Is Ti worth the extra moolah?

[hainy]

I have two custom steel bikes (Tig welded Baum & Lugged Robin Mather) and have been considering my next custom frame.

I know Ti is lighter....not an issue for me.
I know Ti is less likely to corrode....not an issue for me.
I know there is a bling factor.....not an issue for me.
I know Ti is more expensive....only a minor issue for me

Maybe I have already answered my question but does it offer something else that steel can't with modern tubing in the hands of a good builder.

I am at that stage of my cycling where I am chasing Cols not Crits. Off to the Dolimites at the end of August for 8 days of the Italian Alps on my trusty Baum.

Cheers

Hainy
Sydney, Australia

[p nut]

Yep, you answered your own question.

Get a Ti bike, because that itch will just get worse as time goes on. There were really no logics behind many of my bike purchases, so your reasonings against getting a Ti bike are irrelevant. :)

[jr59]

It ride differently. Some say smoother, but I'll just say differently!

I have custom both, it's just different!

I know thats not muck help, but it is so.

I think it was Dave Kirk who told the story of 2 tubes, hit the steel one against the bench and it rings, hit the Ti one and it feels and sounds differently.

Maybe he will chime in.

[yakstone]

I am a big fan of Ti.
Ti Mountain Bikes, Road Bikes and SS. I also have 2 Steel rides.

I think the previous poster hit it, Ti rides differently. If you have not owned one, you should. Life is about experiences, go for it.

[Matthew]

I have two ti bikes. Both ride great. Incredibly happy with my Moots Compact. Does everything well in my opinion. Rides at least as good and maybe better than my recently built Meivici. Matthew

[Ahneida Ride]

I have a Serotta Legend Ti and a Bedford Lugged Steel.

Similar gearing ... The Bedford has a Stainless KVA rear end + SS lugs.

Both ride impeccably. The Bedford is a bit heavier due to the steel fork.
Both are designed as Sport Touring bikes.
Both are Century bikes. (long lasting comfort)
Both snap when you hit the Pedals.
Both climb exceeding well.

Which is "better" is a matter of personal preference.
Do you like road feedback ? If so ... go steel.
(feedback, not noise or vibration)

Send me a PM if you want to chat more ....

My Best ....

[Louis]

Random comment: I've always felt that Ti is a better material for a travel bike. Both the material and the surface finish will be more tolerant of the maltreatment the tubes are sure to get over time.

Personally I think any cyclist contemplating bike number n+1 should consider a change in material - it's a good idea and perfectly justifiable.

[eddief]

but my all ti Carver with Enve 2.0 is the most comfortable riding bike over all road surfaces compared to the other zillion I have owned over the years. Best overall road feel of any I've ever ridden. Not the snappiest climber, but snappy enough. Don't ask me to define snappy...you know what I mean.

[donevwil]

I have a Serotta Legend Ti and a Bedford Lugged Steel.

Similar gearing ... The Bedford has a Stainless KVA rear end + SS lugs.

Both ride impeccably. The Bedford is a bit heavier due to the steel fork.
Both are designed as Sport Touring bikes.
Both are Century bikes. (long lasting comfort)
Both snap when you hit the Pedals.
Both climb exceeding well.

Which is "better" is a matter of personal preference.
Do you like road feedback ? If so ... go steel.
(feedback, not noise or vibration)

Yes !

My two current framesets are a Comare MAX and a Potts S&S Ti with steel Type II fork both with near identical geo.

Largely the same feedback as "above". Lugged MAX is heavy so built up it is easily 5lbs ^ the Ti. The Potts steel fork is a big add for me as I've never been satisfied with CF forks designed for someone 60-80 lbs less than me and I'm sure is a large reason why it's the best handling bike I've ever had.

[velotrack]

The material doesn't make the frame.

Keep that in mind (and it seems like you are totally aware), but if you have the funds and the desire is there, I suppose it wouldn't be all that bad to venture to Ti - some (very good, if I must say) builders will build titanium at the cost of mid-high end steel. Mike DeSalvo, for example, has Ti frames starting less than 3 grand for a frame and fork.

[bargainguy]

Resonances with ti are different than steel. They seem farther up the spectrum....more of a muted buzz than a harsh rumble. More the "smooth as glass" feeling when road conditions are right.

Whether this would make the difference for you, who knows. A test ride on a nice ti bike would probably help you decide which direction to go.

[vqdriver]

i've had ti. i liked it. i sold it.
for me the functional advantages mentioned don't amount to a necessity so my money's better spent on other things. i don't get the "magic ride" of ti thing. i mean it was nice and all. but not mind blowing. steel (and carbon for that matter) ride pretty nice too.

having said that. it's an itch that will probably get scratched eventually so you might as well do it sooner rather than later.

[rwsaunders]

I had one, sold it and I wouldn't mind owning another one. Easy to clean and maintain that's for sure. From a ride perspective, I couldn't tell the difference between my steel bikes and the Ti.

[rnhood]

Ti has some nice advantages so if I were to go metal, it would likely be Ti.

[Chris]

Read Steve Tilford's blog today. I have typically ridden ti (Serotta and Moots). I have a Speedvagen now. Both are super nice. I had more peace of mind on ti because of the indestructibility issue. That was the only real difference for me.

[hainy]

I suppose if the itch gets too much their is only one way to fix it.

I will have a talk with the guys at Baum at what I am looking for in my next build and see what they think.

Cheers

hainy

[GT2R]

Resonances with ti are different than steel. They seem farther up the spectrum....more of a muted buzz than a harsh rumble. More the "smooth as glass" feeling when road conditions are right.

Whether this would make the difference for you, who knows. A test ride on a nice ti bike would probably help you decide which direction to go.


This. Well described and sound advice.

[cnighbor1]

Go ti if traveling to other countries with your bicycle
Steel paint can get messed
CF can get broken
Ti you just clean up any areas messed up with steel wool or polish
and Ti can be fixed steel also but paint fixing costly
I take my Ti when on vaction and driving
Charles

[David Kirk]

I have two custom steel bikes (Tig welded Baum & Lugged Robin Mather) and have been considering my next custom frame.

I know Ti is lighter....not an issue for me.
I know Ti is less likely to corrode....not an issue for me.
I know there is a bling factor.....not an issue for me.
I know Ti is more expensive....only a minor issue for me

Maybe I have already answered my question but does it offer something else that steel can't with modern tubing in the hands of a good builder.

I am at that stage of my cycling where I am chasing Cols not Crits. Off to the Dolimites at the end of August for 8 days of the Italian Alps on my trusty Baum.

Cheers

Hainy
Sydney, Australia



If you don't mind my asking how tall are you and what do you weight?

dave

[Chris]

If you don't mind my asking how tall are you and what do you weight?

dave

Forget about him. What about us? :) I'd love to read your thoughts on this. 6'2" and 170 here

[jimoots]

Personally I think that if you don't really care about weight and you find steel to be stiff enough, there's no rational reason to mess with titanium.

