Originally Posted by Leisesturm

Probably. But, is that really the question you should be asking? I know you don't want to hear it but... carbon fiber, as used in the current crops of high end drool inducement is wasted potential. I can't tell the difference between the carbon Tarmac and the aluminum Allez by looking... why is that?? In the 90's they had the right idea, then some bright bike designer got the bright idea to weave the carbon into tubes and make carbon bikes look like aluminum ones... ruh? WTF? The two materials are nothing alike! So, the component essentially become much more important and, if the extra $300 is buying better wheels and brakes then that isn't money wasted. So... the higher end Tarmac is the better bike of the two, but for the same money as the lower end Tarmac you could buy a hell of a nice aluminum bike and why does it matter if you already have one? You have two cars? Are they both made out of steel? I have 5 or 6 bikes and all but two are steel. Two are aluminum. The Specialized Allez I plan to pick up tomorrow is an old school SE from the early 80's. Steel? You betcha. On another forum is a guy who finally wore his wife down and bought a $10K velomobile. He wrecked it after 3 months. I mean totalled. Is this guys marriage over? Quite possibly. A pile-up that wouldn't even scratch an aluminum or steel roadie may well be the end of a carbon bike. They simply are not ready for prime time. Someone's got to buy them of course, but why does that have to be you? The guy who really needs a Kestrel or Specialized Tarmac doesn't have to sell a legacy GPS receiver to fund it. Harsh, I'm sorry. But, well meant. Word to the wise. FWIW. YMMV and all that... ...