>"Easton, manufacturer of aluminum bike frame tubes, began using the technology to make lighter, stronger tube sets than anyone else on the market.
Scandium works by convincing aluminum molecules to restructure themselves. When aluminum is smelted it hardens into microscopic grains that fit together to make a solid architecture.
Scandium makes those grains smaller, among other things, which allows them to fit closer together for a denser, stronger overall structure.
Scandium also interrupts melted aluminum crystalizing at a molecular level when the metal cools.
This means that the properties of the alloy are less likely to be affected by heat-treatment and welding, so a scandium-infused aluminum alloy is less likely to crack while cooling.
This is especially valuable in high-strength aluminum, like 7005 alloy. Traditionally, 7005 alloys make light, strong, forged or CNC machined bicycle components, but can't be welded because they weaken when they melt. By adding scandium to the tube or to the filler between welded tubes, melted 7005 aluminum becomes usable in welded components, like frames.
So, at a chemical level, aluminum alloys infused with scandium (less than 0.5% by volume) are stronger and more weldable than scandium-free alloys."
PDS: There probably is a whole series of things, as of yet unknown, that can be added to metals and other elements, while they are cooling (or perhaps heating), to imbue them with various interesting properties...
Opinion: Modern-day metallurgy and metallurgical sciences, though its knowledge is formidable in this area -- has probably just "scratched the surface" of all that is possible...
In other words, experimentation, much more future experimentation -- is required in this area...
> There probably is a whole series of things, as of yet unknown, that can be added to metals and other elements, while they are cooling (or perhaps heating), to imbue them with various interesting properties...
We know. The field of materials science is perfectly aware of these effects. We even have a quite good theoretical knowledge to explain almost everything, and some very good models built on that knowledge. I would even say that more research into new alloys is performed by modelling techniques than experimentation nowadays (for sure, this is the case now, with many labs and universities closed because of corona).
New alloys are constantly being studied. We perform experiments, we run simulations, we have AI frameworks running thousands of those simulations... However, you have to take into account that the metallurgical industry has a huge inertia. We can make pretty good steel and aluminum alloys at a very cheap cost. The market for new ideas is not easy. You can maybe make some profit from high-end sports or medical equipment, but it is very difficult to make a new alloy profitable at a large industrial level.
I know you know(!) <g>, but there's an interesting related discussion here about "New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science" vs. "Really Old Skool Metallurgy/Material Science"...
New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science -- is what you've alluded to, "we have AI frameworks running thousands of those simulations".
Well, there's nothing wrong with that!
In fact, if I had the ability to run thousands of metallurgy/material science AI simulations, I probably would! (unless I had a higher need to use the compute power to run simulations in some other area of science or physics, which I currently don't! <g>)
So if I had the means and ability to do so, I would probably be doing that!
But that's "New Skool Metallurgy/Material Science"
Let's talk about "Really Old Skool Metallurgy/Material Science" for a moment...
You see, if we want to understand metals, I mean, really understand them (hey, remember that scene about "Transparent Aluminum" in Star Trek IV?), we first want to ask a philosophical question, and that question is,
"What is the common denominator between all metals?"
?
Is that atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons, ions, or any of the alphabet stew of sub-particles?
Well, yes, but, that really doesn't really help our understanding...
So, let's ask the question again:
"What is the common denominator between all metals?"
They're all shiny, they're all heavy (relative to other elements), some of them are really strong?
Again, that doesn't really help our understanding... let's try again!
Let's use a different kind of reasoning this time! Let's use the most general logic we can find! OK, so here we go again:
"What is the common denominator between all metals?"
Hmmm, well, let's see...
The most general thing we know about metals (with the possible exception of mercury!) is that at room temperature, they're all solid.
OK, so that's a good start! It doesn't tell us that much (yet), but it's consistent with logic, so it's a good starting point!
So what else, other than metals, are solid?
Well, we know that glass is, and we know that water can become solid (ice), just at low temperatures (but this is also true for mercury!)
OK, still doesn't tell us much, but so good so far!
So, to continue... wait a second now, if mercury can become solid at low temperature -- then can't metals become liquid at high temperatures? Well yes they can!
So now if water is a substance which is liquid at specific temperatures, and solid at others, then what is the difference (other than the temperature range at which this happens) between water and metals?
?
Well, we might say that metals are typically pure elements, and that water is a chemical compound of two of them (H2O), and that they're completely different, and leave it at that.
But let's suppose that we didn't say that.
Here's the thing.
What do we know about water, when it freezes?
We know it turns to ice.
And what do we know about ice?
We know that it's a crystal.
So from this logic chain, and via logic, we finally introduce the $64,000 question:
Are all metals -- crystals ?
?
Even though they aren't clear like glass is, could they all be... crystals? (With Mercury excepted for the time being?)
Hmmm... well, I don't know... but there's something, something here!
You see, everything, everything that I have been able to logically deduce about metals -- tells me that all of them, all of them (including mercury, but it's not proven!) -- are in fact crystals !!!
