Lynskey has a new bike- GR 250

chas wrote:Thanks Greg andall.  I'm still curious to what if anything makes TI different than steel.

My steel frames are 3.9 lbs, so I'm thinking TI is not 2-3lbs lighter.  Carbon is about 2lbs lighter (although if I want steel feel and light weight, there are plenty of places other than the frame to save a couple lbs.

I kind of like my aluminum cyclocross, it is more responsive than my steel bikes, but I am so curious what the TI version would be like or what a Lynskey cyclocross would be like in comparison to my steel or aluminum bikes.

Titanium and Steel ride very similar.  The main difference is weight.  Now as you say, a steel frame can be built light.  This is a generalization, but if you have two frames, one steel and one titanium, if they are identical weight the titanium bike will be stiffer.  I have a Soma Groove steel frame, which is pretty light and I find it kind of flexy at the bottom bracket.  So while I like steel as a frame material, I'll take titanium anyday because it is lighter without being flexy, also its a lifetime material since it won't rust.  Obviously the big downside is cost.
Neither titanium or steel are as stiff and responsive as aluminum or carbon, so I always say aluminum and carbon are great material for race bikes, or bikes you only ride for a couple of hours at a time.  When I was younger (in my 20s) aluminum was by far my favorite frame material.  It felt so fast.  Of course back in those days, my body felt fresh even after long rides.  Now I am in my 40s, and aluminum really beats me up after a long ride.  I'm pretty sure that is why you see so many older cyclists on steel and titanium bikes.  Leave the stiff stuff for the young bucks.  I would be interested in trying out the Salsa Warbird in both carbon and aluminum to see if their flexing stays really work.  

Wow, that really answers my question Thanks!

I have a wonderful '94 Specialized steel race bike (road), but yeah, that bottom bracket is flexy.

I also have a Klein race mountain bike of that era (aluminum), and playing around with some 25mm 100psi tires, it is unbelievable how stiff that bike is (as per design fashion of the day).  Its hard to ride at 30-40psi, and crazy harsh at 100+ psi.

The warbird would be an interesting comparison.  I tried a Aluminum and Carbon GT Grade, and the difference was night and day.  The aluminum still felt like aluminum.

But Salsa says their Class 5 VRS aluminum frames on the Warbird are more compliant than their TI frames 
(6% more compliant than the titanium bike).  Hmmm...

ljsmith wrote:

Titanium and Steel ride very similar.  The main difference is weight.  Now as you say, a steel frame can be built light.  This is a generalization, but if you have two frames, one steel and one titanium, if they are identical weight the titanium bike will be stiffer.  I have a Soma Groove steel frame, which is pretty light and I find it kind of flexy at the bottom bracket.  So while I like steel as a frame material, I'll take titanium anyday because it is lighter without being flexy, also its a lifetime material since it won't rust.  Obviously the big downside is cost.
Neither titanium or steel are as stiff and responsive as aluminum or carbon, so I always say aluminum and carbon are great material for race bikes, or bikes you only ride for a couple of hours at a time.  When I was younger (in my 20s) aluminum was by far my favorite frame material.  It felt so fast.  Of course back in those days, my body felt fresh even after long rides.  Now I am in my 40s, and aluminum really beats me up after a long ride.  I'm pretty sure that is why you see so many older cyclists on steel and titanium bikes.  Leave the stiff stuff for the young bucks.  I would be interested in trying out the Salsa Warbird in both carbon and aluminum to see if their flexing stays really work.  

Thanks for highlighting my error. The 2 to 3 lbs was for older steel frames (yeah, I have a few of these). A new steel CX bike will be closer to 1 to 1.5 pounds difference between steel and Ti.

That said, titanium is not a stiffer material than steel. For a given weight it is slightly more flexible (Young's modulus aka modulus of elasticity).  For a given weight and diameter of tube TI will be stronger and tougher, but not stiffer.

Here's a link with more info on titanium's advantages and "challenges": 
http://www.ibiscycles.com/support/technical_articles/metallurgy_for_cyclists/the_titanium_advantage/

Here's a link to their overview of steel and from either page you can find links to aluminum, carbon and more. 
http://www.ibiscycles.com/support/technical_articles/metallurgy_for_cyclists/steel_is_real/

NoCoGreg wrote:

That said, titanium is not a stiffer material than steel. For a given weight it is slightly more flexible (Young's modulus aka modulus of elasticity).  For a given weight and diameter of tube TI will be stronger and tougher, but not stiffer.

