Ti obsolete?

[David Kirk]

Is it possible that some time in the near future that Titanium will become retro and/or obsolete as a frame material? What I mean is that compared to carbon it's not light, compared to aluminum it's not cheap, and it doesn't have the ride quality many associate and love about steel.

Now please don't get me wrong........I like Ti and think it's as valid a frame material as it ever was. I'm not saying that you shouldn't like Ti.......I'm not saying that Ti makes you look fat..........I'm wondering aloud if the Ti market will shrink to the point where it's left to the one man shops to build and supply it? I'm just throwing out the question.

Will people be buying Ti bikes five years from now?

Dave

[Smiley]

Captain Kirk , Ti may become obsolete due to its tremendous price increases over the last year . I am guessing that although Carbon aint cheap its still a controllable cost as opposed to Titanium that is mined overseas and takes alot to fab and weld in terms of cost . Plug and Glue Dave has a nice RING ($$) to it . What are you opposed to making what people want :)

[Fixed]

bro I think your right.I think it is now. cheers :beer:

[Tom]

Yup. Titanium... the New Steel.

[bluesea]

Will people be buying Ti bikes five years from now?

Dave

I think its beginning to boil down to a kind of "legend of Merlin and Litespeed" phenomena. Its not even a valid material in the peleton anymore (but neither is steel). This is America, so I think the legend will live on.

[Argos]

Wait, do you just say this bike makes me look fat?

[Dr. Doofus]

Doofus, I who am, has voiced opinions about Ti before

when the fat-wallet section american market that doesn't have the patience or the sense to wait for a sachs*(**) is convinced that the new carbon "most expensive, therefore best" bike in the boutique bike makers stable is in fact "best, therefore most expensive," they will buy it because their bullcrap fantasy mind has convinced them that somehow there is some real advantage to being on that "most expensive, therefore best, therefore most expensive" frame...until the next one comes along.


snore.


* or the wisdom to get a della santa...or the judgement to get a kirk...or the ...well, you get the idea...

** or the cheap-*** pragmatism to just get a sub-1000.00 beer can, like the doofus.

[Climb01742]

i'm less sure. just guessin' but in 5 years, in terms of number of frames sold -- not quality -- carbon would be #1, steel #4, and ti and alu tied at #2. ti may become "niched" but not a tiny niche, perhaps.

[David Kirk]

Wait, do you just say this bike makes me look fat?

"Honey, do these pants make my butt look fat?"

"No, your fat makes your butt look fat"

Dave

[tch]

on cost issues, which I guess could sway me, but there are some other ways of looking at it. I bought a ti bike myself because I wanted a material that was lighter and more corrosion-resistant than steel, more forgiving than aluminum, and more permanent than carbon fiber. That's what I got in my Concours, and my experience with this bike has encouraged me to suggest ti to my older-but-still-enthusiastic friends.

My friends with steel bikes do sometimes complain about the weight of their bikes. My friends with aluminum do sometimes complain about the ride of their bikes. And my brother-in-law dropped/crashed his carbon bike and had to replace it. I have not had any of those complaints.

I am not bashing other materials, and I certainly see how pro bikers will never come back to ti -- but for many of us here in the Serotta community, ti seems like a perfectly viable material.

[dirtdigger88]

"Honey, do these pants make my butt look fat?"

"No, your fat makes your butt look fat"

Dave


http://www.strangevehicles.com/images/content/108102.jpg

jason

[Bill Bove]

So a woman goes to the doctor for her annual check up. Later that evening she's telling her husband how the visit went, "I have the figure of a woman half my age, the Dr. says" she recounts. "Oh really now" her husband replies "did he say anything about your fat Irish arse" he asks, "Your name never came up" she says.

Dadum.

[BigDaddySmooth]

"Honey, do these pants make my butt look fat?"

"No, your fat makes your butt look fat"

Dave


"Private Pyle, your a$$ looks like 150# of chewed bubblegum" {from "Full Metal Jacket"}

[Big Dan]

History baby? Was it ever in fashion? Boring along the same lines as plastic...
Seen one, seen them all.............. :p

[jpw]

Is it possible that some time in the near future that Titanium will become retro and/or obsolete as a frame material? What I mean is that compared to carbon it's not light, compared to aluminum it's not cheap, and it doesn't have the ride quality many associate and love about steel.

Now please don't get me wrong........I like Ti and think it's as valid a frame material as it ever was. I'm not saying that you shouldn't like Ti.......I'm not saying that Ti makes you look fat..........I'm wondering aloud if the Ti market will shrink to the point where it's left to the one man shops to build and supply it? I'm just throwing out the question.

Will people be buying Ti bikes five years from now?

Dave

What prompts you to air this question?

Are you building in ti?

Ti seems like a jolly good compromise material ('compromise' in the best sense of the word) for a bike frame.

---------------------

The pelaton rides what it's paid to ride by the industry money men. That's all marketing. What would be interesting is to see what the pro rider is training on off-season when out of sight of the media. I've heard that many pro riders do train on ti.

[davids]

Has Ti ever been more than a niche material? First as the new racing material, then as the savior of the high-end frame makers, now as a charming relic to pair up with carbon...

I think the market will remain for discerning buyers, but there's not that many of us out here. It will end up like steel, nestled into the margins of the market (not very far from where it is now, honestly), but it won't go away.

At least I hope not. At the moment, it's my favorite frame material. I hope Big Dan doesn't hurt my feelings! ;)

[dbrk]

When you see a whole line of bikes in nothing but titanium, like the good folks at Moots just put forward at Interbike, and then you ride their bikes (and others from great ti builders), it's hard to see it going away though it's easy to imagine it shrinking to the level of boutique steel. Moots has a long, long list of bikes on their docket and Brad the Welder Whose Beads Are Unsupassed told me that he was jonesin' to get back because there was just too much work to do. There is also now a fella' who just does stems and posts and all sold out for this year. So even though ti is likely to be a shrinking segment of the market, the best builders will have plenty of work, sort of like the masters of steel.

When not over built (too stiff!!) for my tastes (or under-built as it was once the case), titanium is a fantastic ride. Getting the sweetness out of titanium is difficult, imho. I have owned a slew of ti bikes and nearly all have been too stiff, not as sweet as steel. My Hampsten Strada Bianca, which is a Moots built bike with Moots tubes but a lower bb, longer stays, and more clearance is really, truly a magical bicycle, and this from the fella' who thinks lugs and steel are the best of all material and build options (and prefers 1" top tubes and swears by steel forks, and insists that real clearances for fenders and other versatile _options_ should be the standard against which all other bikes but pure racers should be measured).

It's hard to fathom what is going on with carbon as far as quality is concerned. I mean, honestly, if you look at Cervelos or Ibis's new entry which is made in Taiwan, you see bikes that look every bit as nice as Meivici, Fondriest, Colnago, and Parlee, or very nearly so. While the former come in at under 2K for a frame, the latter represent a high-end that more than doubles that price (or triples or more!) What I think we will see are more carbon options--- if that is at all possible since carbon has so taken over--- and two ends of the market: value-focused and prestige-focused. Sure, one can slander the Taiwanese carbon as "junk" but it sure all looks the same and I would bet Real Donuts that it's not allll that different in ride. Yeah, yeah, beat me up for that, but past impressions and taking into account what people want to be true, it's more the same than not. If you are not at the boundaries of racing then the performance advantages of carbon as a material are unlikely yours to realize. Further, it's the design of the bikes plus wheels and tires that will make more difference than that they are different sorts of carbon. A Colnago or Serotta will ride like their designers intend and that is a very good thing but significant material advantages? Nahhh, I more than doubt it, to be frank. The workmanship on Meivici or Parlee is _darn_ good, but lots of mediocre workmanship steel bikes ride great so why not carbon? People will pay for the design, the marque, and the deeper conviction of quality but it won't really be about the material. The industry will, of course, tell us it's about the material and how "our" material is better than "their" material, yadayada, because they have to.

Titanium still bears some comparison to steel though it's non-rusting feature is far over-rated (as is steel's vulnerability to rust) and there are no significant advantages over steel, as far as I am concerned. The ride of ti _is_ great though I think it varies more than any other material, and too often is overbuilt, too stiff. Since neither steel or ti are any longer "race" materials then the emphasis on stiff, "fast", light seems far less relevant to the discussion. We might see a revolution in ti bikes to match steel: bikes built to be ridden for more and other than racing, real or faux. What a thought.

