Everyone goes crazy over carbon fibre and Titanium, but what are it's true advantages over much cheeper materials such as aluminium or steel? Think about this in terms of not just recreational or cross country riding but also it's use in downhill bikes (remember GT's STS range).
Are the advantages enough to warant the price, or is it the manufacturers increasing their profits by selling a product by it's high technology and price, rather than it's performance, or advantage over other existing bikes.

Any thought or views will be welcomed as I am writing my dissertation on this subject and it may provide some useful research. Cheers

Let's start with the rigid bike frame. If you are pedaling you want the stiffest lightest material, but if you are thinking of ride you want something that flexes a bit to ease the ride. Now throw durability into the mix. The most rigid lightest material today that I know of is carbon fiber. The ride is harsh but boy is it light and pedaling is transfered to the rear wheel with the least amount of wasted energy from frame flex. The big problem is durability, too much scratching and it's weaken and breaks.

Aluminum is very rigid and fairly strong but dent it and it eventually cracks. Not to mention that it will eventually stress out and break.

Steel and titanium is much more versatile and flexy. Steel is heavier but handles lots of flexing and lasts a lot longer. Titanium is light and flexy and supposedly tougher than steel, but I have heard of Titanium bikes having a frame life shorter than steel.

Suspension bikes are different they have suspension so they can be stiff. The word I get is steel is not good for suspension bikes but I think this is incomplete inforamtion, based solely on the fact that suspension doesn't need the flexy characteristics of steel, but I am left wondering wouldn't it be nice to have the long lasting life of steel under stress.

So lets shorten this whole thing up. The best bike frame material would be a combination of materials. It seems like there could be some way to coat carbon fiber (to avoid the scratching problem) to use for the frame body to dampen twisting then use titanium for the rear wheel triangle to absorb some shock and buffer the vibration on the carbon fiber. The front suspension fork would be steel to handle the abuse. This would be a crosscountry bike and not for speeding over rocky baby heads.

Why is this in "New Products & Innovations"?
This is the place to tell us about the newest gadgets; not explain Building Materials 101.

Thank you very much for that DrGlen, It is most imformative towards the materials. Dou you think that the manufacturer uses this high technology as it's main appeal to the consumers. Or do you feel that the properties offered by Titanium and Carbon fibre justify it's price over steel and aluminium.

What I'm trying to ask is: As part of the evolution and development of the mountain bike are these materials true improvements over the existing materials (such as steel and aluminium)? Or do you think they offer too small, or no improvement, to be part of this development process. Are they just expensive versions of the mountain bike breed, created by the manufacturers because the profit margins allow the use of such exotic materials?

Any opinions from anyone will be welcome and I'm sorry that this is in the wrong section but I'm asking about whether these materials are true innovations

the answer is easy...

there is no best material. the world of riding is much to varied to say one is better than another. strength to weight to cost, aluminum is certainly one of the best, probably why it is so prevalent. i wouldn't ever ride a carbon fibre DH bike, no matter how good the marketing, but i would love to try an all-steel DH (like brooklyn bikes)

my balfa has an aluminum front triangle, with a steel swingarm assembly. makes for a perfect combination of control in the front with some killer cornering due partly to the flexy rear (not flexy in the bad way, but in the good steel way...)

to answer your question, new material advancements are good for the sport, and each new innovation offers a benefit to a certain group of riders. in some cases (scandium), the marketable group is so small that it will likely remain an exotic material for all time, while titanium and carbon fibre are definately here to stay. of course they are innovations, without even the smallest tweaks here and there our sport would stagnate.

I agree that new materials will benefit a few early adapters and more specialized uses. I also think it will take time for bike builders to learn how to use the materials to best advantage as well as invent new methods and ways of molding them and putting them together. I say this even though titanium, and carbon fiber have been around for a number of years now.

I think you should note that scandium is essentially aluminum but with a different treating process and alloyed with some different metal. And that sort of fits my point that new materials need new devices, methods and processes to utilize them most effectively. I think there is bike of the future that will use materials in combination over different parts of the basic frame.

the answer is easy...

there is no best material. the world of riding is much to varied to say one is better than another. strength to weight to cost, aluminum is certainly one of the best, probably why it is so prevalent. i wouldn't ever ride a carbon fibre DH bike, no matter how good the marketing, but i would love to try an all-steel DH (like brooklyn bikes)

my balfa has an aluminum front triangle, with a steel swingarm assembly. makes for a perfect combination of control in the front with some killer cornering due partly to the flexy rear (not flexy in the bad way, but in the good steel way...)

to answer your question, new material advancements are good for the sport, and each new innovation offers a benefit to a certain group of riders. in some cases (scandium), the marketable group is so small that it will likely remain an exotic material for all time, while titanium and carbon fibre are definately here to stay. of course they are innovations, without even the smallest tweaks here and there our sport would stagnate.