You can't just compare properties of materials outside of their intended application.  What matters is how stiff is a steel BIKE FRAME compared to a titanium BIKE FRAME.  Aluminum, as a material, is not as stiff as steel.  So I suppose you want to tell me that steel frames are stiffer than aluminum?  Both titanium and aluminum frames are built with larger diameter tubes.  For aluminum this is mainly for strength and longevity and results in a very stiff frame, even though aluminum is not a stiff material.  Steel is almost always built with smaller diameter tubes to keep the weight down, this results in a flexier frame.  Can you build a stiff steel frame?  Of course you can, you just use larger diameter tubing, but it will be a tank.  

I have had my Litespeed T5 for about 6 months and love it. It  appears to be bullet proof so far. It got me the the nasty Grasshopper Old Caz with out a scratch.

Scree wrote:I ordered a GR250 complete bike from Lynskey about 2 1/2 weeks ago.  Every couple days I checked my account to find - Order Status: Awaiting Fulfillment.   After 10 days of not hearing anything from them, I contacted them to find out when my bike would be shipped.  They estimated it woud be be sometime the next week (this week).  About 2 days later, I got an email saying they were out of the 3T forks and offered an upgrade to an ENVE CX fork for $150 ~ or wait 6 wks for the new Lynskey carbon forks - they weren't getting anymore 3T's.  Well, the ENVE forks have 12mm axles - that's odd? and not what I want.  Not too happy w/ Lynskey right now

Sorry that you are having some problems. But they are a small custom build company and can't control their suppliers like the high volume manufacturers. I've been corresponding with them regularly by e-mail, and have found them to be very responsive and helpful. I can understand your frustration though. The good news is that you are likely to get a magnificent bike, and hopefully, your frustrations and wait will be worth it. Certainly, some of the reviews I've been reading in Bicycle Quarterly are very encouraging for anyone waiting for a Lynsky build. Good luck. BTW -- I have a ENVE fork on my Lemond Washoe - great fork.

bobknh wrote:
 BTW -- I have a ENVE fork on my Lemond Washoe - great fork.

What is interesting is that when speced with the 3T Luteus, Lynskey said the bike fit 650b x 2.1 tires.  Now with the Enve that has changed to 650b x 2.0, because officially Enve lists 2.0 as the max tire size.  But I would assume the Enve will fit a 2.1, can anybody confirm?

ljsmith wrote:

What is interesting is that when speced with the 3T Luteus, Lynskey said the bike fit 650b x 2.1 tires.  Now with the Enve that has changed to 650b x 2.0, because officially Enve lists 2.0 as the max tire size.  But I would assume the Enve will fit a 2.1, can anybody confirm?

Why Cycles specs their bike with the Enve fork, and they have 2.1" listed as a 650b option:
http://www.whycycles.com/our-bikes/rcycle/

ljsmith wrote:

You can't just compare properties of materials outside of their intended application.  What matters is how stiff is a steel BIKE FRAME compared to a titanium BIKE FRAME.  Aluminum, as a material, is not as stiff as steel.  So I suppose you want to tell me that steel frames are stiffer than aluminum?  Both titanium and aluminum frames are built with larger diameter tubes.  For aluminum this is mainly for strength and longevity and results in a very stiff frame, even though aluminum is not a stiff material.  Steel is almost always built with smaller diameter tubes to keep the weight down, this results in a flexier frame.  Can you build a stiff steel frame?  Of course you can, you just use larger diameter tubing, but it will be a tank.  

I'm sorry but I think you're missing the math...  If the density of Ti is 56% of steel (about half as dense), and the Young's modulus is about half, then to have a Ti tube with the same stiffness as a steel tube the Ti tube needs a thicker sidewall or larger diameter tube.  If you want a stiff bike Ti is not the ideal tubing.  Ti has lots of great properties, stiff just isn't one. 

Aluminum is much less dense than steel - the low density allows one to make extremely strong (and stiff) frames which are lighter than steel.  Aluminum frames must be made stiff due to aluminum not having an endurance limit (read: with enough stress cycles it will fail).  The first mass produced high end aluminum road bikes (Vitus) were infamous for being incredibly flexible.  Yeah they were light, but also much more flexible than the steel road bikes of the day.

For the record, my titanium Dean El Diente is the most flexible bike I own.  The flex is a big part of the comfortable ride.  My steel bikes, while a bit heavier, are hardly tanks and are much stiffer than the Dean. The newest bike (2015) uses True Temper 853 over size tubes and is stiffer than the Columbus TSX Fuso built in 1990 with traditional diameter tubes.

