Gone and bought a carbon bike!
- Thread starter finbarred
- Start date
daccordimark
Senior Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
Bats":3evs6582 said:
Of course! The need for milk is an excuse to get a few miles of HIIT in so Lycra is de rigueur.
torqueless
Senior Retro Guru
torqueless
Senior Retro Guru
Yeah I know you were..
.. "true of an awful lot of polymers"...That's my point. This plastic stuff- whether worn or ridden- might help you shave a few seconds off your 'personal best', but after a few years it's just pollution. I don't want to be saying: "My grandchildren may have to eat plastic, but at least I got under the hour in a 25 mile time-trial".
Anyway, I'm not going to pretend that my 'plastic footprint' is any smaller than anyone else's, or that I even have a 'personal best' to maintain or improve.
I must admit I just don't understand the value-system of someone who would choose lycra over wool. Wool is amazing stuff, and they have tried, for half a century, unsuccessfully, to produce a petrochemical fabric that even approximates it's virtues. Like everything else, I guess it has some vices that go with those virtues, plus it is bloody expensive these days. I don't understand how something off a sheep's back, which can be processed by a cottage industry, can be economically replaced by something that probably has to undergo hundreds of energy-intensive chemical and mechanical processes to transform it into clothing, unless it was a deliberate policy to subsidise industries which use as much energy and create as much pollution as possible....?. :twisted:
.. "true of an awful lot of polymers"...That's my point. This plastic stuff- whether worn or ridden- might help you shave a few seconds off your 'personal best', but after a few years it's just pollution. I don't want to be saying: "My grandchildren may have to eat plastic, but at least I got under the hour in a 25 mile time-trial".
Anyway, I'm not going to pretend that my 'plastic footprint' is any smaller than anyone else's, or that I even have a 'personal best' to maintain or improve.
I must admit I just don't understand the value-system of someone who would choose lycra over wool. Wool is amazing stuff, and they have tried, for half a century, unsuccessfully, to produce a petrochemical fabric that even approximates it's virtues. Like everything else, I guess it has some vices that go with those virtues, plus it is bloody expensive these days. I don't understand how something off a sheep's back, which can be processed by a cottage industry, can be economically replaced by something that probably has to undergo hundreds of energy-intensive chemical and mechanical processes to transform it into clothing, unless it was a deliberate policy to subsidise industries which use as much energy and create as much pollution as possible....?. :twisted:
I love all bike, I do not like wearing wool when riding it absorbs too much sweat and make me cold. Modern materials are just better when trying hard. Base layers in particular keep you warm when it is cold and cool when it warm i.e they breath and trap air in way wool just can't. Wool is fine for jumpers and hats and the like. I will leave it there.
I love D/T shifters as much as my STI's/ergo's. My training bike uses D/T shifters in friction mode on 10 speed. I have to say though I have yet to find a modern frame I really like, modern kit though is perfect. Fit modern kit to old frames - perfection.
I love D/T shifters as much as my STI's/ergo's. My training bike uses D/T shifters in friction mode on 10 speed. I have to say though I have yet to find a modern frame I really like, modern kit though is perfect. Fit modern kit to old frames - perfection.
Personally , I prefer my 631 Reynolds framed bike with 9-speed Ultegra , to my Trek Madone with 10 speed Ultegra . Seem to get bounced around more on the Trek maybe as it's stiffer and lighter . If I'm going slowly uphill on the steel one , people expect it more , and I'm less embarrased than I would be on my Trek , if someone caught me whilst riding that . Neither of which ever happens , except the time when the chain snapped !
The Trek , like most carbon bikes now , have angular frames . The earlier Treks carbon frames , that looked more traditional , were nicer to my nostalgic eyes .
Mike
The Trek , like most carbon bikes now , have angular frames . The earlier Treks carbon frames , that looked more traditional , were nicer to my nostalgic eyes .
Mike
Grease Monkey
Senior Retro Guru
- Feedback
- View
I'm on my third carbon frame and I have to say it will be my last. I think carbon has been the greatest scam product in cycling history. I say third, but I've had three warranty replacements so technically I've ridden six carbons. The Look KG 386 is the only one I really have any faith in.
Why are they such a scam?
1. Consumers have been educated into believing they are buying a disposable product with a product lifespan of 3-5 years. If someone sold me a steel bike with that expectation, I'd be up in arms.
2. Cost: Even as little as eight years ago the most expensive bike in my LBS was £2k, now that's pretty much entry level and the most expensive bike is £13k+. It's well known that mould making carbon frames is much cheaper and much less labour intensive than hand building steel, so why the fabulous 5000% price hike? £8k for a bare Colnago? Hats off to the marketing guys - genius.
3. I've had a failure rate of roughly 95% on my carbons. It's close to zero for my steel bikes. Pretty much says it all.
4. The weight myth: Almost every carbon sold in retail is marketed with almost no statistics about weight of the bike, or if there are any, they are fallacious. My current 853 build with Record carbon comes in at 16.4lbs. A full half pound lighter than my Madone 5.9 with Dura Ace. My pal has a Specialized SWORKS aluminium Columbus slx frame which was comparably lighter than every single Giant carbon in our LBS. The Sales Manager politely asked us to leave.
I'm waiting for stainless steel to get cheaper. I'm pretty sure manufacturers will resist it though - even if it rolls out the same weight as carbon. Because then we'll be back in the territory of non disposable bicycle frames, and these greedy beggars do not like that. Again hats off to the Brand managers - greatest snake oil product roll out and pricing strategy in cycling if not all sporting history.
Why are they such a scam?
1. Consumers have been educated into believing they are buying a disposable product with a product lifespan of 3-5 years. If someone sold me a steel bike with that expectation, I'd be up in arms.
2. Cost: Even as little as eight years ago the most expensive bike in my LBS was £2k, now that's pretty much entry level and the most expensive bike is £13k+. It's well known that mould making carbon frames is much cheaper and much less labour intensive than hand building steel, so why the fabulous 5000% price hike? £8k for a bare Colnago? Hats off to the marketing guys - genius.
3. I've had a failure rate of roughly 95% on my carbons. It's close to zero for my steel bikes. Pretty much says it all.
4. The weight myth: Almost every carbon sold in retail is marketed with almost no statistics about weight of the bike, or if there are any, they are fallacious. My current 853 build with Record carbon comes in at 16.4lbs. A full half pound lighter than my Madone 5.9 with Dura Ace. My pal has a Specialized SWORKS aluminium Columbus slx frame which was comparably lighter than every single Giant carbon in our LBS. The Sales Manager politely asked us to leave.
I'm waiting for stainless steel to get cheaper. I'm pretty sure manufacturers will resist it though - even if it rolls out the same weight as carbon. Because then we'll be back in the territory of non disposable bicycle frames, and these greedy beggars do not like that. Again hats off to the Brand managers - greatest snake oil product roll out and pricing strategy in cycling if not all sporting history.
Similar threads
