-
Ahh, by non-specific I meant I was looking at materials in a general sense rather than a bike for general riding - I've no idea what my next n+1 will be or be for at this stage. But if I'm buying a bike for going fast on, it seems daft to buy something that wont maximize that fastness. Either through power transfer, aerodynamics or handling. I guess there's two things going into this:
1) I've never owned a carbon bike and aesthetically I tend to prefer simple steel/alloy frames
2) I don't want to feel that I'm missing out, especially if I want to factor performance into a buying decision.So other than the general adage of 'good alu > cheap carbon', is there any reason to look at anything other than carbon? Do I need to go the lofty heights of 953 before steel is competitive? Or do I need to accept that buying a steel/alloy/ti bike will always involve a bit of heart over head? (which I'm totally ok with, I'd just like to know that that's truly the case)
You are reading a single comment by @Ptown and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Ptown
If you want to buy a new bike, get whatever you fancy. You don't need us to tell you how to spend your entertainment budget. Don't expect to go amazingly fast just because you've lashed out a ton of cash on a new toy. On Sunday I did a 10:57 lap on my 14kg MTB on a circuit where my PB is 10:10 on a <7kg carbon road bike, and there was bovine interference on the MTB lap :-)