Now, let's go for the jugular vein in understanding all of this...
We do this by asking the following question (you'll notice the pattern immediately I suspect!)
More specifically, the subdivision of space by FORCE.
In other words, at the lowest level (before we get to atoms or subparticles) there are regions of FORCE -- surrounded by regions of SPACE -- in various different mathematical PATTERNS.
PATTERNS OF FORCE IN SPACE
Now, you see, modern science ("New Skool") -- while it is starting to understand this -- does not and cannot (yet) understand all of the possibilities (again yet) for those possible patterns.
But that's what's going on.
You see, if someone were to really study the subject, they'd not only need to understand metallurgy, but also crystallography, 3D math, patterns, etc., etc., a variety of interlapping areas and disciplines...
And, even so, they would (as I alluded to before) only have "scratched the surface" -- of what might truly be possible.
Also, with respect to profitability... well, yes, everybody needs money to put bread on the table and feed their family, no arguments here! But if someone really was interested in this, they'd experiment with it, that is, "do it for the sake of doing it" rather than trying to make money in the process... that will be me or someone like me in the future, or so I hope...
What's the thing that Yoda said?
"Do or do not do, there is no try..."
Well, in my case now, it's "think about" or "do not think about", since there is no smelting equipment nor simulator available, to me at least! <g>
Anyway, wishing you well on your future metallurgical/material science quests!
> What is the common denominator between all metals?
I think most people who study this would say the common denominator is that metals lack a band gap and have a very mobile sea of electrons, and therefore good conductivity. Metals can be amorphous, or crystalline, or anywhere along the spectrum.
The "new school" certainly hasn't forgotten, or ignored, that crystals are patterns that tile all of space. These are known as space groups, and they enumerate every way to tile 3D space symmetrically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_group).
Anyways, I can guarantee that people who really study the subject absolutely take courses in metallurgy, crystallography, 3D math, and much more.
Also, if you're interested in simulations, I don't do that much myself, but you can always run some open source simulation software. http://www.opencalphad.com/
That looks like an interesting link, I might check that out!
Also...
"Amorphous" -- is just another way of saying that the crystal patterns contain shorter runs within the whole of the material... in other words, you can have differing crystal patterns which take up smaller amounts of space -- than the whole of the structure...
That sort of brings us to Level 2...
Level 2 is not just understanding metals as crystals, but (potentially) as crystals containing runs of various crystal structures, which could be the same crystal pattern, and could be different crystal patterns -- interrupted by fractures.
That brings us to Level 3:
Level 3 is sort of understanding Crystals -- as Fractals, that is, as "nested containers", that is, crystals themselves -- may contain one or more repeating patterns much in the same way that the larger structure contains one or more repeating groups of crystals...
Anyway, my point is, there's a lot more research to be done here... that and certain words like "amorphous" can unintentionally obscure the deeper pattern... or broken patterns, as the case can be...
Level 4 understanding: Broken patterns -- are indeed broken at one level(!) -- but they can be part of a "higher order" (unseen) pattern... a higher-order "pattern-breaker pattern".
Which should be discoverable using higher-order (higher dimensionality) math...
As I said... more research needs to be done here...
I can also recommend looking into voroni clusters for amorphous glasses, as a level 3 type analysis. These can be combined into higher order "medium range order" clusters, which might be what call level 4, but these are all very interesting areas of research.
> You see, if someone were to really study the subject, they'd not only need to understand metallurgy, but also crystallography, 3D math, patterns, etc., etc., a variety of interlapping areas and disciplines...
You just described metallurgy. Of course, no material scientist knows everything, even the field as a whole has many knowledge gaps. We are working to fill those gaps, usually with the result of finding more new gaps. And for this we use crystallography, 3D (and 4D) math, chemistry, physics, mechanics, computer science... Metallurgy (old and new, that distinction you make is pure fiction) already is multidisciplinary.
> if someone really was interested in this, they'd experiment with it, that is, "do it for the sake of doing it"
Testing equipment and electron microscopes are not cheap, so at some point you usually need some kind of return. But we constantly do research "for the sake of doing it", specially at universities, but also in some companies. It looks to me like you have many misconceptions about the field and how scientific research works in general.
How was the first Hydrogen atom in the Universe created from empty space?
In fact -- how are any Hydrogen atoms created from empty space?
(Because that's quite the trick... if you ask me...)
If you have an answer for that question -- then I challenge your knowledge by asking that you prove that knowledge with a lab experiment...
Produce for me, in the lab, using whatever equipment you like, one single teensy Hydrogen atom -- out of nothing but empty space...
Produce for me a single Hydrogen atom -- in a vaccuum...
You see, if someone understood how to do that then that would be a huge understanding for any material scientist because if they could do that, then
They would understand how matter is created in the first place...
Which is sort of the root level understanding for all material science (if you think about it) for Hydrogen and every heavier element and compound than Hydrogen... for everything material science related...
