High-End Steel vs High-End Ti: Is there an appreciable difference?

[AngryScientist]

i like to carve down mountains.

up is more in the category of "inelegant survival".

[XXtwindad]

Originally Posted by robt57

I want to add this: My 29 year old strong 'was' ridden hard and put away wet a gazillion time over its main steed 13yr tenure.

It has been frame save applied now on its third application in 20 years. The Powder coat is 9+ and BB and tread clean as a whistle. I did have a 7700 DA BB in it for a long while so was in there dusting and cleaning frequently enough that the orig BB is still here in a drawer. I'd install it again if I needed it, which I expect I never will.

Moral of that story is the rust proof nature of Ti and paint longevity issues have become myths for me with the workhorse Strong. I think it has about 55k miles on it. I stopped counting @ 45k.

Here is apic of a 20 year old reasonably kept well used steel Strong after it's last serious dusting and cleaning..

Thanks for the clarification. Beautiful bike. The reason I ask is that I have a credit toward a build with a flat mounts and clearance for 32c tires. I could go either way but would need to decide pretty soon. I’ve always been intrigued with Columbus Sprit tubing (especially the oversized) but I’m not thrilled with the idea of paint chipping when it comes to traveling with it.

[bob heinatz]

As mentioned above it depends in the builder. I have owned both high end steel and ti bikes and enjoyed both. I like the aesthetics of my modern lugged steel bike but also like the industrial look of a ti bike.

Find a good builder of either material and enjoy. It does sound like you have a itch to scratch with steel. A good builder can give you any type of ride you want.

[AngryScientist]

and to get back to the original question, at least for me @ 130 pounds with hamster like power output - i think the right builder could design a road bike out of steel or titanium to achieve the exact same ride characteristics, so it's really more a matter of preference, selecting the right builder, adequately communicating your desires and use case to them.

what i DO think makes a very big difference, especially in the carving down mountains territory, particularly if the road surface is less than perfect is a steel FORK over a carbon fork. a well made steel fork is a magical thing that really can "tie the room together", and make a big difference on a road bike.

[axel23]

Titanium. Lighter. Stronger. Doesn't rust. And while ride quality is highly subjective, a well-made ti frame is wonderfully forgiving. With the right fork, nothing is better.

[mktng]

personally have never had a ti bike feel as balanced as a high end steel bike.

my comparison would be between my master xl vs my compact sl moots.

the master xl is a better bike. imo. in every way.

[NHAero]

Ti is less dense than steel but not stronger. Steel metallurgy has changed so much, so the relative strength advantage of steel has increased. The principal design criterion in bike frames tends to be stiffness rather than strength, and the way a less dense metal like Ti is advantaged over steel is that it can be made larger diameter (where stiffness goes up exponentially, not linearly) without the wall thickness getting ridiculously thin. The high strength steels of today have blown past the guideline of 50:1 for diameter to wall thickness, so this is less of an advantage to Ti. And as has been pointed out, increasing diameter to increase stiffness has physical constraints in places, like the chain stays.

An early example of exploiting less dense metal and larger diameter tubes:

https://www.sheldonbrown.com/AluminumBikeProject.html

I have both Ti and steel bikes and appreciate them both.

Originally Posted by axel23

Titanium. Lighter. Stronger. Doesn't rust. And while ride quality is highly subjective, a well-made ti frame is wonderfully forgiving. With the right fork, nothing is better.

[Kirk007]

I have ti Spectrum and a steel Spectrum, both custom with similar but slightly different asks and hence slight differences in geometry - all road ti and pure paved road steel. The difference in road feel is in part the difference of steel fork vs enve gravel fork but in general I would agree with others that steel in the hands of a great builder will have a slightly more springy feel (note this is not to be interpreted as a stiffer feel). The differences are subtle and I've had a few number of good/great bikes in both. I had a Serotta legend that was very smooth but always felt mushy when climbing compared to some steel bikes (I've also had a ti 29er hardtail that was stiff to an extreme).

If I wasn't able to ride these bikes back to back it would be really hard for me to say that one feels different let alone better than the other. I think a good builder who understands what you are looking for and can translate that into the frame is much more important than the material (at least in the case of steel and titanium).

[campy man]

Originally Posted by Ozz

I have both a Serotta CSI and Serotta Legend....virtually same geometry and components on both....can swap wheels between the two.

My impression is that the CSI is stiffer...not ride comfort still but BB stiff, where when you step on it, you go. It is all day comfortable....