Having said that, since when have purchasing decisions around bikes needed to be rational.

[texbike]

Interesting comments on the resonance in Ti. I've noticed it as well with my Moots. I like it!

The other thing that I really like is that you can sweat all over Ti and not sweat about it having a negative impact on the finish. My Moots has only been used on days that were rainy or threatening to rain so far this Summer and I haven't been as good about cleaning it as I should. I finally wiped it down last night and it looks so damn good... :)

Texbike

[Fatty]

You know,,, there is just something about that grey metal. Very beautiful just to look at.

[Scooper]

If you're thinking about Ti because of the bling factor and the money isn't an issue, you might want to consider a stainless steel frame.

My 61cm 953 frame weighs the same as a similar size/geometry Ti frame (~1650g) and has the same advantages of corrosion resistance and ease of maintaining a raw (unpainted) finish. The ride quality is the same as my other high end steel frames. With a polished finish there's lots of bling.

[Louis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpozIzjuYKc

http://www.caltechprecision.com/images/prod/p17.jpg

http://www.caltechprecision.com/images/prod/p18.jpg

[jtakeda]

I'm 5'7''-145lbs.

I'm not a likely candidate to feel a ton of flex, but my Ti bike is tied for my favorite bike I've ever ridden.

It feels like riding on a cloud. I didn't buy it for that much so I can't say I wouldve bought it if it was super expensive, but now that I have it, its not going ANYWHERE (unless I can trade it for a Moots).

[hainy]

If you don't mind my asking how tall are you and what do you weight?

dave

Hi David,

I am 6'2" and 167 lbs (76kg)

Cheers

Hainy

[Stephen2014]

Nothing against Ti but if I had the money it would be too good to miss the chance of getting 953 (which is stainless steel).

[Doug Fattic]

Don’t include me as one of those that likes the ride of titanium better than thin walled steel. I went to England in the mid 70’s to learn how to build and paint steel frames. In the early 90’s titanium became the hot stuff. I didn’t want my job to become obsolete so I attended the very first titanium class United Bicycle Institute ran with Gary Helfrich as the instructor. He was one of the founders of Merlin. So I can build with either material.

The day when my attitude between steel and titanium was tipped in favor of steel (not related to anybody else’s preferences) was when I took both a custom steel and titanium bicycle to ride on the Hilly Hundred in Indiana. It is a 2-day ride. I rode the ti the 1st day and it was just fine. But I liked riding my light steel bike more the 2nd day. It just felt more lively to me compared to the flat or dead feeling of ti. Keep in mind that I greatly prefer very light steel (with a down and top tube of .7/.4./.7mm wall thickness) with a 1” top tube. I don’t like the much more common 9/6/9 thickness or standard oversize steel tubes nearly as well. YMMV. I developed this preference for my own bikes long before Jan Heine wrote about the classic French guys building with 3/ten (which if I understand their terminology refers to .3mm thickness in the center of the tube.

I should also mention that there is not much weight difference between light steel and titanium frames. In fact the light steel tubes in my shop weigh less than titanium ones. It is the ti bottom bracket shell and dropouts that are lighter.

[David Kirk]

Good morning -

I fully realize that what I'm about to say may make some folks feel defensive while others will smile and nod in agreement and frankly, IMO, it's all good -

Based on what I have seen over the years working with both steel and Ti is that many larger/heavier riders appreciate steel more than they do Ti. Now I can hear the big guys out there with Ti bikes that they love calling BS and I would never go as far as saying you shouldn't own and love the bike that you do.......I will say that putting big guys on both types of bikes over the years, and being a bigish guy myself, has shown me that the bigger/heavier the rider the more they typically like steel over Ti.

Conversely, many smaller and lighter riders have a greater appreciation of Ti over steel.

The reason is simple - Ti as a material is about 30% less stiff than steel when the diameters/walls are the same (this is a big 'but' and needs to be kept in mind) so many big guys end up with Ti frames that could be stiffer. One can of course increase the diameter of the tubes used and make them stiffer in most cases - except for one - the chainstays.

There was a great thread about this many years ago - http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=27202&highlight=chainstay+stiffness

I think like many threads it goes a bit off the rails as the pages go on but there is a lot of good info in there.

So - what is the best material for a given rider? It depends.........it depends on the size/weight of the rider as well as how the bike will be used and what characteristics the rider wants the bike to have. If the rider is big/strong/aggressive then I feel they may be happier with steel than Ti..........if the rider is big/non-agressive but wants a bike for long cruising century rides and prioritizes a silky smooth ride over outright race stiffness then Ti might be the better choice.

Smaller/lighter riders will sometimes prefer the feel of Ti over steel as it is plenty stiff for them and it gives a very nice ride to the light rider..........if the smaller and lighter rider has a high power/weight ratio and they are aggressive they may like steel more than Ti.

The tough part here is where does one draw the line? I'm sure there are some reading that want to ask at what exact point of the weight/size continuum will one be best served by one material over the other? As much as I wish there was a spreadsheet that would say that a rider that is 6'2" and 170 will be best served by 'X' material there is no such thing and will never be as the big variable (the rider) has so much bearing on the end result.

So to address the OP's question - at 6'2" and 167 lbs there is no clear answer IMO and it will boil down to your preferences and desires. You would very much be in the overlap area of the chart. You are tall (meaning the tubes are long and therefore more flexible) but light (meaning that the tubes need to be less stiff to give good results) so I'll bet you could be happy either way. I think a steel bike would give you more snap and jump and a Ti bike would be a bit smoother and compliant. Ti doesn't need paint....steel can be lugged and maybe you love that look. You really can't lose.

In the end I've typed a lot and haven't given a firm and conclusive answer and the reason for this is that I do not feel that one can be given or even exists. Like all else, bike design and material choice it's nuanced and a series of compromises to optimize the design and bike for the rider. There is no real answer. There are trends that will help the rider choose the best material but only the rider, through experience, can determine the right choice for them.

dave

[buddybikes]

unpainted raw ti brushed frames are great no paint to chip just buff it with scotchbrite.

[redir]

I love my Ti bike but nothing rides better than my steel bikes. So you have answered your own question. You have two custom steel bikes that's all you will ever need, want is another story.

[sailorboy]

as usual, a great case can be made for locking this thread after Dave Kirk's well-considered and evidence-based response.

Thanks for taking the time Dave.

To the OP; so when are you placing your order for a steel Kirk? ;) I would recommend the JK special.

[xeladragon]

Maybe I have already answered my question but does it offer something else that steel can't with modern tubing in the hands of a good builder.

Short answer... nope.

Like others have said... generally speaking, the ride is a little different comparing Ti and steel.

Question I have is... can a good builder build a Ti bike that rides like steel?

