I'm glad that you are pleased with carbon. I have nothing against carbon at all, I just think most people own it for the wrong reasons and then get pissed when it doesn't last as long as a metal bike would. Granted, these are the same people that don't whipe off their frame after lube drips on it and also leave it in their hot cars for 5 days.

It sounds like you are sprinting and such with your and thats awesome that you are on the ride that you like the most.

As the other person said, generalize much?

I give up. I'm obviously not communicating this well.

I think a number of us just genuinely disagree with your general viewpoint that carbon bikes are commonly know to be weaker, don't last as long, the reasons why people buy them, etc. We own carbon bikes, and know a number of other people who also own carbon bikes, and haven't found any sort of big durability issues.

And there's no basis to say that "Carbon bike owners don't buy carbon bikes for the longevity of it. Owners of carbon want stiff performance for climbing and/or sprinting doubled with a smooth ride." I don't mean to attack you, but it would be difficult to not get irritated when you phrase your opinion like it's common knowledge - and you're wrong. Plenty of people buy carbon bikes assuming they will last 20 years or more (not the components which will wear out, but the frame itself). And I would say that the most common reason for someone to buy a full carbon bike do so for completely and totally non-racing reasons - they buy it because it's a smoother, nicer, and less fatiguing ride with skinny tires than an aluminum or steel frame would be. Even if you felt that this wasn't true (and I think it is true), that's the most common, or one of the most common, reasons that inspire people to spend the extra money.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but if you phrase your opinion as your opinion you'll generally get people who agree or disagree with you, but when you phrase your opinion as fact or common knowledge you're going to get a lot of flack if other people disagree with you.

Ok.... the jury is in. CF is a great material. In fact there is a work horse CF bike that has proven it can stay in the ring, round after round, that is for sale a fairly decent price: 2004 Trek 5200. And they asking $1300. I'm looking at it.. .think I might get it. Maybe.

I checked out that Habanero site. That make some great frames for really cheap. Do they make them in house or outsource that stuff? They'd have to outsource for that price.

What I still want is that 2006 Jamis Eclipse. Mmmmmm.... And I will make sure it fits first. But I'm telling yall, that 57 I'm riding now, well, it aint that bad. I put 41 miles on it the other day and it wasn't that bad. And the only thing that stopped me was 2 flats. I would have easily gone 70 miles that day.

Carbon is the strongest, longest lasting, most reliable material ever and cannot even be broken by god himself. lol

Never said that the OP's frame was necessarily the right size, I was responding to post like " I'm 6'5" and ride 65cm. I can't believe anything less than a 64cm would be right for you"

Carbon is great as long as you take care of it.

My Calfee Tetra Pro is 10 yrs old and it still looks new !

+ Calfee bikes = 5 yrs warranty / 25 yr warranty + great cf repairs.

The threads just keep on getting dumber.

IIRC carbon fiber has an unusually long fatigue life and high fatigue strength owing to the reduced crack propagation through the fiber/epoxy matrix. Basically a micro-crack that gets started soon runs in to a fiber and stops, whereas in metal it just keeps going. In some applications it shares the same infinite fatigue life that steel possesses.

That said it has its limitations. It can't withstand high temperatures (which is why they don't make race car exhausts out of the stuff), it can be brittle (although that depends largely on design, it can also be very flexible), etc.

Any frame made of any material that's designed right on the limit for the sake of weight is going to be delicate. That's the tradeoff.

Unfortunately that's a property that steel *as used in bicycle frames* does not possess. Sure there are the fatigue curves that flatten out at some very low stress level and hopefully a bike frame is designed so that typical pedaling forces are down around or below that level. But it's simply not practical to build the frame strong enough so that all the forces applied to it in use will not result in stresses beyond the fatigue limit. To ensure that every pothole impact, every all-out sprint, every bunny-hop, etc. stays below that low stress level would require a frame that weighs a few times the normal amount and almost no one would buy it.

My POINT if you were paying attention that HEIGHT is not the important thing, compared to inseam and torso sizes. For ANY given height there will be a wide range of potential sizes depending on the proportions, as well as arm length, flexibility, and preferred position.

My '00 Trek 5200 has been used and abused over tens of thousands of poorly paved miles, raced and crashed. Damn thing won't die.

