Originally Posted by
eja_ bottecchia
Yes, evidence goes a long way to prove, or disprove, claims. Without evidence, opinions are just that opinions based upon personal biases.
I have crashed on bikes using all sorts of condtruction material, steel, aluminium, titanium and yes carbon.
In fact I have crashed twice with the C60. First time crashed against a K-rail on PCH and broke a finger. The C60 was fine. I crashed another time, also with the C60, hit my head and suffered a subdural hematoma. Once again, the C60 was not damaged.
Finally, last year my car was rear-ended with the C60 on the Thule hitch rack. The car suffered damage, the rack was totaled. The C60 suffered only cosmetic damage. I sent it to Calfee where the bike was examined and declared safe to ride.
I support your enthusiasm for steel bikes; two of mine are good old steel. I also support your decision not to go with a CF bike. CF is not for everyone. Interetingly enough, you would buy a saddle with carbon rails, none of my saddles have carbon rails
I just have a problem with claims that lack the evidence or science to back them up.
Ride safely, ride long.
Yes you are right about evidence being required. Unfortunately the type of evidence we would like just isn't available in most cases (as you know). Usually there is no third party to scrutinize the destroyed parts and make their findings public. Or any way to know if the bike had been previously crashed or dropped. I'm glad people are out riding their carbon fiber bikes, but it's not for me. I need something durable enough to not need to send it in for an ultrasound exam if it happens to fall over or crash.
Really the thing I'd be most concerned about with cf is manufacturing defects. This isn't the aerospace industry and these companies can't do the type of quality control that would convince me to buy.
Anyway, sorry about your crashes and glad the bike is okay. Here's a short discussion concerning a racer's carbon rims breaking, apparently due to manufacturing defect...