[eddief]

titanium chainstays, titanium seat tube, carbon top and down tubes and seat stays and fork. Another whole ballgame. Different than all the things discussed here and a very interesting combo. Smooth riding, but not as buttery as my all ti, but does seem like a snappier climber. A good bike.

[cbresciani]

I recently just purchased a Titus Ti bike mainly because I really wanted a Ti bike. As for the feel, like others have said it's different. I have a Colnago C40 that I really enjoy riding and I have a tendency to compare other bikes to this one.

With that being said the Ti bike has a very similar road feel but it is different, of course this could be due to the different tires but I think the ride on the Ti is a little bit softer than carbon fiber.

Now when comparing the Ti bike to my De Rosa which is EL/OS that is where the feel of the road is way different. My De Rosa rides very smooth compared to the Ti bike. So I would say the road feel of Ti is more similar to Carbon Fiber than steel.

I would say get the Ti bike you will not regret it, plus a variety of frame materials is a always a nice thing to have.

[Highpowernut]

I bought a new to me legend. All I can say is it rides different than any other bike I've ridden.

I wanted Ti for the fact that it'd be a life time frame. I have a carbon Serotta that I'm always afraid I'll crash and it'll be gone.

But as others have said, it all depends on what you're looking for in the frame.

Good luck , have fun .

[hainy]

Good morning -

I fully realize that what I'm about to say may make some folks feel defensive while others will smile and nod in agreement and frankly, IMO, it's all good -

Based on what I have seen over the years working with both steel and Ti is that many larger/heavier riders appreciate steel more than they do Ti. Now I can hear the big guys out there with Ti bikes that they love calling BS and I would never go as far as saying you shouldn't own and love the bike that you do.......I will say that putting big guys on both types of bikes over the years, and being a bigish guy myself, has shown me that the bigger/heavier the rider the more they typically like steel over Ti.

Conversely, many smaller and lighter riders have a greater appreciation of Ti over steel.

The reason is simple - Ti as a material is about 30% less stiff than steel when the diameters/walls are the same (this is a big 'but' and needs to be kept in mind) so many big guys end up with Ti frames that could be stiffer. One can of course increase the diameter of the tubes used and make them stiffer in most cases - except for one - the chainstays.

There was a great thread about this many years ago - http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=27202&highlight=chainstay+stiffness

I think like many threads it goes a bit off the rails as the pages go on but there is a lot of good info in there.

So - what is the best material for a given rider? It depends.........it depends on the size/weight of the rider as well as how the bike will be used and what characteristics the rider wants the bike to have. If the rider is big/strong/aggressive then I feel they may be happier with steel than Ti..........if the rider is big/non-agressive but wants a bike for long cruising century rides and prioritizes a silky smooth ride over outright race stiffness then Ti might be the better choice.

Smaller/lighter riders will sometimes prefer the feel of Ti over steel as it is plenty stiff for them and it gives a very nice ride to the light rider..........if the smaller and lighter rider has a high power/weight ratio and they are aggressive they may like steel more than Ti.

The tough part here is where does one draw the line? I'm sure there are some reading that want to ask at what exact point of the weight/size continuum will one be best served by one material over the other? As much as I wish there was a spreadsheet that would say that a rider that is 6'2" and 170 will be best served by 'X' material there is no such thing and will never be as the big variable (the rider) has so much bearing on the end result.

So to address the OP's question - at 6'2" and 167 lbs there is no clear answer IMO and it will boil down to your preferences and desires. You would very much be in the overlap area of the chart. You are tall (meaning the tubes are long and therefore more flexible) but light (meaning that the tubes need to be less stiff to give good results) so I'll bet you could be happy either way. I think a steel bike would give you more snap and jump and a Ti bike would be a bit smoother and compliant. Ti doesn't need paint....steel can be lugged and maybe you love that look. You really can't lose.

In the end I've typed a lot and haven't given a firm and conclusive answer and the reason for this is that I do not feel that one can be given or even exists. Like all else, bike design and material choice it's nuanced and a series of compromises to optimize the design and bike for the rider. There is no real answer. There are trends that will help the rider choose the best material but only the rider, through experience, can determine the right choice for them.

dave

Hi Dave,

Firstly I would like to say how highly flattered I am that you have taken the time to reply to this thread. We are all very fortunate to have people of your knowledge of frames and materials on the forum.

This is actually the type of answer that I was looking for and I fully understand what you are saying. As I am now 54 and where I ride in Sydney we are frequently climbing and descending often on national park road that are quite rough. This probably leans me towards the compliance and smoothness of the Ti material.

I can discuss further with Steve Hogg who is my bike fitter here as he knows me and the type of rider I am very well. His last 2 frames have been Ti (Seven and Passoni) and he is highly impressed.

For my next build I am considering a slightly lower BB and longer chain stay.

Again thanks for taking the time.

Hainy

For my next build

[djg]

Good morning -

I fully realize that what I'm about to say may make some folks feel defensive while others will smile and nod in agreement and frankly, IMO, it's all good -

Based on what I have seen over the years working with both steel and Ti is that many larger/heavier riders appreciate steel more than they do Ti. Now I can hear the big guys out there with Ti bikes that they love calling BS and I would never go as far as saying you shouldn't own and love the bike that you do.......I will say that putting big guys on both types of bikes over the years, and being a bigish guy myself, has shown me that the bigger/heavier the rider the more they typically like steel over Ti.

Conversely, many smaller and lighter riders have a greater appreciation of Ti over steel.

The reason is simple - Ti as a material is about 30% less stiff than steel when the diameters/walls are the same (this is a big 'but' and needs to be kept in mind) so many big guys end up with Ti frames that could be stiffer. One can of course increase the diameter of the tubes used and make them stiffer in most cases - except for one - the chainstays.

There was a great thread about this many years ago - http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=27202&highlight=chainstay+stiffness

I think like many threads it goes a bit off the rails as the pages go on but there is a lot of good info in there.

So - what is the best material for a given rider? It depends.........it depends on the size/weight of the rider as well as how the bike will be used and what characteristics the rider wants the bike to have. If the rider is big/strong/aggressive then I feel they may be happier with steel than Ti..........if the rider is big/non-agressive but wants a bike for long cruising century rides and prioritizes a silky smooth ride over outright race stiffness then Ti might be the better choice.

Smaller/lighter riders will sometimes prefer the feel of Ti over steel as it is plenty stiff for them and it gives a very nice ride to the light rider..........if the smaller and lighter rider has a high power/weight ratio and they are aggressive they may like steel more than Ti.

The tough part here is where does one draw the line? I'm sure there are some reading that want to ask at what exact point of the weight/size continuum will one be best served by one material over the other? As much as I wish there was a spreadsheet that would say that a rider that is 6'2" and 170 will be best served by 'X' material there is no such thing and will never be as the big variable (the rider) has so much bearing on the end result.