Please tell me that you as a material scientist -- actively seek this knowledge...
Why?
Because if I were doing material science, I'd be actively seeking that knowledge, as a foundation for everything else...
For everything else that would exist subordinate to, and on top of (to use the foundation analogy) it, or below (to use a pyramid/hierarchy analogy) it...
Why?
Because I don't know how Hydrogen is created in the first place!
It seems like that would be the place to begin any and all material science research/experimentation, that is, how the first material in the universe is actually created, wouldn't it?
If it could be discovered, then that would be the first principle -- from which all material science would proceed from, from which all other principles in material science were derived, wouldn't it?
Me, well I claim Socratic Ignorance in the matter...
I don't know -- but then again, no one pays me to, so I guess that's OK! <g>
On a serious note though, it would be really good information to have, do you not agree?
I'm out of my depth when it comes to materials science, but it seems to me that the answer might lie in how the crystals form when cooling. I.e. tensegrity like structures are known to be the strongest/lightest. So, if we're able to simulate the formation of these 3D crystal bonds and understand the assoc. tension/compression forces in the bonds we could predict the best materials.
So much with metals is about how the material is processed (forged, extruded, heat treated, etc.).
With newer technologies like 3D-printing, because of the very high cooling/freezing rates int he processing, even more Scandium (>0.7%) can be added, and even more strength gained, while still being very ductile (it'll tend to dent rather than cracking when abused).
Maybe this will be the 'new Scandium' material to take on the carbon frames. Might need to get cheaper though...
https://www.apworks.de/scalmalloy
Second your opinion, if you look at the state of the art vs what was considered impossible only a decade ago there is a very large amount of knowledge waiting to be discovered here. I believe you could even generalize that to all of materials science.
This article is a bit off mark I think. The high end of the bike market is dominated by carbon fiber. The market for high end aluminum/ scandium is disappearing as the price of carbon fiber has come down over the years. It's very hard to find a high end bike which isn't carbon, heck even the mid-range is carbon mostly now.
There are a few brands which stick to aluminum, ti, and steel, mostly boutique brands.
One of my favorite bikes is a scandium single-speed, I still have the frame out in storage. It's a Kona Kula. Been thinking about rebuilding it lately.
Yes, carbon has taken over the highend market. And not only because it is cheaper, but it also can be more comfortable, while a scandium bike might be more harsh. You could argue that aluminium/scandium is not the right material for a road bike.
For road racing there is no point in scandium anymore, carbon frames are made lighter, stiffer and more comfortable. The Scott Scandium from 2000 was below 1kg, the Scott CR1 from 2006 was even lighter in carbon, and more comfortable.
For tourists using road bikes, most people who pay for a highend bicycle will also have that be seen, with carbon, just like the professionals. There is no demand anymore for highend aluminium/scandium frames.
Then the really light scandium frames were well know for cracking, like the Scott Scandium. They were made to be raced and used for a few seasons. I doubt many have survived. I would love to have a bicycle like that, I think the Scott Scandium is beautiful, but I also know I will probably not like it much for riding.
Aluminium or Titanium frames make the best travel bikes.
- Unlike steel, they don't rust.
- Unlike carbon, they can cope with rough treatment (for example when loaded into the hold on a plane). They are less likely to be damaged, and the damage is more likely to lead to a gradual failure.
Titanium is reputed to be better but modern Aluminium frames are pretty light, pretty comfortable, and vastly cheaper.
I have an aluminium bike that I use whenever my trip involves a train ride or a flight.
I currently ride a titanium hardtail MTB. It's an amazing ride. I vastly prefer it over aluminium. Titanium has a reputation for being expensive, but that's only true because the famous brands have such high margin on them (no doubt to preserve that premium reputation).
Frame rust isn't a big deal on bicycle. Even in the 80's high-alloy steel like 4130 "Chromo" has been popular with bicycles.
I've abused my 70's mtb bicycle with thousands of km of rustbelt winter riding and my frame shows no worrying corrosion, just surface discoloration where the paint has been scratched.
Carbon fiber is more durable than people give it credit for too, though because it's a brittle material that fails suddenly, larger safety factors should be used.
> For road racing there is no point in scandium anymore, carbon frames are made lighter, stiffer and more comfortable.
Comfort is actually a flexible seat post, which can be most easily made out of carbon. The frame material has basically no impact on comfort. (And that comes from someone riding only steel frames)
> This article is a bit off mark I think. The high end of the bike market is dominated by carbon fiber. The market for high end aluminum/ scandium is disappearing as the price of carbon fiber has come down over the years. It's very hard to find a high end bike which isn't carbon, heck even the mid-range is carbon mostly now.
Now, sure, the idea of "high end aluminum" doesn't make much sense in comparison to carbon. However, I think I still mostly buy this article.
