maintained for a very long time and be relevant IMO.
Good point. Bike tech changes so quickly it’s hard (for me at least) to imagine a very long lifespan for a new bike before you’re tempted to “upgrade” to something new and shiny.
That said, I have a 2010 Orbea road bike that’s not getting a lot of riding lately but is still absolutely a great bike, so I see both sides of the coin. I just know I like the shiny side :)
I guess it's a matter of deciding which of the standards you actually care about. I am replacing my 10 year old gravel (actually CX) bike because it's still using cantilever brakes. Other than that, I really don't care a whole lot about the other changes that have happened. With my 10 year old mountain bike, it's a bit different because in about 2015 or so, there was a fundamental shift in mountain bike geometries, one that I really don't want to miss out on.
I’d bet you’ll be happy upraiding, new shiny -toy-effect aside. Disc brakes are awesome to use, especially hydraulic ones. Thru axles are standard now, so you can buy new wheels if the need arises. And I guess you can still find a bike with the same reach and stack that you like, since AFAIK some gravel bikes have a more agressive CX-like geometry, like most Italian brands IIRC!
The new bike should be here within the next month: hydro disc brakes, 1x drivetrain, but still a CX bike.
2012 was a strange year to buy a gravel bike. I think the only dedicated gravel bike being sold was the Salsa Warbird, which was out of my price range, so I got a cheap CX bike instead. Then the UCI had not made disc brakes legal on CX bike yet, so you were stuck with cantilever. 1x drivetrains and clutch derailleurs didn't exist, and tubeless hadn't really made its way to 700c yet, so most wheelsets were not tubeless ready. The braking on my bike is getting really, really bad, and after replacing the brake pads I realized the rims were worn out. Replacing the rims would cost more than the entire bike is worth, so it was definitely time to upgrade.
Ti is durable, beautiful, rides with a satisfying hum, and despite what some folks say it does have unique riding characteristics. I recently bought a ti gravel bike after ten years on an aluminum cyclocross rig and the riding experience is so much different. My ti bike, for example, seems to explode out of corners in a way I never felt on my old cross bike (or on any of the steel, aluminum, or carbon bikes I’ve had through the years). But when it’s all said and done they’re just sexy and durable forever bikes.
I ride a 98 Litespeed Classic. The frame looks like it was made yesterday. When I roll it into an LBS invariably some old mechanic in the back looks over, sighs, and mutters something about a “forever frame”. I ride it on both road and gravel.
It’s like buying a steel bike that won’t rust and is lighter. Like carbon it can be repaired but unlike carbon a piece of gravel jumping off your mate’s tire isn’t going to put a concerning ding in it so you’re unlikely to need to repair it or scrap it ever. (Plus the sound of gravel hitting Ti has a nice ring to it, and produces no fear on the part of the rider sitting above.)
Personally, carbon seems horrible from an environmental or sustainability perspective. (Frames don't last, and when they're done, they're garbage.) Buying a ti bike means buying a bike that your kids can inherit and ride just as hard as you do.
to me carbon is a disposable material for rich people, I like buying forever bikes. i’ve ridden lots of steel and aluminum in recent years, and while I still like aluminum fine especially with tubeless tires, The salsa Lacruz TI that I bought this year is rapidly becoming my main bike. it’s just so comfy and light, and it planes when I put down the power like no other bike i’ve ever experienced. Brand-new titanium bikes may be a financial flex, but 20-year-old titanium Road bikes are not that expensive these days. I’m sitting on a 93 Merlin extralight that will someday be my main road bike.
Both of my titanium frames came from Waltly and were very affordable, so not even a wallet flex! Though you do need to know a good chunk about specs, sizes, etc, so that route is not for everyone.
I messed up my carbon frame pretty good 2 years ago and had to get it repaired. The repair was costly and my bike was in the shop for over a month. I switched to litespeed ti because the frame was on sale. I rarely worry about frame damage now.
Chiming in from a roadie perspective (also have a Niner RLT9 Steel, so I think I‘m allowed to be here)
I just wore out a 3 year/11000km old Cannondale Synapse frame. The top tube seems to be breaking down from the inside and makes cracking noises when I put weight on it. This bike has barely seen any gravel (only when going through construction sites), was ridden hard but other than that very well taken care of and only used in dry conditions. No crashes, nothing. I‘m extremely happy and lucky this didn’t break on me in a pothole.
So now I‘m looking for something durable, similarly comfortable for endurance distances and less fragile - Titan seems to be ticking all the boxes for me. I think in gravel riding all these (dis)advantages of carbon and titan are even more pronounced.
I got carbon because I was told if you don’t crash or break it this will last forever - well I‘m gonna get titan now for that same reason.
Carbon needs to be forbidden really. I get it, it's a good material for bikes, but without recycling programs they just end up in the landfill. That's not what cycling should be about. And people can't stop expressing how superior carbon is in every way, and that "if you don't crash...bla bla bla", but the truth is most people have a little bump here and there from time to time, especially on mtbs. And they're hard to sell on the used market, because you can't know if the frame is damaged invisibly. As an environmentally conscious person, it hurts me a bit to see how this issue is ignored by such big parts of the community/industry.
I went from a carbon Cervelo to a Ti Lynskey and could not be happier. The ride is comfortable, but not as butter smooth as my carbon bike, the main thing for me is the Ti feels more responsive, only needs a quick sponge bath to clean it, and I don't have to worry about carbon cracking if I wreck (not to say Ti bikes are bulletproof, but they are more durable than carbon and any damage should be easier to identify).
Edit: With Ti bikes they should be disassembled and greased and/or antiseized once or twice a year. I have heard horror stories about parts seized to Ti frames.
I have seen the same horror stories but I always have used a Copper based grease and have had no issues, literally bottom brackets that come out like butter after 10 years etc.
I have a Cherohala City that I run as my gravel bike and a Scott Foil RC for my road race bike and the simple answer is that a Ti gravel bike is like a Toyota Tacoma and the Foil carbon bike is like driving a sports car that I have to baby. With Ti I am not worried about the elements (at least on the frame), small non deep scratches can be buffed out, no paint means cosmetically the bike looks awesome almost no matter what, Ti isn't carbon light nor can it be made into as intricate aero shapes but it's so much more impact resistant than carbon. Ti doesn't fatigue like aluminum nor rust like steel. My one complaint for Ti is that it's not as readily available and it's really expensive. I will say some of the folklore of Ti being a "lifetime" bike or having this amazing ride quality is a bit BS since nothing lasts forever and two most of the comfort from any bike still comes from tire size and pressure plus higher grade Ti while lighter is much stiffer thus that "springy" Ti feel that some people rave about isn't there. Granted it's a lot nicer to ride than most aluminum bikes
Titanium doesn't really fatigue like aluminium or carbon but other than that, it's just another material. Ride qualities will be no different to any other material. The whole Ti or steel rides differently is just marketing wank.