So to address the OP's question - at 6'2" and 167 lbs there is no clear answer IMO and it will boil down to your preferences and desires. You would very much be in the overlap area of the chart. You are tall (meaning the tubes are long and therefore more flexible) but light (meaning that the tubes need to be less stiff to give good results) so I'll bet you could be happy either way. I think a steel bike would give you more snap and jump and a Ti bike would be a bit smoother and compliant. Ti doesn't need paint....steel can be lugged and maybe you love that look. You really can't lose.

In the end I've typed a lot and haven't given a firm and conclusive answer and the reason for this is that I do not feel that one can be given or even exists. Like all else, bike design and material choice it's nuanced and a series of compromises to optimize the design and bike for the rider. There is no real answer. There are trends that will help the rider choose the best material but only the rider, through experience, can determine the right choice for them.

dave

So what you're saying is that it has to be Ti?

[djg21]

I'm 5'7''-145lbs.

I'm not a likely candidate to feel a ton of flex, but my Ti bike is tied for my favorite bike I've ever ridden.

It feels like riding on a cloud. I didn't buy it for that much so I can't say I wouldve bought it if it was super expensive, but now that I have it, its not going ANYWHERE (unless I can trade it for a Moots).

I'm 6'3 and 215lbs. I ride a custom Lynskey 420 that is among the stiffest bikes I've ridden. The only road bike that was close or as stiff was a steel bike built for me in the 90s out of old Columbus Multishape tubing. The new Ti bikes are nowhere near as flexi as the old Merlins.

BTW, both are equally comfortable too.

I think Ti is the best material for bikes given it is relatively maintenance free. Bikes are tool, ant Ti is just utilitarian.

[happycampyer]

Hey, Dave, although it might not be directly on point, I was searching for but could not find a post (or was it a blog entry on your website?) in which you described the process you went through at Serotta building a variety of ti bikes in order to try to duplicate the ride quality of a CSi. That was a fascinating post/blog.

In my own experience, I have never owned or ridden a steel bike that I liked as much as my ti or carbon bikes (or mixed carbon/ti). The one thing I will say about a steel bike with a steel fork—nothing I have ever ridden descends as confidently. I'm sure that if there's any builder who could change my mind about steel it's Mr. Kirk.

Regarding the latest generation of super-stiff ti bikes with giant tubes, PF BB30 bottom brackets, etc. like the Moots Vamoots RSL, I have to say I have mixed feelings. I personally find them too stiff, and that they lose some of the ride quality that to me makes a ti bike with oversized (but not over-oversized) tubing special.

[jtakeda]

I'm 6'3 and 215lbs. I ride a custom Lynskey 420 that is among the stiffest bikes I've ridden. The only road bike that was close or as stiff was a steel bike built for me in the 90s out of old Columbus Multishape tubing. The new Ti bikes are nowhere near as flexi as the old Merlins.

BTW, both are equally comfortable too.

I think Ti is the best material for bikes given it is relatively maintenance free. Bikes are tool, ant Ti is just utilitarian.

So maybe modern Ti gives the same ride quality as vintage Ti has given all the
Smaller folks?

Hard to say, since were on different sides of the size spectrum. I will say, I rode a buddies moots for a very short time uphill, felt exactly like my Merlin.

Didn't descend the bike though.

[Tony]

The Ti vs Steel comes up a lot. Lots of this is subjective and depends a lot on what Ti, steel, and carbon bike your comparing.
I've had the good fortune to try lots of different bikes this last couple years. I've tried three Ti, and several steel and carbon bikes from friends, and sometimes folks I just met on the trail : ) Lots of folks seem to have the same pedals (speedplays) and are about my size and weight ( 5'9, 165 lbs) and don't mind swapping bikes. I always compare their bikes to my Colorado III. Overall I prefer steel. I will say carbon has really grown on me!
Anyways, you really can't get away wearing these Iron Man tights with anything else but steel :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGuvNtS5kb8

[djg21]

So maybe modern Ti gives the same ride quality as vintage Ti has given all the
Smaller folks?

Hard to say, since were on different sides of the size spectrum. I will say, I rode a buddies moots for a very short time uphill, felt exactly like my Merlin.

Didn't descend the bike though.

It more a function of frame design. My bike was built with Lynsky's biaxial down tube that flares sort of horizontally at the BB shell to stiffen it laterally. The bike is stiff, but comfortable. I've owned an original Merlin, a Litespeed Vortex and now the Lynskey. I've not seen the lower end Lynskeys, but the quality of the welds and finish on my bike is top notch.

I really like the way a nice Ti bike rides.

[pjmsj21]

I know that the axiom of: "if it fits really well, and the geometry is well designed, which material is relatively inconsequential" is often quoted or referred to on this forum and I think for good reason.

Differences in ride are more effected by tire choice than anything else and handling is a function of geometry. So from my modest experience, if the fit is spot on and the geometry is suited for its intended purpose, the material that you choose is doesn't really play that big of a role in your enjoyment of a bike.

[happycampyer]

I know that the axiom of: "if it fits really well, and the geometry is well designed, which material is relatively inconsequential" is often quoted or referred to on this forum and I think for good reason.

Differences in ride are more effected by tire choice than anything else and handling is a function of geometry. So from my modest experience, if the fit is spot on and the geometry is suited for its intended purpose, the material that you choose is doesn't really play that big of a role in your enjoyment of a bike.

I realize that that is often stated, but my personal experience is that it is simply not true. My bikes are set up with contact points that are within millimeters orf each other if not exactly the same, and I use the same saddle, handlebars, drivetrain components, etc. on each. When I compare one bike to another, I use the exact same wheels and tires (actually switching them, not a similar pair). I will give you that the geometries are not all the same, but some are (e.g., my MeiVici and Legend are exactly the same, and several others are within millimeters of those). There are definitely differences in ride quality—how the bike feels when one rolls over road imperfections/cracks, etc., transmission of road feel/vibrations, responsiveness, etc. The differences are often subtle, but they are there.

To give an example, I recently did an A/B test with christian (a man of exceptionally refined taste in bikes and, if you've ever met him, in life in general), in which we rode back to back a Vamoots RSL and a Serotta Pronto, swapping wheels when we switched bikes. The geos of the two bikes are virtually identical. It's surprising (or perhaps not) how similar our impressions were.

[eippo1]

I realize that that is often stated, but my personal experience is that it is simply not true. My bikes are set up with contact points that are within millimeters orf each other if not exactly the same, and I use the same saddle, handlebars, drivetrain components, etc. on each. When I compare one bike to another, I use the exact same wheels and tires (actually switching them, not a similar pair). I will give you that the geometries are not all the same, but some are (e.g., my MeiVici and Legend are exactly the same, and several others are within millimeters of those). There are definitely differences in ride quality—how the bike feels when one rolls over road imperfections/cracks, etc., transmission of road feel/vibrations, responsiveness, etc. The differences are often subtle, but they are there.

