It's nice to have so many choices these days, all of us and our wacky notions can be satisfied. I go to the grocery check out and I'm asked "paper or plastic bags?", I whip out my cotton bags and proudly proclaim "cotton is real, use these" and go merrily along on my day. Whether it be bike frames, politics, cars or the grocery store, America is full of fu****g nuts and wackos these days.

OMG, Steve, get OUT OF MY HEAD!

I've asked the same thing. I don't get it! I can actually see a recreational rider having a CF frame (much less hard on a frame than road racing is) w/o problems. However, it's very hard to justify to me racing on one if you are just the average "Joe" racer (road bikes) w/o sponsorship to replace your bike whenever you break one in a crash (and if you race, YOU WILL CRASH!). $8,000 for a bike that cannot even be welded if the chaninstay snaps, after only 5 yrs of riding it!!!??? Are you kidding me!!!??? Maybe CF bikes are now comparable to steel/aluminum bikes? If so, and they'll last many years, even after going down hard in a few crashes, then great! I'm glad that they have improved them.
Also, do they come w/ lifetime warranties on the frames? If so, great! They should!
Weight: I agree. Being as efficient as possible is desired with your machine; however, there are just too many people that waste too much time shaving and ounce here , a thenth of an ounce there, a 3rd of an ounce there, but they can't ride a short steep hill w/o coming apart halfway up the hill! But they are mounted on that spiffy $8,000 CF bike. Guess that's all that matters.
So, I take it most people on the hybrid site don't race and don't care to. I understand that. You should be well ok w/ a CF bike then. I just see it as a bad investment if you buy one to race on (road or MTB)!

Correction: The 50+ site.

You don't have to spend 8 grand to ride a cf bike. Some cf frames are out there for $500.

Here is one for $1100. https://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...t_s5f_xiii.htm

also, any frame can be damaged in a crash.

also also, cf frames can be repaired.

You can get a CF bike for well under $8,000. I just bought one for under $2,000.

I don't get this mindset that you need to be a racer to appreciate a nicer ride. Whether it's a nice Italian steel frame, Ti, carbon, or whatever. Granted, if you can't tell the difference between a cheap bike and a nice one, or if you can but it doesn't matter to you; then the extra money spent is just wasted. But you definitely don't need to be a racer to be able to discern a difference.

You don't even have to ride it, as far as I'm concerned. Buy what you want, even if it's just to have it.

My experience is close to yours. I started with steel, did a frame change to aluminum and am now on carbon....all recumbents...all in the last year.

The carbon is the team-kind of bike and the difference in speed is astounding. The last 12 rides on the aluminum averaged around 16.3 mph. The first 12 on the carbon version was 19 mph. All 12 had a similar mix except there was the Chandler century which knocked down the average just a bit.

The steel was comfortable - cold steel is still the best deal - but the CF ride is very comfortable too. I may attempt a 300-km brevet on 2/4 - we'll see if I still feel the same way after this ride is done...notice I didn't say completed.

Actually, my first post on this is more in favor of the non-racer/recreational rider having a CF bike. I just can't see the average amateur racer buying an expensive CF frame, racing every weekend, only to break it sooner or later, and then it cannot even be repaired.

$249 plus shipping, "Buy it now." https://www.ebay.com/itm/Full-Carbon-...item3a6f5ee26b

Don in Austin

I was talking with someone who I thought was very knowledgeable about frame materials, when I said carbon, he said plastic and that carbon is really plastic. Sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

Bike racing is a tough sport. It's really hard to just get to mediocre. We racers need every bit of help we can get to go faster and/or conserve energy. That means Carbon Fiber, for both the strength/weight ratio, and for it's ability to be molded into stiffer and more aerodynamic shapes. Go to a bike race, and ~100% of the bikes will be CF.

Plastic is a homogeneous material whereas the product known as carbon fiber is a composite. The epoxy resin in which the layered sheets of carbon fiber are embedded could be described as plastic but even that is a stretch. So, factually, to refer to carbon fiber as plastic is absolutely incorrect. The manufacturing techniques are totally different too, most plastic parts are injection molded.

Oh! I have no doubt that most of the bikes showing up on the line are CF. I have no doubt that lighter/stiffer might just be the edge one needs in an all-out bunch sprint to the line, or charging up that short but very steep 39x21 climb on the final lap. I know CF is mainstream now. Just hard to justify to me anyone buying one of the expensive ones if you race alot, aren't sponsored, and will inevitably crash the bike. I guess I'm old school. Maybe the expensive one will never break

It can be repaired, where some aluminum and steel frames cannot.

No troll here......I'm 55 years old, just started riding a steel entry level bike 7 months ago. Have apx. 2500 miles of riding in and already started thinking (dreaming) of N+1.

Rather then asking a question on carbon frames elsewhere, I really wanted to hear the perspective of the 50+ crowd. People who aren't easily swayed by mass marketing and have been riding for years on every type of bike imaginable.

I do value your opinion and have read every post on this thread, thank you.

