Ti v. Carbon

[Dromen]

Searched Forum, found nothing....

Always looking for ways to improve road vibration on my all Ti gravel bike. ALL = frame/seat post/stem. Run 42mm tubeless tires at 40ish psi on Belgium+ 32 spoke disc wheels when off pavement. Fork is Enve CX. Bars are currently Easton EA70 AX. Will any CF pieces reduce road noise however slight considering the above set up?

FYI - also spend considerable miles with 35c smooth tubed road tires(50psi) on pavement rides.

Begs question kicking around in my head for years. Does Ti have similar vibration damping characteristics as CF?

[cribbit]

Titanium > carbon

End of story

[PaMtbRider]

I don't think changing any of your components to carbon is going to help reduce any vibrations. Thicker or gel padded bar tape might help.

I asked Dave Kirk about carbon vs aluminum stems when he was building my JKS. His reply was:

Stems are pretty darn simple items but it’s amazing how bad a few of them are. There are very few things I can say for certain in this life and one of them is that stems do not affect ride quality at all. They are just too small and stiff to do anything but hold the bars rigidly and that’s that.

On the topic of handlebars his thoughts were:

some will say that one bar gives a smoother ride than another and I can say I’ve never experienced this. I think I am pretty fussy when it comes to ride quality but that said I can’t feel a difference in bar material. Suffice it to say if there is a difference that it is very, very small.

I hope Dave doesn't mind me sharing his comments here. I've tried many different setups over the years and have to agree with what he said.

[AngryScientist]

first and foremost, i think it bike fit and rider position on the bike, with respect to weight distribution and comfortable overall position. After that, wheels and tires easily are the biggest variable to tune the feel of any bike on any surface. i would try some more supple tires at lower pressure before anything else.

i have heard some positive comments about the seatposts that use some sort of microsuspension like the specialized "cobble gobbler" that also may increase comfort, but that would probably be less impact than lowering rear tire pressure a few psi.

[prototoast]

I'd lower tire pressure by 5 psi before I messed with any of the components.

[htwoopup]

Any material has worse or better damping than the other based on engineering.

Simply, a well designed/engineered/built carbon item (like a frame) will hands down be better than a poorly done titanium one.

And vice versa.

But you already have the frame. Components like a well done carbon bar will dampen vs alloy. It will be more compliant and thus absorb more.

On seatposts, different materials IF THEY ARE BETTER ENGINEERED/ BUILT will be better than a run of the mill alloy post.

Stems are more of a teeny difference so I wouldn’t worry about stems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[David Tollefson]

I've really been enjoying the Kinekt seatpost (https://cirruscycles.com/). Tailor made for gravel, perfect for chip-sealed roads as well.

[Mark McM]

In a Velonews Technical FAQ article a few years ago, a reader wrote in to ask if carbon handlebars would be more comfortable. Editor Leonard Zinn posed that question to several manufacturers of carbon handlebars. Half of them said, yes, carbon handlebars will be more comfortable. The other half said no, carbon handlebars are stiffer, so they will be less comfortable, and recommended aluminum handlebars instead.

Cervelo posted this article on Ride Quality (https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality), with charts to show the relative contribution of different components to vertical compliance. For front wheel bump shocks, the tire provided the largest portion of compliance (about 1/3), with the fork and handlebar providing about 1/6th each, followed by the tape at about 1/10th. The wheel and the stem contributed the least, the frame also provided very little. In the rear, the tire provided nearly 1/2 of the compliance, with saddle, seatpost and shorts providing most of the other half. Just like in the front, the wheel and the frame provided very little compliance. It should be kept in mind that Cervelo's test was for road bikes, and at the time the largest tire that would fit in most Cervelo frames was 25mm. If Cervelo were to run the test again with 42mm tires, no doubt the tire compliance would totally swamp all the other compliances. Also keep in mind that the tire is better at damping vibration and conforming to small ground irregularities.

[2metalhips]

How much do you weigh? 42c tubeless at 40 psi seems high to me. I run low 30's, 38c, latex tubes.

[rnhood]

The carbon / Ti debate is one of those that will likely never end. My advice is to test ride a carbon gravel bike, such as the Specialized Diverge or perhaps the Trek Checkpoint SL5 or 6, and you will then know if carbon provides a better ride and comfort that what you have. If you want to keep your existing bike, then as mentioned above, fit and air pressure can definitely make a difference.