To give an example, I recently did an A/B test with christian (a man of exceptionally refined taste in bikes and, if you've ever met him, in life in general), in which we rode back to back a Vamoots RSL and a Serotta Pronto, swapping wheels when we switched bikes. The geos of the two bikes are virtually identical. It's surprising (or perhaps not) how similar our impressions were.
That's quite a lead up to the climax without delivering. So what were your impressions? And yes I do understand that there is a fair amount of subjectivity.

[dekindy]

Simply put, if you want a forever bike and do not want the hassles of chipped and scratched paint(which is not what you specified but was what I wanted) get naked titanium. Otherwise, get steel.

I have a Serotta Legend and a Waterford RS-22, neither was made custom for me. LBS mechanics say the Legend with Shimano road tubeless wheels and tires is the smoothest riding bike they have ever ridden. The Waterford has Velocity Deep V's with Vittoria Open Pave CG's. I am afraid that if I put the Shimano wheels on the Waterford it will be smoother than the Legend. Both are great riding bikes and I ride the Waterford. Before I got the Waterford the backup got ridden a couple times a year when the Legend was in for maintenance; even then I tried to time maintenance so I would not have to miss a ride with the Legend. Now I have both bikes set up so that I just have to switch the saddle bag, which can be removed at the push of a tab where before it was a hassle to switch bag, pump, etc.

The only reason that I have 2 bikes is to have a backup in case one breaks. I almost missed a major ride when I hit a chuckhole and broke a White Industries hub and Legend frame. I would not have the Legend except for getting it for the deal of the century as a lightly used demo and would be perfectly happy with steel ride but would miss the ability to refresh the bare titanium myself.

[fuzzalow]

I recently acquired a new custom Ti that is representative of the newest developments and fashion in state of the art 2014 Ti: 44mm headtube; 1 1/2" to 1 1/8" Enve fork, Over-oversized downtube & 1" chainstays. It should be reasonably stiff but I did not emphasize to the builder I wanted a stiff frame but rather just let him build what he thought appropriate to my height, weight and frame size.

Regarding the latest generation of super-stiff ti bikes with giant tubes, PF BB30 bottom brackets, etc. like the Moots Vamoots RSL, I have to say I have mixed feelings. I personally find them too stiff, and that they lose some of the ride quality that to me makes a ti bike with oversized (but not over-oversized) tubing special.

I admit, I simply cannot discern whether a frame is overly stiff or not. I don't have the setup dialed in just yet so it still requires a bit of core musculature position-wise to ride it and I have only ridden it to date less than 250 miles. It rides fine, the frame has all the familiar resonant frequency freedback road feel of a Ti frame.

I guess "stiffness" as a frame quality to me is like have someone describe the taste of a peach - no one has conveyed it in a manner that I've been able to comprehend other than as another's subjective feeling. And yet it is a quality many riders have equally sought after or avoided, although based on what I couldn't say as far as being able to leverage their views and experience.

There was a great thread about this many years ago - http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=27202&highlight=chainstay+stiffness

I think like many threads it goes a bit off the rails as the pages go on but there is a lot of good info in there.

Good grief, a blast from the past! A bunch of grown men falling over each other all trying to outdo each other with pretentious, pithy obliqueness.

So from my modest experience, if the fit is spot on and the geometry is suited for its intended purpose, the material that you choose is doesn't really play that big of a role in your enjoyment of a bike.

I'll be so bold as to say I have a bit more than modest experience. And I agree with you. The differences are very subtle. But in fairness, to a sophisticated crowd, the subtlety is worth chasing, recognized and enjoyed.

[eddief]

that different metals have different molecular compositions and their physical properties can and have been measured and we know those measurements are not the same for both metals. And that steel tubes and ti tubes come in a huge range of sizes and wall thicknesses and butting and not. And every bike will ride differently and every ride quality could be described differently by each rider and each rider has his own idea of what is a cool bike. But it is always fun to discuss the nuances we all think we know we feel when we are on the one we love that day. The solution to this age old problem has been determined to be the formula n+1. I think that is the closest we could come to certainty in this conversation.

It's our way of allowing a religious discussion on the forum.

[93legendti]

I know that the axiom of: "if it fits really well, and the geometry is well designed, which material is relatively inconsequential" is often quoted or referred to on this forum and I think for good reason.

Differences in ride are more effected by tire choice than anything else and handling is a function of geometry. So from my modest experience, if the fit is spot on and the geometry is suited for its intended purpose, the material that you choose is doesn't really play that big of a role in your enjoyment of a bike.

Unless you have a Fierte steel and Fierte ti in same stock size (54) with same grouppo, wheels, post, saddle, bars, bar tape and realize different materials ride differently. I kept the Fierte ti...much smoother than the Fierte steel

[saab2000]

Last year I won a raffle for a steel Gravel Royale from Independent Fabrication. I paid an up charge for Ti because I have too many steel bikes as it is. I'm glad I did. Given the nature of the bike with fatter tires it's hard to be a princess and a pea regarding ride quality but I haven't noticed any negatives either. And I like the bead blasted surface finish. And I know it's never going to rust.

I'm not sorry I did it but the price made me sit up and take notice. It wasn't inexpensive. Premium Ti is never going to be cheap.

But I didn't get Ti for any ride quality reasons. I got it for durability and to try something new.

[avalonracing]

Keep in mind that I greatly prefer very light steel (with a down and top tube of .7/.4./.7mm wall thickness) with a 1” top tube. I don’t like the much more common 9/6/9 thickness or standard oversize steel tubes nearly as well. YMMV. I developed this preference for my own bikes long before Jan Heine wrote about the classic French guys building with 3/ten (which if I understand their terminology refers to .3mm thickness in the center of the tube.


Doesn't that make for a more fragile bike though? Maybe not structurally but at least cosmetically?
I've seen many thin-walled steel bikes with dents in the top and down tubes from the tiniest of knocks.

[Doug Fattic]

Doesn't that make for a more fragile bike though? Maybe not structurally but at least cosmetically?
I've seen many thin-walled steel bikes with dents in the top and down tubes from the tiniest of knocks.
Yes, dents are more likely on thin wall steel tubing but that doesn’t mean they dent easily. Heat treatment makes them less likely to dent. That started in the later 70’s with Reynolds 753 and become more popular to use with Tange Prestige. I’ve used 7/4/7 top tubes on my personal frames and many customer frames without issues for a very long time. .6/.3/.6 tubing is more fragile and can’t take any abuse.