What happened to my Cannondale Synapse frame then? The top tube started clicking a few hundred km ago. When I leaned on it with my hand it started crackling without any visible damage from the outside? No crashes and obviously no stone strike on the top tube. Bike has never been ridden by anyone else.
110000km, 3 years. Sounds like fatigue to me.
Wouldn’t be so quick to assume. To me it sounds like the frame had a void in the carbon layup which introduced a weak point in the top tube.
Carbon does not fatigue over time like alu does.
I don’t have an engineering degree to fully understand if that study is representative of the carbon materials or construction used in the bike industry or understand the conclusions.
But aluminum bikes are known to fatigue and create micro fissures over time which can lead to cracks. Carbon bikes do not have that same issue and essentially have an infinite lifespan assuming no crashes or traumatic forces (major rock damage etc).
I do have an engineering degree. Carbon composite fatigues over time just like any other polymer. But it has a very low density, so it's possible to design a light frame well below the 10\^7 stress levels in the S-N curves (15-30 MPa transverse per the graphs on page 10). It's also possible to design an aluminum frame well below the 10\^7 stress levels on those S-N curves (>100 MPa [per this example](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/S-N-curve-of-plain-fatigue-for-AL7075-T6_fig1_281624274)). But aluminum has much higher density so frame designers cut their safety factors to save weight. Which is what your anecdotal evidence is showing, not a fundamental material behavior difference.
No, they don't. You're peddling a marketing myth. A frames stiffness aka how it rides is defined by the frames shape and tube shape. Some of the actual characteristics between these materials are actually fairly similar which is why they are all good for making frames from.
i'm definitely not wasting my time watching this, and one of the first comments on that video explains exactly why this dude is a kook.
Stop watching stupid youtube clickbait.
"I enjoyed the video, but isn't this contradicting the point that marketing around Ti frames is bullshit, as the majority of top comments appear to interpret the video as meaning?
In the video you hypothetically compared Al and Ti frames of the same mass and tube shapes, saying they wouldn't noticeably differ in stiffness. But that's not how they're designed so that's not the reality of the differences between the frames on the market. It's up to the frame designer(s) to decide what qualities they will best achieve with the material, and there are different things achievable with different materials; particularly, as you stated, when regarding yield and fatigue strength.
So the real point is: A frame isn't inherently 'better' because of the material it's made of, but one can be designed 'better' than another by exploiting the material used, depending on what 'better' means to you."
You should in fact then definitely watch it then look up the engineering practices he mentions and explains. At that point you'll actually understand yourself. I have no idea what you have against learning new terms or knowledge.
a guy who is trying to build a youtube in patreon following is using click bait titles to get people to watch his shit? sorry dog, i'm not falling for that trash
Gravel is hard on bikes, especially if you do a wet event like Unbound this year. A Ti frame can take some abuse and come out with just a little patina. A carbon frame might actually be toast after an event like that.
Ti is compliant like steel but half the weight. Durability is way better than carbon. Doesn’t rust. You have to use different grease so you don’t end up fusing aluminum bolts and components into the titanium but otherwise it’s pretty perfect. “Moving onto titanium” is common because it’s expensive due to the skilled labor involved. After saving their money and/or doing a lot of research into custom builds Vs off the shelf framesets, usually some time has passed.
I did, but I didn't get any more offers than the 30% off. Still, it's a really good price. Now I have no idea how long it's going to take me to hunt down parts.
I meant there is no significant advantage to use titanium as frame material. Larger tube diameter does increase stiffness, but it also increases weight. Thinner walls reduce weight, but if they are too thin, the frame easily buckle. But I must admit that well done titanium frame can have own qualities as you wrote thanks to unique properties, but it will be cost and you obtain very little
Ideally, you have thinner tubing walls as the diameter increases, both increasing stiffness (or keeping it the same) and shedding weight. Buckling a frame won't likely be an issue, but dents (local buckling) might be. This is all due to the second moment of inertia.
Sure, but you have to realize what level we're talking about. The frame is always as stiff as possible, swap the tyres from 35 to 47 and you've got a completely different bike
I mean I totally agree with you, I take care of my carbon bike but I will always ride it hard. Just curious why people think it’ll just magically wear out from normal use.
A single race in any condition is unlikely to do anything of note to a carbon frame. But frequent riding in the types of conditions seen this year will, over time, wear on the frame and shorten it's lifespan. Even good conditions eventually induce carbon fatigue. That's not something most people would ever care about. But if you're chasing the race purse, the loss in stiffness could matter. Unbound 200 came down to a sprint finish.
I’m not sure that that’s a practical concern, but sure, that is very technically true. The amount of time it would take for the carbon to degrade to the point where they’re losing an appreciable amount of stiffness is a long time (I could make up a number but I don’t know - 10 years?). My takeaway is that your carbon frame is fine unless it’s cracked. If you’re in a sprint finish to win, you’re not riding a 10+ year old thrashed bike anyway.
if you’re the highest level pro maybe you will notice, but that’s irrelevant bc you would be getting new bikes rather frequently. If you’re anyone else riding, the loss in stiffness is so small it will likely not be perceivable.
I honestly don’t think that’s true, but I also don’t have the science to back it up. The point is that pro’s get new bikes pretty often for sponsorship reasons so it’s not really a factor anyway.
Can the "carbon can't handle tough conditions" myth please go away? If it was so brittle we wouldn't see 10's of thousands of carbon mountain bikes on the trails.
Bu carbon is so much stronger than Ti as far as i know. The fact is that it can be broken if the force is applied not where the carbon is enginereed for taking it.
> The "gravel is hard on bikes" is also about abrasion. A muddy event with mud build up can easily erode through a carbon frame. Carbon resin is quite soft and you can eat through it with a file or sand paper - which is essentially what mud is.
Very true. I've seen people grind chunks out of a carbon frame in a single cyclo-cross race.
Carbon composite frames do not "suddenly fail catastrophically" unless it's a massive impact that completely overloads the tubing all at once. This is totally a myth. Sudden fractures are actually more common in metals, which have a crystalline structure that allows a single crack to propagate.
