Nev
captain
Reged: 05/03/04
Posts: 376
Loc: Never where I want to be
|
|
Have at it:
Edited by Nev (05/10/04 09:01 PM)
|
JackL
new member
Reged: 03/10/04
Posts: 16
Loc: Seattle
|
|
Objectively speaking:
Ti has durability.
Carbon has everything else.
(End of story)
|
Nev
captain
Reged: 05/03/04
Posts: 376
Loc: Never where I want to be
|
|
Quote:
JackL wrote:
Objectively speaking:
Ti has durability.
Carbon has everything else.
(End of story)
With a 25yr warranty on a Calfee, is this thread over then, too?
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 720
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
Because the differences between carbon and ti, when ridden, are very subjective. I've had 3 Calfees, 1 ti Serotta, 1 Litespeed, 1 Merlin and 1 ti Colnago. Each one different, each one with its' own strengths. My perception of each of course will differ than someone else's perception, hence the subjective nature of bikes. If ti bikes, or carbon bikes were hands-down superior, there wouldn't be the other kind.
So, the eternal debate of carbon vs ti will go on forever. It's a very good thing to talk about over beers. In a perfect world you would have several of each, and enjoy them all.
--------------------
Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
Nev
captain
Reged: 05/03/04
Posts: 376
Loc: Never where I want to be
|
|
First had a ride to myself on my new s-works epic disc this morning -- what a ride, thank you. (It's an mtb thing)
Then today spent about 3 hours on my first bunch of road test rides. And all I can say is "crap." I think I might one of each.
Horrible. Horrible.
Have join back to the family and have some dinner. Details to come.
|
Nev
captain
Reged: 05/03/04
Posts: 376
Loc: Never where I want to be
|
|
OK:
First rode a Trek 5500 (ultegra): blah.
Then a Serotta Ottrott (03 dura ace): Whoa.
Then an 02' Litespeed Vortex (ultegra): Wow.
Then a Trek 5900 (04 dura ace): Oh my!
Then a Specialized S-works E-5 (04 dura ace): Eh...
Barely felt the road on the the 5500. Didn't like it at all. On the 5900, I pedaled around maybe 4 times and stopped. "Where's the bike?" I wondered. The lightness freaked me out. Especially after coming off the two before. Really soaks up the road. Can't decide if I like that, but the lightness of the thing made it feel like a rocket. Seriously, I freaked out when I first got on it.
The Serotta and the Litespeed were really different from the carbons. They both felt like they contained energy in them -- of course untapped, maybe even unaccessable to this rider. But still, I felt it -- or something. I was also amazed at how stable they both felt. I don't think I could have tipped over if I tired leaning over in a complete stop. I liked that feeling a lot. I also liked the energy they seemed to hold. The Ottrott of course is a carbon/ti combo frame, and had a carbon seat post. And was a smoother ride. The vortex did not have a carbon seat post and felt like I was sitting on concrete -- it had a pretty hard seat though. Only slightly more road bumps. These two by far are the ones that stood out.
That frickin' ottrott's expensive. But gol' dang sweetness overall. Not good. Wish I hadn't experienced it. I really liked the Vortex, too, but I'm wondering what a carbon seat post, better seat and carbon bars would add/dampen. There was a Serotta Legend frame on the wall, but nothing to ride.
Help a guy out here.
The E-5 was alright. Having the aluminum ride here clearly revealeld for me the difference between carbon and metals. It also felt "tippy," like I could easily push it side to side before it stopped. Like I said, the ottrott and votex were stable as hell. Don't think I could fall over on either of them.
Does any of this make sense?
I believe they all had Bontager wheels except for the E-5 that had Mavic ksyriums (sp?). I hear these are good wheels. They felt good. The Dura Ace was nicer than the Ultegra for sure.
Any thoughts on wheel contributions to the ride experience above?
How about the carbon seat post and bars thought? I ride carbon bars on my mtb bike and there's a huge difference.
Are all carbon frames going to be as different as the 5500 vs. 5900? Or closer to the 5900?