Steel frames get lumped into one category but in fact there is a wide variety of wall thicknesses and tubing diameters that change ride characteristics. A true custom builder selects each tube based on a customer’s specific requirements. I doubt very many Paceliners have ever ridden a frame in their size with a 1” top tube made out of 7/4/7 tubing. Production frames need to assume a heavy person will be using it so it was rare manufacturers used anything lighter than 9/6/9. In addition light heat-treated tubing requires more care in building making it even less likely to be production made. It was/is not uncommon for custom frames to be made out of 7/4/7 tubing but with 1 1/8” top tubes. Mathematical calculations show that is roughly equivalent to a 1” 9/6/9 tube. In other words like the old Columbus SL.

Every rider is a different size/weight with a different power output and pedaling smoothness while using their bicycle in various ways over all kinds of terrain. So all those different kinds of tubing come in handy when trying to find the right combination for a specific customer. What I’ve learned is that the really light stuff with a standard 1” top tube is by far my favorite. YMMV. The heavier stuff feels much more dead to me.

One commonly held philosophy that I don’t believe is that a frame should be as stiff as possible for the most energy efficient power transfer. There needs to be some give. Jan Heine has written a lot about his preference for light tubing in 1” top tube frames. His theories on why he thinks that works best has created a lot of heated argument. The problem is that rejection of his theories has sometimes led to the rejection of preferring light tubes frames. I can theorize too but don’t really know why it works best for me. While I don’t know the why, I do know that frame with a 1” top tube frame with 7/4/7 tubing is by far my favorite. And I’ve ridden all kinds of custom frames with different tubing I’ve made test ridding them before customer pick up.

[eddief]

amen
Yes, dents are more likely on thin wall steel tubing but that doesn’t mean they dent easily. Heat treatment makes them less likely to dent. That started in the later 70’s with Reynolds 753 and become more popular to use with Tange Prestige. I’ve used 7/4/7 top tubes on my personal frames and many customer frames without issues for a very long time. .6/.3/.6 tubing is more fragile and can’t take any abuse.

Steel frames get lumped into one category but in fact there is a wide variety of wall thicknesses and tubing diameters that change ride characteristics. A true custom builder selects each tube based on a customer’s specific requirements. I doubt very many Paceliners have ever ridden a frame in their size with a 1” top tube made out of 7/4/7 tubing. Production frames need to assume a heavy person will be using it so it was rare manufacturers used anything lighter than 9/6/9. In addition light heat-treated tubing requires more care in building making it even less likely to be production made. It was/is not uncommon for custom frames to be made out of 7/4/7 tubing but with 1 1/8” top tubes. Mathematical calculations show that is roughly equivalent to a 1” 9/6/9 tube. In other words like the old Columbus SL.

Every rider is a different size/weight with a different power output and pedaling smoothness while using their bicycle in various ways over all kinds of terrain. So all those different kinds of tubing come in handy when trying to find the right combination for a specific customer. What I’ve learned is that the really light stuff with a standard 1” top tube is by far my favorite. YMMV. The heavier stuff feels much more dead to me.

One commonly held philosophy that I don’t believe is that a frame should be as stiff as possible for the most energy efficient power transfer. There needs to be some give. Jan Heine has written a lot about his preference for light tubing in 1” top tube frames. His theories on why he thinks that works best has created a lot of heated argument. The problem is that rejection of his theories has sometimes led to the rejection of preferring light tubes frames. I can theorize too but don’t really know why it works best for me. While I don’t know the why, I do know that frame with a 1” top tube frame with 7/4/7 tubing is by far my favorite. And I’ve ridden all kinds of custom frames with different tubing I’ve made test ridding them before customer pick up.

[malcolm]

Yes, dents are more likely on thin wall steel tubing but that doesn’t mean they dent easily. Heat treatment makes them less likely to dent. That started in the later 70’s with Reynolds 753 and become more popular to use with Tange Prestige. I’ve used 7/4/7 top tubes on my personal frames and many customer frames without issues for a very long time. .6/.3/.6 tubing is more fragile and can’t take any abuse.

Steel frames get lumped into one category but in fact there is a wide variety of wall thicknesses and tubing diameters that change ride characteristics. A true custom builder selects each tube based on a customer’s specific requirements. I doubt very many Paceliners have ever ridden a frame in their size with a 1” top tube made out of 7/4/7 tubing. Production frames need to assume a heavy person will be using it so it was rare manufacturers used anything lighter than 9/6/9. In addition light heat-treated tubing requires more care in building making it even less likely to be production made. It was/is not uncommon for custom frames to be made out of 7/4/7 tubing but with 1 1/8” top tubes. Mathematical calculations show that is roughly equivalent to a 1” 9/6/9 tube. In other words like the old Columbus SL.

Every rider is a different size/weight with a different power output and pedaling smoothness while using their bicycle in various ways over all kinds of terrain. So all those different kinds of tubing come in handy when trying to find the right combination for a specific customer. What I’ve learned is that the really light stuff with a standard 1” top tube is by far my favorite. YMMV. The heavier stuff feels much more dead to me.

One commonly held philosophy that I don’t believe is that a frame should be as stiff as possible for the most energy efficient power transfer. There needs to be some give. Jan Heine has written a lot about his preference for light tubing in 1” top tube frames. His theories on why he thinks that works best has created a lot of heated argument. The problem is that rejection of his theories has sometimes led to the rejection of preferring light tubes frames. I can theorize too but don’t really know why it works best for me. While I don’t know the why, I do know that frame with a 1” top tube frame with 7/4/7 tubing is by far my favorite. And I’ve ridden all kinds of custom frames with different tubing I’ve made test ridding them before customer pick up.

Interesting Doug. I'm not a strong rider by any account, but way back when at my fittest I had two go to road bikes an early maybe the first or second year canondale and a centurion prestige with tange prestige tubing, very light for the day. You could stand over the centurion and put some pressure on one pedal and see the bb flex, so it was pretty limp. The canondale seemed much stiffer and felt faster but in reality I climbed almost everything faster on the centurion and felt better doing it. I still have the centurion today, it's relegated to trainer duty. The cdale lasted about a year.

[happycampyer]

That's quite a lead up to the climax without delivering. So what were your impressions? And yes I do understand that there is a fair amount of subjectivity.That's a discussion for another time and another thread. Suffice it to say that neither the RSL nor the Pronto is among my favorites, and after that experiment I decided to let the RSL go. For the time being I'll keep the Pronto as a "reference" for an occasional ride and for comparison purposes, but I expect that at some point I will sell it as well.<snip>

I admit, I simply cannot discern whether a frame is overly stiff or not. I don't have the setup dialed in just yet so it still requires a bit of core musculature position-wise to ride it and I have only ridden it to date less than 250 miles. It rides fine, the frame has all the familiar resonant frequency freedback road feel of a Ti frame.

I guess "stiffness" as a frame quality to me is like have someone describe the taste of a peach - no one has conveyed it in a manner that I've been able to comprehend other than as another's subjective feeling. And yet it is a quality many riders have equally sought after or avoided, although based on what I couldn't say as far as being able to leverage their views and experience.