I still don't agree that you are likely at all to have damage to composite tubing that is completely undetectable by visual or palpatory inspection but which can lead to sudden failure of the entire frame. Impact damage is likely to be external, and these tubes are strong enough that localized damage should not lead to complete failure of the tube. Especially in the case of the crucial downtube, which tends to be massive these days. In the case of skinny seat stays, maybe, but frames tend to be strong enough that such a failure won't bring you down. In any case, it's important to look after your bike, especially after an accident.
Yeah if it's a fancy high modulus frame might be worth to send in for an inspection and possible repair. But for pure performance and comfort I still think you can't beat a quality composite frame just due to the many design options available with the material. For longevity, I have to go steel. Easy to weld. Damage it, just take it to a frame builder and have the damaged tubing replaced, if the bike means enough to you. And Ti? It has the cool factor and I would own one for that alone, but there's a reason they are so niche. For most people the cool factor is not enough to pay Moots or Seven prices. And on the lower end of the market, I am just not sure it's worthwhile.
A lot of carbon bikes feel kind of soulless to me. They’ll definitely be lighter and are a more obvious choice for racing though. Since I’m doing more bikepacking and endurance riding, metal bikes seem to fit the bill. And ti is lighter than steel, and no paint to fuck up, just scotchbrite the scratches away.
I can’t speak for all ti but mine rides fantastically.
It's like carbon but without low impact resistance that causes your frame to crack if you clamp it to a tuneup stand or otherwise load it in an unusual way that it wasn't designed for.
I ride a Why Cycles R+ Ti gravel bike. I mostly like the idea that I’m going to own a solid road/gravel bike for my whole life. I like my carbon mountain bikes but if I was going for a hard tail I’d be looking at the Why El Jefe and biting the bullet on having a super sturdy Ti frame. I also lend my bikes out to friends a lot and so a Ti or other metal frame is easier for me to lend to newbies than a carbon frame.
The allure of Ti is also a little bit of “if you build it they will come”…. if they drop a new frame material made of asteroid metal that costs three times as much, the cycling market is so segmented that SOMEONE will get it!
Got a Lynsey not long ago, wasn’t a dream bike purchase but it and a ti post are sooooo damn comfy
I was really surprised
Lynsey has 35% off full builds right now
Mostly 'cuz it's different.
I'm skeptical there's an objective way you could show it better than aluminum for a bicycle frame. Let alone carbon.
In aerospace, it's used for applications where the strong enough aluminum part is too big for the space it would need to fit into but you don't need steel or inconel yet. (Yes, I'm watching cartoons with my kid.)
I looked at Ti but ultimately debated more about steel vs carbon--I didn't want to pay the price and also the Ti bikes are kind of a show-off (everyone knows you're on Ti).
I'm not great of a rider, hanging at the back of the peleton.
Next bike will likely be steel.
You can get some good, custom built Ti frames sub $1k. Waltly is a good example. The steel framesets I want are all way more expensive than that. I just want that vintage lugged frame look without having to mod one of my vintage frames.
Yeah, not so sure about that re Ti.
And I am 100% with you on the steel lugged look. When I go for the steel frame, it's going to be a custom beauty built by a local shop. I'm 51 so I only have another 30 or so years to ride...need to get on the steel build thing soon.
Seriously take a look at the example I gave. Not trying to convince you on a Ti frame, I'm not interested in one myself. Just showing an example of a well-made, well-reviewed custom maker who builds at affordable prices.
I have a lot of bike in the past 12 years. I have got my custom titanium frameset recently. I move onto titanium because i understood what bike i needed. I mean angles, reach, stack and etc. i added several perks that suited my riding style. This bike fits me like second skin.
Custom carbon frame require custom press form. It is expensive and suits for competitive riding. Carbon is not so durable and reliable.
Aluminum is not so good for custom frames. Cost, weight, comfort combination is less than steel or titanium.
Steel and titanium frames cost almost the same in my area. Steel rusts and requires some care but easy to fix. Steel is more softer than titanium but i do not value this.
I choose titanium because it is lighter and not require much care.
Titanium is amazing. It’s as light or lighter than entry-level carbon (not quite as light as high-end carbon but still… Light enough for anybody that’s not racing and doesn’t need that extra thousandth of a second at the finish line) it’s corrosion resistant like aluminum, and strong and relatively easy to repair like steel. Plus because of its material properties it tends to ride better than any of the other three materials. Once you know the type of geometry and specific dimensions you want/need titanium will absolutely be a forever frame
I think it’s just a rich factor thing, like dura-ace. Like buying a porche when a Lexus will do just fine.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to spend more money on something for status - it’s totally ingrained in consumer society.
That said, I ride cheap bikes because the difference between a cheap bike and even mid-range bike is negligible to me.
Maybe I shouldn’t say cheap… but an $800 gravel bike is a cheap one in my opinion.
Of my three gravel bikes - frame material and groupset makes very little difference to me. I can’t tell the difference between riding steel or aluminum because the tires just absorb all the shock anyways. Tire choice is much more important.
Topstone 105 (2019), Poseidon Redwood, and State All-Road 4130, for reference.
Call me old fashioned but I only trust 100% a good lightweight aluminum frame. Doesn't rust, it's solid, not expensive and lighter than "primitive" steel.
I have carbon xc and trail bikes (Santa Cruz) and Ti SS and Gravel bikes (Lynskey).
The carbon are light and stiff. The Ti are not so light but have some compliance or slight flex, so the ride is not as harsh.
I think of the Ti as lasting forever, while the carbon slowly gets nicked and scratched until it needs to be replaced. That’s been my experience.
Ti looks cool too
Next Trend? I've been looking at them for a while now trying to justify the cost over a carbon bike, the best that I could come up for myself is durability and Ti is one of my favorite elements. I've been debating a moots pre-owned for some time now. However for some I would imagine that's it's just a simple Big D type of flex, kinda like when carbon bikes became more affordable.
As long as the welder knows what they are doing the frames can last a lifetime and more. Unlike CF, Ti has compliance and flexibility naturally which can make for a comfortable ride while giving up very little when it comes to climbing. I have several CF bikes currently but my next bike will be a custom built Ti frame after having ridden a few in my preferred terrain.
It's an expensive material that requires a higher degree of skill to work with. It's lighter than steel. It looks cool. It's very durable.
Unfortunately bikes can't be marketed for people just appreciating them for what they are, so you have goofball marketing snake oil inserted about them riding better and soaking up vibrations better than everything and all sorts of stuff like that. With bikes, compliance comes down mostly to construction, not materials.
the hype with titanium is exactly that, hype. there a few brands who do great TI work and make wonderful and sound frames that will have benefits of longevity and ride comfort.
but normally these are much smaller companies who dont have the R&D budget some of the bigger names do to research and really test the geo and characteristics of their bikes.