[KonaSS]

Yes, that tire pressure seems high for 42s. Obviously weight and terrain dependent, but would experiment down closer to 30.

https://gravelcyclist.com/bicycle-tech/gravel-bike-tyre-tire-pressure-guidelines-by-enve-composites/

[charliedid]

Any material has worse or better damping than the other based on engineering.

Simply, a well designed/engineered/built carbon item (like a frame) will hands down be better than a poorly done titanium one.

And vice versa.

But you already have the frame. Components like a well done carbon bar will dampen vs alloy. It will be more compliant and thus absorb more.

On seatposts, different materials IF THEY ARE BETTER ENGINEERED/ BUILT will be better than a run of the mill alloy post.

Stems are more of a teeny difference so I wouldn’t worry about stems.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



I like this answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dromen]

180 necked + loaded bike/rider = 205 to 210#. Add is semi-rough terrain w/ river crossings(mysteries below the surface).

How much do you weigh? 42c tubeless at 40 psi seems high to me. I run low 30's, 38c, latex tubes.

[CAAD]

The carbon / Ti debate is one of those that will likely never end. My advice is to test ride a carbon gravel bike, such as the Specialized Diverge or perhaps the Trek Checkpoint SL5 or 6, and you will then know if carbon provides a better ride and comfort that what you have. If you want to keep your existing bike, then as mentioned above, fit and air pressure can definitely make a difference.

I can say for a fact that the Checkpoint SL5 is a pretty darn comfortable bike. I have many miles on mine. BUT the Checkpoint is equipped with the isospeed decoupler. This dramatically reduced chatter and big hits. How smooth is smooth enough? When I mount up 40c GR1 tires at 50psi on the Checkpoint it feels so so smooth and muted on hardpack dirt/gravel. I'm also running the Bontrager XXX carbon integrated bar stem combo, it's flexy to begin with so I feel it's a great bar when the going gets rough.

I had a Crockett before for gravel and the Syntace HiFlex Full Carbon P6 Seatpost was a great post and definitely recommend it.

Stem, no major noticeable difference. I'm running an Ax lightness full carbon on one bike. Extralight on another. They feel the same. Both 100mm length with Easton E100 bars. Save your money and stay alloy.

I'm a big fan of Easton bars. But their carbon bars are pretty stiff. I'm not sure how the EC70 AX would be compared to the EA. Try thicker bar tape?

[Dromen]

THANKS FOR all info. I get all the "tricks" for reducing vibration like tape options, gel padding, tire psi.... i was really just looking for info on diff from Ti to CF with my TI gravel bike as an example. Think i got my answer. Thanks for the info/responses.

Steve

[redir]

I don't notice a difference between my Ti and Carbon bike as far as road noise goes. On my cyclocross bike which is steel and very nice to ride on rough surfaces I put a Thudbuster seat post on it and will never go back. Just thought I'd mention it.

[Spoker]

With 42 mm tire width I seriously doubt you can distinguish frame material.

[weisan]

Before today, I rode on my carbon bikes (Cyfac Absolu, Cervelo R3) for the last three most recent group rides.

Today, I jumped back on my Ti bike (Merlin Agilis).

"aawwww..ahhhh...it felt so good!"

My totally unscientific and on-the-fly analysis of what actually happened is:

The carbon bikes "feel" faster but in actual fact, they are not, they just feel that way. Like riding on tires at high pressure, they "feel" like you are going faster but you are not.

The Ti bike with its unique springy characteristic absorbs more of the road vibrations or at least takes the edge off, thus affording more comfort...and in reality, is just as fast!

[Black Dog]

Before today, I rode on my carbon bikes (Cyfac Absolu, Cervelo R3) for the last three most recent group rides.

Today, I jumped back on my Ti bike (Merlin Agilis).

"aawwww..ahhhh...it felt so good!"

My totally unscientific and on-the-fly analysis of what actually happened is:

The carbon bikes "feel" faster but in actual fact, they are not, they just feel that way. Like riding on tires at high pressure, they "feel" like you are going faster but you are not.

The Ti bike with its unique springy characteristic absorbs more of the road vibrations or at least takes the edge off, thus affording more comfort...and in reality, is just as fast!

But it sadly does not. Frames account for almost none of the dampening of road vibrations unless they have specific designs to do so. See MarkMCM post above. Here is a link (https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality) to the article that he referenced.

https://www.cervelo.com/media/gene-cms/v/e/vertical_compliance1_copy.jpg

[XXtwindad]

The chart above is very helpful. Thanks for posting.

[weisan]

Black pal, I know that and I did read it the first time from Mark's post.

But gladly, I felt better on my Ti bike. That's my story and I am sticking to it, without anything to back it up.