The Legend is a little smoother...not sure how else to say it (less road vibration?)....the BB is plenty stiff, but just feels different than the CSI....also all day comfortable. Maybe slightly lighter, depending on wheels....don't know for sure cuz I have never weighed them.

Both great bikes....neither is "better" than the other.....I typically ride the Legend more because it is easier to clean......

FWIW - I am 6'2" (bikes are 60 ST x 58 TT) and weigh about 180 lbs.

Serotta built me a Legend based on a Csi ... equivalent rides except Ti is lighter and a little more lively. At +200lbs flex has never been an issue.

Have since owned a steel Hampsten Team Pro and Ti DeSalvo. I think a good frame builder knows how to select the best tubing to tune the frameset to a rider's needs ... I just prefer Ti.

[Clean39T]

Dave answered a similar question last year, and I added a little spacing to help with readability here.... Actual response linked below, there are some questions/replies bookending it that are worth reading in the Kirk mega-thread also.

There's a lot of questions packed into a small space here....I'll do my best to answer them.

"With the modern steel tubing available, would a frame of the same riding characteristics (stiffness, strength) be lighter in steel or titanium?"

I see where you are going and don't know that one can give a real-life practical answer to this. The issue is that the stiffness of Ti is about 30% less than steel so making a steel and Ti frame have the same ride is near impossible. It's pretty simple to give the front end of the bike a similar ride by the numbers (using increased diameter on the Ti tubes) but much less so in the rear. This is because the chainstay diameters are limited by the small space between the chainring and the tire. So unlike the main tubes one can't just throw diameter at the c-stays to make up for the lack of stiffness in the material. One can make the tube oval in cross section and it helps a little but not much as the main loads the c-stays see are lateral bending loads (with a slight amount of torsional and compression) and an oval tube isn't much stiffer laterally than a smaller round one.....so....in the end a round steel stay with good design will be stiffer than most any Ti stay.

This is a long way of saying that it's damn tough to make bikes out of these dissimilar materials ride the same. You can make them each ride well but it's hard to make them the same.

All that said Ti being lighter than steel usually means that it makes a lighter frame. Whether you like the ride is a personal thing. I'm tall (6'4") but not very heavy (about 180#) and I worked very hard back in the day to make a Ti bike I could love and never really got there. The frames always felt unbalanced in their flex with the front ends being fine but the rear wagging around too much. For this reason I've never owned a Ti bike that I loved.....and I owned more than a few. A small light rider can be very well served by Ti but IMHO larger riders are better served by steel bikes even if they weigh a few ounces more.


"And is using the stainless steel an advantage, disadvantage, or no difference vs. the non-stainless alternative"

Aside for the corrosion protection that stainless brings I see no reason to prefer it as a material.....that said.....I use a lot of stainless. But not for the fact that it 'stains-less' but because the material is so damn strong that it can be made very thin and this in turn can give a wonderful ride and save weight at the same time. If non-stainless were strong enough to pull this off I'd no doubt use it but that not being the case I use a lot of stainless even on painted bikes.


"Diameter/wall thickness ratio of 50:1 was a design constraint to avoid compressive buckling. It's clear that guideline is not longer operative. What governs these choices now?"

The limiting factor at this point in reducing tube wall thickness is not the end use but how thin the tube maker can can effectively make the tube. I use a lot of Reynolds 953 and the walls are .5/.35/.5 on the main tubes and the guys at Reynolds say that this is about as thin as they can go. The issue is one of tolerance - I'm told that they can hold a +/- 10% on the tube walls regardless of how thin they go. If it's old school 531 with a wall of .9/.7/.9 and you reduce it but 10% you're just fine.....but make that wall .35 and cut that by 10% and you're really getting down there.

"And a separate related question - how does a modern steel fork compare with carbon in weight? And how does rim brake vs. disc brake alter that?"

I honestly don't have a solid answer to this. I don't often weigh my forks and I almost never weigh carbon forks....if I hold more than one a year in my hands that would surprise me. Any way you slice it the carbon fork will be lighter than my steel fork. Will the stiffness of that carbon fork (given it needs to work with the heaviest rider who might ever buy it - industry standard being 275# last I heard) work well for the rider? Will it be the proper rake to match the frame design to give the ideal amount of trail? Will it even be straight (all too many aren't even close)? That's always my question.

How much weight will need to be added to make the steel fork happy to have a disc brake? I don't know. I never weighed it. The larger issue is the stiffness of said fork. In other words will the stiffness we need to add to a disc fork to make it safe detract from the ride? In many cases the answer is yes. If you're a big rider and using wide tires (as many disc guys are doing) then the difference might not matter to you....but to a light rider the difference will be greater.

