Ti vs Steel frame

[deluz]

I am contemplating a new custom frame.
I already have one made with 853 Pro Team OS tubing and love it.
The goal of the new one would be to make it a bit different and lighter by using TIG welding and a carbon fork. I realize the weight savings is going to minimal.
The new frame could be a light steel like Columbus Spirit or Ti, with Ti obviously costing more. I read that Ti has half the weight of Steel but also half the stiffness. So to make a frame with the same stiffness, the same weight of material is needed. But it seems that Ti frames are lighter than steel by about 1/2 pound. How is this possible? Are Ti frames less stiff than steel?
I read that paint on a steel frame can weigh 100g so that could be part of it.
Ti also has the advantage that it does not rust and maybe more dent resistant and no worry about paint chipping. Lastly I read about the ride of Ti, is it really different than steel if the frames have similar stiffness? Thanks for any feedback.

[deluz]

I have done some more reading on this and I think I have better understanding.
Frames made with Ti typically have larger diameter tubing which makes the frame stiffer. Steel is also available in larger diameters but then the weight goes up. So I think that explains the weight difference. As far as a difference in ride quality I am still not sure if there is one.

[EB]

There are a lot of titanium fans here, and I would expect them to speak up about it, which they should.

My random opinion - I have owned both, and I've never noticed any measurable difference in ride quality. Caveat is that I have never tried a Ti frame with a steel fork, which a few folks swear by. Further caveat is that I am not small or particularly light, so there may be some of the Titanium magic that is lost on me.

I think the substantive difference comes down to a titanium frame's lack of corrosion, and the ability to easily refinish a Ti frame, especially if it's polished.

For metal frames, I personally land on steel for the following reasons:

* It's more affordable, and much more friendly to the builder. A good builder can more easily make a great frame out of steel - Ti is a harsh mistress. and requires a really top-notch builder.

* I don't keep frames long enough for the corrosion properties to matter that much, given that I keep my bikes clean and stored in a dry environment.

* The weight difference is meaningless for me.

* Ti welds do have a reputation for cracking after a certain amount of time if not purged correctly. There is no way for the buyer to know for sure if the welder did this correctly - you have to rely on reputation alone. This is not a dealbreaker for me since I probably won't keep the frame long enough for it to matter, but it does give me pause.

[robt57]

For me, either is fine. Being a clyde though, flirting with too light is a recipe for flexy frame. Mostly we are talking frame, as fork pretty much same with either unless you go steel fork with steel frame. So this would make the steel route definitely heavier. But also IMO, for along term choice not a choice you'd likely to be sorry for making unless racing really.

That said, if you are in weight weenie mode, used carbon has a lot more economy to the spend, hard to argue this. Not to mention the myriad of choices of fantastic stuff. And the terrible resale of the top end stuff really shines in the buying of minty used. Just not too new.

I like how light a few of my lighter bikes are, notably Extreme power and Moots RSL, but really other than woo factor lifting.. for this slow climber, kinda superfluous.

Side note: Custom Carl Strong Foco frame replaced a Lightspeed Classic in 2000. With powder coat VS nude Ti, frames weighed the same @ 3.75lb. I needed stiff then, and the Steel was lots stiffer unless I went 6.4 with lots of design and Ti cold working. [Vortex then?]

I've always felt Ti requires a lot to overcome it's own short comings/limitations in the area of performance. If we move even to 2012, my RSL Moots VS a new custom Strong frame them was over double cost. Both my 24 year old Foco and the Moots RSL are more outstanding to this day, than I really require if I am honest with myself.

[KonaSS]

In the current market - weight seems to me to be the last reason to get a Ti frame. Behind corrosion properties, lack of paint, and ride quality. The weight difference is going to be underwhelming. Something you can usually make up with wheel and component choice.

In other words, if you really want to differentiate a bike through weight, you should be looking at carbon.

[NHAero]

With the modern super high strength steels available, that allow very thin walls. I would guess that there isn't all that much difference in weight between a Ti and steel frame with the same stiffness. My Ti Bingham in a 55cm size weighs 1,544g with fairly thinwall tubing (straight gauge) for a light rider. Some butted tubing maybe drops 75-100g. I bet Rob English amongst others has made steel frames lighter than that.

I live on an island and learned that bare stainless rusts. So I have Ti bikes. My steel framed bikes are old and don't have corrosion so there's that too!

[Bob Ross]

Originally Posted by EB

For metal frames, I personally land on steel for the following reasons:

* It's more affordable

fwiw Carl Strong stopped offering steel frames several years ago because the materials costs had risen such that there were no appreciable differences between what he could sell a steel bike for and what he could sell a Ti bike for.