One more thing: if you have never read Grant Petersen's article on the production of titanium it is worth the time. It appears in an old Bstone catalogue and those have been archived by Sheldon Brown. Go to Sheldonbrown.com and follow the links. Ti is hardly environmentally friendly it seems, though things may have improved since the early '90s? Somehow I doubt that.

We at CyclesTournesol are about to make a titanium bike in 650B. The reason is twofold: first, ti is a great ride and we think we can get it just right, and second, because it's not been done before in this wonderful wheelsize (we think) and we'd like to see more 650B bikes done in ways that get noticed. Plus, we're going to "update" certain features because of the "modern" titanium material and OS tubes, for example, consider using disc brakes (we're working on fender solutions right now). Our 650B ti bike will likely wear Honjo fenders, use a Berthoud front bag, and perhaps maybe if we can swing it have a proper attachment for a front carrier (though the new Berthoud bag obviates the need for the carrier). Practical, fun, fast, and good for pavement, gravel, and anything but technical mountain biking. So ti has at least some future, even if it is a back to the future project.

dbrk

[Kevan]

don't ever see a need wearing a Ti in the future. No real appeal.

[David Kirk]

[QUOTE=jpw]What prompts you to air this question?

Are you building in ti?

Ti seems like a jolly good compromise material ('compromise' in the best sense of the word) for a bike frame.

Hey JPW,

It's not a loaded question at all.........and no I don't plan on offering Ti at any time. I just think about these things while standing at the bench and wondered what others thought.

Dave

[Ginger]

I think it will take 10-15 years for Ti to go the way of steel. I do think Ti is an excellent material for Hard Tail MTBs.


Ti shorts do make your butt look fat. Like white only more reflective.

[chrisroph]

Ti is like steel, aluminum, and carbon in that a superbly designed and built version is a wonderful machine, while a poorly designed and built one is crap. Nicely matched to the rider, a legend or spectrum untralight (as examples) are perfectly capable of anything including world championships, tour stage wins, classics victories or hanging with the club on Saturdays. I love my ti rides; the luster may be coming off for those looking for the latest trends (ie carbon) but I don't see the material becoming obsolete.

[jpw]

[QUOTE=jpw]What prompts you to air this question?

Are you building in ti?

Ti seems like a jolly good compromise material ('compromise' in the best sense of the word) for a bike frame.

Hey JPW,

It's not a loaded question at all.........and no I don't plan on offering Ti at any time. I just think about these things while standing at the bench and wondered what others thought.

Dave

I forgot to add a smilie for 'tone' confirmation. It should have been :).

I was just curious, you being a well respected builder. :beer:

[Chris]

and I like them all. I see the current craze about carbon in much the way I saw the aluminum craze 10 years ago. I think it relates to a lot of things. One (and not to be diminished) is what kind of bike was ridden by the winner of the Tour this year. I know this may seem silly, and it is, but you just see so many people influenced by the bike of the winner. Trek obviously has done well, as did pinarello and aluminum back during the Indurain/Riis/Ullrich dynasty. I think if Lance was racing some high-zoot scandium machine, you would still see more people buying aluminum. Look at no less than Eddy Merckx's comments about carbon and I am paraphrasing, but he said "the customers want carbon, so we sell carbon." Basically, what I read in that interview is that he likes scandium and feels that it is a good material to use, but the demand on the customer end is carbon, so they make carbon bikes. http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2005/interviews/?id=eddy_merckx_interbike05 Secondly, I think that the bike industry has a history of planned obsolesence (sp?). Shimano was always great at it, and it seems to be moving into frame materials. I get beat in races all the time by some guy on a heavier, flexier, slower bike than mine because of the engine, but the bicycle companies have you convinced that lighter, faster, stronger is what will make you win. It's hard to sell you on more intervals (although coaching services are doing a good job of that right now). Basically I think it is all hype. My favorite ride of all time was my Serotta CRL. My current Moots compact ala Mr. Brooks is a close second. I really liked the Legend Ti that we traded but it was a just a little stiff for my taste. My Cannondale is a great race bike as were other carbon race bikes that I have had in the past, but they were just that, race bikes. If I am going to pull a bike off the wall to go out for a ride for shear pleasure, it's the Moots TITANIUM hands down. It just rides sweet. I've talked to Mr. Kirk about building me something that will give it a run for the money, and we'll see. Basically, it comes down to an earlier post. Titanium is caught in the middle. Heavier than aluminum or carbon so it's not so high zoot, and lighter than steel, but doesn't have nostalgia. I personally think it is a great material. I have never gone out on the Moots worried about what road I was going to go down (paint chips) or how fast I was going through a corner (broken frame). I am completely confident in what my titanium bike can provide me. Maybe it's too competent, to resilient, and dare I say it because of the price - too working class to be relevant anymore. Forgive the typos if there are any, I'm in a rush.

[Brian Smith]

We at CyclesTournesol are about to make a titanium bike in 650B. The reason is twofold: first, ti is a great ride and we think we can get it just right, and second, because it's not been done before in this wonderful wheelsize (we think) and we'd like to see more 650B bikes done in ways that get noticed. Plus, we're going to "update" certain features because of the "modern" titanium material and OS tubes, for example, consider using disc brakes (we're working on fender solutions right now). Our 650B ti bike will likely wear Honjo fenders, use a Berthoud front bag, and perhaps maybe if we can swing it have a proper attachment for a front carrier (though the new Berthoud bag obviates the need for the carrier). Practical, fun, fast, and good for pavement, gravel, and anything but technical mountain biking. So ti has at least some future, even if it is a back to the future project.

dbrk

Sounds cool.
Steel fork?
That would be a good combo.
What bikes have been too stiff in Ti?
I kinda fit on 60s with longish top tubes and have only once found one as stiff as I like 'em, and even on that one the rear was a little too flexible for a real racy feel, more of a bike for long timed rides for me...

[SPOKE]

[QUOTE=David Kirk]"What I mean is that compared to carbon it's not light, compared to aluminum it's not cheap, and it doesn't have the ride quality many associate and love about steel."

at this time carbon doesn't have the ride quality of the top shelf steel bikes either. it's getting better with each new generation or process change but still misses the mark when compared to a well built steel bike.

now here's a bit more to think about........i happen to have a new Sachs with a steel fork and a new CSi with the new F3 carbon fork. both are built up with Campy Record and DT Swiss wheels and both bikes weigh less than 18.5 lbs. the CSi actually is very close to 18 lbs. yes, ti, aluminum and carbon will allow you to build up a lighter bike but in my case i'm better off loosing the extra couple pounds to make up the difference!! ;)

[Orin]

When not over built (too stiff!!) for my tastes (or under-built as it was once the case), titanium is a fantastic ride. Getting the sweetness out of titanium is difficult, imho. I have owned a slew of ti bikes and nearly all have been too stiff, not as sweet as steel. My Hampsten Strada Bianca, which is a Moots built bike with Moots tubes but a lower bb, longer stays, and more clearance is really, truly a magical bicycle, and this from the fella' who thinks lugs and steel are the best of all material and build options (and prefers 1" top tubes and swears by steel forks, and insists that real clearances for fenders and other versatile _options_ should be the standard against which all other bikes but pure racers should be measured).

It's hard to fathom what is going on with carbon as far as quality is concerned. I mean, honestly, if you look at Cervelos or Ibis's new entry which is made in Taiwan, you see bikes that look every bit as nice as Meivici, Fondriest, Colnago, and Parlee, or very nearly so. While the former come in at under 2K for a frame, the latter represent a high-end that more than doubles that price (or triples or more!)

<SNIP>

dbrk

As for Ti, I have to say I like my late 90s Legend with F1 fork much more than an early 2000s CIII with steel fork. The CIII always felt harsh! This particular Legend has me looking back wondering if the back tire needs air...

I have ridden three bikes this year - the Legend, a Cervelo Dual TT bike and a Rambouillet (most miles on this as it's set up as a rain bike). In terms of comfort, not much difference. The Rambouillet has a slight advantage due to longer chainstays and a Brooks B17, but pays for it in BB flex if I get out of the saddle. The Dual is just fun - usually easier to ride on the front of the group I usually ride with on the aero bars than ride on the back of the group on the cowhorns! They hate me if I turn up on the Dual as the pace will be higher. If I ride the Legend, we are fairly evenly matched. If I ride the Rambouillet, I'll get dropped more often on the hills! Yes, a few pounds does make a difference.

