I want to get a bike for training, one or two time trials a year (in triathlons), and working up to century rides.

A recent New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/fashion/19fitness.html) states that “The difference between a $500 bike and a $1,500 bike is huge ... the difference between a $1,500 bike and an $8,000 bike is very small.”

Do you all agree with that? Should I be looking for a carbon fiber frame?

Larry

Should I be looking for a carbon fiber frame?

Larry

Carbon does give you a pretty sweet ride but it depends on your experience and what you have to compare it to.

I agree with the statement to a point. There is are diminishing returns as you spend more and more. You can spend an extra $500 to get better running gear, frame, etc. on a lower-end bike and really feel it. That same $500 to upgrade from a $3000 bike might buy you a few ounces of a lighter bike and some technology that most of us riders can't feel. In my riding group there are 4 brand new Trek Madone 6.9s at $7400. They each have had much more trouble with their bikes than my $2000 Giant.

My friend just bought an $1100 bike. Aluminum with CF forks. He could use a better gruppo, but it will be good for him for a starter bike. I think you can find a used or last year's model (the new ones will be out soon) carbon bike in the $1500 range. Remember: If you don't already have stuff, you can easily spend another $500 on pedals, shorts, computer, jerseys, shoes, helmet, gloves, pump, GU, etc.

. . . . . but it's all worth it! :thumb:

There is definitely a law of diminishing returns with bicycles. I haven't shopped for one recently, so I am not sure where the current inflection point is price-wise. You should be looking for good, reliable componentry- maybe Shimano 105 or Campy Centaur- when you go above this level, you get lighter weight and more high-zoot cred, but no functional differences. The same goes for frames. It kind of depends what you want. You can get a Trek or Specialized carbon frame, for example, spec-ed with reasonable components at a reasonable price. Many people feel that its most important to get the frame that you really want and, if necessary, to go a bit light on the components. You can always upgrade your components later.

Joel

You can get a very nice bike made from a choice of good materials for $1500.

I'd make the comparisons like this: from $700 - $2000 it's huge, from $2000 on up not so huge. (And in 2009 those numbers may change!)

Carbon does give you a pretty sweet ride but it depends on your experience and what you have to compare it to.

I've been riding an old steel frame Raleigh Competiton with Campy components for about 40 years.

To calibrate me -- yesterday I did a 13 mile ride with a 3500 foot climb (abuot 5%) and was pooped when I got to the peak.

Your Raleigh Competition is a keeper. But compared with today's bikes, you will enjoy the lighter bikes with the shifting at your finger tips. Most Century rides will have some climbs and some. The carbon bikes with proper gearing will let you fly.

But you might have to be ready to make changes. Your Raleigh is a 10 speed? Today's double will be 20 speeds. You most likely have a sense of good pedal stroke. The 20 speed and light frame allow you to devleop a higher cadence. That will change the way you do climbs.

As noted above, there definitely are diminishing returns as you get more expensive (as in anything - cameras, cars, tv's, etc.).

However, as many others have noted there is some "de-contenting" going on -- apparently all the bike makers are getting hit with cost increases from Asian suppliers and a number of 2008 bikes came out with slightly downgraded equipment packages vs. 2007, and we could see the same in 2009. (On the other hand, today's mid-range group works better than high-end stuff from 10 years ago).

So maybe $2000 is the new $1500? In any case, $1500 to $2500 buys a lot of bike. $5000 is definitely nicer but not 2x nicer.

BTW, the real sweet spot in this price range is used. If you live in a city where there are lots of enthusiasts the *used* bikes you can get for around $1500 are pretty terrific....folks get into $4k or $5k bikes, and either never ride them much (and put them up for sale a couple of years later) or continue upgrading (and thus release a great 2-year-old bike to the market).

In my riding group there are 4 brand new Trek Madone 6.9s at $7400. They each have had much more trouble with their bikes than my $2000 Giant. :thumb:

I've seen ads for Trek and other brands on Tour de France commercials. What do you think of the lesser known brands -- like those carried by REI and Performance Bike?

What do you think of the lesser known brands -- like those carried by REI and Performance Bike?

Good value for money.

You give up the "prestige" of a nationally branded bike, you get more bike for your money. Both REI and Performance have frequent sales. You should study their prices carefully -- my impression is that REI charges very fair prices for their bikes and then has good sales 2x or 3x per year (they have a 20%-off-any-one-item sale in the spring and fall, and then an anniversary sale). Performance, on the other hand, puts *outrageous* "list" prices on their bikes and then has them on "sale" virtually all the time....just make sure you never buy anything from Performance when it isn't "on sale."

