The comparisons made between modern materials and classic steel loses sight of a point which Jerry Moos made. CF bikes are intended to be the ultimate purpose built "racing" bikes and were made for a specific purpose. They were never intended as loaded touring bikes any more than you would ever expect to lash a luggage rack onto or tow a bass boat with a Formula One racing car... of any vintage.
If you criticize the short comings of CF design because they are not rugged enough for continuous fire road pounding beneath your fat cousin, you may as well complain about wooden toothpicks too. You can jam the sharpened point of a toothpick through your finger, but two fingers can easily snap one in two with lateral pressure. CF bikes are not intended for superior versatility under all conditions and if put to stresses for which they were never intended or designed.
I do not race and speed is increasingly unimportant to me. I ride my favorite bikes because of their comfort and relative versatility. I have no use for the benefits of CF construction and the inherent limitations. So, I
really do hate to sound like an "apologist" for modern technology. But, is there anything less suitable for smooth, fair weather road riding on modern CF racing bikes than there is for smooth road riding on short wheelbase high-end vintage Italian steel racing bikes with scant wheel clearances, high gearing, and a lack of fenders, racks and lighting? You might just as well whine about the shortcomings of vintage bikes as new ones - unless you legitimately limit their function to their intended design purposes.
This will likely piss off most people on this list, but I have to say I find it equally frivolous and limiting to ride most ANY dedicated race bike made during the past 30 or 40 years, regardless of construction materials. Likewise I would not buy a vintage Lotus or Porsche for anything more than brief, fast, occasional spins down winding roads, just as I would have little use for a current Ferrari for my daily utility jaunts to work or grocery shopping.
Yes, steel "can" be formed into extremely rugged bikes well suited to bouncing forever down unpaved roads. But, we are mainly comparing "racing" bikes here. I might deride CF bikes if they were presented as practical utility bikes with claims of longevity and strength under all conditions comparable to that of steel. But, this is simply not the case. They are designed primarily for lightness and stiffness with the ultimate goal of maximizing speed and they satisfy these intentions quite well.
Modern CF construction can be sleek streamlined and elegant in their overall form. I happen to prefer the aesthetics of older bikes with polished alloy components and lots of chrome. I can admire a $250,000 Ferrari for it's elegant form, but for an occasional fair weather ride I would simply prefer a less efficient (and also much cheaper) early 1960s Lotus Super Seven just for its nostalgic aesthetic appeal. I certainly would not consider either a good choice for bashing around off road or under conditions for which they were never intended.
Seems to me that we are simply griping about aesthetic preferences in this entire broad line of discussion. I prefer the looks of older racing bikes. Younger consumers may prefer the purposeful sleekness of modern bikes. Perhaps this is simply because of the marketing trends which effected them while they were growing up. Or maybe they really do like the superior function of current bikes within the limits of their intended designs.
Were Eddy Merckx racing today, guess what his choice would be. And, consider the practicality and reliability of his personally modified handlebars here:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/
BOB HANSON, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, USA
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money & Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)