Throughout the '00s carbon composites really remained prohibitively expensive, and even many mid-high range bikes would still be some kind of alloy with a carbon fork and at best carbon stays. It's only in the last decade or so that carbon has become cost competitive enough to reach well into the midrange frame market.
I think marketing was a huge part of this too. Once carbon was associated with "good" any aluminum alloy was immediately less desirable. There's just not much room in the middle there especially as CF was much more visually distinctive, and would be more likely to be recognized by another cyclist (i.e. as a status symbol).
There'll always be a spot in my heart for Kona bikes. They always had those really nice looking paint jobs, and quite a few of their bikes seemed goofy or weird at first, but then made a lot of sense.
Ex-Union countries ran out of jet fighters to smelt for bicycle frames?
As I understand, there nowhere is in the world where Scandium is mined commercially now, and the world is still living off scandium oxide stashed by somebody very lucky right around USSR collapse?
The article doesn't mention current mining methods (that I remember). Just "There aren't a lot of scandium importers and miners, and the few that exist charge a premium.".
> Scandium makes those grains smaller, among other things, which allows them to fit closer together for a denser, stronger overall structure.
This is not how grain size strengthening works. With smaller grains, there are more grain boundaries. These boundaries present an obstacle to the movement of dislocations, increasing the resistance to deformation.
Density is not affected by grain size, larger grains do not have any gaps between them.
Ti and Scandium have different ride characteristics. Scandium (and aluminum) is stiffer. Ti, like steel has a little flex to it. While I honestly doubt anyone can really feel the difference, there are plenty of people who swear they can.
They've pretty much both gone out of style and largely not for the reasons this article suggest. Carbon fiber more or less took over the higher end of the bike industry. It is lighter and can be tuned for better ride characteristics than either Ti or Scandium (it can be stiffer than aluminum or or more flexible depending on layup).
Carbon is even pushing aluminum out of the mid-high end of the bike market in many places.
"While I honestly doubt anyone can really feel the difference, there are plenty of people who swear they can."
Problem here is that most people will have one bicycle, which makes it hard to compare. When I started cycling again, I bought 2 bicycles, in 2 slightly different sizes to get a feel for the right size. One was made of classic steel, one was made of oversized aluminium. I really could tell the difference over rougher roads. To my surprise, wheelsets made just as much difference. When switching different wheelsets, I could double the comfort of the steel bike by matching it with really nice wheels. With the aluminium bike I could double the harshness. Using the steel bike with the hard wheelset and the aluminium bike with the nice wheelset, made it somewhat even for me.
If you need advise for a nice wheelset, I can heartily recommend a Campagnolo Scirocco wheelset :)
Steel, aluminum, and carbon fiber, cover all the bases. I mountain bike mostly though so the tires can dampen a lot of the vibrations people suggest steel sucks up. Also, I think getting a good carbon bar on an aluminum bike does wonders for whatever vibrations the trail is kicking up.
I do agree about wheels though, good stiff wheels and a through axel completely change the ride of a bike versus old school aluminum rims with quick releases.
I think where the difference between flexible materials like carbon fiber and steel, and stiffer materials like aluminum is most easily observed is on rough road surfaces (like rumble surfaces or even cobbled stone).
That and in the position of the bottom bracket, in a 'stiff' bike you'll definitely see much less movement of the bottom bracket (and thus less change in orientation of the pedals), on an aluminum based frame this can be quite noticeable while cycling, especially when standing on the pedals.
There is an open question into whether the flex in the bottom bracket is recovered microseconds later into forward motion. Not much of the energy that goes into flexing a stiff spring is lost as heat. And could it even be beneficial because it works more naturally with the body of the rider? Sean Kelly rode some of the early "noodly" aluminium frames and if anyone could flex a frame, he could. Didn't seem to slow him down.
Personally I've never felt the change in bottom bracket flexing, but I always feel how different frames feel on certain bits of road. Maybe I'm just not outputting enough power, I don't know.
Or quite possibly you have pretty stiff bikes. I have an oldie aluminum one that is so flexible that I don't like to drive it, an oldie steel one that is as rigid as they come and my 'regular' bike (and older carbon frame) is now living elsewhere so I can't compare them side-by-side anymore but it was pretty stiff as well.
Tube diameter for the tubes connecting to the bottom bracket can make a big difference too. The tandem we have (a Koga 26") is pretty flexible too but it is kind of logical for being aluminum and that long, you can really tell if you're both pushing hard, the whole thing warps. But better bending than breaking!
There are parts of a bike that you can absolutely feel, and parts that a skilled rider can feel.
Easily noticeable:
* Tires. Wide supple tires make a huge difference, especally as the quality of the road goes down. They're no slower than narrow tires. Narrow high pressure tires chatter, the feel faster from the vibration, but they're not when tested.
* Fork. Carbon forks change the vibration profile dramatically, aluminum forks are pretty harsh in my memory, and steel can be liveish, or just harsh and stiff, depending on how it's built. An aluminum or steel bike with a carbon fork rides very similar to a carbon frame carbon fork.