REI has a *stellar* return policy...I met someone the other day who got a full-price exchange after using his bike for a year (some disc brake issues).

If you are interested in "value for money" (and if you are handy with a wrench, and willing to deal with some possibly balky customer service issues), you should also check out www.bikesdirect.com (http://www.bikesdirect.com). Be aware that bikesdirect has a somewhat "controversial" reputation around BikeForums, go to Google and do "site:bikeforums.net bikesdirect" and read up. One strategy is to buy their $2,000 Motobecane, right the daylights out of it, and buy a better frame down the road, transferring the parts over from the Motobecane.

I've seen ads for Trek and other brands on Tour de France commercials. What do you think of the lesser known brands -- like those carried by REI and Performance Bike?

I think if you start hitting the LBS next month or the month after, you can get a nice CF bike and beat REI as well. I know, I did last Oct.:D

Does spending over $1,500 make a noticeable difference?


It will make you lighter!

You might want to take a look at what 1300 will buy at "Colorado Cyclist" in the way of a Douglas Fusion.

I have one friend who has the Performance Bike house brand. He seems to like it. The $1100 bike mentioned in my previous post is REI's Novarro brand. Too early to tell. I agree that a good used bike may give you more bang for your buck.

You might want to take a look at what 1300 will buy at "Colorado Cyclist" in the way of a Douglas Fusion.

I've noticed those as well.

I suspect someone who really knows all these frames would point out that 2 or 3 factories are making the frames for Douglas, BikesDirect, Novara, Performance, etc....there are some other brands around like Neuvation and Pedal Force doing a similar thing.

And for Asian-sourced Titanium, there is also Habanero, which look like a great deal to me (around $1,000 for the frame).

Slight difference in the currency over here but $1500 to $2,000 and you would get a better group set- better wheels and the components would be better. $2,000 to $3,000 and Top of the range group set- Good wheels- far better components and a lb or so lighter.

Standard of bike from $500 to $1500 would be phenominal. $1500 to $2000 and it would be felt but above that- It would be hard for a Newcomer to feel the difference- untill experience went up and the size of your wallet.

I'd make the comparisons like this: from $700 - $2000 it's huge, from $2000 on up not so huge. (And in 2009 those numbers may change!)

+1, DG's estimates are more in line with what I found when looking for a new bike. Yeah, I found a full carbon frame bike with all 105 equipment for $1500, but it's a 2006 leftover that the shop just never found a buyer for.
PS, Now they have a buyer:D.

My riding buddy bought a Trek 1000 last year to replace his old Cannondale, I bought a Specialized Tarmac. We are closely matched.

Well, if you get a really cheap bike, you notice the improvements of more expensive bikes very quickly.

However, once one gets into an entry level road bike - at about the Shimano 105 level, you do not get that much more performance beyond that. Sure you get snazzy paint jobs, neat looking frames, elegant components and eye popping wheels. But it really does not make that much difference on the road.

A few years back, I rode with a fast bunch of riders routinely. The guy on the cheapest bike in the bunch was the strongest rider. Having a lighter bike, smoother components and a snappy paint job just does not beat a strong heart, lungs and legs.

Now a lighter bike makes a small difference on an extended climb. So that is why you see riders on the Tour de France on the light bikes. They have already lost all the weight they feasibly can. Losing another lb or 2 on the bike will shave some seconds off of their time and that is cheap compared to the cost of paying and feeding a pro athelete.

It is funny seeing a recreational rider who is 20, 30 or 40 lbs over weight riding a very light bike. Who do you think they are fooling?

I have a friend who is a competitive triathlete. He is now placing so highly in these races that shaving off a few seconds will make a difference in his scores. So he is saving up for a very expensive tri bike with some fancy tri wheels for his 50th birthday. So for him, the extra money does = a noticeable difference.

I've seen ads for Trek and other brands on Tour de France commercials. What do you think of the lesser known brands -- like those carried by REI and Performance Bike?

I haven't taken a good look at Performance bikes, but i live near an REI ... I think the component quality is usually not that good. You can train on anythign that rolls well, functions well, and fits you, but A, you have a really really good one of those, and B, you want to compete, too. I just see a lot of mid- to lower grade parts on REI bikes, plus they seem to be oriented toward touring, comfort, hybrid, or CX, rather than a road sport bike or a competition-oriented bike, much less something more specialized like a tri bike.