I'll be so bold as to say I have a bit more than modest experience. And I agree with you. The differences are very subtle. But in fairness, to a sophisticated crowd, the subtlety is worth chasing, recognized and enjoyed.I like your taste-of-a-peach analogy. These things are very subjective and, even if I could describe the sensations objectively, what appeals to me might not appeal to the next person (or what I find objectionable might not be noticeable or objectionable to the next one). That's why there is so much variety available.

Part of this has been a discovery for me of what I like and dislike (relative stiffness, materials, geometries, etc.). The process has taken time and my preferences have evolved over that time. By overly stiff, I'm generally referring to the way a frame transmits road shock as well as maintains traction on the road. Of course, I could always let 10psi out of my tires, but I generally run pretty modest pressure to start with (90psi front, 95 psi rear). To use Moots as an example, knowing what I know now, I personally would much prefer to have a standard Vamoots to an RSL.

To the OP, unless you know that a particular person's tastes run similar to yours, this can add up to so much noise. Given that you have a steel Baum that you love, I would speak with Darren about a ti frame to compliment your steel one.



P.S. After some digging, I found the post from Dave Kirk that I was thinking of:

Another pearl of wisdom from Dave Kirk (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=981628&postcount=24), from the thread Defining materials - ti and steel (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=94661).

[uber]

I can't imagine anyone giving a more educated or valuable response than David Kirk. I am your height, weight and close in age.
To answer one of your original questions, I think a master frame builder can make a frame ride the way you specify with either steel or Ti by using geometry, tube length, diameter and thickness. My recent Ti frame rides very differently than my 10 year old frame. The newer one was built for me after I discovered some preferences I have in fit, and the specific purpose of being more race like (larger head tube, down tube, and chain stays). The inherent nature of Ti is still present as it still has a smoothness, but it is not as buttery as my original frame in more traditional tube choices.
My steel frame has that quality as some describe as snappy. It feels like it springs back a bit with harder efforts. More sprite than the Ti.
Your other question of if a Ti frame is worth it? Every penny. I have two built bikes: the new Ti and my steel. Love them both. The Ti is my "go to" bike these days. Love the comfort of not worrying about chips or rust. It is kind of understated. It is both performance and comfortable. It could be my one and only, but I can't let go of the steel. So many bikes, so little time.....

[jr59]

P.S. After some digging, I found the post from Dave Kirk that I was thinking of:

Another pearl of wisdom from Dave Kirk (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showpost.php?p=981628&postcount=24), from the thread Defining materials - ti and steel (http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=94661).


This is the post I was referring tp with the 3rd post in this thread!

[happycampyer]

This is the post I was referring tp with the 3rd post in this thread!

Yeah, I realized that when I finally found the post! It wasn't easy finding it in the archives...

[rnhood]

To the OP, unless you know that a particular person's tastes run similar to yours, this can add up to so much noise. Given that you have a steel Baum that you love, I would speak with Darren about a ti frame to compliment your steel one.



I agree and that's a good point.

[dekindy]

Given that you have a steel Baum that you love, I would speak with Darren about a ti frame to compliment your steel one.


So simple that a child could understand yet so obvious but everyone overlooked it. Best advice given in my humble opinion.

[hainy]

I will give ti a try when the time is right. Spoke to Steve Hogg today and he has a few builders he works with and recommends including Baum.

Cheers and thanks for all the replies.

Hainy

[fuzzalow]

That's a discussion for another time and another thread. Suffice it to say that neither the RSL nor the Pronto is among my favorites, and after that experiment I decided to let the RSL go. For the time being I'll keep the Pronto as a "reference" for an occasional ride and for comparison purposes, but I expect that at some point I will sell it as well.I like your taste-of-a-peach analogy. These things are very subjective and, even if I could describe the sensations objectively, what appeals to me might not appeal to the next person (or what I find objectionable might not be noticeable or objectionable to the next one). That's why there is so much variety available.
I look forward to that thread/discussion and hope that it happens in the near future. Of course the value of this type of talk is not for the purpose of persuasion or imposing a view, it is insight into the nuances and criteria that nudge each rider to their conclusion. And for all of the twists and byways of how we all somehow get from A to B is the fascinating part.

Part of this has been a discovery for me of what I like and dislike (relative stiffness, materials, geometries, etc.). The process has taken time and my preferences have evolved over that time. By overly stiff, I'm generally referring to the way a frame transmits road shock as well as maintains traction on the road. Of course, I could always let 10psi out of my tires, but I generally run pretty modest pressure to start with (90psi front, 95 psi rear). To use Moots as an example, knowing what I know now, I personally would much prefer to have a standard Vamoots to an RSL.

I have a slightly different view of bikes which contrasts with your view as given above - I can't find too many reasons not to like a bike with the proviso that it can be dialed in as far as fit & position. And I'd admit the my take on bikes seems strangely inconsistent with the supposed nuanced sophistication possessed of a self-proclaimed cognoscente and more in tune with a college freshman's view on pizza or sex - that there is no such thing as bad with either. However, you and I both know full well as worldly adults that there can certainly happen not-so-great in either having or eating; sex & pizza or pizza & sex. Such is the progression of life beyond the perspective of a college freshman.

I guess my view on bikes never passed beyond freshman year. A strange form of stasis indeed.:confused:

[MadRocketSci]

Good grief, a blast from the past! A bunch of grown men falling over each other all trying to outdo each other with pretentious, pithy obliqueness.


LOL. Glad I could contribute my share of pretentiousness and obliqueness. It's an online pastime. :beer:

I've felt the magic carpet ride on earlier model Legends and Concours's's. The problem was that they both came with a butter bottom bracket feel. I don't know that it would affect my top speed in any way but it gave a different feedback response to stomping pedals that was not to my liking. That said, I don't stomp much anyway so I still really dig the magic carpet ride and like Ti a lot.

I own a later model Legend. Doesn't have the magic carpet ride. I believe it was stiffened up with more modern tubing to match the steel serottas. When Ti gets stiffened up to compete with other materials, I don't like it as much. I don't think it does that job as well. It loses any "liveliness" and starts to feel dull. I prefer the ride of my atlanta but not the weight. Test rode an RSL...understood what they were going for but preferred it done by carbon and my current Peg 8:30am.

Terry Shaw, formerly of Shaw's Cycles in Santa Clara, thought that there was a definitely weight limit where a rider should consider steel over Ti. I think he had it somewhere around 180-200 lbs, I just can't remember the number cuz I'm below both.

[mhespenheide]

Terry Shaw, formerly of Shaw's Cycles in Santa Clara, thought that there was a definitely weight limit where a rider should consider steel over Ti. I think he had it somewhere around 180-200 lbs, I just can't remember the number cuz I'm below both.