Less noticeable:
Handlebar/Seat. These cantilever out, and there is flex, but it's subtle. On the other hand, if you don't have a good seat for your anatomy/riding style, it's the single best upgrade you can make.
Stem/Seatpost. There's some flex in these, but it's much less than the above, but they still are there.
Possibly noticeable:
Frame stiffness/Weight/Wheel stiffness
I've got three bikes I ride now, a Carbon/Carbon road bike, with 25mm max tires, a cheapish Al/Carbon Fork "all road" bike that's had 700cx25, 700cx35, and 650bx42 (Babyshoe Pass) tires on it, and a handbuilt steel tandem with 26x42mm tires. I've also ridden most combinations of Steel frame/ Al/Carbon/Steel fork, Al Frame w/ Al Fork/Carbon Fork, and Carbon/Carbon.
The narrow tires are horrible, except on excellent roads, of which there are a few. The 650b tires are nearly the best thing I've ever put on a bike, with the possible exception of a seat that fits my butt. They glide on bad chipseal, where my riding companions chatter their cables and teeth. They're ok on everything this side of singletrack. The Al/Carbon bike still feels a little dead, and it doesn't really reward high power spinning, which I attribute to the heavy stiff frame and the carbon fork. The Tandem just feels alive riding, and you can see the fork flexing over road noise. It's got a quality of ride that just isn't there with the other bikes.
My next bike is going to be Steel with a pretty flexy fork, and probably a pretty noodly steel frame at that. (Looking at a Crust Canti Lightning Bolt or best match, if I can ever get one). It'll have 42mm tires minimum, and maybe 48's if they will fit with fenders.
I'm not racing, I'm riding alone or with friends, not super long nor super fast, but 60->100mi at 16-18mph depending on terrain, wind, and fitness levels.
Different tools for different jobs. My Eriksen is as fine a bike as you’ll find anywhere, but it’s probably too supple for the serious amateur racer. I have a couple very high end carbon bikes, which are marvels. For a race, I’d go carbon super light. For a really climby day I’d take the super light. For a long ride, casual ride or a personal tour, I’d take the Eriksen every single day. I’ll own that bike the rest of my life and probably ride it as long as I can ride.
As for the topic, it’s apropos to our ti tangent. Scandium made the aluminum a bit easier to work and a bit more supple (al frames can be brutally stiff, like really racy carbon frames) I think they triple butted the ends of the tubes to provide enough material to bond which added stiffness. With scandium you can weld it without as much metal, it’s stronger and since you use less metal it has a bit more flex. Al construction got better and carbon came along which is even cheaper... I keep a bianchi veloce cross scandium bike, still quite delightful to ride, it’s my main winter bike and it doesn’t seem to beat me up like some of the really stiff al racing bikes of the era.
My understanding is that (normal) aluminium frames have to be stiff due to bending fatigue.
Steel is much more forgiving (Ti is the same, iirc), and carbon fiber in a suitable matrix can handle dynamic loads above 50% of it's ultimate tensile strength.
I wonder how much of it is basically a fashion issue? It is increasingly unusual to see new road bikes near me that are basic tubular constructions, to the point it feels like part of the design is simply showing that they're heavily design influenced carbon composite.
Note: I'm personally excluding modern carbon bars here, because I find the lovely sculpted wings far more comfortable when compared to old-style bent tubes :)
Ti is absolutely a vanity/ fashion statement at this point. Carbon out-performs it in almost every way. Particularly since you can lay up carbon in different ways to get different amounts of stiffness/ flexibility.
Definitely not rare around here (SF Bay). I guess I look for them but I see a lot of people riding them. Maybe the allure of the more compliant/comfortable ride and durability attracts them. Often more $ than carbon as you said.
I think the usual argument is that Ti lasts longer but carbon lasts for ages if you don't crash it and the people willing to spend $10k on a bike usually welcome the chance to buy a new one every 5-10 years anyway.
I'm not sure the argument that Ti lasts longer is really valid anymore.
I have 2 carbon mountain bikes that I've put thousands of miles on. Both are about 7 years old at this point. Early carbon as a bit fragile, but newer carbon seems pretty damned solid.
Even if you do break them, they are repairable. My wife broke the frame on her bike not long ago and she wound up getting it repaired. It was surprisingly affordable and the fix is likely stronger than the original.
The argument is not always true though. Welding of titanium is not easy, and often there is tension in the frame. Even 10 years and 50 thousand kms later it can crack. The better welding culture is in the US and Russia, but even then there are series of bicycles that earn a bad reputation for cracking.
Another argument against titanium is that mining and purifying of titanium is not so easy on the environment. If that is important to someone, it might get counted as a factor.
When 99% of modern Ti bikes have a carbon fork I don't think this argument holds up much. The advantage of Ti for me is that it is a metal bike (metal wears beautifully) without the weight penalty of steel. The downside is the cost...
