Jim Merz wrote:
> I guess the key here is "not much heavier". A top pro frame now is around
> 1,000 gr. And is not fragile at all, when used as intended. Sure, it you hit
> it with a hammer you could put a hole in it. But how fragile would a 1,000
> gr. Steel frame be?
a carbon frame currently is aroudn 800-900, a nice steel frame would be
1200. In a crash you pull your metal frame from the bottom of the pile
and continue crying, with the carbon wonder you wait for the teamcar and
hope the mechanic picks up the bigger bits. No big deal for a pro,
pretty silly for a tourist
> The point is the carbon frame has a great ride and is
> stiff enough for a pro sprint finish. I know for a fact that you could not
> pay a top pro to ride a steel frame in the Tour.
All is takes is money, but as nobody is trying to push a big load of steel frames in the market nobody will be paying the pro's to sing the virtues of steel. The first frame Lance bought from his own money in 15? years was steel btw, and he strikes me as one of those rare cyclist you can't make believe everything ;) )
> Some of this is all their
> heads, but the difference between winning and second place is mostly in your
> head at their level of fitness. Current bikes are a wonder. This fact does
> not detract from what has been done in the past. Just as a P-51 Mustang
> fighter is a joy to look at and see fly, in is no match for a current
> fighter such as the mostly carbon F-22.
>
I think the comparison is valid. A f22 is just the ticket if you need to start ww3, but nobody flies one for fun with his own money. Not in 50 years either -- mvg
Marten Gerritsen
Kiel Windeweer
Netherlands