You are reading a single comment by @branwen and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
I think good carbon > everything else, but beyond that it gets murky. I think the point tester is trying to make, as with wheels, is that by the time you are fast enough to need the speed of a top end race bike, people will be giving them to you.
So go with the heart a little, at least. Also worth thinking that unless you're doing 1hr crits, then a comfortable bike might end up faster than one which gives you horrible back pain after a few hours
branwen
gbj_tester
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)
edit: oooh, that last bit really struck a chord. I guess that's the crux of what I'm asking - can metal ever be justified from a performance metric perspective?