The couple of people I've talked to that have Cervelo R2.5 carbon bikes love them. Running $3100 for a complete bike with mostly Chorus group... Personally, I lust after the new carbon Soloist - being similar to my Dual, but over $3k for the frameset?

More on carbon... I was cruising the local Performance store (oh the horror) and was surprised by some of the Giants on display. "Wait a minute, this bike has fender clearance!". I looked closer - long (ie 57mm) reach brakes with the pads at the bottom of the slots. And what about the tires? 25mm Michelins and Michelins run true to their advertised size. Looking at the web site, they are setting them up for a more upright postion. More sensible for new road riders. Might make a nice rando bike. Pity about the compact S/M/L sizing.

Orin.

[saab2000]

This is a good question. I aquired my first and only ti bike this year. It is a Merckx Majestic. Basically I like it, but I remember quite vividly my first rides on it thinking, "this stuff is WAY overrated"! I still think that, though I would be curious to ride a Legend Ti built with Serotta's best know-how and tubes with the identical geometry to the Merckx. I bet it would be vastly better.

The weakest link of my Merckx is, I believe, the fork. It is a Look carbon fork and it is a noodle compared to the steel forks on my other bikes.

Basically I like the Ti bike, though my opinion of the ride of one of riding through wet sand, not one of smoothness or luxury. The bike feels inefficient when pushing hard. That is about is simple as I can state it.

Someone mentioned that it is no longer a material which is accepted in the peloton. They also said this about steel. I would argue that steel is a far better material for a race bike than is Ti, though I have not ridden today's top Ti bikes. I have ridden today's top steel, and it is good.

It is probable that my next bike will be steel. I have never been let down by it and it is stiff. I can also get a stiff fork. Carl Strong told me (and I am hesitant to even try to quote someone without their permission) that properly designed, a steel fork will perform and ride better than any carbon fork. This is reassuring.

I am not here to argue for or against materials. I like the look of my brushed Ti bike. It fits (though I would like to lower the bars more somehow) and handles very well. The ride is the same as any other bike as far as I am concerned. I can still feel the road.

I am lukewarm about the material, but I am willing to try another fork to see if that helps. I am not happy with this one. Fact is though that this bike is not as stiff as my Strong steel bike and is also less responsive. This is not the highest end Ti bike, but neither is it the lowest end Ti bike.

Attached are the two bikes in question. The steel one is more suited to racing, IMHO. For

I believe in steel. For me Ti is expensive and not as good as the others in question. That said, I have never ridden the best Ti. I don't really see the benefit. But that's just me.

[Russ]

i'm less sure. just guessin' but in 5 years, in terms of number of frames sold -- not quality -- carbon would be #1, steel #4, and ti and alu tied at #2. ti may become "niched" but not a tiny niche, perhaps.

Yeah, what the Climb said.... I just wonder how many versions of the MeiVici will Serotta have? Will their top-of-the-line carbon rig go for 7 Grand then?

I think that their flagship (carbono) bike will cost 10 Grand in 5 years.... ouch!

[JohnS]

on cost issues, which I guess could sway me, but there are some other ways of looking at it. I bought a ti bike myself because I wanted a material that was lighter and more corrosion-resistant than steel, more forgiving than aluminum, and more permanent than carbon fiber. That's what I got in my Concours, and my experience with this bike has encouraged me to suggest ti to my older-but-still-enthusiastic friends.

My friends with steel bikes do sometimes complain about the weight of their bikes. My friends with aluminum do sometimes complain about the ride of their bikes. And my brother-in-law dropped/crashed his carbon bike and had to replace it. I have not had any of those complaints.

I am not bashing other materials, and I certainly see how pro bikers will never come back to ti -- but for many of us here in the Serotta community, ti seems like a perfectly viable material.
...exactly the reason I bought my Concours!!!!

[Tmogul]

How many here love their ottrotts more than their legend ti's? I think the answer is a carbon/ti frame. If done right it should be lighter, more responsive (stiff in the right areas), and absorb road buzz better than a straight ti frame yet still retain the qualities of a metal frame unlike full carbon. This of course depends on the builder's skills. I don't think you can argue about the expense of ti frames though. Just look at how expensive today's top tier race frames are. VXRS, Dogma FP, C50.

Saab2000, you really should try another ti frame and not base your opinion of ti on a bad example. The majestic is known to be very very flexy and when also paired with a soft fork you're just asking for mush. However there is nothing wrong with you preferring steel though. :)

[Samster]

I have the same bike as saab2000. I love the bike, but then again; A) I ride a 50cm frame, and no material seems to flex in that size, and B) I'm no ride aficionado. But then again (again), at my frame size, everything is stiff and responsive. And I'm not that "serious" a rider besides...

All that said, I love ti.

--sam

[e-RICHIE]

Is it possible that some time in the near future that Titanium will become retro and/or obsolete as a frame material?


it'll end up here:
http://www.titanium.com/titanium/consignment.cfm

[saab2000]

The funny thing is that I don't think that the frame itself is that flexy. I don't know how to measure this stuff,but when standing up on a hill or on the flat in a big gear, there is no chain rub on the front der. I know that is real precise.

I did recently read something of some test of how many Newton-Meters of force it took to flex a bike per degree. Ti did not test well. But that is also misleading as the forces acting on a bike are not the same in real life as in a lab. But it is the best "scientific" data I have seen. The Ti tested was a Moots.

Also, it is my understanding that the Majestic is not that low in the hierarchy of Ti bikes, even though it was manufactured by the "Evil Empire" (just kidding!!!!!) at Litespeed. It is not really analogous to any of their offerings.

Oh well. I have it and can't really afford to replace it. So it will be around for a while.

FWIW, the steel Strong weighs about 1-2 lbs more. Big whoop.

[Tmogul]

I didn't mean to offend majestic ti owners. Everybody likes a certain feel to their bikes. I have ridden some ti bikes that feel too "squishy". When you wind up your sprint it just feels like you're losing your momentum and the power is draining from each pedal stroke. I do think it rides smoother than aluminum though and soaks up certain road buzz better. That's why I think adding some carbon to a ti bike will bring the best of both worlds together. One of these days I need to get out there and try a high quality steel frame though.

[Lifelover]

Is it possible that some time in the near future that Titanium will become retro and/or obsolete as a frame material? ......

Dave

If it does happen than all it means to me is some kick butt deals on some great used frames.

All of DBRK's would fit like a glove.

If only I could be so fortunate. :confused:

[David Kirk]

This thread has been interesting. It seems to have taken a turn in direction as most threads do. Let me try to gather it up.

For what it's worth the original post wondered aloud if Ti has a future outside the one man shop..........not if you like Ti or if it's stiff or not. I'm not at all questioning if Ti is a good frame material. I'm thinking more from a business perspective. Will it make sense for companies to continue to offer Ti in the future? Will there be enough call for it that it makes sense to keep a staff of Ti welders on hand? Will a company be able to afford to have dropouts cut and BB's turned? As the numbers go down the cost per unit goes up. Something has to give.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Dave

[Doc Austin]

I'm not at all questioning if Ti is a good frame material. I'm thinking more from a business perspective. Will it make sense for companies to continue to offer Ti in the future?

Composite technology has come a whole universe forward pretty quickly. I'm not sure of it's history in bicycles, but in auto racing the original examples were terrible and entire cars would blow apart into a billion pieces it it took just the right impact. Just a few weeks ago at Chicago, Ryan Briscoe hit the fence so hard it punched a hole in it at 220mph. One of the cylinder heads was ripped off the engine (OMG!) and all that was left of the car was the all carbon firbe composite monocoque that contained the driver. Briscoe took a real beating, but he was hobbling around the shop the next week.

The composite materials in the new cars are astoundingly good. Naturally, these materials and this technology will filter down to aircraft use and eventually bicycles.

The very first all composite monocoque was the McLaren MP4, in 1982, and only 20 some year later they are virtually perfected. With mass production the cost of the materials have come way down, and as more people learn how to work with it, it is no longer a specialty and that will cut down on the costs associated with exclusitivity.

So, certainly some day a composite will be developed that surpasses the qualities of titanium. I'm sure the ultimate composite bike will be lighter, stiffer and stronger than TI bike, and it will probably ride smoother, faster and handle better. Some carbon riders will tell you that time has already come, but I'm not so sure, IMHO. TI is pretty sweet.

