The article seemed to suggest that increased speed and peloton size were the main drivers of any uptick in injuries in pro cycling. CF failure mode was mentioned, but only in terms of crash damage, not as an obvious cause of increased injury rates. Why not blame "risk compensation" of helmeted riders? There are many axes that we could grind here.
All bicycle frames can break. In my shop, I've seen MANY broken steel bikes, but can't recall seeing a broken CF bike. It's probably not a fair comparison, since we sell only steel bikes, and relatively few of our customers are CF riders. But still, steel frames (even good ones) break, and more frequently than you might imagine. I don't believe we in the Riv universe need to bash CF to justify our existence. Rivendell bicycles are wonderful, as are Surly, Waterford, and many other steel bicycles. They'll never win weight comparisons, but we don't care about that. I personally don't own any carbon bikes, forks, seatposts, stems, or bars, not because I think CF is too unsafe, but because steel bicycles just fit my personality and cycling priorities (cheap and tough and good-looking). I suspect that few (if any) Riv riders would be riding carbon, but for the safety issues. There are many ways to get hurt or dead whilst riding a bicycle, most of which have nothing to do with frame material. To be concerned about the safety of CF is kinda like a chain-smoking, hypertensive alcoholic being concerned about cell phone radiation. -- 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/-/-sQTLiBlunoJ. 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.