On the other hand, my '08 Bianchi 928 snapped in half when I plowed it into a curb.

I tried looking them up - they're *both* full carbon aren't they?

Yes, both full carbon. The 5200 was essentially the same frame that Postal rode in the '99 and '00 TdF. It's a boat anchor in comparison to recent carbon frames.

Admit it;
It's like a car wreck;
You just can't look away.

Almost the same frame (1 year later) as my trek 5000 described earlier in the thread-- extremely tough.

+1. The single measurement that might be worth talking about is inseam, as in, "My inseam is 34" and my BB-saddle distance is so-and-so." Even then, proportions related to parts like femur length can make it hard to recommend a specific height.

I don't get this femur stuff. Humans's femur length is so porportional to their height that it's statistically significant enough for scientists to use it to determine peoples height.

I understand why someone would ask a question that has been discussed before. First off, the search function relies on knowing the key words. He may not. Then it often delivers such a mass of information that it takes forever to read it; let alone make some kind of judgement as to quality.

As to frame material: Frankly for people who are not top notch race competitors, a very small minority of all road bikers, I don't think it matters much which material a person chooses. What matters is whether the bike is comfortable on the roads the buyer intends to ride. All the rest is fluff and ego.

There is an exception and that is the person who sees a road bike as a piece of art. I know such a person and he has a beautifuly clean custom steel bike. It isn't multi-color and doesn't have bold graphics advertising the company who sold the bike. It is just clean lines. Even I appreciate the art of it.

But, lacking art or being a top notch competition rider the best thing a newbie can do is just ride bikes until "the" bike is found. Then pony up whatever money is asked and go have fun.

Yep purveyor of old cars here.

1983 Mercedes Turbo Diesel 280 K miles -- the original brake calipers finally gave up this Friday. Went to Seattle in June and then to Canada all the way to upper BC, burnt less than a pint of oil not to mention 31 mpg hi-way. I love these cars, I got it for less than the price of the average BF wheelset. So easy to fix and I was confident enough to take it to Canada.
1977 Ford F250 4X4 313K miles - the beast - my wife's dad truck previously - getting a Cummins diesel transplant but looks the gas engine won't die. The drive train is excellent. Best 4x4 IMO. I do not lock this truck and leave the keys on it.
1993 Toyota Previa manual AWD 198K. Daily hard driving by my DC born wife who drives like an NYC taxi driver. Pulls even a pony trailer
1986 Vanagon Synchro - currently dead and I took the engine apart but . Since it is a camper it is now in the yard and the kids use it for sleepovers.
I succumbed to a newish 2005 Powerstroke truck - used for wife's horse business. I am liking the six speed manual and this efficient Ford Diesel. My first car with ABS and a passenger side airbag. I am also not turning 3500 RPM at 55 mph like the old Ford truck. 75-80 is around 2K rpm. Now we can go places pulling horses and not feel so beat.

If there are no newbies asking the same questions BF would be dead. The best you can do is not answer the question: If he is really looking for an answer then he'll peruse the pages or do a search. If it's a troll then he'll fade away

I think topics in BF # 41 can be sorted into 30 or so categories:

Which bike to buy, CF vs others, shimano, campy, SRAM, BD, Average speed, show and tell, groin issues, CAAD-9, Lance, clipless, passenger cars, look at what I spent, I am well to do, I am poor, my first century, fall, group ride etc

Then there are the threads started by all the A types. Plus the grammar corrections and upmanship/bragging here and there. Forum rhymes with scrotum. I had been lurking since 2006/7 I think and joined Jan 2008. It has not changed much. I had been gone for 6 months and it seems I logged on last week.

My better half bought a very lightly used carbon fiber (Crammeroti Quattro) from a friend of his and discovered a crack in the bottom bracket after riding it for a year. Turns out some ham-fisted mechanic had screwed the bottom bracket assembly in crooked and cross-threaded it. The friend raised a stink at the shop that he'd originally bought it from and they replaced the frame, a model no longer made, with an identical new one that they'd had for a few years. The new one has so far not had problems, and was assembled with a lot more care.
It would seem that mechanics have to really know what they're doing with the torque wrenches where carbon fiber is concerned, so buying from a shop that wants to sell you a too-small bike is probably not a great idea. For that amount of money, you want a shop where they care and know what they're doing.