this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
-2 points (46.2% liked)
Bicycles
3130 readers
11 users here now
Welcome to [email protected]
A place to share our love of all things with two wheels and pedals. This is an inclusive, non-judgemental community. All types of cyclists are accepted here; whether you're a commuter, a roadie, a MTB enthusiast, a fixie freak, a crusty xbiking hoarder, in the middle of an epic across-the-world bicycle tour, or any other type of cyclist!
Community Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
-
Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn.
-
No ads / spamming.
-
Ride bikes
Other cycling-related communities
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Unless lighter and stronger materials can be mass produced (I heard a few days ago chinese scientists managed to find a way to produce steel cutting 90% of carbon, and like 2-3 years ago about lighter steel from Taiwan and/or MIT) I just can't imagine any serious breaking innovation in bicycle manufacturing. All this "revolutionary" bicycles seem to always go to shit because, well, they all are shit.
They had bicycles made from 4130 chromoly aircraft steel back in 1974. Half the weight of plain steel and twice as strong. I actually own one made in 1981.
Just like carbon fiber is supposed to be the way of the future, we all saw what happened with that submarine ☹️💀
You don't ride carbon fiber bikes because some idiot ignored the rules for building submarines?
No, I don't ride carbon fiber bikes because I ride BMX flatland and don't want to die while performing tricks. Why would I knowingly ride on a brittle frame, knowing the stresses my style of riding put on a bike?
That's precisely why I wrote "lighter and stronger".
Carbon fiber clearly is not stronger. 1974 metals are stronger, why deviate from proven materials?