Cheers,
Greg

PlayingMuted wrote:

Is your main issue with the Grit the aesthetic or the performance? I get the aesthetic part. I'm not so sure about the performance part.

The guys who designed the Grit used to work on prosthetic blades for amputees. That meant little room for failure and a need to appropriate modulation of energy absorption and output.

Here are my personal experience front suspension observations:

Rigid:

• Dependable, tried and true
• You feel the chatter for better or worse

Suspension Stem:

• I tried the StaFast stem and the handlebar dive was unnerving
• Fork tube needed to be cut to a specific height limiting the use of spacers to change the bar height based on ride length.

Left Oliver:

• Couldn't find one sold separately
• Allows for custom dampening and rebound based on rider weight
• Has a fork lockout
• Requires Cannondale specific lefty hub.

Lauf Grit:

• Looks funky
• Isn't noticeable on chipseal or street riding
• Eats up off-road chatter
• Leaf springs live up to hype in reacting to road imperfections incredibly fast
• Uses standard thru axle hub
• No Maintenance
• Weighs less than the Oliver
• Can't turn off suspension (only during very steep out-of-the-saddle climbing was this noticeable)
• Can't tune suspension.
• Non-standard 47mm offset
• $$$$ Spendy

I'd welcome your personal riding experiences regarding your comparison of the Grit, Lefty Oliver, or other suspension options.

Are your performance observations based on reading or riding?

As far as the Grit is concerned...it's 100% from what I read and see. Reviews aren't great and especially considering the price...and ugly factor...definitely not worth a second look as far as I'm concerned. 

Lefty...I had one. It's amazing. IMO best suspension fork on the market even with its cons which include the hub and fact that it needs adapters to fit non-Lefty frames and in some cases won't fit certain frames if the headtube is too long. Ran into that with my Kona Big Unit frame. So a Lefty won't work for every application...but I'd gladly change the frame to match the fork if I was looking to build a new bike with front squish. They are pricey too. But they have great build quality and they can be 100% shop rebuilt unlike other suspension forks that require being sent to the manufacturer for some services. Not a huge deal but is a time saver if you need a complete rebuild. Needless to say...I love the Lefty!

gravelfondo wrote:I had three Lynskey frames (29 MTN) and cracked all three.  Customer service was poor every time with hassle.

My personal experience with them has not been positive.

There are many other frame/bike builders who do a better job than Lynskey.  When it breaks (not if), you'll be sorry you didn't spend time/money/research looking elsewhere.

There are a lot of choices out there.

Sadly...you aren't the only person I've read that's similar experiences. Makes me wonder if it's Ti as a material in general or just the Ti or manufacturing techniques used by Lynskey? And regardless of why...their lack of customer service is what is more concerning. They were right there in your face with zero hesitation when you contact them about buying a frame or bike...but seem to disappear into the night when you get one and have an issue with it. Not something I think I'd want to deal with after buying a very expensive bike frame. Luckily, knock on wood, I've not yet ever had a frame issue with a bike. Component issues yes. But those have been quickly and easily handled by my shop. Spending potentially $2k+ on just a bike frame...I want to be assured I get top notch service before, during, and after the sale. 

Nubster wrote:

-snip-
Makes me wonder if it's Ti as a material in general or just the Ti or manufacturing techniques used by Lynskey?
-snip-

I've read a number of articles, literature and posts on velocipede salon from Ti builders - the recurring theme has been that the joint in Ti frames are much more difficult to do properly. Any contamination will cause the joint to fail.  I've got many-many thousands of miles on my Ti bikes and they're still going.  IMHO, it's not a Ti problem, it's a manufacturing or quality control issue.   After two failures I'd look to another builder...

Yeah...they (Lynskey) seem to pump out a lot of frames as well as build for other bike brands too...so I'm sure the QC suffers a lot more than a small manufacturer making frames to order that get undivided attention from tubing selection through completed frame.

NoCoGreg wrote:Black Sheep, Moots and Dean are three long time Ti builders out here in Colorado.  All make a range of bikes and if you've got $$$ to burn they'll do all sorts of custom work.  

From what I've seen, a Ti frame will come in 2 to 3 pounds less than a comparable steel frame.  I've had several Dean bikes over the years - a few road and one CX.  I'm down to two - my beloved "flexible flyer" road bike which has a very light weight butted tube set. It's comfortable because it's flexible, but it's also more susceptible to shimmy.

Conversely the Dean CX bike is stiff - yes even compared to my Tarmac carbon frame.  These are old school frames - no disk brakes, PF bottom brackets or through axles. They ride great and just keep going and going.   No plans to sell either of my Ti bikes but I also enjoy my other steel and CF bikes.  Variety is the spice of life! 