I hope that all makes sense. Time to get to the bench and ruin some tooling cutting stainless.

dave

https://forums.thepaceline.net/showp...postcount=1332

[Kirk007]

Originally Posted by AngryScientist

what i DO think makes a very big difference, especially in the carving down mountains territory, particularly if the road surface is less than perfect is a steel FORK over a carbon fork. a well made steel fork is a magical thing that really can "tie the room together", and make a big difference on a road bike.

+++1. Other than the builder factor, this mirrors my experience and of course is tied to the builder. A steel fork from Dave Kirk or Tom Kellogg and Jeff or Richard Sachs (and I'm sure many others; these are those who I have direct experience with) is a game changer in my experience.

[Likes2ridefar]

How about a cheap steel frame and fork? Having ridden many variations of high end steel, titanium and carbon, I think my current surly midnight special rides and handles every bit as good. the fork is better than most I’ve used as far as compliance over bumpy terrain goes.

[robt57]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

Thanks for the clarification. Beautiful bike. The reason I ask is that I have a credit toward a build with a flat mounts and clearance for 32c tires. I could go either way but would need to decide pretty soon. I’ve always been intrigued with Columbus Sprit tubing (especially the oversized) but I’m not thrilled with the idea of paint chipping when it comes to traveling with it.

I'd point out that the 20 year old frame with powder coat was 3.75lb. Imagine it still is. Same as my size Lightspeed Ti fame at the time.

As far as a particular steel, a skilled builder that knows well the contemporary materials, air hardened tech available to cobble should make as good and light as anything that is not plastic.

>>I do not say Plastic disparagingly, I have some of those too. I like to think age and experience has allotted me the knowledge to pick and choose the keepers out of all the materials of what is here. You can dent a steel tube as easy as poking a hole i, or cracking carbon as far as I am concerned.

I did get tired of all the 'grey' with 5 years of ti bikes prior to the 2000 Strong order. Note I over compensated VS 'grey'.

Originally Posted by Likes2ridefar

How about a cheap steel frame and fork? Having ridden many variations of high end steel, titanium and carbon, I think my current surly midnight special rides and handles every bit as good. the fork is better than most I’ve used as far as compliance over bumpy terrain goes.

I am in the camp that steel is steel. The metallurgy/tech is just required to make it stay strong when the wall thickness get below .5mm in the middle of the tubes so the frame is 3lb instead of 5 pretty much. Should be able to make all ride perfectly with the right experience/skills/design.

I have observed the lively springy [yet adequately stiff] frames I like best are unlikely to capture that feel in heavier tubes/builds. Out of the myriads I have ridden/owned/kept etc.

[Andy sti]

Originally Posted by XXtwindad

At this point, though, any more bike related questions and Erik is going to start charging me exorbitant rates as a "bike therapist."

Dude, that's the first time I've seen pics of the gravel frame!!! Well, other than on IG.

I'll be able to answer this question better in a couple months. Erik is going to build a Ti rim brake roadie for me and I'll compare to my steel rim brake roadie from him. There may be some differences between the two but nothing significant. I may put some lighter parts on the Ti bike.

I have two Ti bikes right now with my Alliance allroad and my Serotta Concours. Between my Serotta and my Alliance steel I much prefer the Alliance. I love the way that bike rides and the steel has the feel that we are all looking for. There is also an 18 year difference in build dates between those two frames.

I'm really looking forward to having one Ti and one steel bike for road use. I road ride a fair amount and it should be fun switching back and forth.

[benb]

Originally Posted by Clean39T

I see where you are going and don't know that one can give a real-life practical answer to this. The issue is that the stiffness of Ti is about 30% less than steel so making a steel and Ti frame have the same ride is near impossible. It's pretty simple to give the front end of the bike a similar ride by the numbers (using increased diameter on the Ti tubes) but much less so in the rear. This is because the chainstay diameters are limited by the small space between the chainring and the tire. So unlike the main tubes one can't just throw diameter at the c-stays to make up for the lack of stiffness in the material. One can make the tube oval in cross section and it helps a little but not much as the main loads the c-stays see are lateral bending loads (with a slight amount of torsional and compression) and an oval tube isn't much stiffer laterally than a smaller round one.....so....in the end a round steel stay with good design will be stiffer than most any Ti stay.

This makes me wonder if anyone ever tried making a chainstay with ovalized interior/exterior dimensions that caused the wall thickness to be thicker on the sides than the top. So you could get your vertical stiffness with diameter and horizontal stiffness with thicker walls.

But then again everyone moved on to carbon for this kind of thing.