I haven't taken a good look at Performance bikes, but i live near an REI ... I think the component quality is usually not that good. You can train on anythign that rolls well, functions well, and fits you, but A, you have a really really good one of those, and B, you want to compete, too. I just see a lot of mid- to lower grade parts on REI bikes, plus they seem to be oriented toward touring, comfort, hybrid, or CX, rather than a road sport bike or a competition-oriented bike, much less something more specialized like a tri bike.

I was thinking of this...not a Tri bike, but not a bad bike for $2000 (and 20% off this Fall during their sale).

http://www.rei.com/product/763768

I have a friend who is a competitive triathlete. He is now placing so highly in these races that shaving off a few seconds will make a difference in his scores.

For sure, but I am not a high-placing competitor -- a few seconds over, say, 10k is of little interest to me. A few minutes over 10k or a few miles per hour on a long ride would be a different story :-).

Larry

I find the differences are in the subtle things that become evident after long miles, at high speed, and at high power output. Even then, I don't know that the actual gain in performance would be enough for the incredibly large majority of cyclists to care. The feel. That's the ticket.

What's the difference between my wife's Tarmac (there's a bargain) set with DA and my Wilier carbon, also set with DA? Hers is stiffer I think. Mine simply has that feel. I think we're each only slightly over $1500 through careful eBay buying and stripping of this and that. The Wilier frame is a more expensive job, think it listed at $2600. With DA, what would that make it? A $4500 list?

I have a Tiagra bike, too. It shifts just as well, everything works just as well at low power and low shift speed. Feel is pretty good. Handling is good, too. Just good. When I pump up the speed and start really pushing, I don't have anywhere near the road feel, And the shifts get a little annoying. Brakes aren't as clear to work, find I'm hanging back from entering corners hard. I really have to start working earlier in the power band, thinking and compensating for the bike. It ends up being distinctly slower and lots less fun.

On the other hand, my Wilier is simply no fun to ride slowly, or even moderately. It likes to be hammered, run as hard as feasible, run through corners leaned way over. If I dump it, I'll probably do it by going off the inside of a hard corner through an overhard correction. That wouldn't be the problem with my other bikes.

High power, lots of focus, fast cornering, real adrenaline pumping stuff and the performance / excitement jump is clearly there. Great handling instead of excellent. Fast secure shifts. Subtle braking. Great road feel. But at even 70% of that power level, the differences aren't all that clear!

I was thinking of this...not a Tri bike, but not a bad bike for $2000 (and 20% off this Fall during their sale).

http://www.rei.com/product/763768

I had also noticed that bike on their Web site. They also give a discount to members -- perhaps not on sale items.

From reading this thread, the idea of going to my LBS and asking for something with a carbon fiber frame and Shimano 105 components seems like it might be a good approach too.

If the New York Times article I cited at the start of the thread is accurate, those might be somewhat equivalent.

You'd do well to shop during the off-season of course.
Is there an off-season in California?

Anyway the extra bucks will take pounds off the bike.
When you're doing a steep climb you'll be patting yourself on the back for knocking those pounds off.
I made the mistake of buying what I thought was the ultimate bike for me.
Specialized Sequia Elite....alum frame, carbon forks, seat post, etc. for $1000.
One year later I've upgraded the wheelset and brakes at a cost of about $850.
As my cycling becomes more intense I'm looking to get a carbon frame and better components.
So get it all at the get-go instead of piece by piece.

If we weren't talking in a 50+ forum, I'd say all the above makes little difference.
But at my age (60) I look for every bit of advantage I can get.

Just my opion.

For sure, but I am not a high-placing competitor -- a few seconds over, say, 10k is of little interest to me. A few minutes over 10k or a few miles per hour on a long ride would be a different story :-).

Larry

:)

To me there is great value to be had from the "second tier" bike cos. Jamis, Felt, Masi, GT etc.

So get it all at the get-go instead of piece by piece.

Nice in theory, but many of us upgrade something no matter where we start. It's not because we need to, it's because we can.

I want to get a bike for training, one or two time trials a year (in triathlons), and working up to century rides.

A recent New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/fashion/19fitness.html) states that “The difference between a $500 bike and a $1,500 bike is huge ... the difference between a $1,500 bike and an $8,000 bike is very small.”