Cheers,
Greg

NoCoGreg I know you know lots more about gravel bikes which is nuthin. Yes the gravel racing bug has hit me hard just after my first race the Pony Express 120 which I opted for the 75 miler due to lack of training and came out without the death march feeling yeah

So now I have this thought of buying a gravel racing specific bike.

3 choices maybe

Salsa warbird
Lynskey GR250
Jamis Renegade Expert

Not sure if I want the bike in ti or carbon. Lots of bikes list as an all around road/gravel bike. Not looking for that as I have a sweet road bike, guessing the Tamland would be delegated for bike camping/beater bike in the rain/regular training bike. I do like the geometry set up of the Tamland but don't know enough about bikes to see which one would be the closer of the 3. All I know is that a longer wheelbase is to be more comfortable as the rides get longer.

Any help would b greatly appreciated. Not in a big hurry so maybe could snatch one up on EBAY. Thoughts on that.

Thanks
Zman

I don't see how a Ti frame can be 2-3 lbs lighter than a steel frame.

I have some nice steel road and mountain bike frames, that weigh 3.9 lbs.  Carbon frames weigh 2 lbs lighter (at about 2lbs).   Not sure what the advantage to Ti would be over steel, but its not as light as carbon or aluminum.  In my specific CX bike, the Ti version is heavier and not as responsive as the aluminum version.  
There are too many variables to generalize with though.  Salsa's new Aluminum frames are more compliant and comfortable than the TI frames they replaced (thanks to improvements in the sizing, shaping, and welding they are now doing with Aluminum).  Some of the new breed of aluminum bikes look like carbon bikes with the shaping they are now doing.

chas wrote:I don't see how a Ti frame can be 2-3 lbs lighter than a steel frame.

I have some nice steel road and mountain bike frames, that weigh 3.9 lbs.  Carbon frames weigh 2 lbs lighter (at about 2lbs).   Not sure what the advantage to Ti would be over steel, but its not as light as carbon or aluminum.  In my specific CX bike, the Ti version is heavier and not as responsive as the aluminum version.  
There are too many variables to generalize with though.  Salsa's new Aluminum frames are more compliant and comfortable than the TI frames they replaced (thanks to improvements in the sizing, shaping, and welding they are now doing with Aluminum).  Some of the new breed of aluminum bikes look like carbon bikes with the shaping they are now doing.

Chas I am not the expert here but I think it is because ti is much more stronger than steel so the walls don't have to be as thick for it to be as strong or stronger. I luv my Lemond road bikes. I have a 1998 Zurich which is the 853 light weight steel. I also have a 2006 Victoirre which is ti and carbon. For sure the ti carbon is lighter and when I was looking at the Victoirre I tried out a Merlin all ti bike. It was a very nice ride.

Zman

chas wrote:I don't see how a Ti frame can be 2-3 lbs lighter than a steel frame.

I have some nice steel road and mountain bike frames, that weigh 3.9 lbs.  Carbon frames weigh 2 lbs lighter (at about 2lbs).   Not sure what the advantage to Ti would be over steel, but its not as light as carbon or aluminum.  In my specific CX bike, the Ti version is heavier and not as responsive as the aluminum version.  
There are too many variables to generalize with though.  Salsa's new Aluminum frames are more compliant and comfortable than the TI frames they replaced (thanks to improvements in the sizing, shaping, and welding they are now doing with Aluminum).  Some of the new breed of aluminum bikes look like carbon bikes with the shaping they are now doing.

You can make a Ti frame 2-3 pounds lighter than a steel frame, but it would be so flexy you wouldn't want to ride it.  As far as compliant aluminum, the problem with that is that aluminum has a limited life cycle.  If the frame can flex, like the Warbird, it is going to limit the useful life of the frame.  For most people this isn't as issue since people don't keep bikes for a lifetime anymore.  

ljsmith wrote:

You can make a Ti frame 2-3 pounds lighter than a steel frame, but it would be so flexy you wouldn't want to ride it.  As far as compliant aluminum, the problem with that is that aluminum has a limited life cycle.  If the frame can flex, like the Warbird, it is going to limit the useful life of the frame.  For most people this isn't as issue since people don't keep bikes for a lifetime anymore.  

Are you trying to tell me that one of the most popular gravel bikes out there the Warbird isn't going to last their owners very long? If I pay that kind of money yes I want it to last for a long time or my lifetime.


