John said: 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.
John, If you don't want to get caught up in old arguments (how old could arguments about CF parts be?) don't shoot your mouth off perpetuating folklore without being willing to back it up with facts. Those who follow CR know that pros took DECADES to accept the derailleur, and the alloy crank, so an averson to CF among pros says zero to me about the basic reliability of composite parts.
John said: I also read a snippet in Velo News last spring,
John, A snippet? Wow, sounds like exactly the solid data that I was looking for to support your indictment of modern gear and CF in particular. Thanks a million. We're all better off knowing about this VN snippet.
John said: ... the 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.
John, So one ex pro with a suspect capacity for reason says one thing in VN about the handling qualities of deep section CF rims on cobbles and suddenly all CF parts are suspect? Seriously?
By the way, do you think all those guys who chose wheels like that are just idiots? Do you think maybe they were accepting a tradeoff of handling for speed?
John said: 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.
John, I never said you should ride a 15 pound bike. Note that you're talking about a bike near (below?) the UCI minimum, and I think only the lightest pure climbers ride bikes near that limit. They weigh what, 125 pounds? I'd actually say that a guy your size is well outside the normal range for racing cyclists, so the normal equipment range is not where you should look. If vintage is working for you, great, but there are also modern offerings for bigger gents. That said, if you're a 200 pound guy who would weigh 165 pounds at racing weight, I wouldn't worry about breaking parts.
John said:
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,
Obviously this is because Post was the strongest cyclist ever????
Ummm...no. In fact, I'm sure that Peter was not even close. As much as bikes have improved, riders and their dope have improved far more. Odd, isn't it, that Moser or Hinault or Meeseuw, of Boonen doesn't hold his record. And what about Merckx? But get this, this will blow your mind: If you haven't noticed, the P-R course (yes, the route!), the surface conditions, the weather and the events of the race itself are different every year. The freeking bike Peter post was on was absolutley not the reason for his record average speed in THIS ONE RACE THIS ONE TIME. And have you notoed those two-way radios? Have you noticed their impact on race strategy... and average speed?
Look, the new bikes are not that mcuh better than the old ones. I absolutely never said they were. And they are certainly not "better in every way." Where did you get that? I said that they are stronger, stiffer and more reliable at a given weight. They are lighter at a given level of stiffness strength, and reliablity. CF is PART of the reason. Improved technology overall IS the reason. CF, as a material is INTRINSICALLY less prone to catastrophic failure than aluminum alloys, no matter what Musseuw says about the handling qualities of deep section CF wheels, no matter what Perter Post's average speed in one year of one race. Get over it, and for God's sake stop perpetuating baseless generalizations bout modern hardware. The CR crowd it too easy an audience, but those who really love race bikes see the beauty in the best offerings of all generations.
Tom Dalton Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA, 2008
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.
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.