Ti vs. Carbon Fiber - Page 3 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-28-2005, 06:12 PM

>Carbon -- there are great comments above about the sketchiness of
>carbon. I dont know how long a carbon frame will last.

I can only speak towards the Trek OCLVs, as that is what I have first hand
experience with:

These frames have been produced for nearly 15 years now, so the industry and
user community have more than a little experience with them. At least in
Trek's case, the numbers are working out so that they continue to offer
their lifetime warranty.

Although I would give the nod towards Ti or steel for repairability, that
doesn't mean carbon is *not* repairable.

I've had a rear dropout replaced on my OCLV at no more cost than it would be
to do similar work on a Ti or steel frame. I've also seen crash-damaged rear
triangles replaced on OCLVs.

While there are certainly circumstances where the cost to repair a carbon
frame will exceed the cost of a new frame, the same situation exists with
other materials.

A real difference will be the need to rely on the manufacturer for any
repair of a carbon frame, while other options often exist for repair of ti
and steel frames.

Chris Neary
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

"Science, freedom, beauty, adventure: what more could
you ask of life? Bicycling combined all the elements I
loved" - Adapted from a quotation by Charles Lindbergh

02-28-2005, 07:06 PM

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles wrote:
> > Are you looking at carbon and Ti from a weight perspective? My
> > philosophy is this - if you are concerned about weight, go get a
> > body-fat measurment taken. If you're a guy who is over 12% body
fat,
> > then you have no excuse for buying a bike based on weight.
>
> That is simply not true. Let's say you're a 200lb 6' person. Will the

> difference between an 18lb bike and a 24lb one make the difference
between
> whether you can finish a ride or not? Probably not. Will the
difference
> between an 18lb bike and, say, a 21lb bike be noticeable when riding?
In
> most cases, yes. If you're standing on a hill, isolating yourself
from the
> weight of the bike underneath you, you can very easily notice a
difference
> between a bike that weighs a bit less than another. You're not just
moving
> that bike *up* the hill, but also side-to-side. It's not that you
lose much
> (if any?) energy as you move it one way then the other, but it most
> definitely is a difference you can feel. The lighter bike will feel
> livelier, and why that should be something ruled out of the
equation... why
> you'd think that somebody isn't worthy of something that feels
better,
> perhaps just different... I just don't get it. There's a lot more
that goes
> into purchasing a bike (or anything else for that matter) than just a
desire
> to have enough function to get by.
>
> Do you *need* to have a computer that opens up your email and
processes your
> spam in 11.3 seconds instead of 15? How are those 4 seconds going to
change
> your day? They likely aren't, but somehow it changes your state of
mind,
> maybe. And maybe that's worth paying for, for some. And for others it

> doesn't seem like a big deal that it takes 2 minutes to download and
process
> their spam on a slow analog line. They're perfectly happy with it.
But is
> somebody telling the person with the DSL line and the 3.2ghz
processor and
> the latest NVidia 6800+ graphics card that they're not worthy of it
because
> they're a lousy game player? Well, maybe they are, but it seems rude
either
> way.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
>
Mike,

You make a good point that is not in opposition to mine. If you want
bike A because it is lighter than B, then unless you're under 12% body
fat, you're making a stupid decision.

If you want bike A because you like the ride better than B, no matter
what your physical configuration, you're making the right decision.

That's my point - not "Fat guys must ride heavier bikes."

02-28-2005, 07:06 PM

Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles wrote:
> > Are you looking at carbon and Ti from a weight perspective? My
> > philosophy is this - if you are concerned about weight, go get a
> > body-fat measurment taken. If you're a guy who is over 12% body
fat,
> > then you have no excuse for buying a bike based on weight.
>
> That is simply not true. Let's say you're a 200lb 6' person. Will the

