Carbon or titanium - which is best for Audaxes?

Tortoise · Post by **Tortoise** » 17 Dec 2008, 8:43pm

Contemplating splashing out on a new frameset for longer Audaxes but can't decide whether carbon or titanium would give me the optimum result. I've read so many magazine write-ups saying "the carbon damps the road shocks" or "titanium gives a cloud cushioned ride" or similar. Is there any lucky soul out there who's actually used both and can give a first hand account?

robwa10 · Post by **robwa10** » 17 Dec 2008, 9:05pm

Steel.

Big T · Post by **Big T** » 17 Dec 2008, 11:10pm

My son has ridden a titanium Merlin and carbon Planet X and much preferred the Merlin. When he first got the Merlin, he kept thinking he had punctured due to the compliant ride, but in a road race sprint, it is so stiff that there's no BB movement at all. The carbon is stiff but gives a harsher ride.

Only problem is that the Merlin frame would cost more than a complete Planet X bike (not a problem for him, as he's sponsored and gets them given to him, but he has to give them back at the end of the year - he'll be riding a carbon Cervelo next year).

If money is no object, go for titanium - gives a more comfortable ride without losing any power due to flexing.

vernon · Post by **vernon** » 18 Dec 2008, 12:22am

Another vote for steel.

When I look at the range of bikes used by known long distance audax riders I don't recall seeing a single carbon framed bike and lots of steel framed Dawes/Mercians/Argos/Woodrups/Bob Jacksons/Dave Yates'/Roberts/Thorn and some alloy framed bikes but the latter are in the minority.

JohnW · Post by **JohnW** » 18 Dec 2008, 12:36am

Steel.

Tonyf33 · Post by **Tonyf33** » 18 Dec 2008, 1:17am

Lol at you old fart steely lovers. Unless you can source a really well made 853 frame from a reputable builder..ie argos or the like then anything less is just not comparable to titanium. i'd suggest you get a decent Ti frame, you will never ever regret it.
Obviously a Merlin, litespeed(tuscany, vortex or Siena if you can find one s/hand) Dean also used to make nice ti frames. One of the best ever made frames was from the Raleigh special products division in the late 90's to around 2000. Made using titanium tubes supplied by IMI which are far superior to the russian timet tubes(dont even think about any of the other incarnations) they are very stiff.
BTW there might be one for sale on this website....
http://www.londonfgss.com/thread10334.html

The Raleigh frames are superbly welded & my 60cm variant weighs 1650g, about 300g heavier than the comparable 61cm Litespeed Vortex.

zenzinnia · Post by **zenzinnia** » 18 Dec 2008, 8:42am

I've not riden either Ti or C but personally I find a bike that is a better fit for me more comfortable. I have a cheap steel (just CroMo) frame which happens to be a perfect fit and i can ride all day on it whilst my much more expensive, carbon stayed/ forked Alu frame is much more stressful to my body due to it being a compromise fit wise. This is probably why many people on longer audaxs etc use steel - they can get a bike made to fit them perfectly for the price whilst the Ti one for the same price would be an off the peg one. If you're lucky maybe you can find a Ti frame that is the right fit for you.

ersakus · Post by **ersakus** » 18 Dec 2008, 8:58am

Not all steel seem to be the same. I have an expensive and very stiff/light Deda 14.5 framed Condor tourer which happens to ride harsher than my Tange steel (prestige + infinity forks) audax frame. Tange frameset was much cheaper but in practice it is more flexy and comfy for unloaded tours. It is too flexy for heavy loads but that is not the purpose of it anyway.

The bottomline is:
The more you spend on the frame (at least for the steel ones) the stiffer and lighter it gets but in my book this is not a good thing in terms of ride quality. So there are compromises to be made there and a personal choice. I have no idea how titanium compares though (sure to be much more expensive).

Paul Smith SRCC · Post by **Paul Smith SRCC** » 18 Dec 2008, 10:24am

Tortoise wrote:Contemplating splashing out on a new frameset for longer Audaxes but can't decide whether carbon or titanium would give me the optimum result. I've read so many magazine write-ups saying "the carbon damps the road shocks" or "titanium gives a cloud cushioned ride" or similar. Is there any lucky soul out there who's actually used both and can give a first hand account?

I compared frame materials in more depth in This post that may be of some interest as my findings may be relevant here.

