Why do people buy bikes with the mentality that they will keep them forever? Carbon is a disposable material like plastic soda cans. I will give my CF bikes at most 2 years before I sell/crash out my frame. Road bikes are not that expensive...a few grands mean nothing in the long run.

Secondly, if you decided to go Carbon out of the numerous material choices that you know will last a life time(steel, ti, etc.), why question carbon durability after the buy?

It may be a bit off subject, but, wow: that Boeing Dreamliner seems to be a plane I do not want to ride on in, oh, say about a decade. Think of it this way, every day those planes will get approx. 7 - 10 hours of direct sunlight. I cannot imagine someone would build a plane that could potentially suffer severe structural damage. But - then again - ask Firestone, Ford and makers of cribs that choke kids.

In that case, you can buy me a bike.....after all, a few grand means nothing, right?

Trek TTX, please. I'll even take the "cheap" $4,300 one.

My Montana experience is limited but my son lives in Missoula. The most liberal place west of Berkley, CA.

Sorry that would be East of Berkley, CA.

her bb aint stiff enough, hes just riding her till she breaks so he can get one thats stiffer and lighter.

We're right there with Missoula as far as Liberal bullhocky. Problem is, half of our students come from many, many small towns in MT where getting married is the first thing a person would do after high school, aside from taking a share of the farm to begin your career.

The woman and I are both in school, and have yet to start a real life. When that happens, THEN we will discuss taking the next step.

What happens to a Ferrari race car, even though it's made from the same material as a CF bike frame, has little to do with how long a CF bike frame will last. It all depends on the design and build, and CF is the ultimate material for customizing design and build.

Race cars are designed to be light weight and only last for a couple seasons (1 season for an F1 car). And of course a crash is likely to damage the carbon tub. I've seen carbon tubs of race cars get flexy over time - both the BMW V12 LMR and the Panoz LMP1 experienced such problems after race for a couple seasons or more - but they were used for longer than intended in the original design. Race cars are designed for light weight and performance. Road cars, and I assume road bikes for sale to the general public, are designed more for longevity.

If a frame is painted or clear coated, UV light deterioration should not be an issue. UV light it much more of an issue for tires.

I have all four materials in my differant bikes. Steel, Aluminum, Carbon and Titanium.

- For weight, carbon is the best.

- For rigidity, I would say Ti and Al are similar.

- For comfort, the steel and carbon both are fantastic.

- But, for Longevity, Aluminum and carbon both fatigue, and the steel will eventually rust. The Titanium beats all of them for longevity.

I really don't think any one of the materials is better for everything. I do believe that each one has its benefits for a specific style of riding, and desired performance.

However, if I was to be told I could have only one bike out of my stable, it would most likely be the Titanium bike, as it is light, rigid yet comfy to ride, and will outlast any of the others.

Well, if you ignore the B-2 (flying continuously since 1993), or the 777, which has a composite wing. There are numerous other composite aircraft that sit exposed to the sun, and they are doing just fine.

Boeing, as much as I "love" them, is not Firestone, Ford, or in the crib making business.

Interesting input - however, that is mostly common bicycling knowledge. I'm curious about how carbon differs from bike to bike, grade to grade.

Every carbon bike comes with it's own marketing rhetoric and I don't think people people can objectively read through that. It comes down to weight and geometry for most people - and brand preference.

The unaswered question: What kind of carbon and what kind of manufacturing is best?

What do you mean by "best"? And there's a difference between theoretical "best" and real-world "best" which accounts for manufacturing methods. You have to add in cost as one of the variables. Theoretically you can say that 3D weaving with using a single continuous strand of high-modulus CF for the entire bike that gives the strongest and lightest structure possible. Combined with FEA and CFD time, youi're looking at $25,000 for a 1-lb bike frame. How large and how feasible of a market are we looking at for such a product?

Maybe durability and crashworthiness is another factor in real-world manufacturing and so you add in extra material and kevlar to extend the life to 100-years instead of just 2-3. Now we're looking at a 2-2.5 lb frame.

There's a wide range of variables and each person's going to have their own criteria of what's "best" for them. Personally if I was on a pro-team that pays for my equipment, I'd go for the lightest stuff possible, who cares if it lasts only one season.. they'll buy me another $25k bike next year.

I hear you but there's no short anwer for which is th best.
As you're probably aware:
The best CF bike is the one that fits and rides the best for you at a price you think is reasonable.
i.e. the best CF bike for me may not be the best for you.

As for who makes the best fiber, I vote for Toray.
Unidirectional prepregs (sheets or tape) are higher end than weaves (generally) and then filament winding is a notch below (and the smaller the tow bundle 5k vs 12k, the better structure (less voids) it can make)

Again, it depends on what you're trying to do with it. If you're building pressure vessles filament winding may be the "best"... no straight anwers to your question I'm afraid

Danno and Powerglide:

good responses. The term "best" opens up a can of worm - true; however, there are certain characteristics of carbon fiber that can be quantified, yet rarely are. Examples:

1) strength to weight ratio
2) frames' torsional ridigity
3) X times to failure @ Y payload
4) vibration damping.

Marketing pays lip service to all the aforementioned areas however I've yet to see a in-depth cross-brand comparo that measures those areas, absolutely and relative to other bikes.

Here's a practical question for a real-world scenario: You have one carbon frame with big ribbon weave (ala Fuji Carbon Team frame). You have another frame with a tight ribbon weave (most other carbon frames). What are the characteristics of each and are the differences a result of more than just the weave pattern? (I suspect yes but I'm not that knowledgable to know why.)