Carbon just feels and sounds wierd to me, but I'm used to metal bikes. I'm sure if in the future you could get a carbon Serotta for half the price of the TI I would probably try one.

I see the price of carbon materials and workmanship getting cheaper and cheaper until the demand for titaniun won't be there like it is now. So, yes, I think carbon, or some other new composite, will probably eventually replace metal for frame construction. It's already in everything from frames, seatposts, handlebars and derailuers. I can almost see a time when the chain rings and maybe even the chains are composite material. This is going to be sad for the traditionalists, but the tekkies are going to have a blast.



Will there be enough call for it that it makes sense to keep a staff of Ti welders on hand?

I imagine a time will come when computers lay up the fibres, shape the material and autoclave it. When that technology gets widespread, composite bikes will be so cheap that a metal bike would be considered a real extravagant expense.


As the numbers go down the cost per unit goes up.

And I think the reverse it true also. As the price of carbon bikes come down, the demand is going to go up. When the things are mass produced in really big numbers, the price is going to come down even more.

Like just about everything else we love, metal bikes will probably one day be a thing of the past. It may not even be composites that do it. It could even be a new alloy. Either way, as always, bicycle development continues to be fascinating.

[jpw]

When you see a whole line of bikes in nothing but titanium, like the good folks at Moots just put forward at Interbike, and then you ride their bikes (and others from great ti builders), it's hard to see it going away though it's easy to imagine it shrinking to the level of boutique steel. Moots has a long, long list of bikes on their docket and Brad the Welder Whose Beads Are Unsupassed told me that he was jonesin' to get back because there was just too much work to do. There is also now a fella' who just does stems and posts and all sold out for this year. So even though ti is likely to be a shrinking segment of the market, the best builders will have plenty of work, sort of like the masters of steel.

When not over built (too stiff!!) for my tastes (or under-built as it was once the case), titanium is a fantastic ride. Getting the sweetness out of titanium is difficult, imho. I have owned a slew of ti bikes and nearly all have been too stiff, not as sweet as steel. My Hampsten Strada Bianca, which is a Moots built bike with Moots tubes but a lower bb, longer stays, and more clearance is really, truly a magical bicycle, and this from the fella' who thinks lugs and steel are the best of all material and build options (and prefers 1" top tubes and swears by steel forks, and insists that real clearances for fenders and other versatile _options_ should be the standard against which all other bikes but pure racers should be measured).

It's hard to fathom what is going on with carbon as far as quality is concerned. I mean, honestly, if you look at Cervelos or Ibis's new entry which is made in Taiwan, you see bikes that look every bit as nice as Meivici, Fondriest, Colnago, and Parlee, or very nearly so. While the former come in at under 2K for a frame, the latter represent a high-end that more than doubles that price (or triples or more!) What I think we will see are more carbon options--- if that is at all possible since carbon has so taken over--- and two ends of the market: value-focused and prestige-focused. Sure, one can slander the Taiwanese carbon as "junk" but it sure all looks the same and I would bet Real Donuts that it's not allll that different in ride. Yeah, yeah, beat me up for that, but past impressions and taking into account what people want to be true, it's more the same than not. If you are not at the boundaries of racing then the performance advantages of carbon as a material are unlikely yours to realize. Further, it's the design of the bikes plus wheels and tires that will make more difference than that they are different sorts of carbon. A Colnago or Serotta will ride like their designers intend and that is a very good thing but significant material advantages? Nahhh, I more than doubt it, to be frank. The workmanship on Meivici or Parlee is _darn_ good, but lots of mediocre workmanship steel bikes ride great so why not carbon? People will pay for the design, the marque, and the deeper conviction of quality but it won't really be about the material. The industry will, of course, tell us it's about the material and how "our" material is better than "their" material, yadayada, because they have to.

Titanium still bears some comparison to steel though it's non-rusting feature is far over-rated (as is steel's vulnerability to rust) and there are no significant advantages over steel, as far as I am concerned. The ride of ti _is_ great though I think it varies more than any other material, and too often is overbuilt, too stiff. Since neither steel or ti are any longer "race" materials then the emphasis on stiff, "fast", light seems far less relevant to the discussion. We might see a revolution in ti bikes to match steel: bikes built to be ridden for more and other than racing, real or faux. What a thought.

One more thing: if you have never read Grant Petersen's article on the production of titanium it is worth the time. It appears in an old Bstone catalogue and those have been archived by Sheldon Brown. Go to Sheldonbrown.com and follow the links. Ti is hardly environmentally friendly it seems, though things may have improved since the early '90s? Somehow I doubt that.

We at CyclesTournesol are about to make a titanium bike in 650B. The reason is twofold: first, ti is a great ride and we think we can get it just right, and second, because it's not been done before in this wonderful wheelsize (we think) and we'd like to see more 650B bikes done in ways that get noticed. Plus, we're going to "update" certain features because of the "modern" titanium material and OS tubes, for example, consider using disc brakes (we're working on fender solutions right now). Our 650B ti bike will likely wear Honjo fenders, use a Berthoud front bag, and perhaps maybe if we can swing it have a proper attachment for a front carrier (though the new Berthoud bag obviates the need for the carrier). Practical, fun, fast, and good for pavement, gravel, and anything but technical mountain biking. So ti has at least some future, even if it is a back to the future project.

dbrk

Unless it's going to break a business confidence, would you care to say who is to build the ti Tournesol? The CT site says "various". Thanks :)

[Climb01742]

This thread has been interesting. It seems to have taken a turn in direction as most threads do. Let me try to gather it up.

For what it's worth the original post wondered aloud if Ti has a future outside the one man shop..........not if you like Ti or if it's stiff or not. I'm not at all questioning if Ti is a good frame material. I'm thinking more from a business perspective. Will it make sense for companies to continue to offer Ti in the future? Will there be enough call for it that it makes sense to keep a staff of Ti welders on hand? Will a company be able to afford to have dropouts cut and BB's turned? As the numbers go down the cost per unit goes up. Something has to give.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Dave

dave, it's hard to answer that question without talking about how ti rides. yes, what's "hot" drives many bike sales but over time a rider will come to the material or builder that works best for them. even though i dig carbon a lot, and even though for specific purposes or kinds of rides certain carbon frames i have rock, hands down the most comfortable, pleasing all around riding frame i have is my ottrott and i'm guessing ti accounts for a good bit of that. i think ti will remain as viable as alu because it has quite a few "pluses": smooth ride, relatively light, not heart-attack expensive, lots of custom tunable (sp?) offerings, and builds into a hearty frame. ride quality is what keeps steel alive. for many people -- rightly or wrongly -- steel is a bit heavy, alu a bit buzzy, and carbon a bit trendy or vulnerable. ti addresses those issues. it'll never be what it was 10 years ago, but i'd guess it won't fade away. it's ride will keep it alive, and thus a viable business.

[saab2000]

The market will decide whether or not it remains viable. The funny thing is that a few years ago you started to see ads for relatively cheap ti bikes. Douglas, Macalu, etc. There is probably nothing wrong with these bikes, but I never see them on the road.

As long as Serotta can charge $3000+ for the Legend and get it think it will be a viable seller. Same goes for Seven, Merlin, Moots and all the other builders of fine Ti bikes. They seem to be able to sell all they make.

I would like a Legend, but I am priced out of that market. I would also like a Ferarri, but I am priced out of that market too. Nothing against either company or product.

Supply and demand dictates and the prices indicate that at least today, there is still a demand.

[aLexis]

With all the excitement surrounding all things carbon right now, I know that there is still a place for Ti and Steel. When working in the bike shop, the single most important tool that any employee has to sell a bike is the test ride. I can't tell you how many times I went out with a customer on a carbon Roubaix, madone 5.2, etc, switching half way for them to try a Fierte Ti, or Colorado III, and closing the sale on the bike. People still love the way Ti rides.

[Hard Fit]

I think Ti will disappear. It was mainly touted as a replacement for steel, but lighter. The number of cyclists who remember the feel of steel is dwindling. Most now come from an mtb background where Al was king. I suspect the cycling industry will concentrate on carbon and Al. We are seeing the last of the great steel bikes. Any new aspiring builder will be trained in Al and carbon. It would be suicidal to one's career to work in steel. I doubt very much that the great builders of steel bikes today are training apprentices to carry on the traditon. The market is too small.

