I fully agree; and not much difference between buying a super light steel frame bike designed for TTs, and record type events on smooth terrain. People forget that a Colnago Mexico is made with .5mm wall thickness and was never meant for the rigors of daily riding under less than optimal road conditions. I doubt anyone ever rode the Paris-Roubaix on a Mexico or similar bikes, and if they did, I doubt it got used for more afterwards since that frame would be quite stressed given its design and intended purpose.
I feel that CF framed bikes and parts have a very limited shelf life, and that can be on a bike that has never been ridden before since the resins bonding the CF together does deteriorate over time just like any glue. Older used (and possibly NOS) CF frames for sale are, in my opinion, an accident waiting to happen; especially with mtb, gravel, and other off-road designs. Hard to know what someone else put a frame through (including steel, aluminium, Ti frames) and then wanting to put that frame through the same or more abuse is a crap shoot when determining frame integrity.
That does not even take into consideration about what the author was addressing when stating that a "normal" cyclist will not really get the benefits of riding a CF frame that a Pro does. I do think that there is a middle ground/gray area for folks who want the CF comfort feel and responsiveness if steel is not to their liking; but I think there should be CF frames made that are "heavy" and more reinforced for the general rider who want the benefits of CF, but also the durability of steel when talking about road bikes in general. I assume that mtb's are made as a heavier duty frame and I think those construction designs should be applied to heavier duty bikes meant for the general road bike population.
Last edited:
Good points all round but I have to say, having followed Eben Weiss' 'BikeSnobNYC' blog for many years, I've been going off him a bit of late -- he seems to be getting more reactionary and creating click-bait like the headline of that Outside piece. He's always provided good info on things like tyres and friction shifting, but when he extends his grumpiness to things like climate change, I tune out.

(On the other hand, I don't see a carbon bike in my future, so we probably do agree on the fundamentals)
A lot of the skepticism is that, for cyclists, carbon and composites in general are new.

I raced on a very exotic kevlar composite yacht in the 1980s - she is still actively raced today almost 40 years later. My own boat is a glass-epoxy sandwich built 22 years ago and still competitive (we don't allow carbon in the class to keep cost under control). I see 20+ year old carbon masts still in regular use. In sailing, lots of stuff broke in the early days until loads were understood and real-life designs matured.
The A320 Airbus has a lot of carbon in its wings and tail and these aircraft have been in service so long that any problems with design or materials would have emerged. In fact the early A320s have now reached the end of life and been scrapped.

I don't see any reason why carbon frames won't last. As rightly said, ultralight racing stuff will always be fragile. HOWEVER, they will be costlier to repair from everyday damage. What would dent a steel bike harmlessly could well require costly repairs beyond the frame's value in an older carbon frame. I've seen somebody wipe out a carbon bike (reverse camber roundabout, heavy fall) - a steel frame would have a lot of ugly scratches but little else wrong.

Finally I try to remind myself that 0.5kg of the bike's weight will offer no performance improvement, a far bigger issue is my fitness and ineptitude. It's what's on the saddle that counts! So I agree with the headline even if the article is a little excitable.
I've been a champion for carbon on this forum before so I'll take the bait. Modern carbon frames are light, stiff and comfortable and there's no reason why they won't last a decade or more. My best carbon road bike (Giant TCR SL with 12 speed Ultegra and discs) is a joy to ride all day long and I'll not be considering replacing it with steel any time soon, especially as a modern steel frame probably costs more than the carbon one.
I 'm sure you are right 4th, but I do wonder what they will be like after 30 or 40 years. Though I will be long gone by then.
Articles like this really naff me off, as they fail to take into account the construction differences in different frames - it's down to how the individual bike is built, not what it is made of. Steel bikes can be horrendously impractical, uncomfortable, and flimsy just the same as carbon bikes can be practical, comfortable and durable. My carbon gravel bike is built like a tank (I doubt a steel bike of a comparable weight wouldn've survived a 25mph head-on collision into a ditch unscathed), but has a fantastic smooth, responsive ride quality. If it had bosses for racks and guards (and such bikes do exist, eg Ridley Kanzo Adventure, Trek Checkpoint), it would be a great all-rounder that would give a steel randonneur or touring bike a run for its money for ride quality and practicality, while weighing less and going faster.
It's not so much what a bike is made of, as what the brand does with the material. We should all know that well from steel - make the same bike from cheap gas pipe, 531, modern oversize tubing like Spirit and something like 725, and you'll get 4 completely different ride qualities. A well-built 531 frame rides better than a half-arsed one. A Pinarello and a Chinarello might come out of the same mold, but ride them side by side and you'll feel the difference.
Saying all that, I do think steel is the best option for most people, for most bikes, and for the environment. If we got rid of all the cheap mountain-style bikes and hybrids, and replaced them all with a 700c steel bike with hydraulic discs, rigid forks, 2" tyres, flat bars and mudguards, a lot more people would ride bikes a lot more often, and have a lot more fun doing so. And if I could only have one bike, it would be something like a Surly Straggler.