Originally Posted by MassiveD

Is there any actual evidence that is true. Carbon can be a highly disruptive technology. For instance a light carbon fiber paddle vs a wooden one is a night and day difference; or a carbon arrow in archery; or carbon in fishing rods; very noticeable; etc...

In some cases there is a great advantage, like sailboats, but you need nation state dollars to exploit it.

With a bike there isn't anything all that special about a carbon frame; It is lighter but the overall saving there is dampened by the fact that the frame is only a part of the overall weight; The ME of carbon, a fishing rod or bow limb that responds with dramatically imporved velocity isn't there, or if there is an effect it would have to be timed to the relatively slow movements of cycling legs; Carbon has had a much rockier advantage in golf club shafts where numerous complexities have made it a poor choice, not for the lack of trying since the shafts are an area for huge upcharges, even when they are hard to make work.

Bikes are not radically restructured in carbon, for instance most saiboat spars are in need of rigging wire to stand, but in carbon you can make unstayed spars that are revolutionary, though not generally needed. Carbon wings on aircraft can have dramatically different aspect ratios than alloy wings, and this can immensly improve performance, on sailplanes of the 787. This is not really being done on road bikes though there are possibilities for aero where legal. Forks being the exception.

Anyway, I am just not seeing a real game changing capability. Which leads to the fact that steel bikes remain competitive in certain venues where contracts allow them to be ridden. At the hacker level, I can't even see the issue.


Then there is the whole area of carbon fiber enhancements. If there was real evidence that carbon boosted energy througput, it is possible to make carbon rear triangle, or perhaps simpler to wrap steel tubes in carbon. This would allow older bikes to compete, or to use geometry and fit advantages in steel in tandem with carbon.

Carbon is now both a cheap material, and technology. There was a brieft periof a little over 10 years ago, before Boeing, Airbus, the war on terror, etc... When we actually had some cases where a carbon spar could be built more cheaply than a wooden one. But then the prices spiked back up. Those were US prices, China is now a big player. I think the real issue is the profit margin in quality steel bikes is pretty much non-existent. The profit margin in carbon is real. Much higher tooling costs, but bikes can be turned out cheaply and sold at a high price point. Every technology has some advantages. The real key is whether there are any net wins in it.