[aLexis]

Any new aspiring builder will be trained in Al and carbon. It would be suicidal to one's career to work in steel. I doubt very much that the great builders of steel bikes today are training apprentices to carry on the traditon. The market is too small.

After attending Interbike and seeing how well the small builders are doing, and how well they were received, I would have to respectfully disagree. The pendulum keeps a swingin'.

[saab2000]

I also disagree with Mr. Hard Fit. The market for steel bikes will continue. Anyone who thinks it is old fashioned is wrong. A steel bike can be made to ride any way someone wants. And the so-called weight penalty is not nearly as big as people think.

The market for steel bike is small, but it is there and will continue to exist as it is I would guess.The buyers decide. Not the builders. Most of the builders of premium steel are pretty backed up right now. I don't expect this to change.

[jpw]

After attending Interbike and seeing how well the small builders are doing, and how well they were received, I would have to respectfully disagree. The pendulum keeps a swingin'.

Purely out of curiosity, what defines a "small builder"? Is it the number of frames they produce annually, and if this is it, how many might that be?

Is Serotta producing more than this defining number?

How many frames might Serotta build annually? Thank:)s

[e-RICHIE]

I think Ti will disappear. It was mainly touted as a replacement for steel, but lighter. The number of cyclists who remember the feel of steel is dwindling. Most now come from an mtb background where Al was king. I suspect the cycling industry will concentrate on carbon and Al. We are seeing the last of the great steel bikes. Any new aspiring builder will be trained in Al and carbon. It would be suicidal to one's career to work in steel. I doubt very much that the great builders of steel bikes today are training apprentices to carry on the traditon. The market is too small.

After attending Interbike and seeing how well the small builders are doing, and how well they were received, I would have to respectfully disagree. The pendulum keeps a swingin'.


***
it's not a market.
if all of our units were totaled, i doubt it'd exceed
2,000 per year. that is small enough not to matter
in a discussion about the future of material used
in fine bicycles.

[Samster]

This thread has been interesting. It seems to have taken a turn in direction as most threads do. Let me try to gather it up.

For what it's worth the original post wondered aloud if Ti has a future outside the one man shop..........not if you like Ti or if it's stiff or not. I'm not at all questioning if Ti is a good frame material. I'm thinking more from a business perspective. Will it make sense for companies to continue to offer Ti in the future? Will there be enough call for it that it makes sense to keep a staff of Ti welders on hand? Will a company be able to afford to have dropouts cut and BB's turned? As the numbers go down the cost per unit goes up. Something has to give.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Dave

IMO, no. I don't think Ti will have much production play outside the small custom shop. From what I understand, fabrication (e.g., extraction and alloying) and welding (e.g., argon baths) requirements are such that mass production at an attractive gross margin that nets your standard 5%-10% EBIT will render an uncompetitively priced frame as compared to other materials.

One person told me recently that he likes ti because it's a "lifetime" material. My response is that I've never met a rider who actually keeps anything for more than a decade (and that's a stretch) without seeking a either a replacement or an upgrade or an addition... So, I don't buy that this attribute is a compelling feature of ti. But even if the bulk of the ti purchasing market feels the way this gentleman does, it leads to a long replacement cycle and the majority of your business has to be new customers as opposed to repeat buyers (unless we're talking multiple high-end cycles per household, which I'd bet is a small fraction of the bike buying mass.) So, the business logic would be less than compelling in any case.

Like steel, my bet is that ti will be a custom shop kind of output. In the meantime, bauxite and plastics will be the dominant commercially-scaled offerings in the realm of frame materials.

humbly,
-sam

[shiftinjon]

...like Sachs, Slawta, Walker, or a small frame building factory like Longstaff, Mercian, IF, Seven?

The number of tube sets Bringhelli sells annually would be an interesting start to determining the size of the US "small builder" market. I think that the two above groups combined have some impact on the direction of the market, albeit not the final say. And steel and titanium should always have a place in the market. They both have unique features that people want.

[flydhest]

richie,
you're right about those totals, but some of the big players, e.g. Specialized, have brought back steel frames, for example. A swallow does not make a Spring, but the I think that example suggests that the idea isn't preposterous.

[e-RICHIE]

richie,
you're right about those totals, but some of the big players, e.g. Specialized, have brought back steel frames, for example. A swallow does not make a Spring, but the I think that example suggests that the idea isn't preposterous.


unless they bring it back to supplant last year's
new/improved model, i'm stickin' with my story.
lotsa factories use steel at price point levels.
hey - thanks for reading.

[Fixed]

bro I think there will always be a anti tech. crowd I think it will grow in the years to come and steel will be their choice. i.m.h.o. cheers :beer:

[jdoiv]

One person told me recently that he likes ti because it's a "lifetime" material. My response is that I've never met a rider who actually keeps anything for more than a decade (and that's a stretch) without seeking a either a replacement or an upgrade or an addition...

Hi Sam,
My name is John. Now we've met. :D I own a 1994 Serotta legend Ti and a 1992 Bontrager MTB (steel is real). I see no need to replace either, though I will upgrade some components. Also finding one inch suspension forks for the Bonty is a challenge and it may be forced to retire in a few years. That won't be because I don't want to ride it any more or that I found something better.

As far as TI is concerned. I do think it will end up being a small part of the market segment. Maybe 3rd behind carbon and AL. Could even drop to fourth with the resurgence of steel.

imho...

John

[JohnS]

bro I think there will always be a anti tech. crowd I think it will grow in the years to come and steel will be their choice. i.m.h.o. cheers :beer:
Yes, and Dbrk will be the leader, with e-richie as his technical advisor. :)

[e-RICHIE]

bro I think there will always be a anti tech. crowd I think it will grow in the years to come and steel will be their choice. i.m.h.o. cheers :beer:

bro - i think the era has come in which "our" clients
are more buying the maker rather than the material.

[Fixed]

Yes, and Dbrk will be the leader, with e-richie as his technical advisor. :)
Bro amen cheers :beer:

[cinelli]

I think titanium has a diminishing market unless:

1. Prices drop to where they are competitive with other materials,
OR
2. Titanium can become lighter, stronger, "better" than other materials.

Way back in the day when John Tomac was "THE" MTB racer on the
planet, he commented on his ideal bike. He said it would be a combination
of materials: titanium, carbon.....used in their best possible applications.
Looking at the Serotta Ottrott and LeMond Victoire, he may have been
right. The ability to build custom sizes and the durability of titanium
mated to the lightness of carbon seems like an ideal combination.

Ultimately, the price will be the determining factor.

[cpg]

bro I think there will always be a anti tech. crowd I think it will grow in the years to come and steel will be their choice. i.m.h.o. cheers :beer:


I know the sentiment of the statement is not to bash steel but I can't help but get my hackles up when steel gets lumped into anti tech arena. Yes, steel has been used longer than any other frame material but I'd hardly call any other material as technologically advanced. Even carbon has been around for a long time and the bike industries use of it is primitive compared to other much larger industries. Marketing has created the idea that whatever is the latest material employed is somehow technologically advanced to last year's offering. Obviously this isn't limited to the bike biz. It sells products but it isn't always true. As Ben Franklin said "Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory." This isn't a rip on any material. They all work to some degree but let's not get into what's more hi tech. That's just an area devoid of critical thought.

I agree with DK's original question/hypothesis. Yes, I see ti frame production scaling back due to the popularity of carbon.

Curt

[shiftinjon]

I think titanium has a diminishing market unless:

1. Prices drop to where they are competitive with other materials,
OR
2. Titanium can become lighter, stronger, "better" than other materials.

Ultimately, the price will be the determining factor.

1. Are the prices of these titanium frames competitive with other materials?

http://www.habcycles.com/

2. This titanium frame:

http://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/frames-and-forks/frames/Colnago/PRD_28430_2493crx.aspx

...is not particularly light but was lighter than the vast majority of steel frames and as light as this carbon fiber frame:

http://www.lookcycle.com/v2/anglais/accueil_frameset.htm

Any number of ti frames could be cited as light enough to compete with any number of carbon fiber frames on the market. Are they stronger? I think maybe. ;)

I think ti is already competitive at the price point, the strength point, and the weight point. It just isn't the lightest or the cheapest, but then only a few frames can claim those titles. As for better, well that's subjective.

[palincss]

One person told me recently that he likes ti because it's a "lifetime" material. My response is that I've never met a rider who actually keeps anything for more than a decade (and that's a stretch) without seeking a either a replacement or an upgrade or an addition...