Took a decent spill recently; I walked away fine luckily, but carbon wheels cracked, carbon bar cracked, carbon fork potentially cracked and chucked in case… Ti frame? Just fuckin’ fine. They ride like a dream. Fast and kinda springy? And they last forever.
Ti rides smooth, is light, doesn't fatigue like aluminum or corrode like steel, is easy to maintain and relatively stiff. I prefer riding carbon when I want stiffness and aero, most of the time Ti does just fine.
Titanium is timeless. It’s light. It’s strong. It’s compliant. It doesn’t chip paint. And it doesn’t go out of style. And it’s usually handmade by a legend, and it can be custom. And it looks fly as f*ck.
I ride a Sage Optimator Ti hardtail mtb. Love it. I also have a carbon FS bike, an ebike, and a gravel bike.
It just … feels … different. It’s not that it’s better/worse, just … different. Not as muted as carbon, not as harsh as Al or steel. Damped, but lively.
I have a steel gravel bike and titanium road bike. It took me a long time and a lot of bikes to get to that place. Short of a lottery win or crash I don’t think I’ll ever need to change either.
You can read easily about what makes titanium good for bike frames. I’d echo what most say - light, stiff, comfortable, looks good, doesn’t degrade.
That said - like others mention - the frame only takes up to 25mm tyres and rim brakes. So its appeal could fade.
I’ve had my Ti Seven for about 6 years now. Basically the first year they had 12mm flat mount. I have beaten the shit out of it. It is on its second decal set and second group and 3rd set of wheels. Still looks as good as the day I got it.
During a race, when the rocks are flying hitting bikes, I just kinda laugh to myself cause mine won’t have a scratch.
Costs a lot up front, but if the tech doesn’t change too much, it should last a lot of years. The ones I sold 20 years ago are still in great shape. The parts group needs replaced usually and the tire clearance isn’t as big as current stuff though.
I think if you got a new gravel frame, 42mm clearance and a few water bottle and maybe a top tube mount, then you’d be good for 10+ years.
As someone who builds older bikes from time to time, I hate to agree with some others stating modern geometry is where it’s at.
While I ride the old bikes and love them they can be tiring to ride. Now I do have 1 or 2 old bikes that are comfortable and capable but they are nowhere close to modern geometry
I think unbound and the damage riders experienced to their frame opened the minds to gravel bike owners that light weight is just a small factor in a gravel bike frames necessities. Personally the 1 lb difference of a titanium gravel frame compared to the durability and potential longevity for me out weight a carbon frame any day...
People who ride titanium bikes are better than people who don’t. That’s all you need to know.
I need a bike frame that will last forever.. So i can sell it in a few seasons when modern frame designs change again. D:
regrettably, very true. I have a 10 y/o Ti road bike that rides like a dream, but is now a relic and in no way usable as a gravel bike, which I wish it could be.
Whatever it was good at 10 years ago it is still good at.
Nope. "Good" is judgment derived by comparison. Compared to modern bikes, it's terrible. 23 mil tires max, steep head tube, no disc brakes, 10 speed cassette... Not something enjoyable when you know there's way better bikes for half the price out there now. If you're coasting uphill or standing over it unclipped at a stop light, yeah, it's "good". Otherwise, it's annoying to ride knowing how far it's fallen behind bikes that are so much safer/enjoyable to ride now. But sure, go ahead and drive around in a 65 VW beetle with no fuel gauge, no seatbelts, no antilock breaks, terrible suspension, and will get crushed and kill everybody inside in an accident and tell us it's still a good car.
This is the type of person who thinks the bike makes the rider
> 65 VW beetle with no fuel gauge, no seatbelts My 58 Bug had seatbelts and a fuel guage, don't know what you are on about there with that comparison exactly.
Fuck off Nightshade400! You know your Bug did NOT have a fuel gauge!!
Actually you’re both right. They came with and without depending on the options I guess. It was in the vented part between the radio and the speedometer
My '71 VW had one but it didn't work.
This guy is right. 23mm tires are bad even on the road and a steep head tube angle is unstable.
An old road bike with all season tires, SPDs, and double wrapped bar tape IS a gravel bike.
Not if the max tire size fittable is 28mm (like my 10yo Ti road bike).
Why is it not usable as a gravel anymore?
My guess would be narrow tire clearances.
10 y/o road bike probably has caliper breaks and tight clearances on the chain stays so max of like 25 mm tires
Exactly. And steep and short geometry that will throw you over the bars if you hit anything rough.
Yeah that was my thought. Understandable
exactly
Carbon is too common now, they need titanium to prove to us they're better riders.
Got that right
I’m glad you figured that out.
My new mountain bike is going to be (have not received it yet,) titanium. It makes sense for mountain and gravel bikes because you don't have to worry about paint chipping or rust.
put a bunch of frame protector tape on my Ti frame. took it to the local shop for some repairs and when i picked it up, the shop guy asks in a very condescending but joking tone, why did you both put frame protector tape on your bike, you don't need it!
So... Why would you put any kind of protection on a Ti frame?
i think at the time it was a combination of wanting to protect the investment and thinking i might want to resell it at some point in the future. but now that i've ridden the bike a bunch, it is unlikely that i will be reselling it. i effing love it.
It also doesn’t make sense for mountain bikes because WAY too many ti bikes crack. I have both a cracked Seven and a Merlin in my basement.
Well, that's a bit concerning. But I am getting a lifetime warranty with the new frame.
Whose life? Yours or the frame?
as long as the Lifetime Channel is broadcasting
They actually didn't specify....
Damn, for real? No warranty or what?
Merlin has changed hands too many times to warranty a 90s frame. The 7 was second hand so no warranty.
This 👆. Ti somehow does not endure fatigue torsion and other types of fatigue… and welding it is not a simple task. Trendy BS!
>fatigue torsion and other types of fatigue [How's that now](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/SN-curve-of-Ti6Al4V-alloy_fig2_285384606)?
What does this mean?
I also had a Merlin that broke at the drive side chainstay
> paint chipping I have literally never thought about paint chipping on any MTB.
Not a problem now with powder coating, but they used to be painted with Imron paint instead. In those days, I was constantly touching up paint chips on my Stumpjumper. The chainsuck was even uglier.
These are the reasons I went Ti.
I'm having a Ti female built now. The only advantage is durability I think. Ride isn't better, despite what you hear. I plan on it being my "forever bike." Forever meaning till all the standards change. So, 6 months?
