Bicycles I think in general hit a high point in the late 1990s. Good aluminum frames and 8 or 9 speeds (as in number of cogs). Carbon frames are not suitable f

Bicycles I think in general hit a high point in the late 1990s. Good aluminum frames and 8 or 9 speeds (as in number of cogs). Carbon frames are not suitable for the vast majority of riders. Any damage to carbon makes a bike unridable, and it can happen fairly easily. In addition, carbon can fail catastrophically, unlike metal frames. This is all for a few minor or alleged benefits. The lightest carbon frames are around 700 grams. The lightest steel frame is around 1 kilo, and the racing aluminum frame I use is 1100. That frame is lighter than most people’s carbon frames, and I have had it for 12 years and many crashes. It has some damage, but because it is minor the bike is still safely rideable. Carbon is billed as stiffer. It usually is, but the energy wasted from frame flex is less than one watt. Carbon can also be minimally lighter. However, 80-90% of energy in road biking goes to aerodynamic resistance. Decreasing weight by a percent therefore has a negligible impact on speed. The most important thing is to get a reasonably light bike that makes you aerodynamic. It should also be reliable. If it is reliable you will ride it more, and therefore be faster.