Originally Posted by
badger1
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.
Incorrect
1) Not sure why you keep referencing how often the topic has been discussed. This a discussion forum. Every topic has been discussed and will continue to be discussed many many times. There are multiple discussions on oatmeal. What's your point?
2) There is more than one major and valid assertion. How about diminishing returns? How about the current quality control concerns?
3) Break on occasion? Seriously? Did you not actually read the article? How about break regularly