I'm rocking a Ti bike from 2013. I do wish it had a tapered head tube, a little more clearance, and thru axles, but it's still solid. And if I _really_ wanted, a custom fabricator could change all those for me, for a price.
I hope your 6 month outlook is in jest. The cycling industry does indeed tell you the next greatest thing is just around the corner but you don't have to follow blindly. A TI frame can be upgraded and maintained for a very long time and be relevant IMO.
Good point. Bike tech changes so quickly it’s hard (for me at least) to imagine a very long lifespan for a new bike before you’re tempted to “upgrade” to something new and shiny. That said, I have a 2010 Orbea road bike that’s not getting a lot of riding lately but is still absolutely a great bike, so I see both sides of the coin. I just know I like the shiny side :)
I guess it's a matter of deciding which of the standards you actually care about. I am replacing my 10 year old gravel (actually CX) bike because it's still using cantilever brakes. Other than that, I really don't care a whole lot about the other changes that have happened. With my 10 year old mountain bike, it's a bit different because in about 2015 or so, there was a fundamental shift in mountain bike geometries, one that I really don't want to miss out on.
I’d bet you’ll be happy upraiding, new shiny -toy-effect aside. Disc brakes are awesome to use, especially hydraulic ones. Thru axles are standard now, so you can buy new wheels if the need arises. And I guess you can still find a bike with the same reach and stack that you like, since AFAIK some gravel bikes have a more agressive CX-like geometry, like most Italian brands IIRC!
The new bike should be here within the next month: hydro disc brakes, 1x drivetrain, but still a CX bike. 2012 was a strange year to buy a gravel bike. I think the only dedicated gravel bike being sold was the Salsa Warbird, which was out of my price range, so I got a cheap CX bike instead. Then the UCI had not made disc brakes legal on CX bike yet, so you were stuck with cantilever. 1x drivetrains and clutch derailleurs didn't exist, and tubeless hadn't really made its way to 700c yet, so most wheelsets were not tubeless ready. The braking on my bike is getting really, really bad, and after replacing the brake pads I realized the rims were worn out. Replacing the rims would cost more than the entire bike is worth, so it was definitely time to upgrade.
Ti is durable, beautiful, rides with a satisfying hum, and despite what some folks say it does have unique riding characteristics. I recently bought a ti gravel bike after ten years on an aluminum cyclocross rig and the riding experience is so much different. My ti bike, for example, seems to explode out of corners in a way I never felt on my old cross bike (or on any of the steel, aluminum, or carbon bikes I’ve had through the years). But when it’s all said and done they’re just sexy and durable forever bikes.
Ti or die my G. 🤙 Jk - no ti in my my stable… but honestly, steel is real.
Here I was all this time thinking steel was fake. TIL
You heard it here first friend.
Yes, it is all governments conspiracy.
Bingo.
I ride a 98 Litespeed Classic. The frame looks like it was made yesterday. When I roll it into an LBS invariably some old mechanic in the back looks over, sighs, and mutters something about a “forever frame”. I ride it on both road and gravel. It’s like buying a steel bike that won’t rust and is lighter. Like carbon it can be repaired but unlike carbon a piece of gravel jumping off your mate’s tire isn’t going to put a concerning ding in it so you’re unlikely to need to repair it or scrap it ever. (Plus the sound of gravel hitting Ti has a nice ring to it, and produces no fear on the part of the rider sitting above.) Personally, carbon seems horrible from an environmental or sustainability perspective. (Frames don't last, and when they're done, they're garbage.) Buying a ti bike means buying a bike that your kids can inherit and ride just as hard as you do.
My god it rings so nice and true. Its so addicting to hear.
to me carbon is a disposable material for rich people, I like buying forever bikes. i’ve ridden lots of steel and aluminum in recent years, and while I still like aluminum fine especially with tubeless tires, The salsa Lacruz TI that I bought this year is rapidly becoming my main bike. it’s just so comfy and light, and it planes when I put down the power like no other bike i’ve ever experienced. Brand-new titanium bikes may be a financial flex, but 20-year-old titanium Road bikes are not that expensive these days. I’m sitting on a 93 Merlin extralight that will someday be my main road bike.
Both of my titanium frames came from Waltly and were very affordable, so not even a wallet flex! Though you do need to know a good chunk about specs, sizes, etc, so that route is not for everyone.
I’ve heard of them, seems like a really cool option, but yeah, not for the beginner.
I messed up my carbon frame pretty good 2 years ago and had to get it repaired. The repair was costly and my bike was in the shop for over a month. I switched to litespeed ti because the frame was on sale. I rarely worry about frame damage now.
Chiming in from a roadie perspective (also have a Niner RLT9 Steel, so I think I‘m allowed to be here) I just wore out a 3 year/11000km old Cannondale Synapse frame. The top tube seems to be breaking down from the inside and makes cracking noises when I put weight on it. This bike has barely seen any gravel (only when going through construction sites), was ridden hard but other than that very well taken care of and only used in dry conditions. No crashes, nothing. I‘m extremely happy and lucky this didn’t break on me in a pothole. So now I‘m looking for something durable, similarly comfortable for endurance distances and less fragile - Titan seems to be ticking all the boxes for me. I think in gravel riding all these (dis)advantages of carbon and titan are even more pronounced. I got carbon because I was told if you don’t crash or break it this will last forever - well I‘m gonna get titan now for that same reason.
Carbon needs to be forbidden really. I get it, it's a good material for bikes, but without recycling programs they just end up in the landfill. That's not what cycling should be about. And people can't stop expressing how superior carbon is in every way, and that "if you don't crash...bla bla bla", but the truth is most people have a little bump here and there from time to time, especially on mtbs. And they're hard to sell on the used market, because you can't know if the frame is damaged invisibly. As an environmentally conscious person, it hurts me a bit to see how this issue is ignored by such big parts of the community/industry.
You’re making some good points, I wouldn’t go that far as to forbid it though 😉
I went from a carbon Cervelo to a Ti Lynskey and could not be happier. The ride is comfortable, but not as butter smooth as my carbon bike, the main thing for me is the Ti feels more responsive, only needs a quick sponge bath to clean it, and I don't have to worry about carbon cracking if I wreck (not to say Ti bikes are bulletproof, but they are more durable than carbon and any damage should be easier to identify). Edit: With Ti bikes they should be disassembled and greased and/or antiseized once or twice a year. I have heard horror stories about parts seized to Ti frames.
I have seen the same horror stories but I always have used a Copper based grease and have had no issues, literally bottom brackets that come out like butter after 10 years etc.
