Reread my post, I said: "this is true with any material."

You just quoted what I said, nowhere does it say in the city. 20 to 21 was an average on the highway.

And I also said, and you copied the quote: " it's an opinion, you have yours and I have mine,"
Nor did I ever say my choice was the better choice, it is the better choice for me though because I want and like simplicity, which I also said. And so what if I like old stuff vs new stuff? Again and like I repeatedly said: it's an opinion, you have yours and I have mine, (now I can't get the italics off) You make is sound like no one is entitled to their opinion, why is that? is it because in this case my opinion doesn't agree with yours? And due to my opinion that I hold personal I won't budge on my beliefs.

By the way, I use to own a 62 T-Bird, it was actually my first car, I paid $100 for it, blew a ring and a head gasket racing a Corvette in Ventura, sold it for $250. Now I wish I would have kept it. It was a boat but when we got done with it it was the perfect sleeper. I use to make the girl friends think that the steering wheel broke at a parking lot so we couldn't go anywhere...you know what I did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatsune_Miku

my 2012 surly crosscheck is named for her and has a matching colorscheme

These threads never end well...

I'm sorry but after a few of these it is just too easy. They start the same way and end the same way and I even thought about cutting and pasting from other threads. I should have kept the spoon out of the pot but it is like the idea that red bike, blue bikes and green bikes are better than yellow, purple and white bikes. You know where it is going but you just have to get on for the ride. I'm done.

The 63 had doors as thick as anything I have ever owned. 390 with a big 4 barrel. But it was like driving a cloud from LA to Vegas. Nice French tuck and roll seats however. Traded it for a Yamaha 650 twin.

But I wasn't quoting you. And, of course, you are not hating on all the other materials.

Don't leave just yet! We haven't touched on RED CF bikes with INTEGRATED HEADSETS yet!

The part that you are missing and dismissing is that we humans have memories. We often associate memories with physical things like tools, toys, food, places, even other people. Your paragraphs upon paragraphs of "not getting it" and mocking those who do is quite insulting. Hence the accusation of self righteousness. I continue to stand by the claim. However, I may be misinterpreting your massive overuse of emoticons. The internet is funny that way. Not everyone uses their tools properly.

I do need to clarify that I agree with your position that objects are objects, but only on a cold intellectual level.

Clearly its a fool's errand with you, but I will share an example of why I might have an attachment to a physical object or certain materials that transcends its actual usefulness.

About 10 years ago during college, I found an old well used Stanley combination square that belonged to my dad sometime in the late-70's/early-80's. Since then I have used this square on a near weekly basis. Occasionally I have entertained the idea of springing for a more precise Starrett or other wildly expensive model. I never do it, largely because I like the idea of using the same tool my dad used to measure, create, repair, learn & teach with. For the last decade, I have measured, created, repaired, learned & taught with the very same tool. The torch has been passed. I could do the same with any other combo square, but this square carries a meaningful history with it. A history that points to a person via a tangible object. While one thing means more than the other, I care about both. You understand that, don't you?

If not, then I am left feeling like your assertions of reserving your emotional attachments for friends and family as sounding trite and disingenuous.

I consider my objects to have special value. Some because they may have been given to me as gifts by people I care about; Some just because thyey have been used and cared for in such a manner that they are better after years of use, than they were when they were new or acquired.

Like my truck: If you totalled my truck and just cut me a check for $10K and said we're even....we might be even; and that $10K miht be the market value of my F250.....but I can not just go out tomorrow and buy another truck just like mine for that $10K....because I had spent a lot of time searching for that truck, so as to find an older one that was in acceptable shape (the newer ones literally aren't as good- not opinion- but fact. And a well-known fact apparently, as the older ones are holding their value better than the newer ones); and the improvements I made to that truck, to it mechanically perfect; and the maintenance and care that has gone into it since I've owned it.......the mere market value of another similar truck does not get me what you destroyed!

I'm not to the point [yet] where I'm attached to my bikes. I've only been riding for a year. I do associate wonderful rides and pleasant times and getting in-shape with my bikes....but I don't know if it's just too soon to form a real attachment- or if it's the fact that bikes are simple, and I know that I could quite easily replace them with something just as good for what they are worth.

But I like "my things"- even small mundane things. Seems like I have to have had 'em for a wehile though- to the point where they are uniquely my own.

The old corded phone on the desk right in front of me as I type this- It's an old friend. I've had it for 20 years. It's a color that you can't find anymore; It could not be replaced, as they no longer make this model or color; a used one might be able to be found....but likely wouldn't be as clean and nice as mine. Many of my possessions are somewhat of an extension of me.

When care is put into the choice of an object; and into it's care and/or improvement.....it is something more than it was when it was just a product on a store's shelf. Some objects fail to live up to one's standards.....those objects never earn a personality; but some objects are old friends; they cooperate; they live up to their intended purpose and even exceed it; they please you when you look at them or use them.

A friend of mine, my brother, and myself worked on that 390 by having the heads rebuilt for more performance, and a cam put in for the same reason. Problem was we were stupid kids, the engine had 220,000 miles on it, but ran good, but with the new head and higher compression the engine blew in the mentioned race with just 18,000 miles put on after the head job. Later we found out we should have installed a thicker head gasket to bring the compression ratio down a bit, and a mild cam; that along with a free flowing exhaust and the carb jetted, distributor recurved, and the timing advance with the help of dyno tuner in town, we actually could get the car to run low 14's in the quarter which was way better then stock at mid 16, and would surprised most cars in town. My 62 was entirely original except for the engine work, we did remove the wheel skirts and other assorted items to lighten up the car.

