I'm not really interested in the eco fight that much, just pointing out that recycling a bike creates less of a footprint than buying new carbon - if that actually matters to anyone IRL. But your reply doesn't tell us why that's wrong. It's a one word answer followed by a tangent about the quality of the bike which isn't being debated.

Yet that does bring up the uncomfortable fact that 26 years from now the 2017 carbon bike will be considered old junk so there's no use thinking this old junk is any better than that old junk. Perhaps I have less trouble understanding that because I have access to time travel technology though.



Ps. 1991 mtbs did not come with stem shifters. If you're going for the slam at least get the story straight

Pss. 26 years from now IGH's are remembered as a quaint but misguided idea, like handlebar tassles. Magnets are the new thing.. but not yet.