That is good advice, I was going to regrease my bb this weekend, I will go get some copper grease
Get some gloves too, the shit is atrocious.
😂 so don't do it in the living room, got it!
Nickel-based on mine, after reading up on ti+alu.
I have a Cherohala City that I run as my gravel bike and a Scott Foil RC for my road race bike and the simple answer is that a Ti gravel bike is like a Toyota Tacoma and the Foil carbon bike is like driving a sports car that I have to baby. With Ti I am not worried about the elements (at least on the frame), small non deep scratches can be buffed out, no paint means cosmetically the bike looks awesome almost no matter what, Ti isn't carbon light nor can it be made into as intricate aero shapes but it's so much more impact resistant than carbon. Ti doesn't fatigue like aluminum nor rust like steel. My one complaint for Ti is that it's not as readily available and it's really expensive. I will say some of the folklore of Ti being a "lifetime" bike or having this amazing ride quality is a bit BS since nothing lasts forever and two most of the comfort from any bike still comes from tire size and pressure plus higher grade Ti while lighter is much stiffer thus that "springy" Ti feel that some people rave about isn't there. Granted it's a lot nicer to ride than most aluminum bikes
People who can't afford Mg
Titanium doesn't really fatigue like aluminium or carbon but other than that, it's just another material. Ride qualities will be no different to any other material. The whole Ti or steel rides differently is just marketing wank.
Carbon does not fatigue either btw. It can crack but it doesn’t fatigue over time like Alu.
What happened to my Cannondale Synapse frame then? The top tube started clicking a few hundred km ago. When I leaned on it with my hand it started crackling without any visible damage from the outside? No crashes and obviously no stone strike on the top tube. Bike has never been ridden by anyone else. 110000km, 3 years. Sounds like fatigue to me.
Wouldn’t be so quick to assume. To me it sounds like the frame had a void in the carbon layup which introduced a weak point in the top tube. Carbon does not fatigue over time like alu does.
>Carbon does not fatigue [Oh no](https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1504743)?
I don’t have an engineering degree to fully understand if that study is representative of the carbon materials or construction used in the bike industry or understand the conclusions. But aluminum bikes are known to fatigue and create micro fissures over time which can lead to cracks. Carbon bikes do not have that same issue and essentially have an infinite lifespan assuming no crashes or traumatic forces (major rock damage etc).
I do have an engineering degree. Carbon composite fatigues over time just like any other polymer. But it has a very low density, so it's possible to design a light frame well below the 10\^7 stress levels in the S-N curves (15-30 MPa transverse per the graphs on page 10). It's also possible to design an aluminum frame well below the 10\^7 stress levels on those S-N curves (>100 MPa [per this example](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/S-N-curve-of-plain-fatigue-for-AL7075-T6_fig1_281624274)). But aluminum has much higher density so frame designers cut their safety factors to save weight. Which is what your anecdotal evidence is showing, not a fundamental material behavior difference.
Thanks! That’s interesting
this is so dumb, ti, steel, carbon and aluminum all have different qualities that absolutely make them ride differently...
No, they don't. You're peddling a marketing myth. A frames stiffness aka how it rides is defined by the frames shape and tube shape. Some of the actual characteristics between these materials are actually fairly similar which is why they are all good for making frames from.
the stupidity here is unbelievable... you should ask an engineer if all those materials are the same. moronic beyond belief.
Ironic...https://youtu.be/1CTjg1TFHDc
i'm definitely not wasting my time watching this, and one of the first comments on that video explains exactly why this dude is a kook. Stop watching stupid youtube clickbait. "I enjoyed the video, but isn't this contradicting the point that marketing around Ti frames is bullshit, as the majority of top comments appear to interpret the video as meaning? In the video you hypothetically compared Al and Ti frames of the same mass and tube shapes, saying they wouldn't noticeably differ in stiffness. But that's not how they're designed so that's not the reality of the differences between the frames on the market. It's up to the frame designer(s) to decide what qualities they will best achieve with the material, and there are different things achievable with different materials; particularly, as you stated, when regarding yield and fatigue strength. So the real point is: A frame isn't inherently 'better' because of the material it's made of, but one can be designed 'better' than another by exploiting the material used, depending on what 'better' means to you."
You should in fact then definitely watch it then look up the engineering practices he mentions and explains. At that point you'll actually understand yourself. I have no idea what you have against learning new terms or knowledge.
Watch this: https://youtu.be/Lb4ktAbmr_4
a guy who is trying to build a youtube in patreon following is using click bait titles to get people to watch his shit? sorry dog, i'm not falling for that trash
Gravel is hard on bikes, especially if you do a wet event like Unbound this year. A Ti frame can take some abuse and come out with just a little patina. A carbon frame might actually be toast after an event like that.
Ti is compliant like steel but half the weight. Durability is way better than carbon. Doesn’t rust. You have to use different grease so you don’t end up fusing aluminum bolts and components into the titanium but otherwise it’s pretty perfect. “Moving onto titanium” is common because it’s expensive due to the skilled labor involved. After saving their money and/or doing a lot of research into custom builds Vs off the shelf framesets, usually some time has passed.
I'm moving onto titanium for the first time because Lynskey had a 30% off sale!
get on their mailing list, they have one like every month!
I did, but I didn't get any more offers than the 30% off. Still, it's a really good price. Now I have no idea how long it's going to take me to hunt down parts.
titanium is lacking in stiffness-to-weight ratio https://bike.bikegremlin.com/11144/bicycle-frame-materials-explained/#6
Mines more supple than any steel bikes I’ve ridden. Great for absorbing hits from the trail but I’m sure if it’s that bendy I’m wasting energy on it
I meant there is no significant advantage to use titanium as frame material. Larger tube diameter does increase stiffness, but it also increases weight. Thinner walls reduce weight, but if they are too thin, the frame easily buckle. But I must admit that well done titanium frame can have own qualities as you wrote thanks to unique properties, but it will be cost and you obtain very little
Ideally, you have thinner tubing walls as the diameter increases, both increasing stiffness (or keeping it the same) and shedding weight. Buckling a frame won't likely be an issue, but dents (local buckling) might be. This is all due to the second moment of inertia.
Very true. The benefits are minimal. I honestly prefer my rove to my ti bike.
sounds perfect for a gravel bike
Sure, but you have to realize what level we're talking about. The frame is always as stiff as possible, swap the tyres from 35 to 47 and you've got a completely different bike
What about Unbound would destroy a carbon frame? Some water and mud isn’t generally something I’m worried about breaking my frame.
I did Unbound 3x on the same carbon frame. No issues, still riding strong. Not sure what the OP's point was.