I'm 6'4" and 180#. The road bike that I ride the most is an old titanium LeMond Victoire with butted and shaped tubes. It's heavier than modern carbon fiber and lighter than most steel frames in its size (but not as light as some thin-guage modern steel). It rides wonderfully to my taste. So much so, that as I toy with the idea of getting a custom dirt-road frame built, I'd want to ask the builder not to make it too stiff -- but to give it a little resiliance and springiness to it. The LeMond isn't ultra-stiff at the bottom bracket, but I wouldn't call it "butter", either. Maybe I'm just not that strong... :)

[djg]

I will give ti a try when the time is right. Spoke to Steve Hogg today and he has a few builders he works with and recommends including Baum.

Cheers and thanks for all the replies.

Hainy

Looks like a plan. You have builders who build stuff you like, you are curious to have a Ti bike . . . when the time is right, have somebody good build you a Ti bike.

Seems like that trip to the Dolomites first, and spending the bucks on another frame second, represent the right priorities.

[greengage]

I'm 6'2 and 180, and until recently rode a 97 Litespeed Catalyst, the butted version. For the last year I've been riding a merckx MXL almost exclusively. It may be comparing apples to bricks, but I think the Merckx handles better in almost every way. The Merckx accelerates better, descends better, and has a great road feel... But the Ti just feels better to me. I ride the MXL because I just can't give up the way it descends and the way it responds to me, but I miss the lively way the Litespeed feels on the road. There's something about that frame that floats on the road (while still getting feedback) where the steel just rolls, but rolls really really well. Of course, the Litespeed has weak acceleration in comparison and has that "noodle" feeling when sprinting, but I chalk that up to my size and style as much as the frame.
I'm about to sell both and get a stiffer ti frame, hoping to find a little bit of both in it. I may regret it and find that the new frame still doesn't handle as well as the steel, but to me the Ti feel is worth it.

[happycampyer]

LOL. Glad I could contribute my share of pretentiousness and obliqueness. It's an online pastime. :beer:

I've felt the magic carpet ride on earlier model Legends and Concours's's. The problem was that they both came with a butter bottom bracket feel. I don't know that it would affect my top speed in any way but it gave a different feedback response to stomping pedals that was not to my liking. That said, I don't stomp much anyway so I still really dig the magic carpet ride and like Ti a lot.

I own a later model Legend. Doesn't have the magic carpet ride. I believe it was stiffened up with more modern tubing to match the steel serottas. When Ti gets stiffened up to compete with other materials, I don't like it as much. I don't think it does that job as well. It loses any "liveliness" and starts to feel dull. I prefer the ride of my atlanta but not the weight. Test rode an RSL...understood what they were going for but preferred it done by carbon and my current Peg 8:30am.

Terry Shaw, formerly of Shaw's Cycles in Santa Clara, thought that there was a definitely weight limit where a rider should consider steel over Ti. I think he had it somewhere around 180-200 lbs, I just can't remember the number cuz I'm below both.
Was your later-model Legend built for you? As an example, I have two Legends, one that was built for me and another—a singlespeed—that was not. The singlespeed was built for Scott H at the factory and, while he weighs less than me, he prefers his bikes super stiff. Super duper stiff. Every tube except the bottom bracket and headtube (and I suppose the seat tube, since it has to accommodate the seatpost and front derailleur clamp) has different dimensions from one frame to the other, with the singlespeed having much larger starting diameters as well as tapered diameters. For example, the seatstays on the singlespeed are a bulbous 23mm at their widest, tapering to 18mm at the seat tube joint; on the custom, they are 19mm at their widest and taper to 12mm at the seat tube joint. As a result, the singlespeed has less of that "magic carpet ride" feel of a Legend, and is probably as close as Serotta could get to a Pronto with Legend tubing. It still rides nicely, but to me at least not as nicely as the custom one. The purpose of the swaged, "Colorado Concept" tubing was to put the largest diameters of the main tubes at the bottom bracket for stiffness (to reduce or eliminate the sensation of softness at the bottom bracket that is the Achilles heel of titanium), without over-stiffening the frame everywhere else, assuming the owner didn't want it over-stiffened everywhere else.

All of that is to say is that, buying a used custom frame (not just a Serotta, but Seven, Eriksen, etc.) can be a gamble in terms of what tubing was spec'd for the original owner.

[oldpotatoe]

I'm 6'2 and 180, and until recently rode a 97 Litespeed Catalyst, the butted version. For the last year I've been riding a merckx MXL almost exclusively. It may be comparing apples to bricks, but I think the Merckx handles better in almost every way. The Merckx accelerates better, descends better, and has a great road feel... But the Ti just feels better to me. I ride the MXL because I just can't give up the way it descends and the way it responds to me, but I miss the lively way the Litespeed feels on the road. There's something about that frame that floats on the road (while still getting feedback) where the steel just rolls, but rolls really really well. Of course, the Litespeed has weak acceleration in comparison and has that "noodle" feeling when sprinting, but I chalk that up to my size and style as much as the frame.
I'm about to sell both and get a stiffer ti frame, hoping to find a little bit of both in it. I may regret it and find that the new frame still doesn't handle as well as the steel, but to me the Ti feel is worth it.

Have a Moots Vamoots and 2 MXLeaders..gonna keep them all.

DON'T sell the MXLeader..you will be sorry..they are not really scarce right now but they will be. Sell the Litespeed, test ride a Moots..not cheap but cheaper than a lot of asian made carbon production frames.

Go talk to these guys

http://biowheels.com/

[MadRocketSci]

Was your later-model Legend built for you?

No, it was used but a stock 56, confirmed by the shop (cyclesport in NJ) that ordered it for the original owner. All other serotta's i've ridden were stock as well, as I would occasionally drop by City Cycles to take some Serottas through the Presidio, in addition to riding my '97 atlanta.

[fuzzalow]

LOL. Glad I could contribute my share of pretentiousness and obliqueness. It's an online pastime. :beer:

Nah, I wasn't refering to your contributions in that thread. Your stuff was actual sentences and paragraphs. Others had their own inside joke running in the thread replete with wannabees that too wanted to belong. My, weren't they just so clever.

[zap]

I have two custom steel bikes (Tig welded Baum & Lugged Robin Mather) and have been considering my next custom frame.

I know Ti is lighter....not an issue for me.
I know Ti is less likely to corrode....not an issue for me.
I know there is a bling factor.....not an issue for me.
I know Ti is more expensive....only a minor issue for me

Maybe I have already answered my question but does it offer something else that steel can't with modern tubing in the hands of a good builder.

I am at that stage of my cycling where I am chasing Cols not Crits. Off to the Dolimites at the end of August for 8 days of the Italian Alps on my trusty Baum.

Cheers

Hainy
Sydney, Australia

I think as a travel bike ti tubes with S&S couplers makes sense…..if it's a keeper and will be used and travel a fair bit.