Quoted message said:The better cyclist you are the longer top tube you need.
And this is because...
Top tube length is determined by proper fit, not your skill as a cyclist. While it's true that
someone who's more flexible and more used to a racing-style position may desire a longer top tube
plus stem combo, it's also true that a great many "better cyclists" ride with fairly short top tubes
& stems. It's also true that that Lance guy you mention later rides a 100% stock TREK 5500 & 5900
frameset. If, because he was a "better cyclist" he needed a longer top tube, I'm sure they'd find a
way to accommodate him.
Quoted message said:Carbon does not fare well in crash.
Neither does steel, ti or aluminum. But regarding carbon in particular, I have proof that riding
straight-on into the side of a car at 14.5mph did no damage to a carbon fiber frame, nor the carbon
fork blades, but did in fact bend the *steel* fork column rather nastily.
In addition, many carbon frames are designed to be easily repairable, using a lugs & tube
construction technique that allows them to replace just one tube if required.
Quoted message said:Warrant on Ti is generally better and I would prefer lifetime.
The warranty on the line that produces Lance's bike is, and has been, lifetime.
Quoted message said:Plain Ti does not chip or scratch.
Titanium most certainly does get scratched, although I'd generally give ti high marks for cosmetic
durability.
Quoted message said:If you are heavier than 150lb Ti might have better ride quality for you.
Actually, unless a manufacturer goes to the trouble of increasing tube diameter for larger frame
sizes (most don't), a titanium frame is likely to get rather flexible in larger sizes, and more
likely have a front derailleur that scrapes against the chain when standing on the pedals while
climbing. Carbon fiber, on the other hand, is a designer material that can be made differently for
the various frame sizes. In TREKs case, the lugs for the larger frames are made differently than
those for the smaller ones, because it's assumed they will encounter more stress.
Quoted message said:Ti lasts longer.
The real world is littered with failed titanium frames, many examples of which can be found in
newsgroup postings. Just as it is littered with carbon, steel & aluminum frames that have failed.
It's not the material, it's what you do with it that makes the difference in terms of lifespan.
Technically an aluminum frame weakens from the very first day you ride in, while the fatigue life of
steel and titanium is such that it continues with nearly its original strength for a very long time
until it approaches its
limit. Does that make steel or titanium stronger than aluminum? Not if the aluminum frame is
properly designed. Given the lightness of the material, you can design in such a tremendous
margin of safety that it's not likely to fail after having been ridden 115 miles every
single day for 15 years (a real example given to me by an engineer talking about his
aluminum frame designs, and why they were nothing to worry about).
Quoted message said:The popularity of Trek is mostly due to incredible performance of Lance Armstrong.
Lance is certainly a great spokesperson for TREK, but hardly the sole reason for their success. If
you look at recent bicycle history, you'll find that the mid-90s (before Lance made his incredible
comeback, and many years before he had anything to do with TREK) were the years that TREK became the
dominant force in the US retail bicycle scene.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles chainreactionbicycles.comchainreactionbicycles.comOpen ↗