Do you all agree with that? Should I be looking for a carbon fiber frame?

Larry

Do you all agree with that? No question in my mind. Go to about $2,000 for a Full Carbon and it gets even better

Should I be looking for a carbon fiber frame? Yes. I tried to save some money. But, full carbon didn't beat up my body like everything else. Worth every penny.

if you spend 1500 on a brand new stock complete bike....probably not that much difference. if you spend 1500 and build it yourself with the frame and each component to match your needs....huge difference. i spent about that much with a mix of new and used components and i ended up with a Ti litespeed with boutique high end components. a lot of stock bikes will rip you off with cheap components on a nice frame. i say take the time, do the research and build the bike that matches everything you want to do with it...

as far as carbon goes, its a huge investment for a material that can crack in a minor wreck. and once you have a small crack, its unridable. you would be much better off with aluminum, titanium, or steel....

as far as carbon goes, its a huge investment for a material that can crack in a minor wreck. and once you have a small crack, its unridable. you would be much better off with aluminum, titanium, or steel....

Steel bends in minor curb wrecks. I've done it several times. Repair involves removing tubes and replacing them - quite expensive. I retubed my old road bike twice after wrecks. Not fun. Probably not economically viable these days to retube. Can straighten minor stuff, at least on the older tubes. Don't know about new tubesets.

Aluminum - once it cracks, doesn't seem to be suitable for repairing. I see more cracked aluminum than any other failure. Takes welding, machining, then heat treating. The common problem seems to be head tube failure. Several of these have popped up. Fortunately the frames are cheap. A few with flaws to begin with, mostly cracks from impact show up.

Titanium - seems to be doing very well in the failure area. I used to see Teledynes with failures, but haven't seen anything failed forever. repairable? Don't know if this is economic.

Carbon - I don't see these failing particularly much except in impacts that would damage other materials as well. Seems to be the material of choice for performance riders not known for putting up with bad stuff. Repairs reported here and on other fora seem surprisingly inexpensive. Makes sense - cold process so only a small area needs repainting.


Seems to be an anti-carbon bias. I see carbon frames with incredible amounts of miles doing fine. I see rusted out steel. Doesn't make much difference to me - I have AL, multi-material, steel, and carbon bikes in the stable here. The carbon bikes are the highest performance hands down. I presume they need some care, as do most things that are light. That a cellphone isn't waterproof doesn't mean it isn't useful! Have to look at the intended use etc.

There is not a "best" material for bicycle frames. Excellent bikes are made for many purposes of many materials. The qualities of one frame of a given material may not be the same as another. Good design and manufacturing are a big factor with any material.

Most of the industry focus these days is on carbon fiber frames and so that is where most of the new models and ideas are appearing. Because of economies of scale, this should help keep the cost of CF frames down, especially for the large mass producers.

But there are still some great bikes and great values out there of other materials. Steel, aluminum, titanium, scandium and other materials are still viable materials and you can find great bikes for many purposes made from any of them.

What will be the optimum bike for a given person for a given purpose depends on many factors, not the least of which is personal preference. I say try everything you can find and see what turns on your light. The goal is not to find the "best" bike, but to find the bike that best suits your individual needs, preferences, prejudices and purposes.

as far as carbon goes, its a huge investment for a material that can crack in a minor wreck. and once you have a small crack, its unridable. you would be much better off with aluminum, titanium, or steel....

It normally takes more than a minor wreck to damage the carbon fiber. I've crashed mine a couple times and even tried running over it once:o Each time I've had it checked at the LBS.

if you spend 1500 on a brand new stock complete bike....probably not that much difference. if you spend 1500 and build it yourself with the frame and each component to match your needs....huge difference. i spent about that much with a mix of new and used components and i ended up with a Ti litespeed with boutique high end components. a lot of stock bikes will rip you off with cheap components on a nice frame. i say take the time, do the research and build the bike that matches everything you want to do with it...

as far as carbon goes, its a huge investment for a material that can crack in a minor wreck. and once you have a small crack, its unridable. you would be much better off with aluminum, titanium, or steel....

They must sell a heck of a lot of CF mountain bikes, if that's the case.

well they dont sell a lot of CF mountain bikes, thats why it makes sense. any material can be made strong but carbon will crack or snap, and aluminum or steel will dent or bend. i truly believe carbon will not hold up as well as the other 2 in accidents. also replacing tubes on steel IS expensive but replacing the whole frame is NOT, as with aluminum. honestly a steel frame is more likely to outlast you before it bends, dents, or becomes a problem from rust. i do not have anything against CF, i just think its best left to pro and am racers that are either sponsered with the frames or people that just have money to burn. its just simply not going to be as durable or safe as other materials....

