Titanium. What is the fascination with it? Watching Battlebots.

[JRouche]

I have never worked with it. I understand it has a perfect fit for some applications.

Seems like folks are using it willy-nilly. Thats shameful. It is not a super metal. It has qualities that allow people to go to space. Tubing.

And it is nice for those yuppy roadbikers for derailleurs and such

Exhaust systems, no not cars.

Its endless. But for structural or abrasive advantage over steel, no way. Oh, and a good slice of aluminum of the same weight makes a much better buy. JR

[RB211]

It commands much more money for a product to sell? But again, any gains from that would be eaten up by additional manufacturing costs. It's good for aviation.

[JRouche]

It's good for aviation.

Yup. Think about our largest flying ship. Ill it has plenty of Ti on her.

It is necessary when it is. The ISS would not be there without the metal. Bi-cyclists? Lose 10oz. and save a buck Kidding. JR

[Doc Nickel]

Easy. Ti is seen as tougher than aluminum, but lighter than steel. The robots have a hard weight limit, and it's always a balancing act between weapon weight, weapon power, drive power, and armor. The vast majority of people who use Ti use off-the-shelf plate or sheet, typically just bolted on to armor or reinforce the primary chassis.

Separate armor plates can be replaced easier than welded chassis components.

I'm not sure anyone's ever bothered to do a cost/benefit analysis between X amount of aluminum (of whatever alloy) and an equivalent weight of Titanium. But keeping in mind this is a combat situation, with more and more robots carrying extremely powerful active weapons- it's also possible that a weapon that might "dig in" to the relatively softer aluminum, would be more likely to 'glance off' the tougher Titanium.

(In the old bout years ago, between Nightmare [a vertical sawblade type spinner] and Warhead [a horizontal dome-type spinner], when the two met blade-to-blade, Warhead knocked one of Nightmare's two teeth off the wheel. Nightmare's wheel was thin aluminum plate, while Warhead's dome was something like 2" thick. Nighty's wheel simply couldn't handle the side force of Warhead's spin and the tooth snapped off- but it still left a gouge in the dome deep enough to stick a finger into. Would a Titanium dome have suffered as much damage? Would it have been worth it considering the size and weight? A Ti dome that size would likely have cost many thousands of dollars, and thousands more in machine time.)

Doc.

[RB211]

Easy. Ti is seen as tougher than aluminum, but lighter than steel. The robots have a hard weight limit, and it's always a balancing act between weapon weight, weapon power, drive power, and armor. The vast majority of people who use Ti use off-the-shelf plate or sheet, typically just bolted on to armor or reinforce the primary chassis.

Separate armor plates can be replaced easier than welded chassis components.

I'm not sure anyone's ever bothered to do a cost/benefit analysis between X amount of aluminum (of whatever alloy) and an equivalent weight of Titanium. But keeping in mind this is a combat situation, with more and more robots carrying extremely powerful active weapons- it's also possible that a weapon that might "dig in" to the relatively softer aluminum, would be more likely to 'glance off' the tougher Titanium.

(In the old bout years ago, between Nightmare [a vertical sawblade type spinner] and Warhead [a horizontal dome-type spinner], when the two met blade-to-blade, Warhead knocked one of Nightmare's two teeth off the wheel. Nightmare's wheel was thin aluminum plate, while Warhead's dome was something like 2" thick. Nighty's wheel simply couldn't handle the side force of Warhead's spin and the tooth snapped off- but it still left a gouge in the dome deep enough to stick a finger into. Would a Titanium dome have suffered as much damage? Would it have been worth it considering the size and weight? A Ti dome that size would likely have cost many thousands of dollars, and thousands more in machine time.)

Doc.

I think a Kevlar/CF/Aluminum composite dome would be better, and having reactive armor plates screwed in above it designed to absorb the initial impact and are sacrificial would be perfect.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

[Doc Nickel]

I think a Kevlar/CF/Aluminum composite dome would be better, and having reactive armor plates screwed in above it designed to absorb the initial impact and are sacrificial would be perfect.

-Well, first off, if you're referring to Warhead's "dome", keep in mind that was the robot's primary weapon. The dome was a spinning flywheel with two teeth on the rim. A lightweight carbon-fiber dome wouldn't pack the same inertia/energy.

Second, properly layering and bonding CF and aluminum is tricky and expensive. Getting back to the cost-to-benefit ratio, is the cost, effort and time involved in making the CF part worth the weight savings? In my opinion, for a non-flying machine, where a certain amount of weight (and therefore traction) is beneficial, the cost of CF isn't justifiable.

