Frame Materials: Ti vs. Al vs. Steel

[1x1clyde]

I own all 3 in a hardtail setup:
Ti- if you can afford it, especially for lonnnnnggg rides
Steel- used it for the 50 miler at Project Rwanda, nice but Ti is nicest
Aluminun-light, stiff and back breaking if you are not ready for it but for a short ride or XC race it is fine

If you want to try one out, let me know and I think 650 wheels are the way, not this 26" 29" thing

[.8down]

Originally Posted by slowSSer

...and then the "i'm selling the full squish now as i never ride it" phase and/or the "fixies seem interesting" phase...

this ones easy, hecka no I would never sell a squishy...I love squishy bikes...probably a phase, Im going though, but man, they are cool cool cool

[slowSSer]

Originally Posted by DeeZee

I would guess you could shave some weight in the wheel / brake area (if wanted)

My 29'er FS is in the 30lb range......I think

I think mine is about 25 lbs. then again, little expense was spared on the seven...

man, i need to get a scale.

[DeeZee]

[quote=slowSSer;177213]I think mine is about 25 lbs. then again, little expense was spared on the seven...

[Rascal]

I've had Ti, Aluminum, Carbon and steel frames for both road and mountain - all hardtails and I prefer the feel of steel.

Ti is nice, Aluminum is harsh, carbon has a strange feeling, where steel is rather plush, stiff and has a nice connected feel to it.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[Rivet]

Man there is soo much wrong information in this thread it's mind boggling. First material has NO bearing on how a bike will ride. Tube diameter and wall thickness (and to a lesser extent fabrication technique) are the parameters that effect ride quality. A 4130 cromo frame and a High dollar steel (853, etc) frame made with the exact same tubing dimensions will ride identical. The higher strength of the better steel allows thinner walls which account for the better ride and lighter weight, also steel (all ferrous based alloys) weighs approximatley the same. What applies to steel also applies to aluminum and Ti, the smaller the tube diameters the smoother the ride. Aluminum got a bad rep for it's ride quality because initial frames required large diameter tubes to cope with the stresses placed on the material . Better alloys allow for smaller dimater tubes (see Scandium) and ride is much better.

[slowSSer]

Originally Posted by DeeZee

the $700 king/bontrager wheelset wasnt the true pain- it was the X0 rear der, X0 shifters, XTR e-type front, X0 casette, juicy brakes, moots seatpost (that didnt make it on the bike- too short) and ergon grips. holy $1,000 batman.

in fact, i was stoked about the frame- i got it for $2,700 (duo lux w/ maverick 100mm rear end) right before the price of ti went up. the same frame now? $3,600 or so. ouch!

[DeeZee]

Originally Posted by slowSSer

the $700 king/bontrager wheelset wasnt the true pain- it was the X0 rear der, X0 shifters, XTR e-type front, X0 casette, juicy brakes, moots seatpost (that didnt make it on the bike- too short) and ergon grips. holy $1,000 batman.

in fact, i was stoked about the frame- i got it for $2,700 (duo lux w/ maverick 100mm rear end) right before the price of ti went up. the same frame now? $3,600 or so. ouch!

me 2 as in I need to get a scale

ps. The bike sounds killer.

Let's see some picks of of that slow accelerating, heavy no wheelie poping machine

[slowSSer]

Originally Posted by DeeZee

me 2 as in I need to get a scale

ps. The bike sounds killer.

Let's see some picks of of that slow accelerating, heavy no wheelie poping machine

the only truth here is the wheelie-popping. with the maverick link, the chainstays are long. but, with the big wheels and some speed, who cares!

changes from crappy pic: nevegal up front, ergon grips.

crappy pic attached.

[reflux]

Originally Posted by Rivet

Man there is soo much wrong information in this thread it's mind boggling. First material has NO bearing on how a bike will ride. Tube diameter and wall thickness (and to a lesser extent fabrication technique) are the parameters that effect ride quality. A 4130 cromo frame and a High dollar steel (853, etc) frame made with the exact same tubing dimensions will ride identical. The higher strength of the better steel allows thinner walls which account for the better ride and lighter weight, also steel (all ferrous based alloys) weighs approximatley the same.

I am an accountant by trade. Thank you for understanding my lack of knowledge on the subject.

What's the difference between 4130 and an alloy such as 853? Are you intimating that 4130 can be extruded to the same dimensions and thickness (thinness?) as 853? If so, that's counter to my knowledge.

[slowSSer]

Originally Posted by reflux

I am an accountant by trade. Thank you for understanding my lack of knowledge on the subject.

What's the difference between 4130 and an alloy such as 853? Are you intimating that 4130 can be extruded to the same dimensions and thickness (thinness?) as 853? If so, that's counter to my knowledge.

i think what rivet is trying to say is that a 853 bike is lighter because the steel can be extruded to thinner dimensions while keeping the strength of 4130.