This is worse than buying a car. And takes longer. Will be riding a road rally this weekend on the mtb bike. I want my roadie hit now.
|
Lon
sage
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 595
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
|
I have been flamed in the past but I feel the difference in a carbon seatpost even on a carbon bike. It will make a difference.
Wheels and tires make a difference in ride. My Kestrel was feeling like crap and I could not figure out why. I changed the tires and got my bike back the way I remembered it.
Take your time and enjoy the look. If there is a dealer ride a Calfee. I love mine. I'd also ride a Seven. Everybody I've met that has one likes it. I'd nuke the Litespeed if you can afford the Serotta or Seven. They seem to have happier owners. Carbon frames are not all created equal as other frames. The material is only part of the equation. The builder is the major part.
Good luck.
|
Allan
journeyman
Reged: 05/04/04
Posts: 198
Loc: Bds,W I
|
|
Hey Nev,
Seems you have been trying to analyse all the differences between the bikes you have ridden and what you have experienced, the good thing is that you know definately what traits you are looking for in a frame.
While i cant point you in one straight line with a firm choice of material,i do have a ti bike an aluminum bike a carbon bike and a steel one too, so i know the way each one rides, feels and performs, or at least my opinion on how the material its made of reacts to the road.
Might i suggest you consider having a custom ti frame set built,i say this because i still find that of all my bikes i have owned,i prefer the ti material, it just seems to me to be more lively,responsive and comfortable.
While i dont endorse products in any way, my ti bike is a Moots.
--------------------
Its time to ride.
|
1centaur
journeyman
Reged: 12/24/03
Posts: 126
Loc: Massachusetts
|
|
I own bikes in all four materials and have test ridden a couple of others, so I speak from personal experience and with personal biases.
When I first read your post on the 5500 I thought you were clearly a metal bike buyer, since the "wooden" vs. "magic carpet ride" opinion on that frame tends to define a cyclist's preference pretty well. For instance, I test rode a 5200 and thought the comfort level was superb but that there was nothing exciting about the ride - I bought a Tetra because it still soaked up plenty of road bumpiness but had an electric, coltish feeling - a testament to builder skill in my view.
My patented phrase is "metal is metal and carbon fiber isn't," by which I mean that bumps are transmitted more harshly on all metals than on carbon fiber, delusions about the comfort of Ti and steel be damned. The fact that you mention the metal-ness of aluminum later in your comments suggested that maybe the 5500 comment is a fluke and carbon should be part of your solution. I have a CT-1 (Ti and carbon) and a Klein (alu and carbon) and they are both wonderful bikes in their own way (the Nag being especially stable due to its geometry, the Klein very responsive and a great climber and way more comfortable than I expected), but in the end it feels like the Ti/carbon custom suggested is a good possibility, as is riding a Tetra (all CF is not equal; the Orca for example is not special like the Tetra but has more of that freaky light thing going as the 5900) and maybe a C-50 if you are lucky enough to have a top shop near you.
Seems you should spend more time riding some frames, get a great fit, really focus on both geometry (notably HT angle and TT length) and how much road vibration you want to feel.
Most say carbon posts make no difference; perhaps if you went compact that would not be so. All CF bars are not equal. I recommend Deda Spectrum oversize vs. Kestrel, FWIW. Only 10% more comfortable than alu bars so not worth the money, but hey. I also really notice the CF rear triangle on my metal bikes. A very sturdy HT and DT will add stiffness and responsiveness.
When you decide, post pictures.
--------------------
"You never make a gift of Ventoux"
Eddie Merckx to Lance Armstrong
|
audissix
friend
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 25
|
|
nev, I owned a Specialized E5 for a while built up with 9-speed Dura ace, carbon USE alien seat post, Easton carbon bars, Ksyrium wheels. The bike was very, very light and fast. Comfort wise it beat the hell out of me. It wasn't until I got my custom built Independent Fabrication Crown Jewel Ti that I truly realized just how much that Specialized really stuck it to the rider. My IF is built similarly, different wheels, everything else the same. It weighs in at 17 lbs. and gives one of the most comfortable rides I have ever had from a road bike, yet it is fast, climbs wonderfully, descends like a rocket, I can't say enough about the fit as well. If you are going to ride longer than 25-30 mile rides you will appreciate the comfort of Ti, the E5 is a nice bike for shorter rides in my opinion. Good luck finding the perfect ride.Oh yea, I also have a Parlee Z1 on order. As far as carbon goes it is the cats meow.