Everyone goes crazy over carbon fibre and Titanium, but what are it's true advantages over much cheeper materials such as aluminium or steel? Think about this in terms of not just recreational or cross country riding but also it's use in downhill bikes (remember GT's STS range).
Are the advantages enough to warant the price, or is it the manufacturers increasing their profits by selling a product by it's high technology and price, rather than it's performance, or advantage over other existing bikes.

Any thought or views will be welcomed as I am writing my dissertation on this subject and it may provide some useful research. Cheers


but i'll try to limit my answer to one selection.....

it can be honed to feathery weights..

it can be transformed to flex

it can be transformed to be stiff

it is cheap in comparison

it is easy to weld/braze/lug

you can build it to last a lifetime

you can paint it/plate it

feel free to ad-lib


STEEL !!! ... its what real men ride !!

later, Chad
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://redbarnbicycles.com/

I find it very interesting that Tom Ritchey has continued with his grass roots style of development, Refining the bike by himself for himself. And the bike's he produces today, though expensive due to the quality of workmanship, rival titanium and carbon bikes. His modern steel frames are evolved versions of the original steel mountain bike he produced in 1979.

Does anybody have any opinions on Larger companies changing the innovation process from this grass roots user refined process.

to

The common method of designing around a technology. In other words the we can use this technology/material what can we use it for approach?

Is it the way the larger companies work (with design teams, manufacturing teams, a thermoplastics section) in seperate sections that lends its self to this new method? Or is it simply that it is impossible for this grass roots process to exist in larger companies?

Tom Ritchey produces bikes for his style or riding, Recreation, cross country, road bikes etc. And he is a key user in this field because he is dedicated to the sport in this way.

For a downhill bike to developed in the same grass roots way, it would surely need to be designed and developed by a top racer. But they dont tend to be do they? The design team get feed back from the racers but is that the same?
John Tomac's company sort of counts as they were designed by someone who was a racer but he's not any more so he doesn't refine it himself on the world cup circuit.

I seem to of gone off on a bit of a tangent there

But what I want to know is: Is user designed a good or essential thing in mountain bike design? Remember that this is the process that created mountainbiking, modifying old baloon tyre bikes for use off road and then eventually the first specific mountain bike frames.

Or has the industry reached a stage where looking to new technologies is the only way to progress the sport further?

I find it very interesting that Tom Ritchey has continued with his grass roots style of development, Refining the bike by himself for himself. And the bike's he produces today, though expensive due to the quality of workmanship, rival titanium and carbon bikes.
Rival in what way?? As compaired to say a Moots or Seven in the quality of manufacture? In the way the bike handles in certin conditions? You are using a pretty broad brush to paint with here.



Does anybody have any opinions on Larger companies changing the innovation process from this grass roots user refined process.
As in Trek gobbling up Klien, Gary Fisher, and Lamond? Gary Fisher sold to the big company but still pushed through his big wheel design. Klien uses a different suspension design than Trek or Fisher. And finally Lemond still making quality steel frames.


The common method of designing around a technology. In other words the we can use this technology/material what can we use it for approach?
Huh?



Is it the way the larger companies work (with design teams, manufacturing teams, a thermoplastics section) in seperate sections that lends its self to this new method? Or is it simply that it is impossible for this grass roots process to exist in larger companies?.
As above with Trek.


Tom Ritchey produces bikes for his style or riding, Recreation, cross country, road bikes etc. And he is a key user in this field because he is dedicated to the sport in this way.

Ok, but there are a large number of custom frame builders, what's your point?



For a downhill bike to developed in the same grass roots way, it would surely need to be designed and developed by a top racer. But they dont tend to be do they? The design team get feed back from the racers but is that the same?
John Tomac's company sort of counts as they were designed by someone who was a racer but he's not any more so he doesn't refine it himself on the world cup circuit.

Being able to ride a downhill bike has absolutely nothing to do with being able to design and build a downhill bike. Lack of fear, technical skill, and good balance has nothing to do with being able to engineer a complex machine. Watch what happens with the new Honda bike/team with huge engineering teams. I think that downhill has been held back due to too much inbreeding and familiarity. There has been no new thoughts or ideas, only variations on a theme.


