I'm not going to get caught up in this old argument, just suffice it to say that I keep reading about pro's that do not use CF bars, seatposts, etc. I also read a snippet in Velo News last spring, after a rash of crashes in the spring classics, in which Johan Musseuw was pointing the finger at carbon fiber wheels as being too stiff to safely handle the cobbles. And at 200 pounds, and riding poor quality roads on mountain passes, there is no way I would ride any 15 pound bike, no matter what vintage or material. And finally, if modern bikes are so clearly superior in every way, why does Peter Post's record for average speed still stand for Paris-Roubiax?
John Wood Red Lodge, Montana, USA
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> wrote:
> John Wood wrote.
>
> If anything, you could make the argument that older bikes (30's
> through the 90's) are more comfortable and safer, in that new
> hyper-specialized race bikes don't handle rough pavement as well, and the
> new superlight carbon fiber frames and parts are more likely to fail
> catastrophically.
> John,
>
> One could make that argument, but I'm not sure that one would use for
> actual facts to form the basis of that argument. I don't know af any soild
> data that indicates that newer "superlight" carbon parts fail more
> frequently than older racing parts. Comparing standard racing parts, which
> are now lighter and often made of CF, I would actually be surprised if
> catastrophic failures are more frequent. Comparing modern standard racing
> parts, stuff that is light, but not special-use superlight stuff, to vintage
> stuff of similar weight, which would have been special-use in its day, my
> SENSE is that the older stuff would have been more prone to failure in
> general and MUCH more prone to catastrophic failure. If nothing else, when
> CF fails, it is decidedly less likely for that failure to be catastrophic,
> when compared to an aluminum or titanium alloy. Nature of the beast.
>
> Consider a 2008 bike that weighs 19 pounds and a 1970's bike of the same
> weight. The former is oridnary while the later was superlight. Ordinary
> race bikes are not breaking left and right, in 2008, afaik. SL bikes from
> the 70's had issues. Ferrules pulling through rims, spindles cracking,
> freewheel bodies breaking. In 2008, compnies get sued into nonexistence for
> that sort of thing.
>
> Consider a modern SL bike at 15 or so pounds. Look at a bike from the
> 70's at that weight. Whould you seriously trust the later more than the
> former?
>
> Time marches on, techology changes. Composites aren't voodoo heaped upon
> an ignorant public. They a big reason that bikes are lighter at given level
> of performance and reliablilty then they were 30 years ago, and big reason
> that bikes are more reliable and better performing at a given weight than
> they were 30 years ago. Are modern CF bikes your cup of tea? I suspect
> not, and they aren't mine. Are modern riders equipment obsessed and making
> some bad choices, yes as always, perhaps moreso than ever. But giving CF a
> bad rap is just parroting the dubioius convenional wisdom, IMO. It reminds
> be of people belittling modren cars because of their thin body panels that
> are no match for that good old Detroit steel of the 50's... Ugh.
>
> Tom Dalton.
>
> ------------------------------
> Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51438/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>