[mcteague]

Nice chart but where is the science to back up the sizes of each slice? Or, did someone at Cervelo just make up data to explain why their frames aren’t too stiff?

Tim

[Kirk007]

these tests to me are like so much statistical analysis - set it up and it will tell you whatever you want it to tell you.

It can't go unnoticed that for over a decade the mantra of carbon has been stiffer and lighter, stiffer and lighter. Nor can it go unnoticed that even in the pro ranks there is gravitation to wider tires. Cause or correlation, I dunno. I do know that I've been on bikes, one metal and more than one plastic, that felt like ass hachets compared to other bikes, with all other factors like tires being relatively equal.

I'm not unscientific - science is the foundation of my day job. I was a grad TA in statistics. But I've lived long enough to see things and experience things that are not reduceable to mathematical formulae. And I suspect there's more to a comfortable ride quality than simple measureable vertical compliance.

[Mark McM]

Nice chart but where is the science to back up the sizes of each slice? Or, did someone at Cervelo just make up data to explain why their frames aren’t too stiff?

That Cervelo article was written when Damon Rinard was their chief designer. Rinard is famous in the industry for making actual measurements, so I'm sure that the chart was made from direct measurements.

Here's a good article from Cycling Tips on whether the influence of frame stiffness on vertical compliance (https://cyclingtips.com/2018/04/jra-with-the-angry-asian-does-frame-compliance-still-matter/), which includes data from Rinard, Josh Poertner, and others. Here's the final paragraph of the article:

“The short answer here is that while frame stiffness is far less important than tire stiffness, you obviously want to optimize both if you can. At the same time, the industry is very good at overselling the benefits of frame comfort as well as overselling the benefit of lateral stiffness.”

[Mark McM]

Nor can it go unnoticed that even in the pro ranks there is gravitation to wider tires.

This has a simple answer. Data has shown that in most cases, wider tires (and rims) are faster. As a side benefit, they are also more comfortable. Plus, it gives the sponsoring bike & wheel manufacturers a chance to sell new bikes that work with wider tires and wheels. For the interested parties in bike racing, its a win all around.

[macaroon]

Those Ergon seatposts are probably worth a look, I believe the usually score best in test for comfort.

[joshatsilca]

This has a simple answer. Data has shown that in most cases, wider tires (and rims) are faster. As a side benefit, they are also more comfortable. Plus, it gives the sponsoring bike & wheel manufacturers a chance to sell new bikes that work with wider tires and wheels. For the interested parties in bike racing, its a win all around.

Mark is right that wider can be faster to a point.. mostly as they allow you to ride lower pressures which can reduce impedance losses at similar to slightly lower casing losses as long as you aren't so wide as to be creating aero problems.

As for the relative comfort of things, here is a list from our blog of data taken 2008-2010 during the development of the 303 for Paris Roubaix that normalizes the stiffness of things to tire pressure equivalents, so consider that most pumps will be +/-5psi when new and drift from there, you can prioritize the actual effect of some of these 'features'.

1 1/8 Steerer vs Tapered 1 1/8-1 1¼ steerer (same brand carbon fork): 1.2psi
24 vs 28 spokes Zipp 303: 1.8psi
3x vs radial spoke lacing, Zipp 303: 2psi
Curved vs Straight seat stays, Carbon Frames (Model Year Change): 4psi
Carbon Vs Steel Similar Geometry Custom Frames: 4psi
Comfort/Cobble Frame design vs Full Aero frame design: 19psi
Aluminum bar to Zipp SL: 7psi
Aluminum bar to Zipp SLC: 2psi
Zipp 27.2 Seatpost to Zipp 31.6 Seatpost: 4psi
Zero Offset Zipp seatpost to 25mm offset Zipp seatpost: 3psi
Thomson post to Canyon VCLS SeatPost: 24psi

https://blog.silca.cc/part-3b-faq-and-putting-it-together-so-far

[pbarry]

OP, looks like you got it covered, but, what wheels are you running?

[Black Dog]

Black pal, I know that and I did read it the first time from Mark's post.

But gladly, I felt better on my Ti bike. That's my story and I am sticking to it, without anything to back it up.

Hey, I am with you. If it feels good, do it. At the end of the day bikes will feel differently from one another. What gives them that feel is not that important as long as it makes you happy. Bikes = fun. .

[buddybikes]

This study is far from being perfect. Take a touring bike with 44mm chainstays vs a tight racing bike (whatever material), low bb etc it will certainly be more comfortable. Also frame angles, trail etc.