Edited by audissix (05/13/04 11:31 AM)
|
JackL
new member
Reged: 03/10/04
Posts: 16
Loc: Seattle
|
|
Cycling+ said that of the frames they have tested for lateral stiffness, the Lightspeed Ghisallo was the least stiff and the Airborne Torch was the stiffest- surprising since they are both titanium. The Ghisallo results didn't surprise me but the Torch results did. I just didn't think a reasonably light all-ti frame could be that stiff, even with fancy tubing shapes.
Do you think the 6/4 titanium so much stiffer than the 3/2.5 that it is almost a different category of frame material? Would a 6/4 Ghisallo be significantly more stiff?
|
Allan
journeyman
Reged: 05/04/04
Posts: 198
Loc: Bds,W I
|
|
Hello JackL,
This topic has been an ongoing debate for many years and as long as a material,or variations of its alloy are in use on a product, eg bike frames,parts etc, there will be pluses and minuses from anyone who is using the item, as to what they like and dislike about it.
A frame testing device such as one called the taranchula that was used quite extensively by a leading bike mag, can give you some idea for how the material responds when its put through a rigourous program, but also bear in mind that within the same material, if you alter the wall diameter or thickness in any part of the frame, the results will show a change also.
So its possible to have two ti frames,both the same size and geometric dimensions with one in 3/2.5, and one in 6/4 showing up with near similiar results.
However to achieve this figure, the wall diameters and thicknesses on these two frames are now totally worlds apart from each other structurally.
Please remember however that it is what you actually feel while riding and can relate to, that ends up being what really matters, and if you like what you feel in the responsiveness of the frame and are comfortable with it, then some 000.1% stiffer bar graph on a p.c screen cant really be felt.
--------------------
Its time to ride.
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 720
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
And is it a good thing? Dave Kirk has an opinion on his website: http://www.kirkframeworks.com/Flex.htm
--------------------
Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
TheMightySkunk
journeyman
Reged: 12/26/03
Posts: 82
|
|
I bet the Ghisallo they tested wasn't a 2004. The down tube on the 2004 Ghisallo is the largest-diameter titanium tube I've ever seen. It's almost the size of a beer can, and doesn't even vaguely resemble the down tube on previous year Ghisallos.
The 2003 (and all other previous years) Ghisallo was definitely a bit of a noodle. The 2004 has been stiffened considerably.
--------------------
"I haven't failed. I've just managed to find 100,000 ways that don't work"
--Albert Einstein
|
Insightdriver
captain
Reged: 03/07/04
Posts: 472
|
|
I might chime in on what seems to be a dead thread here with my own two cents (actually it's free to read, so it costs you and I nothing, either to write it nor to read it).
People who have a passion for cars wax excitedely over horsepower when they really like torque.
People who have a passion for bikes talk about differences in materials when they are really feeling differences in geometry and stiffness of an entire system of frame, fork and tires. In order of effect, though, tires have the most, fork the next and frame the least.
What makes a bike fast: small trail in the fork, light wheels, high pressure tires.
What makes a bike slow: lots of trail, softer tires.
I read an article on frame flex once that pointed out that a diamond frame made out of any material is stiff in the vertical dimension. What makes a frame flex is lateral flex from pedalling. Road bumps are vertical, so what one feels is what's left over that wasn't soaked up by the tires and to a much smaller extent the flex in the seatpost and padding of the saddle.
I read a number of articles from a site on mettalurgy as it pertains to bicycles. The bottom line of those aricles is that no material has an ideal as far as a frame material is concerned. Every material has specific characteristics and an engineer designs a bike taking those charcteristics into acccount. The end package is sufficient stiffness and toughness so a bike won't fall apart.
Rather than focus on whether carbon or ti or steel, focus on slack or twitchy geometry. Focus on seatpost angle and fork rake. Wheel strength and weight make a difference in bike handling. Others have noticed putting new tires ona bike makes it feel different.