Do you have any statistics to support your "feelings"? Carbon fiber frames have been around long enough now that there should be a boatload of warranty claims if the frames are as fragile as you suggest.

I see a bike as a tool of sorts. I always buy the best tool I can afford.... this usually means more money. Will a $1,500 bike do the job? Yes. All things being equal, is it capable of doing the job as well as a top end bike? No. I tell friends, family, and neighbors to buy the best bike they can afford.

I want to get a bike for training, one or two time trials a year (in triathlons), and working up to century rides.

A recent New York Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/fashion/19fitness.html) states that “The difference between a $500 bike and a $1,500 bike is huge ... the difference between a $1,500 bike and an $8,000 bike is very small.”

Do you all agree with that? Should I be looking for a carbon fiber frame?

Larry


If I remember correctly, the NY times articles was based on opinions of some cyclists the author had interviewed.

I don't think the material is all that important as long as it's not aluminum. Aluminum is too harsh riding for a road bike. They try to mitigate that with carbon seat stays, but it's only a partial "fix". That leaves titanium, carbon and possibly steel. I went with ti as I like a livelier feeling bike. How a bike actually feels though is also dependent on the tube designs and lay-up for the carbon.

With the inflation in bike parts over the last several years, I'd get closer to $2000 for a minimum. A few years ago, I built a ti bike. Nothing really fancy, but it went to $3000. There's nothing I'd give up to cheapen it. It's a joy to ride as is my $3000 (invested over 4 years) mountain bike.

IMO, $2500 to $2800 is the "sweat spot". Last year I built a mountain bike for my wife. Total was $2800. It probably does cost more to build a bike, but I got discounts for the parts except the frame. In the long run, it might not really cost more to build your own as you get the bike you really want right away and don't spend money replacing parts unless they wear or break.

Al

Well, granted that different materials may be better for different jobs. But, carbon fibre has been around so long in so many varied uses that it has proven itself. As I posted I bought carbon for one reason; Comfort at a reasonable price.

Looking at how the fibre is made and turned into a bike showed me that it was no weaker than, and maybe stronger than, most any other material in current use at a reasonable price.

I am making one assumption: That if the OP had enough experience and knowledge to build his own bike he wouldn't be asking the question; he'd be building a bike. So, in this context DIY is not an option.

My advise is to buy the cheapest full carbon bike you can find. You ought to be able to find one for somewhere in the $2K range unless you find a "special".

Yes, you will notice a difference!
Lighter bike, lighter wallet!
Your choice . . . or are you gonna wait til you get older or too old?

OK - I'll jumo in. I have two road bikes. One I bought about 15 years ago - a steel bike (Simoncini), columbus SLX tubing nickle plated - doesn't rust - been through three wreck with no damage and rides like a dream. I found the frame used in a bike shop for $150 and through another $1000 at it to make it a great bike. About 2 years ago I upgraded wheels for $300 (Mavic Ksyrium Equipe) and that's been it. Last fall to celebrate a 20lb weight loss and great improvements in ability I bought a Specialized Tarmac - 5 lbs lighter than my Simoncini. I immediately upgraded the wheels for $450 - Easton Orion 2 (lighter and better wheels than on the Simoncini).

For the first few months of riding the Tarmac was the same speed as the Simoncini on my 15 mile training ride (has two steep but short hills). After the Specialized got broken in - and this took awhile it got a little faster on these shorter rides. But on the long rides (over 40 miles) I prefer the Simoncini and actually think I am faster on it on longer rides. It is too hard to measure this accurately but I find myself spending more time stretching on the Tarmac and I seem to get fatigued a bit faster - it is a slightly stiffer ride (not harsh but a bit more vibration that builds up with time).

My advice - get a bike that feels comfortable ride. Try it for as long a ride as you can, a few laps in the parking lot will only tell you if you hate a bike, not if it is right for you. That takes a long time.
Price will set the components that you get - and it's easy to spec a good group. My steel bike has campy Veloce which is probably like Shimano 105 for performance and the Tarmac has Ultegra. The Simoncini is scheduled for a Chorus Carbon upgrade which in itself will run about $1200.