But what I want to know is: Is user designed a good or essential thing in mountain bike design? Remember that this is the process that created mountainbiking, modifying old baloon tyre bikes for use off road and then eventually the first specific mountain bike frames.
Again there were no new thoughts or ideas, only variations on a theme. The bikes ridden down Mt. Tam where not new and the frames built later were the variations.



Or has the industry reached a stage where looking to new technologies is the only way to progress the sport further?
Huh? Are you using technologies and materials to mean the same thing? I've now come to the conclusion that you were stoned when you started this ramble.

Thank you Trogdor! for your opinions, Like I said all views are welcome. Sorry I din't make this clear but I'm asking different questions in order to answer other questions. The question my dissertation is asking is: [B]Are these latest materials (i.e. carbon fibre and titanium as the main ones) introduced as a way to tempt consumers to buy the latest expensive bit of kit, or are they further improving the product in a way that was not possible before?

So to do that I am looking at the development process and looking at how it has changed to incorporporate different materials of manufacturing technologies.

I use the word technology to describe materials as well as processes, and new technologies as my dissertation also covers other sports equipment which uses other things than just materials. So I've generalised, sorry.

When I talked about the Ritchey bike rivaling carbon and titanium bikes I meant in performance terms, Similar weights etc.

So you think that complex downhill machines benifit from being designed by engineers rather than riders. I would have to agree with some of your points, but fine tuning the bicycle to ride correctly, steering, pedaling, balance of the bike etc would have to come from some knowlege of how the bike should be ridden. People ride differently and the top pro's ride better and faster the John the engineer.

It will be interesting to see how the honda bike does, It's been 5 years in develpment and Minar has just signed up. So he'll of had no input into it yet so will they get it right first time?

Some good opinions keep them coming please.

Tom ritchey is important because through all the years he has been producing bikes he hasn't changed the material he works with. He has developed different tubes from steel and created light bikes that don't compromise strength. His steel bikes offer similar properties to rigid bikes made from carbon or titanium, ie light weight. Each material obviously lends it's own characteristics but steel remains a much used and often desired material.

With out a doubt there is solid marketing pressure in the choice frame materials. The manufactures are in the business of making bikes that will sell. And the bottom line is they have to make a bike that will sell at a profit. This will cause some manufactures to jump on the bandwagon just in fear of being left behind. However, I don’t think that most of the high-end bike buyers would replace a frame just because of the “material du jour” is being used in a version of a frame they already own.

Using mountain bikes kind of complicates your question, There are too many different types of bikes, HT, XC, Free Ride, DH. I think looking at road bikes simplifies the issue with frame materials. Road geometries are “fairly” standard and haven’t changed much in years. Frame materials, on the other hand is the one area where there have been the biggest changes. Ti and Carbon have been around long enough now that everyone in the business pretty much has it down as to the benefits and drawbacks of each. The latest trend is carbon stays on aluminum frames. Again to use the giant Trek as an example, they have multiple lines, which use different materials, Lemond with steel and Ti, Klein with aluminum, and Trek with aluminum and carbon. Each is trying to fill what the marketing people feel is a niche which could be profitable. There remain lots of independent frame builders who continue to experiment. Craig Calfee has built Bamboo frames but specializes in Carbon Fiber. There are plenty of well-built high-end steel fames available.

The biggest problem with mountain bikes is with suspension technology not necessarily with material science. Motorcycles made the transition to “quality suspension” back in the 80’s and hasn’t changed much since. The problem is that the technology they use is heavier than what bicyclists are willing to tolerate. Charlie Curnutt’s father developed a shock absorber for desert racing back in the 70’s, which has led him to eventually develop shocks and forks seen on the Brent Foes DH bikes. (BTW, Charlie Curnutt works for American Honda in their Special Project Division.) If you look at the one thing that changes the most from year to year with mountain bikes, that one thing is suspension design. No one has a design that really works, yet. When it is designed, and it really does work well, we’ll all know it because everyone will copy it.

As far as racers and development. You wouldn’t expect that Michael Schumacher could design a F1 car would you? No, of course not, but he does have the talent to be able to describe to the engineers what he needs and they find the solutions for him. Actually, with the design and development of many types of race cars the “top” drivers aren’t in the trenches with testing and development. Many a “second rate” driver makes his living as a test driver for the big teams and don’t even get race anymore.