> difference between an 18lb bike and a 24lb one make the difference
between
> whether you can finish a ride or not? Probably not. Will the
difference
> between an 18lb bike and, say, a 21lb bike be noticeable when riding?
In
> most cases, yes. If you're standing on a hill, isolating yourself
from the
> weight of the bike underneath you, you can very easily notice a
difference
> between a bike that weighs a bit less than another. You're not just
moving
> that bike *up* the hill, but also side-to-side. It's not that you
lose much
> (if any?) energy as you move it one way then the other, but it most
> definitely is a difference you can feel. The lighter bike will feel
> livelier, and why that should be something ruled out of the
equation... why
> you'd think that somebody isn't worthy of something that feels
better,
> perhaps just different... I just don't get it. There's a lot more
that goes
> into purchasing a bike (or anything else for that matter) than just a
desire
> to have enough function to get by.
>
> Do you *need* to have a computer that opens up your email and
processes your
> spam in 11.3 seconds instead of 15? How are those 4 seconds going to
change
> your day? They likely aren't, but somehow it changes your state of
mind,
> maybe. And maybe that's worth paying for, for some. And for others it

> doesn't seem like a big deal that it takes 2 minutes to download and
process
> their spam on a slow analog line. They're perfectly happy with it.
But is
> somebody telling the person with the DSL line and the 3.2ghz
processor and
> the latest NVidia 6800+ graphics card that they're not worthy of it
because
> they're a lousy game player? Well, maybe they are, but it seems rude
either
> way.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycles
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
> IMBA, BikesBelong, NBDA member
>
Mike,

You make a good point that is not in opposition to mine. If you want
bike A because it is lighter than B, then unless you're under 12% body
fat, you're making a stupid decision.

If you want bike A because you like the ride better than B, no matter
what your physical configuration, you're making the right decision.

That's my point - not "Fat guys must ride heavier bikes."

02-28-2005, 08:13 PM

Velo Psycho wrote:
>
> Now... if weight is off the table... lets look at durability. Ti
will
> last beyond the extinction of mankind. You'll never see rust on ti.

Ah, but titanium is flammable!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

;-)

02-28-2005, 08:13 PM

Velo Psycho wrote:
>
> Now... if weight is off the table... lets look at durability. Ti
will
> last beyond the extinction of mankind. You'll never see rust on ti.

Ah, but titanium is flammable!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

;-)

03-01-2005, 05:24 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> Velo Psycho wrote:
> >
> > Now... if weight is off the table... lets look at durability. Ti
> will
> > last beyond the extinction of mankind. You'll never see rust on
ti.
>
> Ah, but titanium is flammable!
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> ;-)

Who knew that my Crown Jewel was a firetrap? Can someone design a fire
extinguisher that fits in a water bottle cage??

03-01-2005, 05:24 AM

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
> Velo Psycho wrote:
> >
> > Now... if weight is off the table... lets look at durability. Ti
> will
> > last beyond the extinction of mankind. You'll never see rust on
ti.
>
> Ah, but titanium is flammable!
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
> ;-)

Who knew that my Crown Jewel was a firetrap? Can someone design a fire
extinguisher that fits in a water bottle cage??

03-01-2005, 07:01 AM

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:22:32 -0600, "Pat" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>The argument I have always gotten disgusted with is the one that starts:
>"You have more money than you know what to do with if...." or "The only
>person who would buy one of those would be someone with more money than
>sense...."
>
>It's always seemed a little holier than thou to me.

Nah, just see it as a form of sour grapes that it is.

Some people have to live closer to the knee of the cost/benefit curve and are
unhappy about it.

Ron

03-01-2005, 07:01 AM

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 18:22:32 -0600, "Pat" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>The argument I have always gotten disgusted with is the one that starts:
>"You have more money than you know what to do with if...." or "The only
>person who would buy one of those would be someone with more money than
>sense...."
>
>It's always seemed a little holier than thou to me.

Nah, just see it as a form of sour grapes that it is.

Some people have to live closer to the knee of the cost/benefit curve and are
unhappy about it.

Ron

03-01-2005, 07:03 AM

On 1 Mar 2005 05:24:29 -0800, "Velo Psycho" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>
>[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] wrote:
>> Velo Psycho wrote:
>> >
>> > Now... if weight is off the table... lets look at durability. Ti
>> will
>> > last beyond the extinction of mankind. You'll never see rust on
>ti.
>>
>> Ah, but titanium is flammable!
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
>> ;-)
>
>Who knew that my Crown Jewel was a firetrap? Can someone design a fire
>extinguisher that fits in a water bottle cage??

That's why I have my titanium frames sealed and filled with Halon.

Ron