Originally Posted by
chevelle2291
I can't, because such a test doesn't exist. Nobody has ever tested the BMC head-to-head against the CAAD9 because it has never been considered to be within the same league as the CAAD9. The dented top tubes are kind of annoying, but they do not cause the frame to fail. In fact, I would say that most of those dents are superficial and do no effect the structural integrity of the frame.
Yes. You and your high school diploma would say that.
Response to Matt's edit: It would likely not help me finish higher, but that is a moot point as there are so many variables to me finishing higher such as time spent in the wind, my lack of sprinting ability, etc. I would like to see YOU prove, however, that it would not help me finish higher. By the way, the original argument was based on which frame is stiffer. I have given links to a test where the CAAD9 is compared to frames that cost thousands of dollars more. The BMC, as far as I know, has never been involved in such a test. The EFBE test also ranks the CAAD9 as a "Top Performance" frame in its results.
Your admission that there are so many variables that the frame would not help you finish higher is an admission that your persistence in demonstrating the CAAD9 to be stiffer is silly, and a waste of time.
And, I don't have to prove anything, because I never made the unsupported statement that one was "way stiffer" than the other. You, on the other hand did. And then you kept telling me how much stiffness matters...
I stand by my opinion that recreational cyclists fret way to much over such stupid, unimportant bs. If you'd take that money you're planning to put into a CAAD9 frame and spent it on coaching and training, you'd be faster on any reasonably put together race bike than you will on that CAAD9.
Joel just won another race on an aluminum Trek that won't appear on any stiffness comparisons. Why don't you explain your theory of bottom bracket flex to him. See if he thinks it's holding him back.