.....or did i totally screw up here as 4130 is aluminum and 853 is steel?

btw- can someone please inform us of what alloy numbers mean??? with aluminum we've got 6000, 7000 etc. is steel 3 digits and aluminum 4? hell, at least i think i understand what 3/2.5 and 6/4 for titanium mean....i think

[reflux]

Haha, beats the living hell out of me. Rivet is being the smart and I think I'm starting to understand it. There was just one line in that post which lead to some confusion on my part.

Alloy numbers? Beats me...

Scandium: Question for you folks. The last time I saw anything made from scandium was about 4 years ago. I had 3 friends riding scandium frames (2 road, 1 mtn) and each had their frame crack within 1 year. Has anything changed or are they still short-term frames?

[BrewMaster]

Aluminum alloys.

Steel Alloys.

Alpha-Beta Titanium Alloys (most common in bikes).

I think Reynolds 853 is a brand name, not an AISI standard name.

Remember that processing conditions of metals are just as important as composition. Just saying the alloy has Scandium in its composition means squat.

[autoduel]

Originally Posted by Rivet

Man there is soo much wrong information in this thread it's mind boggling. First material has NO bearing on how a bike will ride. Tube diameter and wall thickness (and to a lesser extent fabrication technique) are the parameters that effect ride quality. A 4130 cromo frame and a High dollar steel (853, etc) frame made with the exact same tubing dimensions will ride identical. The higher strength of the better steel allows thinner walls which account for the better ride and lighter weight, also steel (all ferrous based alloys) weighs approximatley the same. What applies to steel also applies to aluminum and Ti, the smaller the tube diameters the smoother the ride. Aluminum got a bad rep for it's ride quality because initial frames required large diameter tubes to cope with the stresses placed on the material . Better alloys allow for smaller dimater tubes (see Scandium) and ride is much better.

I see your point, but type of material is what determines the tubing sizes and thickness that can be used per application. So you cannot say that material has NO bearing on ride quality.
If different metals have different characteristics such as compressive and tensile strength, ductility, elastic limit, fatigue strength and yield strength. It would make sense that 4130 cannot safely be used to manufacture a frame with the same wall thicknesses and diameters as 853 can.
Therefore a different ride quality is a result from differing tubing sizes (your point).
Furthermore, if titanium were used to manufacture a frame with the same dimensions as a steel frame the ride would still be different due to the unique mechanical properties of each metal.
One is not independent of the other.
Change one in ingredient in the recipe, but cook it the same way and it still won't taste the same. Conversely, use the same recipe, but cook it differently and it won't taste the same either.

[Rivet]

Originally Posted by autoduel

Furthermore, if titanium were used to manufacture a frame with the same dimensions as a steel frame the ride would still be different due to the unique mechanical properties of each metal.
One is not independent of the other.

Nope. Mechanical properties will have very little effect on how a frame rides, they simply change the parameters you must use when building a frame to keep it from failing prematurely. Mechanical dimensions are the primary determiner for ride quality not mechanical properties. There are no bad materials just bad applications.

[Rivet]

Originally Posted by reflux

Haha, beats the living hell out of me. Rivet is being the smart and I think I'm starting to understand it. There was just one line in that post which lead to some confusion on my part.

Alloy numbers? Beats me...

Scandium: Question for you folks. The last time I saw anything made from scandium was about 4 years ago. I had 3 friends riding scandium frames (2 road, 1 mtn) and each had their frame crack within 1 year. Has anything changed or are they still short-term frames?

Alloy numbers...hmmmm, well suffice it to say that when talking about Steel, Titanium and Aluminum were always talking about alloys. Steel is actually just a catch all name for all Ferrous (iron) based materials. If it has Iron as it's main constituent and it's got something else mixed in it's steel, depending on what it has mixed in will dramatically change it's mechanical properties but not it's weight. Alloy numbers are just a way to identify different types of steels and Ti and Aluminum for that matter. Pure Titanium can be used to build a bike frame but it's actually a less than ideal material in this state so it's rarely used this way anymore. Aluminum is always alloyed when used for anything structural, a pure aluminum bicycle frame would be a bitch to manufacture and last probably a few pedal strokes.
As far as you Scandium question, anything made with aluminum will eventually fail. Aluminum alloys don't have a fatigue limit, every time they are stressed they weaken. If a frames is designed correctly the time frame for failure may be 10 years, if it's designed poorly it'll fail substantially sooner. Scandium is just an Aluminum alloy with a small amount of Scandium (and Zinc, silicon and magnesium I think), if the frames were manufactured or designed poorly they'll fail sooner, this is also true for any material really. The cool thing about Ti and steel is they have a fatigue limit, a window in which they can be stressed and see no appreciable degradation, which is why you see Steel and Ti springs but not aluminum ones. Ti is really neat in that it has a fairly high fatigue limit meaning you can bend it pretty far without issue. Take a look at a ti shock spring, the reason they are so much lighter is not only because Ti is less dense than steel but because you can actually use less coils to get the same spring.