There is a reason China is now the number one investor in Africa and it's not just the resourses.

The only stuff that ever gets cheaper is electronic stuff, and by the time its cheaper, you dont want it anymore, unless of course you already own it and realise that the latest and greatest wont do any more for you than what you have.

You will always be able to get a cheap carbon frame but the one you want will always cost a fortune and the cheap one will never be finished to a beautiful standard because if it was they would charge more for it.

You get what you pay for.

Nobody can predict the future, and it's human nature to fear the unknown. In fact, it's entertaining as we see here. Marketplaces are very efficient. I have no doubt that inexpensive good quality bike frames will always be available. Fear not Chicken Littles.

I think you're overstating that a tad. According to a Rand study, the 787 makes up 30% of Boeing and Airbus' demand for titanium. Given that Aersopace is just over 50% of the demand for titanium, 30% of Airbus and Boeing's demand wouldn't be 40% of all Titanium capacity.

It's big enough to affect Ti prices, but it's not 40% of the world's ability to produce titanium.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG789.pdf

In fact the Rand analysis puts the entire aerospace segment at 57% of Ti demand with high demand for the 787, the 777, and the Airbus 380.

Probably because they're stupid.

I wouldn't put any stock in what China is investing in. It's an oppressive country with a government that manipulates its people.

Africa, on the whole, is a continent rich in resources and lacking significantly in the rule of law. Careful investors won't put their money there because it's not worth risking if it's YOUR money. When it's "the people's" money, you'll risk it--because nobody spends someone else's money as carefully as his own.

People can talk up China all they want, but at the end of the day, they're still a country of a billion people that have a structurally deficient economy, no realistic environmental standards, some extremely inefficient policies, and a bunch of blind hope in the mountain of dollars they're sitting on.

Yes, I noticed.

While it's tempting to paint such a broadbrush as you've done, they don't necessarily correlate.

A point not yet mentioned, like the artificially inflated pricing on diamonds, CF needs to remain an "exotic" material to keep its market prestige for a while longer still. (It'll be years until the new "micro-lattice" material is suitable for a commercial application, if ever.)

The most ignorant post in a long while. You'll fit right in the 41.

I think what tadawdy is saying is that if the price of CF threads gets high enough, you might see a bunch of companies jump in to produce carbon thread. What if over the next year, that went from 2 to 5? Combine that with improved manufacturing technology and you could see something like carbon thread drop in price.

Thats a lot of unfounded speculation at this point, but its a possible scenario. It seems like I remember similar things happening with fiber optics a while back.

I have one. I'm sure there are better frames out there, but anyone who says they are "utter garbage" is completely full of it. Mines great, and a huge improvement over my AL trek.

That would be a game changer but it won't be driven by the bike industry.

The reason I suggested it was possible is because someone mentioned demand rising in other sectors. Still just speculation.

Chinese labor issues will only serve to drive up the cost of Chinese labor. Plus everything Pcad said (and I often disagree with him).

Anything CARBON will ride better than a AL trek man, so yes im with you... a lot of improvement over your trek. Hope u did not paid full price for the carbon frame tho.

Is clear for me that they got stuck with A LOT of them and just after two years trying to sell them for UBER numbers, now they realized they need to move them off the warehouse quick. Sure they are doing at least 100 bucks outta of them now anyways.

For the record ok? good brands have had flops too, colnago had some models that ride pretty bad for example. So dont take me wrong because im trying to be as much open minded as possible.

Funny how someone on this thread says Tommaso CF frame is garbage and showed no real insight why so?
Owner of the frame posted that he thinks they are good frame.
I read Tommaso owners responses and they love their bikes and frames.I don't work for Tommaso but I find it weird how one can trash a product without real substantive reasons.
I find same type of people sneer at Scattante frames as well without owning it.I love my bike and lot of riders swear by Scattante.
Sure its not glitzy,Italian etc but still great frame.Often one can get hang up on brand worshiping.
I did a huge reading on frame makers and vast majority are being made in Taiwan and China in same factories.While that Italian sounding name is cool fact is its probably made in Asia!

I can assure you that not all italian frames are made in asia, some are made in....well, Italy for example

Incorrect.

The Mets will suck in 2012. I have seen it.

And I will be slightly hung over. I have seen the future, too.

To officialy chime in I've met with three carbon vendors today (two more tomorrow) and there is no talk of a pricing drop for 2013.

I have seen several frames that are Di2/EPS compatible meaning that there are holes in the frame for internal wire routing and also vendors making plugs for those same holes for those not using eletronic shifting.

ISP has fallen out of favour. Many in the industry don't like it and the voice of reason has won out.

I have proposed that the whomever has a BB standard be locked in a room and the industry adopt the standard of the last man standing. There has been some resistance to this. I'll post it on uTube if it happens.

Please note I'm talking 2013 and beyond.

Hey, it's your money. Nobody will stop you from throwing it all there if you want.

Maybe you'll be smart enough to bail out when their air is so dirty that the billion workers can no longer even go to work.

It's already too late. What's your point?

Rubo, many no expensive stuff is pretty good like the pedal force frames but is true too that some stuff is well overpriced. Not saying is bad but i wouldnt pay 1700 bucks for a tommaso that for the record is an american brand name, sounds very italian and helps to sale but for the same price u can get something else with more pedigree, specially in carbon.

Many of the stuff is made in asia, not new for anybody and asia doesnt mean bad at all at least to me. My main problem is when I see stuff that clearly are non expensive and being sold as high of a high end brand. The tommasso doubt is a bad frame but is a generic carbon frame with 2 cents decals, for the original price why they didnt paint it, at least? Scattante? well just another generic brand that is focused in the non racing rider, i think is over priced too but is a thing of opinion too.

In general lines any carbon frame will ride ok, is the nature of the material. For the weekend warrior that doesnt know any better than a hybrid trek sure a scattante will cut the bill perfectly, but IMO for the same money or less is possible to look somewhere else. But again is just opinions. Sure are good frames but it depends of what are u comparing it too. My BMC AL/Carbon rides better than many full carbon bikes, weights more but can do everything equal or better than some mid to high end carbon frames in the market. But I can't compare the scattante with the BMC at all, two different bikes, but i wouldnt pay 700 bucks for the scattante frame (making up numbers) or 1500 bucks for the tommasso when I have the BMC maybe lower in price but way better in other qualities that the other two can't met at all. So again, is a thing of opinions man. But something is true... the tommasso is way overpriced for 1500 bucks a frame. 350 looks like ok.

Too late for what? They're still having growth, so it must not be that late.

Tommaso frame is $400 all carbon and painted black.Are we talking about the same frame?
click here for the link

think you're overstating that a tad. According to a Rand study, the 787 makes up 30% of Boeing and Airbus' demand for titanium. Given that Aersopace is just over 50% of the demand for titanium, 30% of Airbus and Boeing's demand wouldn't be 40% of all Titanium capacity.

Interesting monograph on titanium; thanks for posting. I was surprised to read the enormous amount of scrap that is generated in the aircraft manufacturing process - some 8 to 10 TIMES the amount that actually is incorporated into the final product.

It does appear, however, that all the data in the report stop at 2006 and likely do not include the potentially huge demand for the F-35 (I haven't read the entire article, yet.)