Component Longevity and Service Intervals

snailracer wrote:

bails87 wrote:

...Compare an F1 car and a diesel van. One is lighter, faster and more expensive but won't last as long. The cheaper one may last longer, but it's relatively slow and heavy. If you're racing you're probably happy to put up with the more frequent replacement because of the weight and performance improvements.

Driving a F1 car on the road would have awesome comedy value. No indicators, so it would get stranded every time it needed to change lanes. The clutch would burn out in short order. No starter, so you'd have to wait for a support vehicle if it stalls. No headlights, so no driving at night. No handbrake, so would roll back on hillstarts. Rubbish turning circle, so would have to "donut" around corners. No reverse gear. Would get grounded on every speedbump, etc.

Sounds like you're describing JZed's commuting style

There are three factors to be considered with bike parts:
Weight, durability and price.

You can have any two of the three, but not all three.
If it is light and strong it won't be cheap. (Titanium)
If its strong and cheap it won't be light. (Steel)
If its cheap and light it won't be strong. (Aluminium)

Carbon seems to only be able to tick one of the boxes as it is light, but not that strong (other than in the direction it was designed to be strong in) and not that cheap.

I'm probably going to get flamed by steel frame lovers. One of the way that modern steel frame makers get their frames so light is by having thinner and thinner wall thicknesses which mean it is easier to dent, so losing some points from a strength/durability point of view. Another way is more exotic alloys of steel, which bump up the price.

You can't have it all (apart from the SRAM Unobtanium groupset, which is very strong, very light and costs ~£150 depending on the exchange rate).