I had to look at the post dates carefully. I thought someone resurrected a thread from 1983. Hard to believe this is 2013 and there still are holdouts...man, that steel is real!

New disciples too. I finally got around to selling the racing bike with CF bits and pieces 3 weeks ago. Now my youngest bike is an '83. Different tools for different needs. Different bikes for different expectations. Not everyone is interested in racing. Not everyone swoons over the latest hi-tech inovation.

There is a whole history of interesting things out there. New and old.

You should have talked to more manufacturers. My Cannondale CF frame came with a lifetime warranty.

I'm a new cyclist; I'm a new disciple of steel and aluminum, too. Bicycling as a child, all I knew was high-tensile steel. Now I can try the good stuff...and it's a different world! Those dead-feeling plastic bikes just hold no interest for me.

How can we have a proper CF vs steel argument if we are gonna waste time dissecting whether or not to get sentimental about inanimate objects?

Ok, Because you addressed me personally I'll answer the one last post. Your emotional attachment to your dad's square is totally irrelevant to any debate a new person would find as value in choosing a new square if they were just getting into drafting. Because you couldn't recommend your dad's square to them and expect them to have the same attachment. (or I hope in good conscience feel the need to) This thread has reached the same point many, many threads reach in three pages as so many before it have taken 15 pages to reach. The loss of objectiveness to debate the quality of a tool, the bicycle, to one person verses another. It doesn't take long to realize that people buy what they want based on any number of reasons. But none of the reasons will make a Steel, Aluminum. Ti, Scandium, or Carbon Fiber bike better or worse to another person. Once we reach that state we understand that steel is nothing more than a personal choice made by each individual or that is has qualities some do not admire and the same is true of the other materials the debate should settle down and at most take two pages.

The reason it goes on longer is it leaves the realm of holding up the two to four objects to a disinterested third party and listing quality A through Z and seeing which has the most checkmarks next to it and gets into the emotional attachment stage. That is only one short leap from leaving the debate on the tool, object or bicycle to an attack on the individual for their reasons. My post taking responsibility for stirring the pot with the smile was for those of us that have walked this road many times. It goes no where, never has never will. The only opinion that counts on what bike someone gets is the one cast by the person's "wallet." Everything said up to the point someone buys a bike is salesmanship. For every person that finds CF too stiff and loves the flexibility of steel there is a person that hates flex at the bottom bracket finds it a pain. Still not going to change and never will.

So yes I jumped into the debate and may have moved it to the stage of person against person ten pages early but it would go there anyway and at least I admitted it. Just look to threads on Brooks saddles. well any thread on saddles turns into a debate on Brooks saddles so why bother? You just moved to the personal early. I don't know you and you have never met me so I will not judge you as being a slave to sentiment as you might my being trite. Some recognize Hyperbole and some do not and some see such debates as nothing more than words and some take them to heart and personal. You not I have to decide where you are in these debates. But I am not ready to dismiss anyone's choice on bike frame material even if it differs from mine because I do see them as tools and may the best tool for the job always be the one people find value in. Not because my Dad used that tool and not because I use that tool and not because the pros use that tool but because the individual wants that tool, whatever it is made of. And that is where these threads end after all is said and done.

I talked to the Cannondale rep. There are different grades of carbon fiber and different construction techniques used in different Cannondale models. Currently some of that is advanced technology for the BICYCLE industry. None of it is on a par with aerospace technology. Compared to the automotive and aerospace industries - bicycle companies don't have the resources.

The other thing to be aware of is that a product with a lifetime warranty is very different from a product that'll last a lifetime. As soon as todays 'best in class' cycling products become second best - they're obsolete to to anyone insisting on that status. And as soon as they get sold off to support new acquisitions - there is no more warranty.

All of the 'cutting edge' advances in ski equipment, bicycling equipment, and kayaking equipment that date back 25 years would be hard to even give away today. Even if it had a transferable lifetime warranty.

I'm sure your dogmatism thrills your wife.

Um... it's a bicycle, not a hypersonic jet. You ride it on nice baloon-y tires. You weigh about 200 lbs and ride on virtually smooth surfaces. The g-forces are minimal. C'mon. What are you talking about?

If MTB racers can ride on carbon frames, you can, too.

Wow! I wanna live where you live!
I do - that doesn't make a CF mtb frame unbreakable. In most cases it just makes it more expensive to replace.

Don't forget that Pro MTB racers get those CF bikes for free.

OK - lets say that's true. That in itself doesn't mean they won't stand up for years. Thing is, sponsored riders are given every possible advantage by the companies sponsoring them, which can improve every year, which can result in new frames being used every season. Which doesn't mean the frames retired were defective or damaged - just no longer quite as competative.

Its surprising the things that are considered 'obsolete' when you start measuring performance to three decimal places.

We need more sports measured by 'FUN FACTOR' and not a stopwatch.

Can I quote that as my signature? [I always say basically the same thing...but it takes me 9 paragraphs to do so!]

feel free! Any other answer would take all the fun out of things!