>>1335958You're completely wrong here. I can specify exactly why if it's not clear, but it's best to keep your misunderstanding about what I said yoenleo in it's own thread, rather than following me from thread to thread like some cat 6 on base miles day.
>>1335965>"ride quality"Generally, handling, stiffness, weight, vibration, drag. It's based on the experience of your ride.
As a simplest example, inflate your tires to max pressure, and compare the experience to inflating them at a safe minimum.
Or, if you're a dirt eater, switch from thick knobby tires to road slicks.
>and what exactly do you think I am doing?Asking completely uninformed questions. Not that it's a bad thing.
> Lastly why is carbon only for racing?I did not make that claim at all. Carbon fiber forks are now available standard on very low spec road bikes now. I clearly need to get pedantic as you can't tell the difference between basic concepts here and backtracking.
RACING is the most important part, as you frequently make compromises on race specific equipment that make it less suitable for other uses.
And just because something is made, used or designed for racing, doesn't mean that it's always unsuitable for non racers.
A simple example: A CAAD 12 complete is racing equipment that's commonly used by non racers, has a carbon fiber fork. On the other hand an S-works shiv complete, is far less suitable for non racers.
> Is it still 1997 in your universe?They don't have Y-foils in stock, and I can't get a klein in anodized thermonuclear purple.
