Wouldn't it be a great idea? 

AeroSlave:

Wouldn't it be a great idea? 

Titanium is obsolete and dead. Why pay more for a metal that is no lighter than aluminum and not as strong as Carbon? Titanium was never meant to be rolled into tubes. Thats why most of the titanium companies are in big financial trouble. I would buy Aluminum over titanium but carbon rules both.

Redcorn:

Titanium was never meant to be rolled into tubes.

Neither was carbon, really, but despite it being averse to point pressure, technology and engineering ingenuity are helping to deliver some great solutions.

But I'm still not sure if I would invest my hard earned in a full carbon bike; Seeing that chap in the TdF snapping his frame clean in half... glad it was his bike and not him!

I think Titanium has its niche market.  Moots, Lynksey and Litespeed are doing well catering to the non-carbon herd.  Don't get me wrong, I like carbon but titanium is nice as well for me.

 I surely would like a Moots compact if it weren't inherently too expensive for my pocket. 

Titanium was nice back in the mid 90s when the only choices you had was steel, aluminum and titanium. I owned the Litespeed Liege and Vortex and both were very expensive not light and very flexible, I also owned the Colnago Titanium frame which was one of the worst bikes I have ever owned. Now that I have ridden carbon frames for the last 9 years I would never go back to that material. Carbon can be shaped better than Titanium. The new Litespeed Vortex is one of the most flexible frames on the market ask anyone that has ridden it, so what it weighs 790gms its stupid light and will make you slower. Most companies now have all carbon frames for a reason it works!

retzel:

A titanium soloist. That would be d@mn expensive

Thats my point why build a Cervelo out of titanium which will cost more than a carbon frame with a penalty in weight and stiffness. Its like going backwards in technology.

Clearly carbon is the state of the art for hi-performance road bikes (I have 2 including my P2 and am 100% sold on carbon for that type of riding), BUT... I've been very happy with my Litespeed Ti MTB and would hesitate to subject a carbon frame to the kind of abuse it has repeatedly taken on the trail.  If the cost were more reasonable, I'd also love to have a heavier-duty Ti road/touring frame for mixed paved/unpaved riding and/or foul-weather duty (lots of low-traffic logging roads around here for winter training to avoid major roads in poor driving conditions; my current "Frankenbike" is steel just because it's cheap, but the rust clock is ticking and it weighs a ton)... I don't see many carbon frames designed for that type of application, where you may want to add on fenders, or a rack, or rig extra mounts for lights, batteries, etc.

So, I believe Ti definitely still has a place and wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it entirely as a solid material choice for bikes, but I do agree that it would be poorly applied to something like a Soloist.  The problem these days as has been alluded to above is that the designs are too focused on weight, where the strength of Ti is in its durability, so the current market of superlight but noodly Ti frames is off-target.  You could add more material to make it stiffer and still have it be lighter than steel without having to worry about corrosion, and have better durability than Aluminum as well... but then I realize it's a small niche of folks like me who would pay that much for what amounts to an expensive "beater" even if it lasts forever.

^ yes,...my thoughts exactly....rouhg and tumble...no worries with Titanium...obsolete or not I like to have a Moots or a Lynksey on my stable....

Too flexy for me at 6'3". . .

Or if built up enough to not be flexy then it gets heavier than Al and for a tall guy bike that doesn't cost a ton, Al is hard to beat.