Cycling UK Forum

I am looking to buy a bike for leisure riding and maybe a time trial or 2. i am 6ft 3", weigh about 14 stone and am tempted to go for something carbon. There seem to be alot of different carbon frames out there and i don't know which manufacturers are good and which are not so good.
What is the difference between a good carbon frame and a bad carbon frame? Should I go for some other material...because I am too hefty?
what do people think about titanium?
Any assistance gratefully received.
I presently own a couple of steel bikes but i am looking for something as light as is reasonable.
Thanks.

I have a titanium bike and absolutely love it.

One word. Titanium. That's it.

I'm very happy with my 1986 531c Mercian Vincitore.
I think every regular on this forum knows this!

However, if I could live my life again, and if someone had invented the stuff earlier enough, and if I could have afforded it, I would have bought a titanium frame.

Titanium has the reputation of breaking among cycling manufacturers. The problem is the welds.
My friend's titanium frame was a sorry sight when we were both hit by a car. See link.
http://www.pbase.com/gearoidmuar/image/85095874
Mine which was aluminium and had an identical crash was to look at, undamaged, though I chose to scrap it.
I got a bad hand injury out of the accident, but have made an excellent functional recovery.

I would therefore say, anything except titanium!

Gearoidmuar wrote:Titanium has the reputation of breaking among cycling manufacturers. The problem is the welds.

Build quality?
Am I right in saying Ti frames are generally imported from The Far East and rather cheap considering the material?

Surely, if a Ti frame is made by a Good Framebuilder, the welding would be better?

You'd think so.
But looking on the Retrobike forum, where people own all manner of Ti confections, it seems most titanium frames tend to fail at the welds, whether they be from Asia, the US or Britain.
In my shed (well, about to be sold to pay for my boat ) is a Dynatech, titanium main tubes but with steel lugs and back end. Impossibly lightweight (far lighter than Kermit, my 70s time trial bike), yet strong in the places where they fail. And before anyone says anything about them coming unglued, it was true with the first ones in 1992, but the problem was quickly sorted out. I've never heard of one from 1993 onwards failing at the joints.
On reflection, I would say reasonably thick-walled steel is the frame for a keeper (631 is good for this), but if you really want to go lighter, carbon is king. But it's for right now only; all obsessively lightweight stuff probably achieves its goals at the expense of long-term survival.

chris667 wrote:On reflection, I would say reasonably thick-walled steel is the frame for a keeper (631 is good for this), but if you really want to go lighter, carbon is king. But it's for right now only; all obsessively lightweight stuff probably achieves its goals at the expense of long-term survival.

I agree. When I bought my last frame I could have gone for carbon, aluminium or titanium. I chose steel because it's the same as the Carlton, Freddie Grubb and other bikes from the 50s and 60s I sometimes notice round about.
The difference is people generally have more disposable income nowadays and don't expect things to last very long. I was speaking to a racing cyclist recently who assumed I'd restored an old bike and found it hard to believe steel bikes were still made! He probably expects to get three seasons out of a nice aluminium frame and then buy another bike.

There's no right or wrong answer to this question. If you are happy to buy a new Merc at £35k, blowing 2 or 3 grand on a carbon bike won't give you sleepless nights. You probably won't be riding it in 10 years, you might not be riding it in 5 but that isn't the point, is it? As for titanium people tell me good things about it but I don't want to ride another silver generic frame with black carbon forks. I also need a bike that will take the slings and arrows of normal cycling without needing cotton wool treatment.

Personally, I'd only consider sub-20 lb exotia when I was fit and dedicated enough to warrant it and then I'd double the weight with a Carradice and miss the point!

glueman wrote:As for titanium people tell me good things about it but I don't want to ride another silver generic frame with black carbon forks.

I imagine that if I were to buy a Ti frame (which I won't coz my Mercian is for life!) I would have it painted and and have Ti forks as well.

Why are Ti frames not painted? Will it not stick?

Mick F wrote:
I imagine that if I were to buy a Ti frame (which I won't coz my Mercian is for life!) I would have it painted and and have Ti forks as well.

Why are Ti frames not painted? Will it not stick?

No idea TBH but I've never seen a painted Ti frame. I think the silver look is meant to show you've bought titanium but it hides behind a veneer of functionalism and practicality. If people are seriously worried about the weight of a couple of coats of enamel they might seek out the boards at Manchester!

Thanks to everyone for the replies...helpful and with plenty of common sense. i do have a rather lovely Mercian pro-lugless that Mick would approve of. i may spend a bit of time trying to get the weight down on that.
I think, as is said, that disposable income, to a degree, means disposable bikes, conspicuous consumption etc....though that is not to say carbon doesn't do a job.
I shall ponder further.

I believe Ti can be painted - personally I like the lustre of the brushed metal. As far as durability goes, van nic frames are guaranteed for life so i imagine others are too. That excludes crash damage, but after a major impact I'd be cautious no matter what the bike is made of.
Most ti frames have carbon forks these days - any idea why?

Mick F wrote:

glueman wrote:As for titanium people tell me good things about it but I don't want to ride another silver generic frame with black carbon forks.

I imagine that if I were to buy a Ti frame (which I won't coz my Mercian is for life!) I would have it painted and and have Ti forks as well.

Why are Ti frames not painted? Will it not stick?

Ti doesn't make good forks. Its 'give' isn't ideal for them like it is for a frame, or some such.

People don't paint Ti because they don't need to - it doesn't rust like steel so why bother having a paint job that will eventually chip and scratch and need redoing? Plus, if you paint it then no one will know that you have a swish Ti frame.

Si wrote: Plus, if you paint it then no one will know that you have a swish Ti frame.

A very British phenomenon I feel. Years ago I used to work with someone who traded cars and he said european manufacturers didn't bother with all the badges for their home markets but Brits insisted on fine differentiation of G, L, GL, GX, GXL, etc, etc, being plain for all to see.

I'd paint a Ti frame on the principle that I'd never choose a silver frame.

My Dynatech is painted.