I don't think the manufacturers of carbon bikes are saying that they are safer, they are saying that they are lighter. Grant agrees that they are lighter, they are just less safe. So the user has to decide whether the increased risk of injury justifies the benefits from the reduced weight of the bike. For Greg Lemond, it might. For a 190 slug like me, it doesn't. Besides, like most people, I don't race.
On Mar 7, 2:44 pm, cm <[email protected]> wrote: > I think it is pretty common sense for the builder of a certain thing > to explain why they built it the way they did and not the way someone > else did. So if you make steel bikes because you think they are the > best, it has to be true that you think something else is not the best. > And on that spectrum, there has to be a yang to your ying-- ie carbon > fiber to grant's steel. Disagree all you want, have your own ying-- > but isnt the bike industries turn away from steel to other materials > saying the same thing about steel that G is saying about CF? Read the > mags and they routinely say things like "every cyclist should aspire > to CF." > > That said,the first thing I did when i bought my steel Lemond in '03 > was replace the CF fork. Just not worth it to me-- so I am already > entrenched > > Cheers! > cm -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