Five years in development for Honda is nothing, if they want to get serious they will win, they do in everything they get involved in. Scary but true.

I like it, the Michael Schumacher analogy might just make it into my study. I was thinking of it in the bike word and seeing mat Hoffman constantly working on his Hoffman Condor. But that is a much simpler machine than a mountain bike. But in BMX it's not really a material or high technology led market like Mountain bikes. The bikes are sold through reputation, riders seen using them in magazines and signature bikes.

Thank you for that it has been very useful.

What ever happened to GT's use of carbon fibre in their downhill bikes? I notice they are all aluminium again. I already know most of the story but I would like to hear it from some one else to back up my research.

I agree that new materials will benefit a few early adapters and more specialized uses. I also think it will take time for bike builders to learn how to use the materials to best advantage as well as invent new methods and ways of molding them and putting them together. I say this even though titanium, and carbon fiber have been around for a number of years now.

I think you should note that scandium is essentially aluminum but with a different treating process and alloyed with some different metal. And that sort of fits my point that new materials need new devices, methods and processes to utilize them most effectively. I think there is bike of the future that will use materials in combination over different parts of the basic frame.


while i agree with the gist of this, i think it would be better to note that scandium is essentially an element on it's own, with absolutely nothing to do with aluminum, although an alloy of the two is common.

Check out www.norco.com/news/9907_easton.htm for loads of info on easton's scandium tubing. It's extra strength allows the use of much thinner tubing which gives a more compliant ride.

Hi, just a side track, what do you think of the lelsworth hype in energy efficient, ICT suspension design?

Well it appears to be mostly hype. The pivot point is aligned supposedly with the chain torque line, but this line changes slightly depending on which gear you are in, so to achieve the 100% efficiency they claim is relatively impossible. Also the pedaling loads will affect the suspension, it's a fact. The chain length will vary as the suspension moves (if you imagine running it as a single speed bike, the chain will go tight and slack as the suspension moves).

Also the "fully active" design does not take into account rider movement in it's claim of pedaling efficiency. The downwards force applied by the rider bobbing about will inevitably move the suspension as well, though this can be improved by a better pedaling technique. The design probably works better than most, but it is no perfect solution. The perfect solution to no pedal power lost through pedaling, is to have no suspension.

It is all a matter of thinking what you want to use a bike for, and buying the suspension system which is best suited to that application.

Well it appears to be mostly hype. The pivot point is aligned supposedly with the chain torque line, but this line changes slightly depending on which gear you are in, so to achieve the 100% efficiency they claim is relatively impossible. Also the pedaling loads will affect the suspension, it's a fact. The chain length will vary as the suspension moves (if you imagine running it as a single speed bike, the chain will go tight and slack as the suspension moves).

Also the "fully active" design does not take into account rider movement in it's claim of pedaling efficiency. The downwards force applied by the rider bobbing about will inevitably move the suspension as well, though this can be improved by a better pedaling technique. The design probably works better than most, but it is no perfect solution. The perfect solution to no pedal power lost through pedaling, is to have no suspension.

It is all a matter of thinking what you want to use a bike for, and buying the suspension system which is best suited to that application.

Thanks for the input and now I understand what ICT is about. To build a good full suspension bike is really costly and end up expensive and heavy. A hard tail is much cheaper and lighter. The only thing that bothers me is this: For full suspension: so many conflicting and confusing pivots and technology. Must why not get a hard tail. However, hard tails are IMO not as fast as full suspension biikes in term sof lap timings, especially over very rough and rocky terrain. :(

If your intending to race downhill then I would say that full suspension is a must. If you just want to beat your mates, then try improving your technique. A trick technique is to not grip the bars, just hold them loosley and guide the bars. It allows you to go much faster and not get too fatigued or shook about. It'll also annoy your mates that your faster than them on a hardtail. Another advantages to hardtails is that you can pump them through jumps etc. If you watch a BMX race the top racers just pull away by pumping, they hardly need to pedal. You could use this to your advantage, but it all depends on what you are going to do. Good technique beats a good bike everytime.