As for 'reactive' armor, I'm assuming you mean "ablative", not "reactive" as in explosive, as used on main battle tanks. Lots of competitors use replaceable armor plates, where the actual shell/armor is separate from the actual chassis of the 'bot. And more than one competitor has used actual ablative armor-designed to be peeled away in a hit to protect the chassis.

The problem with that is, unless the bout ends with a "knockout"- the bot being rendered immobile/unable to compete- it goes down to a judge's decision. And one of the parameters the judges use is damage inflicted on an opponent- which would include pieces of ablative armor peeled off and scattered about the box.

It's generally seen as better to build actual resistant armor- or better yet to design the chassis so the frame IS the armor and vice-versa.

Doc.

[A.K. Boomer]

I miss battlebots used to like to watch them but as far as it being on the airwave channels they are no more,,,

as far as titanium being used in them - like Doc stated if your running heavy in certain area's and you have to keep the weight down to meet the limits AND you still have to keep the strength UP in area's you plan on lightening up then TI would be a good choice IF you have the money to throw at it,

It is amazing material and from just a cycling viewpoint it's more than just light weight/high strength,,, it's also extremely fatigue resistant while being extra flexible,,, for a metal I don't think there's anything comparable,

for decades certain companies have been building "softail" mountain bike frames out of titanium that do not even use a frame pivot bearing, that's incredible - your talking millions of repetitions without failure's so in this respect it is a "super metal"

lot's of people think titanium just has two superior qualities that separates it from the pack, not so - there's at least 4, strong/light weight/fatigue resistance/ and corrosion resistance, does sound familiar when you compare it to one other structural super material --- carbon fiber, although with titanium you can also add "durability" well over that of carbon fiber...

I love ti, and for certain app's there simply is no equal...

[old mart]

It has a toughness which makes it good for amour plate, but it isn't as strong as modern high tensile bolts. I have lots of new titanium studs at the museum which were used to hold Westland Lynx gearbox castings together. They were retrofitted with steel as the titanium was not up to the job.
For a premium price, there were titanium springs to replace steel in rear bicycle shocks.

[CalM]

I used to work heavy jets.

Direction was, if a threaded fastener was removed from the air frame (and was not a special) to replace it with titainium fastener. The weight saving would pay for the change in fuel used.

And we are taking Ti ALLOY! pure Ti is no good for anything, like pure alu.

Ti.... half as heavy as steel, twice as strong as alu.

And you can quote me! ;-)

[wierdscience]

The order of progression at work is -

Strong but cheap,no weight restrictions=steel
Strong but cheap,with weight restrictions and no heat restrictions=aluminum
Strong but cheap,with weight and heat restrictions= stainless
Titanium=unicorn metal,you really gotta have a specific need for it.

[MattiJ]

it's also extremely fatigue resistant while being extra flexible,,, for a metal I don't think there's anything comparable,

"flexibility" is good point. Titanium has low elastic modulus or Young's modulus (only about 50% of steel) and strength comparable to many steels.
Low elastic modulus makes it more "rubbery" so it can absorb higher impact energy.

Would suck as a machine tool building material other than springs tho..

[Alan Smith]

Biocompatibility is another good feature of Ti alloys. So great for bone plates and screws as bone tissue will happily grow around Ti. If stainless steel bone screws are exposed to bending stresses will work Harden and fracture Ti screw much less tendency to do this.

[shampine1]

Parts where you want a lot of.motion while keeping stress down... Titanium flex joint was a code for "big pipe that flexed like crazy"
Chemical resistance, at least for certain things.
Pretty high strength to weight ratio, especially for the higher strength alloys.
Non-magnetic and pretty strong.
Making showers of.purple sparks when you bead blast.
Eating cutting tools.

And, lest we not forget,.sex appeal ;-)

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

[RB211]

"flexibility" is good point. Titanium has low elastic modulus or Young's modulus (only about 50% of steel) and strength comparable to many steels.
Low elastic modulus makes it more "rubbery" so it can absorb higher impact energy.

Would suck as a machine tool building material other than springs tho..

So much for selling $500 titanium boring bars!

[old mart]

It is one of the few metals which can be used within the human body and not cause a reaction. My knee joint, however is cobalt chrome, perhaps titanium is not so good with low friction moving joints.