I see a bike as a tool of sorts. I always buy the best tool I can afford.... this usually means more money. Will a $1,500 bike do the job? Yes. All things being equal, is it capable of doing the job as well as a top end bike? No. I tell friends, family, and neighbors to buy the best bike they can afford.

Good advice. (but my bikes hate you for the insensitive first statement. :mad:)

If you spend what you can afford, you'll have a good bike and not feel like you sold yourself short. For some people, there is little advantage to a $1200 bike over a $300 used bike. To others there is a big difference between a $4000 bike and a $5000 bike. It has more to do with your economic situation and your expectations than with the qualities of the bike.

The level of bikes ridden by the people you expect to ride with can matter too. If your riding partners are on custom titanium bikes with Campy Record and super fancy wheels, your perfectly good $800 aluminum bike with Tiagra will seem like a leper, but if you ride with people on $400 comfort bikes, the same bike might seem excessive.

The idea that you can't get a very good bike for less than $2000 is as ridiculous as the idea that bikes made of any given material are no good. It all depends on what you want and what you can afford (and are willing) to spend.

Steel bends in minor curb wrecks. I've done it several times. Repair involves removing tubes and replacing them - quite expensive. I retubed my old road bike twice after wrecks. Not fun. Probably not economically viable these days to retube. Can straighten minor stuff, at least on the older tubes. Don't know about new tubesets.

Aluminum - once it cracks, doesn't seem to be suitable for repairing. I see more cracked aluminum than any other failure. Takes welding, machining, then heat treating. The common problem seems to be head tube failure. Several of these have popped up. Fortunately the frames are cheap. A few with flaws to begin with, mostly cracks from impact show up.

Titanium - seems to be doing very well in the failure area. I used to see Teledynes with failures, but haven't seen anything failed forever. repairable? Don't know if this is economic.

Carbon - I don't see these failing particularly much except in impacts that would damage other materials as well. Seems to be the material of choice for performance riders not known for putting up with bad stuff. Repairs reported here and on other fora seem surprisingly inexpensive. Makes sense - cold process so only a small area needs repainting.


Seems to be an anti-carbon bias. I see carbon frames with incredible amounts of miles doing fine. I see rusted out steel. Doesn't make much difference to me - I have AL, multi-material, steel, and carbon bikes in the stable here. The carbon bikes are the highest performance hands down. I presume they need some care, as do most things that are light. That a cellphone isn't waterproof doesn't mean it isn't useful! Have to look at the intended use etc.

Nice comparisons there... but take it one further... most of the "wrecks" you were using as an example are catastrophic in nature... but how about average wear and tear... ever drop your bike, or go down on a bad turn? How much of that sort of thing can the CF bike take? What will prolonged exposure to sunlight do to the CF bike? I think this is the area where the metals tend to fare better. Oh sure the steel can rust, and the Al can corrode, but how about that Ti bike... I have a feeling it's gonna outlast the rider.

The finish over modern carbon blocks UV. I don't see a problem there. Average wear and tear - very little on any of my bikes. My 1974 steel bike is a bit beat, but only from 2 wrecks long ago. Needs a repaint. My Paramount has never been dropped, has a few scratches after almost 20 years. My Wayzata has never been down. My Wilier has never been down. My Gemini tandem has never been down. My wife dropped the Santana once, no damage. So regular wear and tear doesn't do beans to my frames. We just generally don't drop bikes, or crash cars, or any of that.

Hitting a curb, or running off the road, etc aren't catastrophic. Getting the bike run over or hitting another cyclist at 40 mph are catastrophic - I've had both of those things happen. The bike is expendible under those circumstances.

But that misses the point - what is a carbon bike for? It's generally for going fast. Go fast things are allowed to be more delicate. In cars, planes, bikes, boats, whatever. They compromise some things for speed and performance. Everything is a compromise.

Metal likely fares better in lifespan left in the yard in the sun. That's not what bikes are for.

I expect that my Wilier will last as long as I need it to. Even with say a 10 year lifespan, that's plenty. At $600 for the frame - yeah, that's a good deal. I ride pretty much every day. Seems I've torn through one chain on it already, so I must be putting on miles.

Bikes aren't all built to last forever. They do get obsolete. Not that they don't function. But my 1974 bike is so obsolete I don't use it. My newer Paramount is just barely not obsolete, and I no longer like its geometry, so it's likely to hit the road in someone else's hands soon (need a Paramount?).