The most important characteristic of all is fit. One must have a proper fit on a bike to be truly comfortable and in an optimum position.
It's like the way high fidelity speakers are sold, the loudest one is perceived to be the best sounding on. A bicyle that fits best and suits the riding style of the rider will "sound," the best to someone.
Prove this to yourself anytime by dropping the tire pressure in a bike that feels harsh or pumping the tires up hard on a bike that feels soft. Try a 700 X 23 tire then switch to a 700 X 21 tire. The ride is amazingly different with just a tire size change.
|
skagwayroadie
contributor
Reged: 12/20/03
Posts: 141
Loc: Alaska
|
|
Insight...
I agree with much of what you have to say...well said thoughts. I also believe that when riding a moderate to high end bike, any change should net a discernable difference in feel, performance or both. Obviously some components will be more noticeable than others, but that is not necessarily the point I am making. For example, say you swap the seat post from a Thomson Masterpiece to a Deda Blackstick. There is not gonna be a difference from a weight or performance standpoint, but should be quite noticeable from a ride point of view, especially on a aluminum or other stiff riding bike. Hey Lon, reading this...I know you have a sensitive tush!!! But swapping a wheelset can not only change the performance, but the ride charatistics quite drastically, regardless of weight.
Your comments on bike tires especially struck home with me. On my old Klien Quantum II, I could feel a huge difference in performance and especially downhill coasting speeds when the tires where at diffrent pressures. I like to ride Vredstien Fortezza Tri-comps and they don't ride very well unless you pump 'em up to 145 pounds, then the ride is very sew-up like, very responsive and grippy when baked over hard in a corner. When the pressure is low, the ride become soft and squishy, like the tires is flating out on me. On the downhills I can squeek out a few mph more when the pressure is at spec vs low, by even 10 pounds. Of course this is not a very objective test, but I noticed it immediately when I would repeat the runs. I tried some Conti 3000's, a great tire that responds well to tire pressure tweaking, but did not notice the degree of character change like the Vredstiens. I really could feel a ride diffrence between the Conti's and the Vredstiens when both were at maximum pressures. Performance was very similar, but the ride was much better on the Vreds.
Anyways, I am surprised this thread did not generate more responses...it is always a touchy subject!
Ciao...Mark
|
Dave_Thompson
prophet
Reged: 12/19/03
Posts: 720
Loc: Spokane, Washington
|
|
The carbon vs Ti vs steel vs etc. has been hashed to death on evry forum extant. And as has been pointed out there is no perfect material for a bicycle frame, it's primarily in the eye (or butt) of the beholder. I have, and have had bikes of carbon, carbon/Ti, Ti, steel and aluminum, and for the most part have liked them all. Some I've liked better than others, some were better at different tasks and some more comfy. That said, I still subscribe to the notion that the geometry and build of the bike make more difference that the material the bike is made from.
--------------------
Steel lover, but then I like Ti with carbon too.
Licensed bike geek.
|
Insightdriver
captain
Reged: 03/07/04
Posts: 472
|
|
I appreciate all forms of feedback. I speak using through my own bias, preference and experience. My opinions are based on a matrix of value judgements that I have formed. I would be very puzzled if anyone agreed with everything I said. That said, I like some things I believe in to be validated by others.
I had originally gotten a quote for a custom carbon bike from Guru. When my LBS guy found out that Guru couldn't give the dimensions he wanted I was given two other proposals, one being a titanium frame from Guru, the other, the longer shot because of greater expense and longer lead time, from Calfee. When push came to shove, my heart was set on carbon so I went with the Calfee. In all cases, my body shape is in that 20 percent of people who need a custom frame to fit them. For me it's not simply carbon, but proper fit which overrides all else. I want a bike that fits me perfectly, both in geometry and ride qualities.
As those who read my posts realize, tend to think a lot and say a lot.
|
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Threaded
Carbon vs. Ti?
Edit
Reply
Quote
Re: Carbon vs. Ti
Re: Carbon vs. Ti?
Re: Carbon vs. Ti?