From 1972 to Dec 1991 my one and only single was a P15 Paramount. I did add a tandem in 1974 or 1975, and upgraded the tandem to a Santana Sovereign in 1983; upgraded that tandem in 1994. In 1991, I bought a custom Ti Spectrum, which I still own, and rode last Sunday, although these days my Rivendells get a lot more use.

I bought a Cannondale Town & Country city bike in 1985 and used that as my commuter until 1995; after I broke 4 crank arms, I decided I needed to upgrade, and bought a Bruce Gordon Rock 'n Road Tour to use as my commuter. I rode that bike in to work today.

So there you have 1 bike I rode for 20 years, 2 tandems I owned for 9 and 11 years respectively, and 1 I've owned for 11 years and still own; a commuter I used for 10 years, another I've used for 10 years and still use; and a Ti road bike I've owned for 14 years and still own.

That makes six bikes I've owned for about a decade or longer.

[Serotta PETE]

Ride a Serotta, Moots, Seven or other top end ti and form your own opinion....

Don't be hesitant to purchase a Ti because is might not be a revenue producer for the large bike companies this year or in the future. From the right builder and in your size, it is a GREAT ride.

As e-Richie and others have said - - "It is not the material but the builder and their application of the material"

[zank]

I know the sentiment of the statement is not to bash steel but I can't help but get my hackles up when steel gets lumped into anti tech arena. Yes, steel has been used longer than any other frame material but I'd hardly call any other material as technologically advanced. Even carbon has been around for a long time and the bike industries use of it is primitive compared to other much larger industries. Marketing has created the idea that whatever is the latest material employed is somehow technologically advanced to last year's offering. Obviously this isn't limited to the bike biz. It sells products but it isn't always true. As Ben Franklin said "Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory." This isn't a rip on any material. They all work to some degree but let's not get into what's more hi tech. That's just an area devoid of critical thought.

I agree with DK's original question/hypothesis. Yes, I see ti frame production scaling back due to the popularity of carbon.

Curt

I agree, Curt. I voiced a similar view a few months back. The bicycle industry is certainly not leading the way in any fabrication process or pushing the limits of any material to construct a frame. Just because a material pushes the limits of a manufacturer, that doesn't make it necessarily hi-tech, just challenging.

[saab2000]

E-Richie says that there is no "Market". Well, he is certainly in a better position than I am to make that statement. But the fact is that 2000 frames per year employs a number of builders. It is just a blip on the radar screens of the big bike builders, but many real enthusiasts are glad that those builders like yourself continue to make frames in the "old fashioned" way.

That market still exists and I don't really expect that to change, at least not in the near future.

[Vancouverdave]

My bike retailer's crystal ball says: As long as highway departments use chipseal and gas taxes stay too low for meaningful maintainance, bikies will keep buying steel and titanium. If there's a material that gets marginalized re high end bikes it will be aluminum because consumers will tend more and more to associate it with $200, 40 lb. badly designed mountain bikes in department stores.

[e-RICHIE]

E-Richie says that there is no "Market". Well, he is certainly in a better position than I am to make that statement. But the fact is that 2000 frames per year employs a number of builders. It is just a blip on the radar screens of the big bike builders, but many real enthusiasts are glad that those builders like yourself continue to make frames in the "old fashioned" way.

That market still exists and I don't really expect that to change, at least not in the near future.

thanks.
i meant "market" in the academic sense, as in, if there
were one, industry would want to exploit it. re the other
stuff: thanks, again. however, as curt infers, there is abso-
lutely nothing old fashioned about what we do and how
we do it.

[saab2000]

I know it is not old fashioned. But in a way it is - in a good way. Yours is a one-man show, except for the painting. Many others are similar. It is old fashioned in the sense that it is not a huge production line and you still make frames with a torch and steel tubes. By yourself. Some of the others have a few employees, but none of them are huge operations I guess.

Serotta is a "big" company, comparitively. But it is still a non-factor for the Giants and Treks of the world.

I don't run a bike production, so I better keep my mouth closed from here on out!!! I wish I made bikes, but I don't.

:beer:

[1centaur]

I think Ti will be a niche material like steel, both aimed at riders looking for a combination of feel and perceived durability over stiffness and lightness. I think aluminum is at risk from advances in composites - perhaps composites can be stiffer and lighter than aluminum, and at some point cheaper. At that point, why aluminum? Now consider the demographic diminution of riders who grew up with steel and Ti and who view their ride characteristics as preferable in part because of that youthful use. How many young people whose first and second and fifth rides are on composites (ever advancing of course) will jump on a steel or Ti bike and, absent a retro instinct, actually find the qualities they find there preferable? It will happen, but the numbers will dwindle.

To answer DK's question, my guess is a highly reputable steel builder won't get a lot more new (non-cannibalizing) customers by offering Ti so it's not worth the money to pay that welding talent and have that equipment. Better to farm out fabrication (a la Hampsten) to a Ti specialist who can build, for example, a DK Ti frame to order using certain unique design traits associated with the principal (steel) business.

[jpw]

I think Ti will be a niche material like steel, both aimed at riders looking for a combination of feel and perceived durability over stiffness and lightness. I think aluminum is at risk from advances in composites - perhaps composites can be stiffer and lighter than aluminum, and at some point cheaper. At that point, why aluminum? Now consider the demographic diminution of riders who grew up with steel and Ti and who view their ride characteristics as preferable in part because of that youthful use. How many young people whose first and second and fifth rides are on composites (ever advancing of course) will jump on a steel or Ti bike and, absent a retro instinct, actually find the qualities they find there preferable? It will happen, but the numbers will dwindle.

To answer DK's question, my guess is a highly reputable steel builder won't get a lot more new (non-cannibalizing) customers by offering Ti so it's not worth the money to pay that welding talent and have that equipment. Better to farm out fabrication (a la Hampsten) to a Ti specialist who can build, for example, a DK Ti frame to order using certain unique design traits associated with the principal (steel) business.

This last bit sounds like coded language for those 'in the know'. Speak plainly please :)

[e-RICHIE]

This last bit sounds like coded language for those 'in the know'. Speak plainly please :)


it's called "branding".

[Fixed]

I know the sentiment of the statement is not to bash steel but I can't help but get my hackles up when steel gets lumped into anti tech arena. Yes, steel has been used longer than any other frame material but I'd hardly call any other material as technologically advanced. Even carbon has been around for a long time and the bike industries use of it is primitive compared to other much larger industries. Marketing has created the idea that whatever is the latest material employed is somehow technologically advanced to last year's offering. Obviously this isn't limited to the bike biz. It sells products but it isn't always true. As Ben Franklin said "Never let the facts get in the way of a good theory." This isn't a rip on any material. They all work to some degree but let's not get into what's more hi tech. That's just an area devoid of critical thought.

I agree with DK's original question/hypothesis. Yes, I see ti frame production scaling back due to the popularity of carbon.

Curtbro all you got to do is go to a gathering on messengers or urban fixed gear riders who make it a point to go against the flow i.m.h.o. cheers :beer:

[Climb01742]

fixed, i think curt's point though is that most folks who ride steel do it to gain something, not protest something. they enjoy the ride. that's paramount, i think. the philosophical implications of steel may be involved somehow, but mostly i think steel riders just dig the ride. that's what they're after. they're for steel, not so much against other choices. 'course there are exceptions. ;)

[ols]

I know many have pointed out that Ti isnt the absolute lightest material.
Nevertheless, at Interbike, there was a Lightspeed Ghisallo at the M2 Racer booth which weighed 7.9 pounds. (I think my 29er mountain bike wheels and biggest tires alone weigh about that...) Presumably, the M2 Racer folks could have chosen a carbon frame for their super light showcase bike, so it would be interesting to know why they chose Ti.

The Ghisallo at Lightspeed's own booth weighed 11.9 pounds. Still, it is cold worked Titanium and I think both frames weigh 1.7 pounds. (How much lighter can frames get?)

Back to Dave's question, I personally think Ti wont become obsolete for frame building. It's also coincidentally the frame material I'd be most interested to buy after only riding steel road bikes. (Hampsten/Moots!)

So here's a follow-on question for those who know something about metallurgy - If Aluminum got a cycling market boost from new alloys like Alumnium-Scandium that improved their characteristics, could some Ti alchemist ever concoct a different alloy which might also improve its relative shortcomings while still keeping Ti's strengths?