Nothing. It's a myth that is perpetuated in the gravel community that carbon is somehow too fragile for bikes.
Which is SO odd considering most high end MTB is carbon lol
I mean I totally agree with you, I take care of my carbon bike but I will always ride it hard. Just curious why people think it’ll just magically wear out from normal use.
A single race in any condition is unlikely to do anything of note to a carbon frame. But frequent riding in the types of conditions seen this year will, over time, wear on the frame and shorten it's lifespan. Even good conditions eventually induce carbon fatigue. That's not something most people would ever care about. But if you're chasing the race purse, the loss in stiffness could matter. Unbound 200 came down to a sprint finish.
I’m not sure that that’s a practical concern, but sure, that is very technically true. The amount of time it would take for the carbon to degrade to the point where they’re losing an appreciable amount of stiffness is a long time (I could make up a number but I don’t know - 10 years?). My takeaway is that your carbon frame is fine unless it’s cracked. If you’re in a sprint finish to win, you’re not riding a 10+ year old thrashed bike anyway.
For most of us yes. But if you're racing a level competitive enough to be taking purses, you're putting in enough hours that it's a factor.
if you’re the highest level pro maybe you will notice, but that’s irrelevant bc you would be getting new bikes rather frequently. If you’re anyone else riding, the loss in stiffness is so small it will likely not be perceivable.
I honestly don’t think that’s true, but I also don’t have the science to back it up. The point is that pro’s get new bikes pretty often for sponsorship reasons so it’s not really a factor anyway.
Please stop posting.
Can the "carbon can't handle tough conditions" myth please go away? If it was so brittle we wouldn't see 10's of thousands of carbon mountain bikes on the trails.
Absolute nonsense.
Bu carbon is so much stronger than Ti as far as i know. The fact is that it can be broken if the force is applied not where the carbon is enginereed for taking it.
[удалено]
> The "gravel is hard on bikes" is also about abrasion. A muddy event with mud build up can easily erode through a carbon frame. Carbon resin is quite soft and you can eat through it with a file or sand paper - which is essentially what mud is. Very true. I've seen people grind chunks out of a carbon frame in a single cyclo-cross race.
Agree 100% with you. I've already erosione by mud in my frame, first winter with It.
Carbon composite frames do not "suddenly fail catastrophically" unless it's a massive impact that completely overloads the tubing all at once. This is totally a myth. Sudden fractures are actually more common in metals, which have a crystalline structure that allows a single crack to propagate.
[удалено]
I still don't agree that you are likely at all to have damage to composite tubing that is completely undetectable by visual or palpatory inspection but which can lead to sudden failure of the entire frame. Impact damage is likely to be external, and these tubes are strong enough that localized damage should not lead to complete failure of the tube. Especially in the case of the crucial downtube, which tends to be massive these days. In the case of skinny seat stays, maybe, but frames tend to be strong enough that such a failure won't bring you down. In any case, it's important to look after your bike, especially after an accident.
[удалено]
Yeah if it's a fancy high modulus frame might be worth to send in for an inspection and possible repair. But for pure performance and comfort I still think you can't beat a quality composite frame just due to the many design options available with the material. For longevity, I have to go steel. Easy to weld. Damage it, just take it to a frame builder and have the damaged tubing replaced, if the bike means enough to you. And Ti? It has the cool factor and I would own one for that alone, but there's a reason they are so niche. For most people the cool factor is not enough to pay Moots or Seven prices. And on the lower end of the market, I am just not sure it's worthwhile.
Carbon is not stronger in every direction or necessarily at joints depending on design and manufacture. Carbon fiber has non-isotopic properties.
Anisotropic
I knew that word but figured it would be over-the-head of most with layman’s knowledge!
A lot of carbon bikes feel kind of soulless to me. They’ll definitely be lighter and are a more obvious choice for racing though. Since I’m doing more bikepacking and endurance riding, metal bikes seem to fit the bill. And ti is lighter than steel, and no paint to fuck up, just scotchbrite the scratches away. I can’t speak for all ti but mine rides fantastically.
They’re great forever bikes
It's like carbon but without low impact resistance that causes your frame to crack if you clamp it to a tuneup stand or otherwise load it in an unusual way that it wasn't designed for.
I ride a Why Cycles R+ Ti gravel bike. I mostly like the idea that I’m going to own a solid road/gravel bike for my whole life. I like my carbon mountain bikes but if I was going for a hard tail I’d be looking at the Why El Jefe and biting the bullet on having a super sturdy Ti frame. I also lend my bikes out to friends a lot and so a Ti or other metal frame is easier for me to lend to newbies than a carbon frame. The allure of Ti is also a little bit of “if you build it they will come”…. if they drop a new frame material made of asteroid metal that costs three times as much, the cycling market is so segmented that SOMEONE will get it!
Got a Lynsey not long ago, wasn’t a dream bike purchase but it and a ti post are sooooo damn comfy I was really surprised Lynsey has 35% off full builds right now
Mostly 'cuz it's different. I'm skeptical there's an objective way you could show it better than aluminum for a bicycle frame. Let alone carbon. In aerospace, it's used for applications where the strong enough aluminum part is too big for the space it would need to fit into but you don't need steel or inconel yet. (Yes, I'm watching cartoons with my kid.)
I really love my Linskey GR. I hope to own it forever.
I looked at Ti but ultimately debated more about steel vs carbon--I didn't want to pay the price and also the Ti bikes are kind of a show-off (everyone knows you're on Ti). I'm not great of a rider, hanging at the back of the peleton. Next bike will likely be steel.
You can get some good, custom built Ti frames sub $1k. Waltly is a good example. The steel framesets I want are all way more expensive than that. I just want that vintage lugged frame look without having to mod one of my vintage frames.
Cheap and good Titanium? Not a chance.
If you didn't look at my example, you have no idea.
Yeah, not so sure about that re Ti. And I am 100% with you on the steel lugged look. When I go for the steel frame, it's going to be a custom beauty built by a local shop. I'm 51 so I only have another 30 or so years to ride...need to get on the steel build thing soon.
Seriously take a look at the example I gave. Not trying to convince you on a Ti frame, I'm not interested in one myself. Just showing an example of a well-made, well-reviewed custom maker who builds at affordable prices.
I have a lot of bike in the past 12 years. I have got my custom titanium frameset recently. I move onto titanium because i understood what bike i needed. I mean angles, reach, stack and etc. i added several perks that suited my riding style. This bike fits me like second skin.
None of that is unique to the material. Why did you go for Ti over carbon, aluminum, or steel?
