In article <
[email protected]>, ydm9
<
[email protected]> wrote:
> In general, how does the ride compare between a bike with
> steel frame and a bike with an aluminum frame with carbon
> seat stays and a carbon fork? I realize that there are
> many variables that can affect the ride quality, so I'm
> just asking in general. Just how much of the "road buzz"
> does the carbon stays and fork filter out?
It's all marketing nonsense. I keep hearing about Aluminum
being "less good" for all day riding. And then I see a
hundred aluminum bikes on our yearly double century. Then
there's the guy that rides up to L.A. from Carson or
somewhere, kills everyone going up to Griffith Park, comes
back down to babysit the fat yuppers on their Waterfords
does it while riding a Nishiki in SPD sandals. Tires,
geometry and seats make a bike feel different. Material
makes bikes sound different.
Look at a double diamond bicycle frame. Explain to me how it
can move enough to matter without either stretching the
seatpost or compressing the seat stays--the direction where
the material is almost infinitely strong.
People just need to make peace with themselves about
choosing bicycles based on their self-image. For example I
ride italian iron because I'm of the "Breaking Away"
generation. It just looks more like a bicyle to me than a
sloped top fat tube aluminum bike. It suits me but I don't
need to pretend it's better from an engineering stand point
to be happy with the fact that it suits me.
Kurt