It is interesting Yes, are tires central Yes, sure use beach tires at 20lbs you will be more compliant...

[oldpotatoe]

these tests to me are like so much statistical analysis - set it up and it will tell you whatever you want it to tell you.

It can't go unnoticed that for over a decade the mantra of carbon has been stiffer and lighter, stiffer and lighter. Nor can it go unnoticed that even in the pro ranks there is gravitation to wider tires. Cause or correlation, I dunno. I do know that I've been on bikes, one metal and more than one plastic, that felt like ass hachets compared to other bikes, with all other factors like tires being relatively equal.

I'm not unscientific - science is the foundation of my day job. I was a grad TA in statistics. But I've lived long enough to see things and experience things that are not reduceable to mathematical formulae. And I suspect there's more to a comfortable ride quality than simple measureable vertical compliance.

Ha..told this story before..while in the trenches at Morgul-Bismark..sponsored a local team..they got IDENTICAL titanium serotta bikes..the same, frame-tires-wheels-bartape, identical. 2 guys go out and ride them for the first time.

Rider one-"STIFF, responsive, crisp ride, great sprinter".
Rider two-"Vague, soft, but comfy. Poor sprinter, poor climber out of the saddle"...

[redir]

I've done hundreds of cyclocross races since I started racing in the late 90's and I can compare bikes I've had based on material and absolutely noticed a difference. The Aluminum bikes were terrible. I thought maybe I was getting to old for cyclocross because after one hour race my back was killing me. Then I raced on a carbon bike and thought hmmm, that's better. Then I raced on a steel bike and thought Ureka! I have found it! I can feel the steel frame flex over bumps the AL and Carbon frame would just jitter on.

I've always lusted over Moots CX bikes and can imagine Ti would work very well too.

On the road I don't notice a whole lot of difference between carbon and Ti but on the extreme ends I do with Al and Steel. The charts notwithstanding.

[RyanH]

I can say for certain in this life and one of them is that stems do not affect ride quality at all.... I can say I’ve never experienced this.

He hasn't ridden a bike equipped with a Zipp Sprint Stem and Pro Vibe bars then. My hands sting when riding that combo.

[KarlC]

In a Velonews Technical FAQ article a few years ago, a reader wrote in to ask if carbon handlebars would be more comfortable. Editor Leonard Zinn posed that question to several manufacturers of carbon handlebars. Half of them said, yes, carbon handlebars will be more comfortable. The other half said no, carbon handlebars are stiffer, so they will be less comfortable, and recommended aluminum handlebars instead.

Cervelo posted this article on Ride Quality (https://www.cervelo.com/en/ride-quality), with charts to show the relative contribution of different components to vertical compliance. For front wheel bump shocks, the tire provided the largest portion of compliance (about 1/3), with the fork and handlebar providing about 1/6th each, followed by the tape at about 1/10th. The wheel and the stem contributed the least, the frame also provided very little. In the rear, the tire provided nearly 1/2 of the compliance, with saddle, seatpost and shorts providing most of the other half. Just like in the front, the wheel and the frame provided very little compliance. It should be kept in mind that Cervelo's test was for road bikes, and at the time the largest tire that would fit in most Cervelo frames was 25mm. If Cervelo were to run the test again with 42mm tires, no doubt the tire compliance would totally swamp all the other compliances. Also keep in mind that the tire is better at damping vibration and conforming to small ground irregularities.

Im thinking Cervelo only tested Carbon frames.

.

[RyanH]

Poertner and Rinard crunched a lot of numbers but did they actually *ride* the different frames they meta-analyzed through Tour's gathered data?

I had a Litespeed Classic, Focus Izalco Max and Litespeed T1sl at the same time using the exact same wheels and tires and seatpost and saddle and there was a distinct difference in perceived comfort between the three when riding them back to back. In the last two years I've owned probably over 20 different high end carbon frames and while most were pretty good and going from Ti to carbon was always a quick and easy transition, I'd always marvel at how much smoother riding my Ti bike was when I got back on it.

[KarlC]

Mark is right that wider can be faster to a point.. mostly as they allow you to ride lower pressures which can reduce impedance losses at similar to slightly lower casing losses as long as you aren't so wide as to be creating aero problems.

As for the relative comfort of things, here is a list from our blog of data taken 2008-2010 during the development of the 303 for Paris Roubaix that normalizes the stiffness of things to tire pressure equivalents, so consider that most pumps will be +/-5psi when new and drift from there, you can prioritize the actual effect of some of these 'features'.

