Originally Posted by
bakes1
2014 is not old news and the article is in no way stupid.
Is is informative, mostly impartial and well sourced.
I personally see no reason not to buy a CF bike if that is what floats your boat. I just have issue with the CF Kool-Aid drinkers who dispense bad advice to other uninformed consumers looking for input.
Greve and Perovic agreed that for consumers who are not constantly banging their bikes around on team vehicles and who are unlikely to be involved in crashes, the risks in buying a carbon bike made by a reputable company should be minimal. Greve said many riders had told him that the performance gains from superlight frames reached the point of diminishing returns long ago, and he questions the wisdom of consumers’ buying what are, in effect, very costly throwaway items if they crash.
I believe the above quote is very hard to dispute and sums up things nicely.
I disagree.
The article in question is old news, and has been discussed repeatedly in this place.
The article in question is stupid because its major -- and only -- substantive assertion is one no one in their right mind would question: that bicycle frames and forks used hard within a racing environment, especially at the pro level, banged around and crashed etc., can and do break on occasion. Eugène Christophe discovered this in 1913, to give but one example. The rest -- the passage you quote for example -- is tendentious opinion, nothing more. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but that's all it is.