Originally Posted by
BillyD
But the author didn't make that stuff up, he spoke to professional riders, PROFESSIONALS, just the people some CF guys idolize. And he spoke to industry experts, too.
*I'm* not making this stuff up, and it appears to me, and any other objective reader, the author isn't either.
Listen, I'll be the first to admit I'm not objective. You couldn't GIVE me a CF bike, I'll take steel or Ti thankyouverymuch! But I didn't write the article, somebody else did, and it sounds pretty objective to me. What part is giving you guys so much problems? What part are we supposed to ignore, that on those rare occasions when it fails that it shatters without warning? Ok, I'll ignore that part, but can *you*? No skin off my shin, I don't ride them.
One part that bothers me is the doctor talking about how bad CF bikes are when all he has seen are the injuries from bike crashes. He has no idea whether a CF bike has caused the crash or not. He has no idea what became of the bike. At least we were not told that he does. He just says that competitive cyclists are getting injured and competitive cyclists are riding CF. Therefore the CF must be at fault. Correlation is not causation.
Another bothersome aspect is the "industry insider" saying that not all CF bike quality control may be up to snuff as compared to the jetliner industry. Maybe so, but that casts no automatic doubts about the quality of the bikes. And doing business with those folks who do their job best has always been the smart thing to do.
Actually the consumer has no reason to be concerned about quality control. The consumer needs to be concerned about quality assurance which is a very different thing. Why was that point not made?
But, talking about CF bikes spontaneously asploding willy-nilly when no one we know has ever seen it happen just rings false. Where were the examples of who it has happened to and what were the outcomes of the episodes. If CF bikes don't cause crashes to happen, then they can't be blamed for whatever injury occurs. Even supposing fewer CF bikes would survive said crashes that they didn't cause than metal bikes, that is not a safety issue. It is purely economic. I don't believe it is true, but saying it is for the moment, one might avoid CF bikes because he can't afford to replace it, but not because he is afraid of it causing him physical harm.
I will say it again, where are all the examples of these failures?