Out of legitimate curiosity: what is the actual weight difference between a nice steel frame and a Ti frame? My nice road bike is 40 or 50 years old Reynolds 531 and it feels like it weighs nothing, especially compared to my mountain bike or my beater road bike.
My understanding is that with advances across the industry, it's pretty easy to build a bike under the UCI minimum weight, which suggests that you could make the frame out of whatever is best for the application.
Some of the lightest road bikes out there are steel, in the ~14lb range.
You can get stupid light in Steel, Ti, Carbon, Aluminum, but once you're in the sub 16ish lb range, you're going to be going with superlight parts all around, as there's just not that much frame left to make light.
You can make a fully equipped (steel) randonneur at 20lbs, with fenders, rack, pump, generator, and lights. It's not cheap (~10k+ is my guess), but man is it a well crafted bike. With some care, I think that style bike can be done with common components and off-the-shelf frames in the 25lb range.
I'm a big fan of steel bikes, so don't take this the wrong way, but you cannot build a steel bike as light as a carbon one for any reasonable price or robustness. The most high end steel bikes will barely be competitive with mid-level carbon weight-wise. If you are optimizing for weight, carbon is the only way to go. However, there is more to a bike than just weight :)
If you're going for stupid light, there are compromises. Money and robustness are the first two things to go.
Rodriguez is advertising production steel bikes at the 14lb level: https://www.rodbikes.com/catalog/outlaw/outlaw-main.html Yeah, they're pricey. (10k) (That's production vs custom frame, meaning that they might have one off the rack in the right measurements, if not it's a couple of hundred to do a custom geo)
But superlight Carbon is going to be up there too, and it's going to use basically the same parts, +- bottom brackets and such. And frankly, I would trust superlight steel before I'd trust superlight carbon.
There are some pretty awesome Ti bikes as well, including custom 3d printed lugs, cranks, forks, stem, etc. They are in the same weight range, and IIRC 8kUKP.
If you're looking at commercial production, probably fair that carbon is going to be lighter. But the the people pushing the edges aren't limited to that.
For both road bikes and mountain bikes, Ti is a vanity product. Carbon dominates mountain bike industry at every price-point above about $3,500 right now.
There are certainly a few high end ti bikes, but carbon is king and very few people still argue ti is superior in terms of performance.
As an avid mountain biker, I can tell you that the high-end for mountain bikes is definitely not titanium, it's carbon fibre. Titanium mountain bikes are rare, probably even more than road bikes.
Every major brand uses carbon fiber in their high end bikes.
That's true, but as someone who rides a titanium MTB, you tend to get looks from people who think I'm riding some super-exotic high-end machine.
It's a custom frame which costs much less than a commercial carbon fibre frame. Titanium is only expensive because there aren't that many vendors that make them, and they all want to position themselves as high-end.
Back when scandium bikes were a thing they were cheaper then Ti bikes.
Also, from the article:
Any time you ride a high-quality aluminum racing frame made of welded 7005 series aluminum, you're probably riding on a little scandium. A lot of 6061 grade aluminums use scandium too. In fact, the bicycle industry is one of the biggest scandium markets, still.
I can almost assuredly tell you one thing -- the x% weight savings of whatever material that costs $1000+ more is not the limiting factor preventing your or my average out-of-shape body from achieving its fullest right now.
We could only wish that buying some special material would make us go appreciably faster.
Which isn't to say that the bike doesn't make a large difference. I just replaced a bike with an all-steel frame and garbage drivetrain with one with an alloy/carbon plus shimano 105s, and the difference is absolutely remarkable.
Given that I'm hoping the difference to my waistline to be 0, that should be trivially true ;)
But the hit to my wallet wasn't as bad as it could have been, in general I'm a big fan of buying second-hand. Local bike shop gets to charge me for fixing the previous owner's lack of upkeep, I get a lot more bike than I'd otherwise get for the same money. Not to mention that new bikes are hard to come by these days.
That's a good way of buying things in general. Especially high end racing bikes, a relatively large number of which are bought on impulse only to end up gathering dust. I bought a very nice Guerciotti like that, as good as brand new, and for a price that made me check the stolen bike registry first.
I know what you mean, but I think there definitely is a difference riding cheap versus expensive bikes. As with most sports requiring tech, the more you spend, the less you tend to fight the tech itself (friction, weight, etc). Granted it's diminishing returns.
Of course, but as anyone will notice if they go from a bicycle shaped object that weighs 30 pounds and has fat tires to a road bike (even an aluminum one), the difference is quite significant.
I hope this isn't flame-war material but why do recreational cyclists bother spending big money on lighter bikes or thinner tyres or anything at all? If you want to make it easier to ride, you can get a motor and Li-ion battery, often more cheaply. I did that when I used to cycle to work for practical reasons. But then why are you cycling instead of driving in the first place?
Because road cycling enthusiasts are just as susceptible as enthusiasts with other hobbies to take the obsession with gear to silly levels.