[jm714]

6’5” 215 lbs here with a custom Pegoretti BLE and a custom 333Fab OS butted Ti frame.

Ride impressions: the Peg seems snappy and alive. The 333Fab seems muted and input from the pedals is more direct.

I like them both. They both get ridden.

If you pick the right builder there is no wrong answer.

[EB]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

fwiw Carl Strong stopped offering steel frames several years ago because the materials costs had risen such that there were no appreciable differences between what he could sell a steel bike for and what he could sell a Ti bike for.

Yes, I saw that. I am not sure how many builders have followed his lead, though. For one builder I love, the cost of a Ti Frame is $4200 vs $2200 for steel.

[robt57]

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

fwiw Carl Strong stopped offering steel frames several years ago because the materials costs had risen such that there were no appreciable differences between what he could sell a steel bike for and what he could sell a Ti bike for.

And has since quit the Ti bikes as well. Pursuit carbon only. I think Carls choice to stop steel was mostly about paint/finish. Too many shipping trips, and if any paint issues that got exacerbated.

It is a real shame too, Carl really built killer frames! I could still ride my 24 year old Foco frame with only limitation being the stack I required 24 years ago, heck 15 years ago. 155mm HT on my size [588TT] frame is out of the question for my old body.

I think that bike started life with 11.5CM saddle to bar drop. And the powder coat finish is still 9/10 beyond tiny scratches on the top powder clearcoat. That bike saw plenty of rain and not a small amount of post snow salt/wet in Joisey back when.

[deluz]

Originally Posted by KonaSS

In the current market - weight seems to me to be the last reason to get a Ti frame. Behind corrosion properties, lack of paint, and ride quality. The weight difference is going to be underwhelming. Something you can usually make up with wheel and component choice.

In other words, if you really want to differentiate a bike through weight, you should be looking at carbon.

Some more info on my situation. Besides my steel bike I have a 2014 Cannondale Supersix. I don't ride it as much as my steel bike, I think I just don't like carbon as much and it is a short wheel base race bike, so looking to replace the frame and swap the components. The rear wheel only takes 25mm tires. I had 28mm tires on it and noticed some rub marks on the chain stays. I decided to put the 28mm back on and I measure 1.5mm clearance which maybe not enough. I put some frame protection stickers on stays and will check if there is any rubbing. The other day I went to a bike shop and test rode a Giant TCR thinking that the geometry fits me which it did, but just did not get along with the bike. So I pretty much decided at that point I would rather have another custom bike. I think I am looking for something in between a race and endurance bike. My steel bike weighs 18 lbs and I am good with that, most new carbon bikes weight that much unless you are spending $5K or more. If I can get the new bike to 17 lbs or lower that would be great. I am light and ride slow so I don't generate much power so I am more worried about the frame being too stiff than being stiff enough. I have a builder in mind so I am sure he can get the right balance. I am looking at $2050 for steel and $2850 for Ti.

[5oakterrace]

I have owned both. I am not certain the ride qualities are precipitously different. And if you are going custom the builder should be able to dial in what you seek.

I do believe the maintenance issues can be a major issue. I have read that the modern steels are not as rust resistant as the older steel. I do not recall where I read that. They are also thinner walled. Rust, for me, was a major problem. I live in a dampish climate. Constant maintenance filling in chips. And the filled in chips begin to look bad. The frame should be taken apart and treated at least once a year. Sweat eats through the paint so one has to be real diligent about cleaning it off. Once you get rust spots, invariably they come back - one year, two years. Again, I live in a damp area. For me - complete
pain.

Titanium? Wipe it off. Most manufacturers have warranties as well - if you are worried about cracks. Given industry crisis (Trek reducing orders by 40 percent), I would not be surprised if some companies fold so I would stick to a bigger manufacturer. At least they should be around for warranty purposes.

[DeBike]

I have 2 Lemond 853 frames, and 1 Airborne Zeppelin Ti. The ti has oval and/or oversized tubing. I find the rides to be quite similar, but, it seems to me the Zeppelin is stiffer in the bb/crank area, with a bit more spring for rough surface. Simply what I feel. All 3 bikes have long ride comfort.

[robt57]

As a Clyde, I found 853 too springy/flexi back when I made a lot of power. Probably be perfect @ 67 years old now though. My 853 experiences were Lemonds in the 00s fwiw. In my post above, I comment that the Litespeed classic VS Strong was also not stout enough for me then. I bet that be fine now too.

[benb]

I have owned both, though I've never had a steel bike that was anywhere in the same universe as nice as my Serotta Concours Ti was.

I would go Ti just for variety. If you already have Steel and Carbon get Ti.

With Ti it is very very nice to just ride through any thing and know the bike is utterly bombproof. Same with when you go and do maintenance and everything just cleans up beautifully.