1 1/8 Steerer vs Tapered 1 1/8-1 1¼ steerer (same brand carbon fork): 1.2psi
24 vs 28 spokes Zipp 303: 1.8psi
3x vs radial spoke lacing, Zipp 303: 2psi
Curved vs Straight seat stays, Carbon Frames (Model Year Change): 4psi
Carbon Vs Steel Similar Geometry Custom Frames: 4psi
Comfort/Cobble Frame design vs Full Aero frame design: 19psi
Aluminum bar to Zipp SL: 7psi
Aluminum bar to Zipp SLC: 2psi
Zipp 27.2 Seatpost to Zipp 31.6 Seatpost: 4psi
Zero Offset Zipp seatpost to 25mm offset Zipp seatpost: 3psi
Thomson post to Canyon VCLS SeatPost: 24psi

https://blog.silca.cc/part-3b-faq-and-putting-it-together-so-far

Thomson post to Canyon VCLS SeatPost: 24psi - Now that's crazy different and hard to believe the Canyon post would make that much difference. I mean most all thinks point to lowering tire PSI 5 - 10 PSI as being the biggest difference you can feel.

.

[Mark McM]

Mark is right that wider can be faster to a point.. mostly as they allow you to ride lower pressures which can reduce impedance losses at similar to slightly lower casing losses as long as you aren't so wide as to be creating aero problems.

As for the relative comfort of things, here is a list from our blog of data taken 2008-2010 during the development of the 303 for Paris Roubaix that normalizes the stiffness of things to tire pressure equivalents, so consider that most pumps will be +/-5psi when new and drift from there, you can prioritize the actual effect of some of these 'features'.

1 1/8 Steerer vs Tapered 1 1/8-1 1¼ steerer (same brand carbon fork): 1.2psi
24 vs 28 spokes Zipp 303: 1.8psi
3x vs radial spoke lacing, Zipp 303: 2psi
Curved vs Straight seat stays, Carbon Frames (Model Year Change): 4psi
Carbon Vs Steel Similar Geometry Custom Frames: 4psi
Comfort/Cobble Frame design vs Full Aero frame design: 19psi
Aluminum bar to Zipp SL: 7psi
Aluminum bar to Zipp SLC: 2psi
Zipp 27.2 Seatpost to Zipp 31.6 Seatpost: 4psi
Zero Offset Zipp seatpost to 25mm offset Zipp seatpost: 3psi
Thomson post to Canyon VCLS SeatPost: 24psi

https://blog.silca.cc/part-3b-faq-and-putting-it-together-so-far

Thanks for posting this data. I have a few questions: What size (width) tire is being used for these comparisons? Are these based on the stiffness (spring constant) of a tire on a flat surface? As noted in the Cycling Tips article (link above), the stiffness of the tire decreases when the tire is pressed against a small radius "bump". The biggest road shocks are often those experienced when hitting sharp edged obstructions, such as the edge of a pothole or a utility cover, which minimizes tire stiffness, and maximized tire compliance. If the above psi equivalences are for flat surface stiffness, then they may overstate the relative effective compliances of the bike components in many real-world situations.

[Mark McM]

Poertner and Rinard crunched a lot of numbers but did they actually *ride* the different frames they meta-analyzed through Tour's gathered data?

Poertner did something better - he did blind testing with groups of experienced (you might even say "expert") cyclists. Here's a quote Poetner from an article on the SlowTwitch web site called "Thoughts on Science and Perception (https://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Thoughts_on_science_perception_4571.html)":

I've participated in numerous blind product studies over the years where we controlled bikes or the wheels (I've done this twice with a bike manufacturer during development work around a pro team, and many times with wheels) with fabric shield tensioned between seat post and stem, flat black rattle can paint on everything, etc. In each of these studies, the entire subject group including pro riders, engineers, and other industry people with LOTS of experience, struggled to find any real differences between any of the bikes, until after the study was de-blinded and everybody (including me) instantly began to try and rationalize it all… This is just human nature, we all do it, and from experience, it is nearly impossible NOT to do it.

