Originally Posted by
roadwarrior
Trek's early carbon would have been the 5000 series (5200-5500-5900) with the round tubes and tuning fork seat stays. At that point, many were still riding aluminum. And compared to what we have today, the ride was not great. But then riding a steel frame over cobbles was not real comfortable, but that was state of the art back then and you didn't know any better.
My point is simply that some of this stuff takes things to the extreme. It's pretty meaningless for the average guy who wants a road bike. Basically, most folks want a pretty forgiving bike with a comfortable geometry that fits properly.
I rarely disagree with you because I consider you an expert. But we don't agree here. Choice of a road bike may matter more to a weaker rider in not only frame material but geometry. The difference between an Al Cervelo Soloist not only in terms of geometry and riding position but stiffness and say any carbon endurance geometry is 'night and day' in terms of the comfort and even performance of the average rider. So this discussion doesn't matter a little, but rather a lot. Bicycles can have very different personalities just like their riders and a good match is transformative to the riding experience. Perhaps the argument and one you made earlier about top riders or racers...maybe not so much. After all, racers are all fit guys who prefer stiff and a bit more slammed geometries and therefore their choice of bike maybe a bit more homogenous.