pyrahna wrote:
trail wrote:
pyrahna wrote:
That said, I'll still take my Allez Sprint for crits....survivability of Aluminum vs. Carbon frame for the win.
Don't ride a bike when you get the most benefit of all the performance thangs?! My buddy who only does training rides on his $8000 road bike drives me nuts.
90% of crit crashes you just slide along and lose some skin and scratch up the bars and stuff. Race the goddamn race bike! It wants to race. Needs to race. RACE IT.
I don't crash often (he says while furiously knocking on wood), but earlier this year one of my team's juniors took me down and it spun my bars so hard that my front brake ran into my down tube and left a pretty decent dent and bent the bolt holding the brake onto the fork. If it was a carbon bike it would have died that day, I've raced the hell out of it since then and periodically check for cracks. Thankfully it was my anodized black bike, so even the scratches were minimal.
For the record, I ride the hell out of my nice wheels and other race components. But I try to race by the adage of if you can't afford to replace it, you shouldn't race it. I can afford a Tarmac, or a Venge, and hell my wife would approve of the purchase....but I sure as hell don't want to have the conversation about replacing it if things go sideways.
generally speaking, when crashes happen carbon frames can be repaired (and usually for fairly cheap) while aluminum cannot. aluminum is not like steel in that it can tolerate being re-shaped without undermining the fatigue properties of the material.
a dent to aluminum can be catastrophic; often the same impacts that break carbon are enough to dent/score aluminum.
for equal money, a carbon frame is a better bet (IMO). had you argued that the aluminum frame is cheaper and therefore more disposable, i'd be with you.