garboui said:
i like the non corrosive properties of ti but is it a much nicer ride than steel.
The ride quality depends more on the build design quality. 20 years ago I rode a rigid steel Ross (Mt. Rainier) mountain bike, rather heavy and mass produced. I rode a ti Litespeed Obed-FS which was a 3 inch full suspension bike, and not a very good example of a Horst link (BB pivot was too low by at least 1/2 inch).
I sense that a similar design steel bike has a more shock absorbing quality for better traction in rough conditions, ti is naturally springier and may not hold traction quite as well. But fork and tire quality would override much of the noticeable differences. Often ti designs are more advanced in engineering with ovalized down and possibly ovalized lower seat tubes to reduce BB flex. Using a modern splined BB compared to square taper does more to reduce cranking flex than the tube engineering.
Racers are going to carbon fiber and modern composites with superior stiffness and damping for the weight of ti or aluminum, so ti is really for looks and feel more than highest performance now. And ti is durable, when welded with top expertise it is probably more durable than any composite or carbon. The future of mountain bikes will likely be carbon fiber and plastic or ceramic composite based for the high end rides. Ti is already classic, old-school, but timeless in uniqueness and prestige.
I want a fully rigid, naked ti 29'er as an alternative ride to a cutting edge full suspension XC mountain bike for my non-racing interests.
- ray