On Monday, September 26, 2011 12:07:18 PM UTC-4, Patrick in VT wrote: > > one could still have a competitive *frame* that's much more durable. > But, hanging a bunch of carbon parts off a steel frame (which you'd > need to in order to get the bike into the "competitive" 15-17 pound > range) still renders the complete bike less durable. > > For reference, my lugged steel cyclocross bike weighs in at about > 17lbs with a carbon fork and carbon wheels.
True, you might give up longevity/durability for weight reduction; but if the frame and fork are steel, then the 'core' of the bike would survive, and only whatever bits there are that break would need to be replaced. It's less expensive to replace a cracked handlebar than it is to replace the frame; and, although it would take you out of that particular race, you can be ready to go shortly later w/ a bar swap. Or, if a wheel died, swap wheels and carry on. (And, I think carbon can be strong enough / durable enough; but, it would begin to lose its weight advantage if it was made to be as safe as steel (I'm not saying just strong, but strong and durable both; carbon is plenty strong, but is shorter on the durability for weight savings; make it durable too, and, it'll no longer be as light... and the question becomes, what's the cost/benefit ratio when that margin is reduced?)) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/9V8-1a3xwS0J. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