There's use to consider, too. My carbon go fast bike simply does that. Goes fast. Maybe some light touring. It doesn't get used to haul groceries, carry building supplies, run on mountain trails and the like. My brother's Lotus didn't get used for hauling groceries, either. For a grocery/commuting/touring bike, I'll still to something I can clamp things on. AL or steel or whatever. Different use, different geometry, different material.

I'm at core a fancy lugged steel guy, not an apologist for carbon. Carbon is simply better. Period. For that high performance niche. Had a conversation along those lines with a good rider the other day, who was surprised to see me on the dark side. This isn't a normal club rider or anything, but rather someone folks here would recognize. He's all carbon all the time, and he's right. For that performance end of things. I spent many years riding the top steel bikes, and this carbon production model beats the living daylights out of all of them in road feel, acceleration, compliance allowing grip on the road, etc. In all performance ways, better.

And carbon is fixable without brazing. That's the ticket! Ship it off and have it fixed.

And they're cheap on eBay. Tarmac frame under $600 for my wife's ride. Nice nice bike.

I still need a steel commuter. I need to clamp junk to it! But it will be slow.

Really, its simply performance. Paramount. Ride it. Run hard. Drive hard through corners. Then the carbon Wilier. Same ride. Distinctly faster and more secure, more snap, faster climbing, better stick in the corners. And the Wilier will be better with slightly more compliant wheels I'm building up - it's a little chattery in the front end from the radial pattern on the rough stuff.

I worry not one iota about the UV, the exploding carbon, etc. I don't have the ultra ultra light. That's always failed, in steel or AL or Ti or Carbon. The lightest lightest things die. I've got an AL steerer that I trust.

Carbon and good design = performance under high power and high speed. Check out the pro pelotons lately? Steel = reliable performance under rough conditions and carrying weight. Different uses.

It normally takes more than a minor wreck to damage the carbon fiber. I've crashed mine a couple times and even tried running over it once:o Each time I've had it checked at the LBS.

My experience is similar. An SUV ran head on into me (he decided to drive on the wrong side of the road right before turning left). My aluminum bike frame completely broke in about 6 places but the carbon fiber forks looked fine. I never rode them again but they looked OK. They certainly were in one piece and that was more than could be said for the frame.

If I remember correctly, the NY times articles was based on opinions of some cyclists the author had interviewed.

I don't think the material is all that important as long as it's not aluminum. Aluminum is too harsh riding for a road bike. They try to mitigate that with carbon seat stays, but it's only a partial "fix". That leaves titanium, carbon and possibly steel. I went with ti as I like a livelier feeling bike. How a bike actually feels though is also dependent on the tube designs and lay-up for the carbon.

With the inflation in bike parts over the last several years, I'd get closer to $2000 for a minimum. A few years ago, I built a ti bike. Nothing really fancy, but it went to $3000. There's nothing I'd give up to cheapen it. It's a joy to ride as is my $3000 (invested over 4 years) mountain bike.


Al


Have to admit that the Boreas frame is out of this price range as a Bare Frame and forks- But Aluminium can give an exceptionally good ride. In fact it does ride better than the TCR-C on the comfort and performance stakes- And C.F can be so overbuilt- it could be too stiff to ride-

And after an Aluminium hardtail Mountain bike- The Giant OCR 3 was a good comfy ride- Overbuilt CF forks and alloy seat stem on that aswell. Depends on how much jarring the body can take. In fact- I had a problem with the TCR-C bike when I got it built up in that it was too harsh on the front end over stutter bumps on the road. Got it sorted eventually but if I want a good ride- I take Boreas.



http://www.giant-bicycles.com/en-US/bikes/road/1319/29444/

http://www.boreas-bikes.dk/pages/ignis.html

All you experts make me wish I still had my old Raleigh Record from the early 70's. All steel, plain jane Huret Allvit derailleur. I probably had more fun and rode more miles with that bike than any of the fancier ones I've had since. Bikes are like cameras. Once you get into photography and you start reading the magazines or the forums, you just gotta have that latest Nikon or Canon pro SLR (DSLR nowadays, I guess) and nothing less will do, even though there isn't very much difference in the pictures you can take with an entry-level SLR as opposed to the very latest pro models. Bicycles are like that too.

If I remember correctly, the NY times articles was based on opinions of some cyclists the author had interviewed.

It was a quote from Jonathan Vaughters, the manager of the Garmin/Chipotle racing team. (You can follow the link in my post to the article).