Zman 

Zurichman wrote:

Are you trying to tell me that one of the most popular gravel bikes out there the Warbird isn't going to last their owners very long? If I pay that kind of money yes I want it to last for a long time or my lifetime.


Zman 

I do not work for Salsa, and have never seen or done any fatigue testing on a Warbird (or any bike for that matter), so I cannot tell you what its life span would be.  You should note that Salsa only warranties aluminum frames for 3 years vs. the 5 years for carbon, steel or titanium, so that tells you something.  http://salsacycles.com/support/warranty
What I can tell you is that aluminum is the weakest frame material, and overtime flex causes it to crack. There is a reason that the old lightweight Cannondales were often called "Crackinfails".   This is why aluminum bikes typically are built with large diameter tubing, to minimize flex and give aluminum frames a very long life span (in some cases exceeding lightweight steel or titanium frames), but it also makes them stiff.  Now if you start building aluminum frames that are engineered to flex on purpose to deliver compliance, clearly its not going to last as long.  As to how long any given frame will last, you would have to ask the manufacturer after how many cycles did it fail (they do test these things), but I suspect they wouldn't tell you.  Very generally a well engineered Steel or Titanium frame is going to outlast a well engineered aluminum frame.  Below is from a Leonard Zinn article on carbon fatigue:

Carbon fiber composites have no fatigue limit, but that is not really the question to ask, since they do not behave like isotropic, hard (i.e., brittle) metals. Steel (titanium, too) has a fatigue limit, so fatigue failure can be avoided with it. As you say, aluminum has no fatigue limit and can thus be more difficult to predict when it might fail under a given cyclic loading. But being a matrix, carbon is less predictable in its failure modes under fatigue.

If a material has a fatigue limit or “endurance limit,” it means that if the cyclic stresses applied to it are below a certain magnitude (measured in units like pounds per square inch), the structure will not fail due to fatigue. Look at the graph; if the stresses on the steel structure depicted in the graph are below about 28ksi (kilopounds per square inch) – or 28,000psi, the steel will never fail due to fatigue (of course assuming no rusting or impact damage). The fatigue curve for titanium looks similar. But you can see that the fatigue curve for aluminum never flattens out, so even small cyclic loads, if they go on long enough, will eventually cause it to fail.

Read more at http://www.velonews.com/2016/11/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq-bottom-brackets-carbon-fiber-fatigue_425464#syWHu9yWYCgShQKZ.99

ljsmith wrote:

-snip-
You should note that Salsa only warranties aluminum frames for 3 years vs. the 5 years for carbon, steel or titanium, so that tells you something.  http://salsacycles.com/support/warranty
What I can tell you is that aluminum is the weakest frame material, and overtime flex causes it to crack. There is a reason that the old lightweight Cannondales were often called "Crackinfails".   This is why aluminum bikes typically are built with large diameter tubing, to minimize flex and give aluminum frames a very long life span (in some cases exceeding lightweight steel or titanium frames), but it also makes them stiff.  Now if you start building aluminum frames that are engineered to flex on purpose to deliver compliance, clearly its not going to last as long.  
-snip-

 

LJ - a few comments are in order...  First, an aluminum frame can be designed to last a lifetime. Period.

Not having any information or knowledge on Salsa's decisions to allows one to speculate endlessly. I would suggest the difference in length of warranty could be due to the aluminum bikes selling at a much lower price point or possibly due to customers in different price ranges having different expectations. Again this is pure speculation. 

The fatigue limit can be engineered by making the high stress areas stronger. The stresses on the bicycle frame are not uniform (ie. bottom bracket is different from top tube, head tube joints, etc etc).  True, aluminum has a relatively linear curve, but strengthening the areas which are going to receive the largest and most stress cycles will ensure the frame last a very-very long time.   There is a lot of aluminum going into the structures of aircraft...  Also, keep in mind that the CAE/CAD programs in use to design and analyze bicycle frames are vastly better today than the early days of Cannondale.  

Having tubes which are resilient (flexible) does not necessarily mean they will fail.  I have yet to see an aluminum frame where a tube failed in the middle due to fatigue.

Thin wall tubing makes for a light frame and great ride, but these are susceptible to denting and crumpling.  This is a design challenge for all frame materials.

If one searches the web, there are examples of bicycle frame and component failures that have been thoroughly analyzed.   I'll share some links if I can relocate them when I get some spare time.  From what I remember, the majority of failures were caused by: overheating fork/frame tubes during welding/brazing, physical damage such as scratches/cuts which allowed a crack to begin, plastic failure (aluminum fails quickly if it is bent too far or bent multiple times).

Cheers,
Greg