[Fixed]

Bro thanks Climb sorry I guess I see everything from the urban street point of view but I like steel best too.cheers :beer:

[Samster]

Hi Sam,
My name is John. Now we've met. :D I own a 1994 Serotta legend Ti and a 1992 Bontrager MTB (steel is real). I see no need to replace either, though I will upgrade some components. Also finding one inch suspension forks for the Bonty is a challenge and it may be forced to retire in a few years. That won't be because I don't want to ride it any more or that I found something better.

As far as TI is concerned. I do think it will end up being a small part of the market segment. Maybe 3rd behind carbon and AL. Could even drop to fourth with the resurgence of steel.

imho...

John


From 1972 to Dec 1991 my one and only single was a P15 Paramount. I did add a tandem in 1974 or 1975, and upgraded the tandem to a Santana Sovereign in 1983; upgraded that tandem in 1994. In 1991, I bought a custom Ti Spectrum, which I still own, and rode last Sunday, although these days my Rivendells get a lot more use.

I bought a Cannondale Town & Country city bike in 1985 and used that as my commuter until 1995; after I broke 4 crank arms, I decided I needed to upgrade, and bought a Bruce Gordon Rock 'n Road Tour to use as my commuter. I rode that bike in to work today.

So there you have 1 bike I rode for 20 years, 2 tandems I owned for 9 and 11 years respectively, and 1 I've owned for 11 years and still own; a commuter I used for 10 years, another I've used for 10 years and still use; and a Ti road bike I've owned for 14 years and still own.

That makes six bikes I've owned for about a decade or longer.


I should have guessed my last post would be instantly refuted... Come to think of it, my good friend David out east still rides his Cannondale from 1989. It's his only bike. And I'm the one who sold it to him...

So much for grand proclamations...

-sam

[OldDog]

I bought a ti Spectrum in 1995 and ride the begeevers out of it, to this day. Up to 2001 as a pure road bike. The last 3 or so years, as a dirt road bike, equiped with Campy triple and 25C conti's. The frame rides as great as expected and is indestructable. Though carbon forks still give me the willies...

In 2001 I purchased a new Sachs, and it remains my choice for pure road rides. Yeah, I bought into the maker, not for the aura of having a master "artisan" but because Ritchie had a long history of making kick a** bikes. And they are not too shabby looking. It's hands down the best road bike in any material I have had in 30+ years of riding.

Maybe next year a new toy. The Terraplane MRB is enticing. But then again is a ti Spectrum set up for rando / dirt road riding....maybe even in a 650B ala Saluki style, if Tom would entertain that.

To DK's original question, I think ti will be around for a long time to come, though good ti may well be limited to Serotta size builders and smaller. By good I mean a builder that can extract the qualities of the material to suit the riders needs.

What is incredably cool is the fact that, in the forseeable future our choices are pretty much unlimited to get exactly what we want in any material. :beer:

fwiw, I do not see a full carbon bike in my future. Plastic just don't do it for me.

[Grant McLean]

This thread has been interesting. It seems to have taken a turn in direction as most threads do. Let me try to gather it up.

For what it's worth the original post wondered aloud if Ti has a future outside the one man shop..........not if you like Ti or if it's stiff or not. I'm not at all questioning if Ti is a good frame material. I'm thinking more from a business perspective. Will it make sense for companies to continue to offer Ti in the future? Will there be enough call for it that it makes sense to keep a staff of Ti welders on hand? Will a company be able to afford to have dropouts cut and BB's turned? As the numbers go down the cost per unit goes up. Something has to give.

Enquiring minds want to know.

Dave

Hi Dave,

I too think this has been an interesting topic. The great thing about Ti for framebuilders is in the custom/made to measure area. Most cool cats don't buy suits off the rack, and I think it should be said that your bicycle frame shouldn't come that way either.

I'm concerned that the technology of constructing carbon frames takes little into consideration of making a "one off", it doesn't seem very important to them. It used to be that almost all the pros rode custom geometry frames, and now most have stock bikes because their sponsor doesn't make custom carbon bikes. Like Serotta and Seven realized, it doesn't really add that much cost to the price if you are making a customer frame in a stock size or a custom size, especially in ti.

Grant

[bluesea]

Hi Dave,

I too think this has been an interesting topic. The great thing about Ti for framebuilders is in the custom/made to measure area. Most cool cats don't buy suits off the rack, and I think it should be said that your bicycle frame shouldn't come that way either.

I'm concerned that the technology of constructing carbon frames takes little into consideration of making a "one off", it doesn't seem very important to them. It used to be that almost all the pros rode custom geometry frames, and now most have stock bikes because their sponsor doesn't make custom carbon bikes. Like Serotta and Seven realized, it doesn't really add that much cost to the price if you are making a customer frame in a stock size or a custom size, especially in ti.

Grant

That's a purdy wide net you're casting...

[csb]

c below

[csb]

everything dies baby that's a fact

[csb]

... but maybe everything that dies someday comes back

[csb]

hey _ that's pretty good!

[csb]

well thanks _ eye thought sew 2

[Sandy]

everything dies baby that's a fact

Memories don't die.


Sandy

[Fixed]

bro soul lives on cheers :beer:

[csb]

Memories don't die.


Sandy

shore they due _ u just knead to boil them longer

[Sandy]

shore they due _ u just knead to boil them longer

Thay due knot! Thay r frizzen in tyme.

Sunday

[csb]

Thay due knot! Thay r frizzen in tyme.

Sunday

like this guy:

http://www.tedwilliamslodge.com/images/ted_williams_fly_fishing_miramichi.jpg

[xspace]

C'mon you guys, aren't you following ANYTHING in the world of metallurgy?

Steel, aluminum, titanium, carbon...these materials are ALREADY passe as anything but a curious footnote to the history of the bicycle.

The future belongs to metallic hydrogen.

Why metallic hydrogen?

It's simple: in addition to being stiff, yet pliant; responsive, non-rusting and shock-absorbing, MH is actually LIGHTER than air!

Yes, that's right...depending upon the thickness of the tubes used to craft your frame (and soon, ALL your components) MH actually TAKES POUNDS OFF YOUR RIDE! Cowabunga!

Been scarfing up too many Krispy Kremes lately? Mas problemma...your new Serotta MeiHYvici can magically bring your entire ride-weight back to the same poundage you enjoyed as a 12-yr old.

Just don't get it wet, since MH undergoes a rapid transformation (also known as fusion) in the presence of H2O.

Other than that...there are no drawbacks.

Hal

[JohnS]

C'mon you guys, aren't you following ANYTHING in the world of metallurgy?

Steel, aluminum, titanium, carbon...these materials are ALREADY passe as anything but a curious footnote to the history of the bicycle.

The future belongs to metallic hydrogen.

Why metallic hydrogen?

It's simple: in addition to being stiff, yet pliant; responsive, non-rusting and shock-absorbing, MH is actually LIGHTER than air!

Yes, that's right...depending upon the thickness of the tubes used to craft your frame (and soon, ALL your components) MH actually TAKES POUNDS OFF YOUR RIDE! Cowabunga!

Been scarfing up too many Krispy Kremes lately? Mas problemma...your new Serotta MeiHYvici can magically bring your entire ride-weight back to the same poundage you enjoyed as a 12-yr old.

Just don't get it wet, since MH undergoes a rapid transformation (also known as fusion) in the presence of H2O.

Other than that...there are no drawbacks.

Hal
Keeps sparks away too, or you'll end up like the Hindenburg. Oh, the humanity of it!

[Climb01742]

maybe it's the contarian in me, but this thread is giving me the itch for a legend or a moots.

as the poet of asbury park croaked, when they said sit down, i stood up.

[jpw]

Hydrogen to metal...at a pressure of 1.4 million bar and a temperature of 5000 K. Not sure Serotta yet has that kind of autoclave in the corner of their workshop.

[Big Dan]

:p


:bike:

[Litespeeder]

Some of these comments about Ti being heavier than aluminum or carbon are either based on wishful thinking or ignorance. My Vamoots SL 6/4 Ti compact frame came in at 2.5 lbs. There aren't many carbon or AL frames that are lighter than that. The new 2006 Litespeed Ghisallo is coming in at just a hair over 1 1/2 pounds. It may very well be the lightest frame out there.