New carbon bikes do look attractive, and I could be easily influenced by the latest and greatest, hoping for minor miracles that lead to improved performance. But, are carbon bikes really worth the money? Are cheap carbon frames better then cheap steel or aluminum frames? Is there really any ride differences between frames? Is there any advantage with carbon for non racers, people like me who ride under 20mph?

Also, as a long time fishermen (hence the screen name), I've fished with graphite rods for over 30 years and understand how and why these fragile rods break. I would think problems that affect graphite rods would also effect carbon bikes, where the material doesn't hold up well to direct impacts, even minor ones. These defects usually don't show up right away and are often not visible, but eventually lead to failure. This is why I don't understand the attraction to carbon bikes, especially for people 50+.

While I keep working on the engine, I'm still dreaming about N+1 and what that would be. I'm not ruling out carbon, but I want to understand what the benefits are, if any.

Some of the guys I know who race (especially crits) will use a lower end bike for racing.
Yes, you can spend a lot on cf but you can also spend a lot on steel or ti.

Most of us who don't race buy what we want, partly giving in to bike lust.
There doesn't have to be some sort of performance advantage for me to like a certain bike.

That, makes a lot of sense, even my wife can relate to this.

Generally, folks who refer to carbon fiber bikes as plastic have a negative attitude toward them My apologies for making any assumptions. I ride steel, titanium and carbon fiber. Frankly, I think fit is more important than material. You can make steel, titanium, carbon fiber and aluminum all stiff enough, compliant enough, etc. And, there are poorly designed bikes in all of those materials.

Carbon fiber does, however, give a unique feel. And some folks like that. It can also be impressively light, which is great for climbing at any age. One thing I find interesting is that my top rides (1 steel, 1 CF & 1 titanium) all weight within 20 oz. of one another. All are under 18 lbs. Do I have a preference out of the three? Yes, it's the titanium, but more because it was custom built for me and fits like a glove.

I'm sure there are benefits, especially for racers, but I'm not a racer and I'm still carrying an extra 60 pounds or so around my waist. I will gain more of a performance increase by lightening and strengthening my own body. The 80/20 rule probably applies here. The 80% being the rider.

Sometimes its nice just to reward yourself with something just because you want it and can afford it. Still not sure if I'd go for a carbon bike, but I haven't ridden one yet either, so I can't really say.

Well, some people buy $60,000.00 pick up trucks and don't haul anything and never take them off the road. I don't see the difference in that and in buying an $8,000.00 bike, regardless of what it's made out of or if you race or not. A few years ago, I would have thought that anyone spending over what you can buy a bike at Wal-Mart is nuts.

I just bought a new Colnago CF bike, but it's not an $8,000.00 bike and I don't race. I look at it this way! I'm retired and cycling is my addiction. In all the years that I worked, I did without a lot of things that I wanted because I needed to save for the rainy day (retirement). The occupations that I have been in have paid very well, especially the software development jobs that I have worked at over the past 15 years and I have been debt free for the past 10 years. Now that I'm retired and my rainy day has finally come, I realize that I can't take it with me so I might as well enjoy the hell out of myself with whatever I can afford to buy or do. Some people told me that I was nuts to spend $2,000.00 on a custom flame paint job on one of my cars. The car gives me great pleasure showing it at car shows and the bikes I ride give me great pleasure just riding them and they keep me healthy and off the couch. If you can afford it, I don't see anything wrong with spending your money on anything that make you happy.

ftfy

GFish: I can relate to your position. I'm also 55 and put in 3700 miles in my first season last year. 2500 of those miles on a Trek 7300 Hybrid. I bought the hybrid because the Salesman saw me as a 280# old guy (now 225#). Not a bad bike but not a bike for spending hours at a time especially where it's as windy as here. I wanted a road bike so I set it as a reward for completing my first metric century. So I start reading about road bikes and find out most people recommend 105 level components. Thinking that CF for "someone like me" was just being a poseur I looked at and rode all the major mfg's relaxed geo aluminum road bikes. Couldn't tell a whole lot of difference between them.

I was ready to buy a bike and was down to the finalists. A Trek 2.3 and a Cannondale Synapse Alloy 5. Both bikes were $1250. So I go and ride the 2.3 again but as I was leaving the Salesman said before you leave take a ride on a 4.5 Madone (CF) I thought why not see what all the buzz is about? 1/4 mile away on said oil and chip road I was thinking "Wow this is really smooth!" I started looking for rougher and rougher roads to test it's smoothness. 2 hours later I returned to the LBS knowing I had to have this bike. Poseur be damned. $1800. So I paid $550 more for a bike I can ride twice as far and not feel vibrated into numbness.

I suggest you cast away your preconceptions and ride some CF bikes. If you ride nice smooth blacktop and can't tell much difference good for you. You've saved some money. If you ride the kind of roads I ride the difference will astound you.

There are a few practical considerations that dictate what kind of frame will serve you best.
For instance, want to ride on rainy days? Fenders are nice, really nice. If you actually want to carry something along, a rack of some kind is nice.
Try finding a CF race type frame with clearance for fenders. Or eyelets to mount them (or a rack) on.
I prefer a more versatile type of bike and I seem to be willing to suffer along with the weight penalty.

I suppose that's exactly what N+1 is for.