On Oct 25, 2011, at 8:21 PM, Bob W wrote: > that's quite interesting. He brings up the Tour de France thing about the > riders not using steel any more, but doesn't counter the 'therefore carbon > must be better' claim. Whenever I hear that claim I point out that the TdF > riders' bike only have to last a day at a time and that they have a support > team behind them with a van full of spare bikes. Not a luxury that many of > us can afford.
The riders probably can't afford them either. They ride what the team sponsor supplies. Inevitably that's going to be the latest high-tech bike that they're trying to push to the rest of us. On a less cynical note, the manufacturers have an incentive to produce a bike that's FAST and meets the UCI requirements. Generally this means light, stiff and reasonably aerodynamic. As far as I know the frames last the duration of the race, but as you mention the bikes are looked after pretty well by the team mechanics. The spare bikes are there to reduce down time. Someone crashes, hand them a new bike and get them going again. A steel frame could probably be repaired but why bother at that level? Anyway the last thing they want is a mechanical problem at the wrong moment... http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/8835486.stm FWIW I have both a steel fixie and a carbon road bike. There are too many differences between them to really judge what the frame material is doing. I know which I'd rather take over the Pyrenees, it's the one that wouldn't blow my knees apart :) Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
