Hmmm, it's well and good saying that race bikes are fit for purpose if they fall apart once they cross the line (and for the record I think it was Colin Chapman who came out with that long long before top gear ;-)), however most "race" bikes are not kept in perfect conditions and only used for a seasons racing before being replaced, they are used for training, commuting and all sorts of other uses, and if the bike, or parts of it is/are likely to have a catastrophic failure then imho they are not fit for purpose, not unless it's going to be sold with a time/mileage limit after which the manufacturer says it cannot be trusted.
I know carbon *can* be built strong enough, but it's always a trade off between strength and weight, even when the materiel is very light, magazine reviewers judge on grammes regardless of whether it actually matters to most riders and that affects sales..
What concerns me is the number of really scary failures a quick websearch reveals, I cannot believe that all those riders were misusing their bikes, and given the state of the average british road, what counts as isusing anyway? Anecdotal (and therefore unreliable) evidence suggests that a number of manufacturers are erring on the side of too light/weak, and that risks them, and carbon parts by association being tarred with the same brush that Mr Chapman used to suffer, namely that they are prepared to put light weight/speed before the safety of the driver/rider.
I appreciate that the majority are fine, and that some weight weenies are their own worst enemies, but it is nonetheless a concern. Whilst alloy can, and sometimes does fail catastrophically, google "alloy steerer failure" and the first page of results are 90% about carbon failures, there is a problem, and whether it's parts or users it's a problem that is injuring people :-/
(and I suspect carbon shorts could chafe, mind you, probably more flattering than lycra ;-))
posts