As for stiffness, my Vamoots SL is quite stiff. Stiffer than my 5900 and comparable in stiffness to my CAAD8. As DBRK said, Ti ride quality is wonderful and unsurpassed. IMO, Ti is better than steel in every way except for price. I just don't see the disadvantages that many of you see with Ti frames. Ti frames, when built by a master builder such as Moots or IF, are about as good as it gets. About the only disadvantage that I see is price, and it's the price that's keeping Ti frames out of the pro racing circuit.

A few years back, Robbie McKewin won the TDF green jersey with a Ti frame. His Lotto team would still be riding Ti if it hadn't been merged with Domino. Ti can compete at every level of racing and it can be used to make frames that are just as light, as stiff and as aero as any carbon frame.

Steel has many disadvantages and that's why it has been relegated to middle-aged cyclists. But, Ti has none of steel's disadvantages. To say that Ti will have the same fate as steel is just plain stupid.

:bike:

[e-RICHIE]

<snipped>
1) Steel has many disadvantages and that's why it has been 2) relegated to middle-aged cyclists. But, Ti has none of steel's disadvantages. To say 3) that Ti will have the same fate as steel is just plain stupid.


1) how 'bout a list?
2) most of my clients are 30 something.
3) what fate?

[coylifut]

Some of these comments about Ti being heavier than aluminum or carbon are either based on wishful thinking or ignorance.

To say that Ti will have the same fate as steel is just plain stupid.

:bike:

your tone is killing your credibility

[jpw]

Some of these comments about Ti being heavier than aluminum or carbon are either based on wishful thinking or ignorance. My Vamoots SL 6/4 Ti compact frame came in at 2.5 lbs. There aren't many carbon or AL frames that are lighter than that. The new 2006 Litespeed Ghisallo is coming in at just a hair over 1 1/2 pounds. It may very well be the lightest frame out there.

As for stiffness, my Vamoots SL is quite stiff. Stiffer than my 5900 and comparable in stiffness to my CAAD8. As DBRK said, Ti ride quality is wonderful and unsurpassed. IMO, Ti is better than steel in every way except for price. I just don't see the disadvantages that many of you see with Ti frames. Ti frames, when built by a master builder such as Moots or IF, are about as good as it gets. About the only disadvantage that I see is price, and it's the price that's keeping Ti frames out of the pro racing circuit.

A few years back, Robbie McKewin won the TDF green jersey with a Ti frame. His Lotto team would still be riding Ti if it hadn't been merged with Domino. Ti can compete at every level of racing and it can be used to make frames that are just as light, as stiff and as aero as any carbon frame.

Steel has many disadvantages and that's why it has been relegated to middle-aged cyclists. But, Ti has none of steel's disadvantages. To say that Ti will have the same fate as steel is just plain stupid.

:bike:

That last paragraph...cutting off at the knees stuff. I feel for your intended 'victims', but I agree that steel has disadvantages that count against it when compared to ti.

If steel and ti were at the same price point which one would steel advocates choose? Has price colored their judgement? Please don't misunderstand me on this. Cost is a valid consideration...for many things in life, but surely not when it comes to bikes ;)

[Dr. Doofus]

His Lotto team would still be riding Ti if it hadn't been merged with Domino. Ti can compete at every level of racing

:bike:

As a whole his Lotto team wasn't crazy about their Ti bikes... although McEwen loved his...Van Petegem hated his...and Tchmil rode a C-40 in a couple of races with some nifty silver paint (doof doubted the jerk on this one, then found a french mag with some photos of a "litespeed" with lugs with some buff ugly guy on it)


Most of thosee guys, if not all of them, told KP what they wanted down to the mm, he made some perfectly good designs, and then the frames may or may not have been done by a sub-contractor...whose work was not exactly raved about.

An Ex-Ofoto told I, Doofus Who Am, that his custom Sienna was fantastic, but it was not made in TN, and that *all* of the stock bikes broke during the year, with some guys going through 3 Litespeeds in a season of smooth-road US pro racing....

If a pro team wanted to pay out the nose for team bikes, they could back up Moots or Serottas production for a few months and have some nice bikes...they would ride well, handle well, be made to the highest standards, and be heavy by pro standards to get them stiff enough (stiff for you or I is not stiff enough for a pro who can put out 1400 watts in a sprint or 400 at threshold)....

whatever....I need to get out of here at the bell and help Robert the Shop Cat build up my belgian beer can

[Big Dan]

your tone is killing your credibility


I'm with you Coy....I think his feelings are hurt....... :p

[Serotta PETE]

Memories don't die.


Sandy

Oh yeah.....what was that you were saying Mr Sandy!!!

[Serotta PETE]

maybe it's the contarian in me, but this thread is giving me the itch for a legend or a moots.

as the poet of asbury park croaked, when they said sit down, i stood up.

Was just on a ride today with a fellow who was on a MOOTS. He nor the bike performed as if they were dead or dying....(I now feel dead though)

[flydhest]

He more the bike performed as if they were dead or dying....(I now feel dead though)

Pete . . . put the wine bottle down . . .

[jerk]

That last paragraph...cutting off at the knees stuff. I feel for your intended 'victims', but I agree that steel has disadvantages that count against it when compared to ti.

If steel and ti were at the same price point which one would steel advocates choose? Has price colored their judgement? Please don't misunderstand me on this. Cost is a valid consideration...for many things in life, but surely not when it comes to bikes ;)


they'd choose steel because it's a better material to make a racing bicycle out of. to quote van petegem, "i would have had a better season if i weren't rding the worst bicycle in the peloton."

jerk

[jpw]

they'd choose steel because it's a better material to make a racing bicycle out of. to quote van petegem, "i would have had a better season if i weren't rding the worst bicycle in the peloton."

jerk

Whingeing pro; always looking for an excuse. Not good enough. Must try harder or won't have a contract quite soon. It's not about the bike.

If steel didn't rust then the debate wouldn't rumble on...and on...and on... like this thread. Steel does rust. That's it's flaw. Come on 953, show me what you've got.

What 'we' might want from a frame probably isn't what a pro wants.

:beer: Don't get jerky :beer:

[jerk]

Whingeing pro; always looking for an excuse. Not good enough. Must try harder or won't have a contract quite soon. It's not about the bike.

If steel didn't rust then the debate wouldn't rumble on...and on...and on... like this thread. Steel does rust. That's it's flaw. Come on 953, show me what you've got.

What 'we' might want from a frame probably isn't what a pro wants.

:beer: Don't get jerky :beer:


believe you the jerk. van petegem doesn't need any excuses.

[jpw]

believe you the jerk. van petegem doesn't need any excuses.

"...your stem is JUST FINE". Are you mellowing? :beer:

[jerk]

"...your stem is JUST FINE". Are you mellowing? :beer:


sure. it's cyclocross season and the jerk is allowed to wear a skinsuit.

jerk

[coylifut]

believe you the jerk. van petegem doesn't need any excuses.

didn't the swarthy one win Het Volk on one of those noodles? I rode with a shop owner about six months ago that dropped Litespeed and picked up Scott and Pegoretti. He said Ti is dead, everyone wants carbon and boutique steel.

[chrisroph]

The jerk said:

to quote van petegem, "i would have had a better season if i weren't rding the worst bicycle in the peloton."

Didn't museew say something along those lines about his c-40? Didn't he say that eddy gave him a much better bicycle?

[jpw]

didn't the swarthy one win Het Volk on one of those noodles? I rode with a shop owner about six months ago that dropped Litespeed and picked up Scott and Pegoretti. He said Ti is dead, everyone wants carbon and boutique steel.

Everyone 'wants' a Meivici, but it's not gonna happen.
Everyone wants... what they're told they want.

...boutique... loathsome word.

Drop Litespeed? Sensible. They 'look' awful. No elegance whatsoever. Brutal industrialism. Makes a Serotta look the beauty she most certainly is. The winner... every time.

[Fixed]

[QUOTE=Steel has many disadvantages and that's why it has been relegated to middle-aged cyclists. But, Ti has none of steel's disadvantages. To say that Ti will have the same fate as steel is just plain stupid.

:bike:[/QUOTE]
bro around here most the old guys ride ti. or Cheers

[aLexis]

I feel like everyone who wanted to comment on this thread has had the chance to, and now I would like to close it. Not because it has become contentious or political, but because we make a living making titanium bicycles and I don't think the Serotta forum is an appropriate place to keep this going.

Long live titanium.