One of the major discoveries was that after controlling for seat post (round post shimmed into aero frame so as to not give it away) not a single rider found the aero road bike to be less comfortable, less compliant, etc, than the identically setup 'endurance' or 'roubaix' bike (clearly this leaves room for the aero seat post to be why people feel aero bikes are less compliant..seatposts generally have more effect on bike compliance in the lab than frames do, but that's another story). We ran blind wheel tests a couple of times a year at Zipp to benchmark competitive wheels and our own prototypes, and we also found that blinded riders were generally unable to tell the difference between stiffness and inertia, had no reliable feedback on weight, lateral stiffness, or comfort in general, and in the end were generally only able to pick out the aero wheels because they were riding laps around a closed park environment using power, so the more observant ones would notice speed differences. In the end, we sort of determined that when riders didn't know what they 'should' feel, they really struggled to find differences in stiffness, compliance and weight between frames or wheels. The strongest correlation we ever saw was to tire pressure, but not in the way you would expect. Almost everybody assumed the setups with lower tire pressure to be the endurance bike and would then score it exactly as you would expect a magazine review of a comfort bike to look…so we determined that we all naturally would latch onto something we were confident in, in this case comfort, and then would proceed to perceive everything you expected from that bike: less aero, less stiff, better damping, etc. Imagine the shock for the group when it turned out that the it might have been a super stiff race bike, or an aero road bike! Let the rationalizing begin!

Reports from other blind tests have shown riders have similar difficulties distinguishing between different frames in blind test, even when "everybody knows they should feel different."

[Kirk007]

I wonder if test subjects would discern a difference after a 5-6 hour ride over hill and dale? I've read respected builders talking about this when questioned about frame material differences. And for the studies - how different are the bikes - material, construction, rider position, rider size and on and on - lots of variables.

I will freely admit that most of my current road bikes - ti, steel, carbon - with similar geometry and wheels - feel pretty much the same most of the time. I'm not surprised given they are all custom, have similar dimensions and given the sources - Sachs, Kellogg, Kirk, Hampsten. But there are some differences, like how they feel when you jump out of the saddle or are pushing hard up hill.

I had an early Serotta legend at the same time I had a MXL Landshark. The Serotta just felt sluggish going up hill in comparison to the MXL bike. Every time. Geometry? material? all of the above? And I ride a big bike and am a big rider - DK states a firm preference for steel over ti for riders my size. I wouldn't dismiss his opinion based on these blind studies.

At the end of the day and perhaps more to the OP's original question - I don't think there's a substitute for personally spending time on different materials/geometries/builders' takes. I find that I continually gravitate back to metal bikes. They are the ones I most frequently grab even though my carbon bikes is arguably, by some objective measures, the best "performance" race bike. And we don't ride blindfolded. How we feel about the bike - aesthetics, memories all contribute I think to how we experience something - like how the bike "feels" when we are on it.

[Mark McM]

I wonder if test subjects would discern a difference after a 5-6 hour ride over hill and dale? I've read respected builders talking about this when questioned about frame material differences. And for the studies - how different are the bikes - material, construction, rider position, rider size and on and on - lots of variables.

I would think that in fact they'd have even more trouble telling the difference. From experience, I know that a bike that felt light and fast at the start of a ride will feel heavy and slow at the end of the ride. Same exact bike, different human perceptions.

Then add in that humans constantly adapt themselves to their surroundings. I've had a case where I've ridden one of my bikes for a few months, and then switch to another bike, at first, the 2nd bike just felt "wrong". But after a few rides, I adapt to the bike and it feels right. After riding the 2nd bike for a while, when I jump on the 1st bike, it feels "wrong" - even though a few months previous it had felt right.

I attended a talk by Damon Rinard, and he talked about work he had done involving "just noticeable differences" and how it applied to bike feel (he was testing differences like vertical and lateral stiffness, steering trail, etc.). He said that different riders had different thresholds of percent difference that they could distinguish. But for the smallest differences, riders could only reliably detect the differences if they switched from one bike to the other almost instantly (like, no more than 30 seconds between bikes). If more time than that elapsed, the riders could no longer feel the smallest differences between bikes.

After a ride of 5 or 6 hours, a rider's general perception of a bike will change through fatigue, they will have had some time to adapt to the new bike, and they'll have lost much of the frame of reference of their experiences with other bikes. So I expect that after a long ride, they would be even less able to reliably distinguish small differences from other bikes.

[tsarpepe]

I haven't done any blind tests, but no one can convince me that I won't tell the difference between a Ti and carbon bike. It's that pronounced... When Ti hits a whole or uneven place on the road, there is a very characteristic dull thud. With carbon, it's more of a rattle; it's not the same as when aluminum rattles, but it is a rattle.

[Mark McM]

I haven't done any blind tests, but no one can convince me that I won't tell the difference between a Ti and carbon bike. It's that pronounced... When Ti hits a whole or uneven place on the road, there is a very characteristic dull thud. With carbon, it's more of a rattle; it's not the same as when aluminum rattles, but it is a rattle.