You may find that Carbon bikes that can take full guards are not that common place, most carbon bikes that are not set up as full on race bikes are often set up more with Sportive riding in mind, so are inclined to have no guard clearance or rack mounts, where as you will find that bikes set up with more focus on Audax over Sportive rides will be able to take guards and pannier racks, as such in the higher end bikes Steel and Titanium are more common place than Carbon.

Paul_Smith (PS, my Audax bike shown in Sig' is Titanium and replaced the Steel frame I used in the tours below, a bike I use mostly for lightweight touring,)

speedsixdave · Post by **speedsixdave** » 18 Dec 2008, 11:57am

How long do you want the bike for?

If you buy a new bike every couple of years and treat it well, there's no problem with carbon. If you want a frame to last twenty years, titanium (or steel) is a better bet.

Carbon has rather limited resistance to bangs, knocks, impacts, airline baggage handlers and such. Ti is much more durable. Steel, famously, is repairable (which means at least you can get the dents filled in).

I've never ridden carbon but I have a titanium Litespeed sunday bike, which is wonderful to ride. The choice was influenced by the fact that my previous custom steel road bike was completely destroyed by British Airways, and I wanted something that would stand up to someone else's clumsiness. And, wonderful though it is, that ain't carbon.

glueman · Post by **glueman** » 18 Dec 2008, 12:43pm

I'm very demanding of frames. I want lightness, repairability, longevity (at least 20 years), durability (won't dent if someone leans a bike against it). All at a price that won't worry me stupid if it's outside a cafe.

Steel is the answer.

pigman · Post by **pigman** » 18 Dec 2008, 1:07pm

glueman wrote:I'm very demanding of frames. I want lightness, repairability, longevity (at least 20 years), durability (won't dent if someone leans a bike against it). All at a price that won't worry me stupid if it's outside a cafe.

Steel is the answer.

but is it? I seem to remember someone quoting >£800 for a mercian frame. Hardly a price not to be worried about and pricewise, probably on a par with a VanNick titanium.
Price notwithstanding, I'll admit to preferring steel.

Post by Si » 18 Dec 2008, 1:13pm

pigman wrote:
glueman wrote:I'm very demanding of frames. I want lightness, repairability, longevity (at least 20 years), durability (won't dent if someone leans a bike against it). All at a price that won't worry me stupid if it's outside a cafe.

Steel is the answer.

but is it? I seem to remember someone quoting >£800 for a mercian frame. Hardly a price not to be worried about and pricewise, probably on a par with a VanNick titanium.
Price notwithstanding, I'll admit to preferring steel.

but is that comparing like with like.....would comparing a Mercian with, say, a Lightspeed be better?

Paul Smith SRCC · Post by **Paul Smith SRCC** » 18 Dec 2008, 1:25pm

Si wrote:
pigman wrote:
glueman wrote:I'm very demanding of frames. I want lightness, repairability, longevity (at least 20 years), durability (won't dent if someone leans a bike against it). All at a price that won't worry me stupid if it's outside a cafe.

Steel is the answer.

but is it? I seem to remember someone quoting >£800 for a mercian frame. Hardly a price not to be worried about and pricewise, probably on a par with a VanNick titanium.
Price notwithstanding, I'll admit to preferring steel.

but is that comparing like with like.....would comparing a Mercian with, say, a Lightspeed be better?

It is a matter of opinion these days as to if you believe an American building a frame in American will result in a better built frame than a China man building a frame in China, where many of the Titanium brands now come from.

As far as many are concerned times have changed, the workmanship of the latter is now very good.

Paul_Smith

glueman · Post by **glueman** » 18 Dec 2008, 1:31pm

It depends to some extent on the guarantee. I bought an EBC folder a while back and the front axle bolt was slightly scoring the rear dropout, not a big deal but I thought it worth checking with the shop. 'Don't worry' they said 'all our frames are guaranteed for life.'
If that response is typical you'd have to say aluminium frames offer the best performance/value trade off being very light per £ and pretty well sorted for durabilty these days. So long as the rider put catastrophic failure of a main tube out of their mind he'd have a bike for life!

If I wanted something with lightness and elan I'd go for a 953 custom frame. My worry with titanium is unless it's custom (quite rare) the branding company (rarely the manufacturer) might not outlast the bike and I'd be left with a fairly unrepairable frame and no-one to claim from. In the end choice is always about more than the grams and avoirdupois.

Cycling UK Forum

Carbon or titanium - which is best for Audaxes?

Carbon or titanium - which is best for Audaxes?

Re: Carbon or titanium - which is best for Audaxes?