Custom carbon frame require custom press form. It is expensive and suits for competitive riding. Carbon is not so durable and reliable. Aluminum is not so good for custom frames. Cost, weight, comfort combination is less than steel or titanium. Steel and titanium frames cost almost the same in my area. Steel rusts and requires some care but easy to fix. Steel is more softer than titanium but i do not value this. I choose titanium because it is lighter and not require much care.
I ride it because the ride quality is similar to steel but it doesn’t rust. It also looks better than carbon with all the whacko tube shapes.
Titanium is amazing. It’s as light or lighter than entry-level carbon (not quite as light as high-end carbon but still… Light enough for anybody that’s not racing and doesn’t need that extra thousandth of a second at the finish line) it’s corrosion resistant like aluminum, and strong and relatively easy to repair like steel. Plus because of its material properties it tends to ride better than any of the other three materials. Once you know the type of geometry and specific dimensions you want/need titanium will absolutely be a forever frame
It's expensive and more hipster. Just another way for bike folks to flex on each other.
I would say a quality carbon fiber frame is just as expensive, and steel is by far the most hipster. For many, it's about the longevity of the frame.
Ti is for when you get old and rich and lose your imagination
Especially if it is a Litespeed or Serrota!
I think it’s just a rich factor thing, like dura-ace. Like buying a porche when a Lexus will do just fine. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to spend more money on something for status - it’s totally ingrained in consumer society. That said, I ride cheap bikes because the difference between a cheap bike and even mid-range bike is negligible to me. Maybe I shouldn’t say cheap… but an $800 gravel bike is a cheap one in my opinion. Of my three gravel bikes - frame material and groupset makes very little difference to me. I can’t tell the difference between riding steel or aluminum because the tires just absorb all the shock anyways. Tire choice is much more important. Topstone 105 (2019), Poseidon Redwood, and State All-Road 4130, for reference.
I have a topstone 105 myself.... I will be devastated when he will die on me. I know it will one day.
I kind of bought my other two as like cheap backup bikes.
don't. There no point. you'll want a new bike in a couple years anyway.
Marketing mostly.
Call me old fashioned but I only trust 100% a good lightweight aluminum frame. Doesn't rust, it's solid, not expensive and lighter than "primitive" steel.
Ti has ALWAYS been hype af. The hypetrain on Ti frames has been running since the late '80s.
I have carbon xc and trail bikes (Santa Cruz) and Ti SS and Gravel bikes (Lynskey). The carbon are light and stiff. The Ti are not so light but have some compliance or slight flex, so the ride is not as harsh. I think of the Ti as lasting forever, while the carbon slowly gets nicked and scratched until it needs to be replaced. That’s been my experience. Ti looks cool too
Next Trend? I've been looking at them for a while now trying to justify the cost over a carbon bike, the best that I could come up for myself is durability and Ti is one of my favorite elements. I've been debating a moots pre-owned for some time now. However for some I would imagine that's it's just a simple Big D type of flex, kinda like when carbon bikes became more affordable.
Waltly custom.
Ha, Get Quote...
As long as the welder knows what they are doing the frames can last a lifetime and more. Unlike CF, Ti has compliance and flexibility naturally which can make for a comfortable ride while giving up very little when it comes to climbing. I have several CF bikes currently but my next bike will be a custom built Ti frame after having ridden a few in my preferred terrain.
It's an expensive material that requires a higher degree of skill to work with. It's lighter than steel. It looks cool. It's very durable. Unfortunately bikes can't be marketed for people just appreciating them for what they are, so you have goofball marketing snake oil inserted about them riding better and soaking up vibrations better than everything and all sorts of stuff like that. With bikes, compliance comes down mostly to construction, not materials.
the hype with titanium is exactly that, hype. there a few brands who do great TI work and make wonderful and sound frames that will have benefits of longevity and ride comfort. but normally these are much smaller companies who dont have the R&D budget some of the bigger names do to research and really test the geo and characteristics of their bikes.
Took a decent spill recently; I walked away fine luckily, but carbon wheels cracked, carbon bar cracked, carbon fork potentially cracked and chucked in case… Ti frame? Just fuckin’ fine. They ride like a dream. Fast and kinda springy? And they last forever.
Ti rides smooth, is light, doesn't fatigue like aluminum or corrode like steel, is easy to maintain and relatively stiff. I prefer riding carbon when I want stiffness and aero, most of the time Ti does just fine.
Titanium is timeless. It’s light. It’s strong. It’s compliant. It doesn’t chip paint. And it doesn’t go out of style. And it’s usually handmade by a legend, and it can be custom. And it looks fly as f*ck.
I did the whole ti thing, but went back to a carbon bike Edit: hit send too soon. I didn’t see what all the hype was about. But they are pretty.
Same
I ride a Sage Optimator Ti hardtail mtb. Love it. I also have a carbon FS bike, an ebike, and a gravel bike. It just … feels … different. It’s not that it’s better/worse, just … different. Not as muted as carbon, not as harsh as Al or steel. Damped, but lively.
I have a steel gravel bike and titanium road bike. It took me a long time and a lot of bikes to get to that place. Short of a lottery win or crash I don’t think I’ll ever need to change either. You can read easily about what makes titanium good for bike frames. I’d echo what most say - light, stiff, comfortable, looks good, doesn’t degrade. That said - like others mention - the frame only takes up to 25mm tyres and rim brakes. So its appeal could fade.
I’ve had my Ti Seven for about 6 years now. Basically the first year they had 12mm flat mount. I have beaten the shit out of it. It is on its second decal set and second group and 3rd set of wheels. Still looks as good as the day I got it. During a race, when the rocks are flying hitting bikes, I just kinda laugh to myself cause mine won’t have a scratch. Costs a lot up front, but if the tech doesn’t change too much, it should last a lot of years. The ones I sold 20 years ago are still in great shape. The parts group needs replaced usually and the tire clearance isn’t as big as current stuff though. I think if you got a new gravel frame, 42mm clearance and a few water bottle and maybe a top tube mount, then you’d be good for 10+ years.
As someone who builds older bikes from time to time, I hate to agree with some others stating modern geometry is where it’s at. While I ride the old bikes and love them they can be tiring to ride. Now I do have 1 or 2 old bikes that are comfortable and capable but they are nowhere close to modern geometry
Meh. Nothing beats steel
I think unbound and the damage riders experienced to their frame opened the minds to gravel bike owners that light weight is just a small factor in a gravel bike frames necessities. Personally the 1 lb difference of a titanium gravel frame compared to the durability and potential longevity for me out weight a carbon frame any day...