Grill/barbecue backyard dads obsessing about charcoal vs. briquettes vs. gas, BTUs and so on.
Motorcyclists and their endless discussions about motor oil and chain lubrication.
Amateur DIYers with tool collections that be excessive even for hardcore professional craftsmen.
PC gamers with their obsession over performance tests of the latest CPUs and GPUs, mechanical keyboards and ultra-high CPI mouses.
In the end, it's all just a dick measuring contest. If you have fancier gear or you have fancier-looking graphs than your neighbor, you are better at your shared hobby, because the numbers say so.
At least the cyclists are finally realizing that super skinny ultra high-pressure tires are actually counterproductive, and that a wider tire with lower pressure performs better on the uneven surfaces of the real world. But because the super skinny rock hard tires performed best in tests on perfectly smooth rollers, everyone had convinced themselves for decades that more flexible tires were bad, because the numbers said so.
I feel like the increase in wheel width may have had the biggest effect on the tyre shift. It was hard to buy a road wheel that wasn't a 15mm bead width a few years ago, and it is becoming difficult to buy wheels that are not >20mm now. I can realistically choose a 28-622 and run it at 5bar today, that wasn't an option a few years ago. In fact, five years ago my everyday bike didn't even have frame clearance for a 25-622.
There is a different argument to be had if the point is "don't buy frames with road/tri geometry".
I guess my point is: some of us aren't just choosing shiniest shiny, we're choosing an option from the list that only includes shiny.
Good question. When you are commuting and need to be practical, you might prefer electric. But cycling for fun on a roadbike is about being outside, enjoying the surroundings, and putting your legs to work. It can make you feel alive and just give sheer joy putting your body to work and have your legs be the engine of your bicycle.
You still do all of those things on an e-bike, all it does is provide assistance, which means you can go farther, spend more time outside and see more of the world around you. You can adjust or even completely turn off the assistance.
There's an argument to be made for purism, but where do you draw the line? Do click shifters ruin the purism of cycling? The presence of multiple gears? Freewheeling hubs? Are clips, straps or clipless pedals just crutches for people with bad technique? Does the presence of a chain and gearing decouple you from the raw and pure connection to the wheel?
I think there is a misunderstanding about why cyclists go biking for fun for 100+ km uphill, on roads or in the woods on Sunday mornings. The reason is that they like to pedal and stay fit. I do.
Suppose we have cheap and light exoskeletons that people can wear and run for 100 km at 15 km/h on a single charge. Would that put an end to people running 5 km in 45 minutes with their own legs? I don't think so.
I might buy an ebike when I'm older (and I mean well past 60) but why should I use one when I can do 150 km in a day for fun? If I'm in hurry I drive my car.
Another use case for an ebike would be a long commute and I don't want to sweat on my way to work. It's not my case but I would consider a bike with a battery for that.
I absolutely understand the desire for doing things the same way as the professionals or imposing artificial limitations to push oneself harder. That and keeping fit is why I lift weights.
Still, if keeping fit was the ultimate goal, everyone would be riding heavy old steel frames instead of chasing sub-1% efficiency gains ;-)
There is a huge element of gear geekery involved and to an extent also some cargo culting. I know, I've been there myself for a bit. Now I ride a 3-speed stepover bike with a basket on the front, because trying to always go faster was going to get me maimed in traffic at some point.
The reason is that a light and stiff bike is much more fun to ride! An expensive road bike is optimizing for fun and performance. A heavy old steel bike is optimizing for cost and reliability. If you are riding for fitness then fun is important.
My counterpoint is that I have a lot more fun when riding my relaxed steel frame bike at a moderate speed, than I ever had when riding a road bike fast. That means I ride farther and for longer, but it's the kind of fun that cannot be quantified in hard numbers.
I find the performance-chasing stressful, whether on a bike, in a car or in front of a PC, and we could all do with a bit less stress in our lives.
But the point is, an electrically assisted bike is even more fun. Or if you don't like any extra assistance, tune the power to just compensate for the weight of a steel frame so it feels like a carbon-fiber bike but at lower cost. Why isn't that the most popular type of high-end recreation bike?
You can tune so the acceleration feels like a lighter bike, but for braking and cornering, you're still going to feel the extra weight, there's no way to artificially lighten an object, you can't cheat mass and gravity, it's the same reason why a Tesla Roadster is a very different car from a Mazda MX-5 and the Mazda would be a fundamentally changed car if you made it electric.
Still, for the vast majority of everyday cyclists, the "purity" of the experience doesn't matter, they want to get from A to B in a practical manner. They want to see things and do things, the bike ride is not a goal in itself.
For the sports cyclist with aspirations based on their professional idols, they want to ride what the professionals ride, not a simulation. Personally I think the whole concept of trying to ape the professionals is a bit silly, which is why I don't do it anymore :-)
The lure is getting fit and achieving something graspable with that fitness. Riding an artificially incapable bike would ruin the latter, like cooking something nice with one hand tied behind your back, riding an e-bike would ruin the former, like advising a weight lifter that he could raise that bar much more frequently if he removed those annoying metal discs from the ends.