Thanks. I don't intend to race, but intend to "race" with my friends with lap timing. The hilly trails that we go to have steep climbs, and rock descends, so the the hardtail perfprms well on climbing, but downhills leaves one much shaken and tired. On the full suspension, I dread uphills, but on downhills, I can rest a little and just make up for the time lost. I jsut pull away from my firends on hardtails

Everyone goes crazy over carbon fibre and Titanium, but what are it's true advantages over much cheeper materials such as aluminium or steel? Think about this in terms of not just recreational or cross country riding but also it's use in downhill bikes (remember GT's STS range).
Are the advantages enough to warant the price, or is it the manufacturers increasing their profits by selling a product by it's high technology and price, rather than it's performance, or advantage over other existing bikes.

Any thought or views will be welcomed as I am writing my dissertation on this subject and it may provide some useful research. Cheers

Those GT thermoplastic frames were worthless...Anyway, there's a lot of materials out there. Each material has certain properties which make it more suitable for specific applications. Aluminum alloys make up the majority of bikes (especially dh and freeride rigs) because it's cheap, light, and strong. Steel is just plain tough. Steel alloys have very high tensile strength, much higher than titanium. Ti has proven itself in the XC world because it's strong, more ductile than aluminum, and quite light. Ti and carbon fiber components and frames are always going to be spendy partly because of the bling factor and also because the raw material and manufacturing processes are more $$ than steel or aluminum. The tolerances that a frame manufacture works under also up the price. A raliegh aluminum hardtail is not going to have the same tolerance specs as a Santa Cruz aluminum hardtail. Another thing to consider is welding. There's a lot of welding done on a bike frame. The frame is only as strong as the weakest spot which is usually the welds. For specialty materials (Ti, carbon fiber, scandium, magnesium, berylium) the joining or welding of tubes creates new challenges which raises the price.

Everyone goes crazy over carbon fibre and Titanium, but what are it's true advantages over much cheeper materials such as aluminium or steel? Think about this in terms of not just recreational or cross country riding but also it's use in downhill bikes (remember GT's STS range).


I do have a rather old Specialized, with steel front triangle and aluminum rear triangle. Looks like a very good combination.

I would think one of the best combos (on paper at least) is the Titus's exogrid carbon reenforced titanium tubes for the front triangle, with aluminum rear triangle. Drop the chainstay pivot and use Yeti's carbon or Ti sring leaf pivot for the rear pivot. I would vote this to be the most optimal combination using modern proven technologies (emphasis on "proven").

Speaking of other structural compmonents - carbon fibre, Ti reiforced (like Race Face Next) handlebars. Stainless steel for spokes and aluminum for rims. Ti for seatpost.

So that's my vote. :)

Here is a six-part essay written by the master himself, Scot Nicol (Ibis founder). This is a rather technical series of articles, but you've asked a rather complex question. This is the best summary I’ve read concerning this very topic.

http://www2.sjsu.edu/orgs/asmtms/artcle/articl.htm

Good luck with your dissertation.

EndUser

Here is a six-part essay written by the master himself, Scot Nicol (Ibis founder). This is a rather technical series of articles, but you've asked a rather complex question. This is the best summary I’ve read concerning this very topic.

http://www2.sjsu.edu/orgs/asmtms/artcle/articl.htm

Good luck with your dissertation.

EndUser


Well what can I say, thankyou very much. that is exactly what I've been looking for all along. A perfect consise breakdown of everything. Genius, cheers. I've only got a week left to finish my dissertation, and it looks like I'm going to have to rewrite most of it now. The man's a genius, thank's again

I think it was Keith Bontrager who said (about frame materials): Strong, Light, or Cheap: pick any two. It's a personal preference thing, to be sure, but for my money Ti is the best. It's not quite as light as CF or Al, but it rides so nice and lasts forever.

I think it was Keith Bontrager who said (about frame materials): Strong, Light, or Cheap: pick any two. It's a personal preference thing, to be sure, but for my money Ti is the best. It's not quite as light as CF or Al, but it rides so nice and lasts forever.

You're probably right but for a FS rig, Ti is too flexy and needs to be added in some areas to keep flex in check.

Read the MBA review on the Litespeed Niota (I don't remember which month) and basically you will have a bike that will feel flexy forever.... Not worth the 5 grands IMHO.

Those GT thermoplastic frames were worthless...Anyway, there's a lot of materials out there. .

sorry but why? I still have a GT STS 1996 and it is probably the most beautiful front triangle I ever owned, it worked almost as well as my current primary bike (5-spot) and it weighted just a bit more ... so ... very far from being worthless ...

A modern thermoplastic can be built probably better

modern light weigh steel: reynolds 853, s3, columum foco, Deda eom

strong & light, but not cheap. still less dough than most titanium or fragile-strong carbon fiber frames