So, the main difference between titanium frames is the sound they make when they hit a hole? If you were wearing earplugs, could you tell the difference?

Human perception can often get mislead by extraneous sensory input. Jan Heine wrote about in regard to why people long believed that higher tire pressure was faster (https://janheine.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/tire-pressure-take-home/):

Higher tire pressure cheats you into thinking that you are going faster, because it also increases the frequency of the vibrations: higher pressure = higher frequency.

It’s natural to assume that this means: higher pressure = higher frequency = higher speed, but that is incorrect. Instead, you are looking at two different mechanisms that both increase the frequency of the road buzz.

Even after years of riding supple, wide tires, this ‘placebo’ effect sometimes plays tricks on me. A supple tire absorbs vibrations better, so it can feel slower – until you look at your speedometer.

Perhaps perceptions about ride compliance can be linked to which bike "sounds" more comfortable. I actually experienced this first hand after buying my first set of deep rim aero wheels (Campagnolo Eurus, with 38mm deep aluminum rims and 20 bladed spokes). At the time, common wisdom was that deep rimmed wheels gave a harsher ride than shallow rim wheels. Logically, I knew there really shouldn't be difference, because no wheel any meaningful vertical compliance. But when I first rode the Eurus, I actually had the perception that they rode smoother than the my shallow rim 32 spoke wheels. How could this be? After riding a bit more, I had another realization: These wheels, with fewer and more aerodynamic spokes, were quieter than my 32 spoke shallow rim wheels. My mind had converted quieter into smoother.

[RyanH]

I had a pair of Lightweights that even with 22mm tires pumped to 110 psi felt smoother than my Reynolds V shaped wheels with 25mm tires at 80ish psi. I think vibrations affect our perception.

I can feel the difference in frame material in the pedals, you feel less in the pedals with Ti. This again can be due to vibrations. I know different materials carry vibrations of different frequencies and mixing two materials can cancel out vibrations.

[tsarpepe]

So, the main difference between titanium frames is the sound they make when they hit a hole? If you were wearing earplugs, could you tell the difference?


When I wrote about rattle vs. thud, I meant not just sound but the quality of vibration too. So yes, I would be able to tell with earplugs on, I think.

[Kirk007]

Maybe its just a matter of the fact that at a personal level perception is reality when it comes to riding a bike for many (most?) of us unless we're racing when factors that influence absolute speed matter.

For instance, taking Jan's observation re the perception of going slower on wider tires - I get that; I have a bike with 650b x 47 tires that on the road feels slow even when my computer tells me I'm within the normal range of speed variability for me on my road bikes. Despite that objective reality, I don't enjoy riding that bike on pavement nearly as much; in large part because it feels slow.

[Black Dog]

Poertner did something better - he did blind testing with groups of experienced (you might even say "expert") cyclists. Here's a quote Poetner from an article on the SlowTwitch web site called "Thoughts on Science and Perception (https://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Thoughts_on_science_perception_4571.html)":



Reports from other blind tests have shown riders have similar difficulties distinguishing between different frames in blind test, even when "everybody knows they should feel different."

This is reality. The data does not lie or care about the mirad of cognitive and perceptual biases that plague us all. Humans are simply poorly equipped to perceive much of what is really going on in reality. We are hamstrung by our own brain and the models it constructs to try and make sense of sensory input that is limited and incomplete. Ask a dog what the world smells like and compare that to what you think the world smells like. ;)

[DarkStar]

As others have said, try lowering your tire pressure; I run 35mm Continental Speed Kings on my gravel bike, 40psi F/R on the road, 35/30 off-road. Weight in at 215lbs, bike does not feel at all sluggish, could probably drop the pressure another couple of pounds without negatively affecting the ride quality.

[froze]

I haven't rode every single bike made in the world, but the ones I did ride I ended up buying a TI bike because I found out that CF bikes do mute minor road vibrations a tiny bit better than TI, but when you hit something larger, like large road cracks or off road on gravel I found the TI to be noticeably better, so overall I liked TI...but of course that is my opinion and it ain't worth spit!

My recommendations are based on always doing the cheapest thing first and slowly work your way up till you reach the point where your satisfied. Do note, you are riding a bicycle, you can't remove all the vibration.

