Originally Posted by
merlinextraligh
Actually, some newer carbon frames may well be more durable. Using different films, high modulus fibers, the right lay up of high and low modulus fibers, better resins, and better manufacturing processes, carbon fiber frames are getting better. Also frame builders are getting better at maximizing the qualities of CF in how they layup frames, the shape of the frames, where they add material and where they take it away.
For example Willier claims that the film they add to their frames increases resistance to impact damage by 17%, and yet the frame is lighter and stiffer than anything else they've ever made.
CF bike frames are far from a completely mature product, and they continue to get better.
I'm pretty sure if you asked Craig Calfee if his 2012 frames are better than his 2003 frames, he would say yes.
Doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with an 8 year old Calfee frame. It does mean you can get something as good or better (and with a warranty) for a fraction of what that Calfee frame cost in 2003.
Well, I partially agree with you in general except that the Calfee Tetra is a little different. You are right that most bikes are better built in 2012 than they were in 2003 but the Calfee Tetra is different. The Tetra is the longest produced bike frame being almost unchanged since 1987. Any problems with the frame were worked out long ago. The only changes that I am aware of on the Tetra since 2003 is now they offer a PF30 option and the tubes are supplied by a different manufacturer. There are Tetras on the road with more than 120K miles them. My Tetra is a 2004 and I will not be replacing it. I will upgrade the componets but not the frame.