Originally Posted by
PaulRivers
I don't agree, and I don't think anyone who regularly rides road bike on streets in any sort of conditions would agree either. The frames are sturdy, fine, and aren't going to break from anything short of going off several-foot high jumps and slamming onto the ground - even then the frame would probably be fine, it's the wheel that would bust. They're designed to be ridden on the road. They're also designed, as I mentioned, to handle the kind of forces that racers exert on them while pedaling full out - can you imagine the kind of force Lance Armstrong or whoever can generate while sprinting towards the finish line? Or screaming down the side of a mountain at 40-60mph? They're not "delicate flowers" who "have to be ridden in pristine conditions".
No one is suggesting that they "have to be ridden in pristine conditions" (a strawman argument).
Road bikes
are designed to sufficiently strong to ride on the road (
obviously).
That doesn't mean road frames are necessarily stronger than other frame types.
Cyclocross bike frames are not built much differently than standard road frames but cyclocross riders typically use much wider tires than road riders use. It would be interesting to see statistics on the frequency of frame damage in cyclocross races.
Non-suspension mountain bikes (from a few years ago) had much beefier frames than road frames (and wider/stronger wheels too). Such a frame would likely fair better for crashing into/over things, by design, than a road bike frame would, since such crashes are typical for mountain biking and not for road biking.
You indicated that "JeremyZ" (quoted below) was incorrect. But he isn't.
Originally Posted by
JeremyZ
The frames on road bikes are not going to be stronger, because they're not made to take impacts. They're made to be as light as possible and still do the job.