So if you're trying to mute vibration on your current bike the cheapest place, and actually the best place to start is with your tires and tire pressure, not the fork, I don't care what that chart says. Not sure what size tires you have nor your body and bike weight but most people tend to run their tires psi over what they should be thinking they are going to go faster when the fact is they will actually go slower unless the road is not a road but their riding on a Velodrome track! So you need to find out your ideal tire pressure and adjust from there. The next thing is tire size, the larger the tire you use the less PSI it will require, all of which equals a better ride. Cars, some car owners are getting custom wheels so they can fit on tires with almost no sidewall, if you've ever been in one of those cars the ride is rougher than a normal car because the larger the larger the sidewall is the more vibration and shock it can absorb, but your handling in highspeed stuff is compromised more as the sidewall gets larger...tradeoffs.

Next go to a gel handlebar tape such as Shocktape, this stuff is so good it's used in all sorts of other sports not just cycling, for example it's used on baseball bats and hammers! Then wrap over that with some natural cork handlebar tape. The Shocktape applies to the top surfaces of the handlebar, it has tape on the bottom side so it will stick to the bar, then apply the handlebar tape as you would normally. Of course if someday you remove the stuff the Shocktape will leave behind a residue, as tape will do, so you can either clean it off or simply cover it up with handlebar tape.

Now the next two things you can do if the tire stuff nor the Shocktape works to your satisfaction but you want more then consider a suspension seatpost and a suspension stem, again notice the fork is missing here? That fork is going to vibrate right up into the stem and into the bars, this is why you feel vibration in the bars...duh! So you need to isolate the fork. Think of it as a car, the car has a frame, if you rode a car that was welded directly to the frame you would be in for one rough ride, this is why cars have springs and shocks and isolation mounts to prevent most of that, same is true with the fork and frame of a bike, you need to isolate those items from vibration so it doesn't get to you. Big trucks ride so rough even with all that stuff cars have they have to use a suspension seat, so you should gleam from that. There are various seatpost suspension units, I haven't tried them so not sure which is the best but I've heard from the internet that the SR Suntour Parallelogram design seems to be the best, but again read up on that stuff. Combine that with a Redshift Sports Suspension Stem and you got most of whatever you don't like gone.

If you're still not quite happy get a magic carpet...just kidding, but the next two items will have minor effect on muting vibs but will cost a lot more than the other stuff I've mentioned so far, so your return on the dollar will be less...a lot less. That is get a CF fork and a TI rail seat.

Remember, don't go by charts, think how cars work at dampening shock and vibration, they don't use CF frames, in fact the Alfa Romeo 4C uses a carbon fiber frame, and people do complain about the rough ride it has, so CF is not the angel against vibration, the magic carpet is the angel against vibration!!

[mj_michigan]

This is somewhat orthogonal to the OP's question, but is related to the general question of vibration damping. I found the front end of my Lynskey R255 to be noticeably harsher on sections of cobblestone-like broken pavement near my home than my other (steel) bikes. So I decided to do some experiments. I kept swapping tires and wheels between the Lynskey and a Serotta Atlanta. My findings are that R255 behaves noticeably nicer with an Open Pro wheel and Compass (26mm) tire than with a Campy Khamsin wheel and the Compass tire or a Rubino Pro 25mm. I noticed little difference between wheels/tires on the Atlanta -- all combinations felt fine. BTW, I noticed no issues with the rear end.

Since my findings are subjective, keep in mind that this could all be in my head.

[vincenz]

Searched Forum, found nothing....



Always looking for ways to improve road vibration on my all Ti gravel bike. ALL = frame/seat post/stem. Run 42mm tubeless tires at 40ish psi on Belgium+ 32 spoke disc wheels when off pavement. Fork is Enve CX. Bars are currently Easton EA70 AX. Will any CF pieces reduce road noise however slight considering the above set up?



FYI - also spend considerable miles with 35c smooth tubed road tires(50psi) on pavement rides.



Begs question kicking around in my head for years. Does Ti have similar vibration damping characteristics as CF?



I’ve ridden modern carbon and modern ti and to me, all things being equal, ti has the better ride quality and is more compliant, especially in the rear. The difference in the front is less pronounced, but ti has a slight advantage as well. For short rides on smooth tarmac, the advantage isn’t as big, but once you start doing longer rides on uneven roads, you will notice the difference with a good ti bike.

For improving vibration, I would look into either carbon or ti seat posts, especially in 27.2 mm diameter, even if you have to shim it. Also look into a saddle with ti rails and a nylon base. Stay away from carbon base and carbon rail saddles. While light, they are also stiff and you will lose compliance there. For the front, other than throwing a steel fork on there, I don’t think you can really play with any components to give any noticeable compliance. I don’t believe in the whole carbon stem and carbon handlebar thing, and I’m against putting pads under your bar tape.