Hmm, so is it that the difference between 0 and non-zero power assistance happens to provide a natural well defined boundary between not handicapping yourself and still posing a challenge? It's not really about the power assistance at all but about having a clear scope to avoid drifting off into easier-and-easier land until you're weightlifting without weights and "cooking" by hiring a personal chef?
Kind of, but it's not a continuum at all. Cyclists may use a surprising number of batteries (some configurations provide you with no less than five charging states to keep in mind, and that's before adding lights, and not counting the three coin cells also hidden in that configuration), but when you start using external power for propulsion, from a cyclist's perspective, puts it into an entirely different category: it's not a particularly easy bike, it's a very weak motorcycle. Obviously from a driver's perspective it's exactly reversed and cyclists will happily tap into powered drafting opportunities whenever they arise, but the category borders are what they are. Imagine showing up at a marathon start block wearing roller blades: good luck convincing anyone that you do and love the same thing, just having a slightly different taste in footwear.
I'm not talking about organized sport, just recreation, so rules don't matter. Nor about other electric devices, just powered propulsion. I used to cycle for fun and had no idea what rules the actual sports might have had - it didn't matter to me. I'm sure there are others who also do it for purely personal reasons and don't need to follow any rules.
Just calling it a weak motorcycle doesn't really explain anything other than the cyclist's confusion about what he wants.
Well, a sport is inherently circumscribed by a set of rules. And those rules are often completely arbitrary - why is the basketball hoop that high? Why have a 100 meter sprint instead of 100 yards? But even though the rules are arbitrary, in order to be doing that sport, you have to be within the rules.
When cycling a motor could certainly improve my power output. But as it's outside the rules of most cycling bodies' rules for competitions, I can't improve my times by putting a motor on my bike any more than I can lower the basketball basket to score more points.
Of course, that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with an e-bike - someone sprinting 70 meters is still running, even if they're not within the rules of the 100 meter sprint! And e-bikes are a fine option if you want to replace a car (for certain distances), haul a lot of weight on a cargo bike, as a general fitness activity, or to keep up with faster riders for social purposes.
Why do people buy porsches? For a much more reasonable amount of money you can get the porsche of the bicycle world. And you will notice the difference more than with a porsche because with a bicycle you form a large part of the machine.
The thrill of pedalling a bike to a fast speed is not just in the speed but in the human powered element too.
As you've alluded to ebikes exist already as do ICE motorbike; still we enjoy pedal cycling.
Just as the existence of cycling doesn't invalidate the enjoyment of running or skateboarding just because it's faster and it's the same for pedal cycling vs powered bikes.
You answered your question yourself: for recreation.
Putting a motor on feels like cheating, getting a lighter bike is the easiest way to see improvements in your ride. Your weight and fitness levels are much more difficult to assess than changing to a different bike.
It's not only a matter of weight savings. I had an iron bike, an aluminium bike and now I am riding a carbon bike.
The differences in comfort and maneuverability are impressive: the iron bike was comfortable but not reactive at all, the aluminium bike was very rigid and uncomfortable, but light and very reactive, the actual one is comfortable and reactive. I can afford long trip (more than 100km) without any pain at the end.
Carbon dominates the higher end of bike frames so much that most people don't care about scandium-based frames. Is there scandium in my aluminum cranks, brakes, or stem?
Too bad it’s toxic, otherwise Beryllium bike frames would be amazing. Since it’s number four in the periodic table and therefore very light, it has been used to make the James Webb space telescope mirrors [1].
Scandium works by convincing aluminum molecules to restructure themselves. When aluminum is smelted it hardens into microscopic grains that fit together to make a solid architecture.
Scandium makes those grains smaller, among other things, which allows them to fit closer together for a denser, stronger overall structure.
Scandium also interrupts melted aluminum crystalizing at a molecular level when the metal cools.
This means that the properties of the alloy are less likely to be affected by heat-treatment and welding, so a scandium-infused aluminum alloy is less likely to crack while cooling.
This is especially valuable in high-strength aluminum, like 7005 alloy. Traditionally, 7005 alloys make light, strong, forged or CNC machined bicycle components, but can't be welded because they weaken when they melt. By adding scandium to the tube or to the filler between welded tubes, melted 7005 aluminum becomes usable in welded components, like frames.
So, at a chemical level, aluminum alloys infused with scandium (less than 0.5% by volume) are stronger and more weldable than scandium-free alloys."
PDS: There probably is a whole series of things, as of yet unknown, that can be added to metals and other elements, while they are cooling (or perhaps heating), to imbue them with various interesting properties...
Opinion: Modern-day metallurgy and metallurgical sciences, though its knowledge is formidable in this area -- has probably just "scratched the surface" of all that is possible...
In other words, experimentation, much more future experimentation -- is required in this area...