Everything you've said lines up with exactly what the author said. Carbon fiber bikes are made for and good for racing. If you're not actually racing you probably want to be on something more durable. It's almost like you just read the (intentionally sensationalised) headline..

I'm very familiar with the author, he's of this new breed (see theradavist also) of look how relaxed and cool we are, no one needs carbon, see it's overpriced and stuff man. Meanwhile they're pedaling $15k custom manufacture titanium.

He's been writing as long as I've been riding as an adult (15 years or so). I'm not sure how "new" the breed is, but a lot of these folks pushing comfy tire frame bag relaxed cycling are the now middle-aged former fixed gear hipsters of days of yore. I might count myself among them.

Personally I was a co-op rat around the Great Recession learning how to build bikes from parts, and in the process realizing that you can build a nice riding bike from 50-60 year old parts. You don't have to spend a fortune on Di2 and carbon.

Now these folks are in more prestigious positions and the industry is paying attention to the demographic. We get companies like Crust and Velo-Orange and Riv selling us bikes based on how we actually ride (or like to think we do).

I also race, but I race on a modest steel bike and only for the love of the sport, not because I'm a top tier competitive athlete.

I too ride titanium and have ridden my share of both time trial and racing bikes made of carbon.

There is no speed benefit for a non professional on a carbon frame, but wheels and positioning are a totally different story.

I ride titanium only these days because it looks good and its a tiny bit more soft than carbon, so for longer rides its more comfortable.

Bit I ride 40mm corima wheels or 60mm dt Swiss when I need to go fast in the bunch. And that makes the most difference along with my posture on the bike.

And if you lose 2 kg you can ride on a cheaper frame and get the same result due to your own weight.

Cycling for amateurs is more about looking good, egos, and spending money than it is to make the sacrifices around what it takes to go really really fast.

But ride your bike. It makes one happy.

Frame material doesn't affect comfort. The extremely stable diamond shape of the frame makes all material differences go away. Where material matters is the seat post (I think carbon has the most flex though and should be most comfortable). My racing bike is steel by the way. Not because of comfort, but because it's pretty beautiful handcrafted in Italy with cromo velato.

>no speed benefit for a non professional on a carbon frame

LOL, no. I can jump on my aero road bike, do 300 watts and get an immediate .5-.8 MPH speed bump. Sure if you're a rec rider and you hit Z3 at 120 watts, then you will see no benefit, but there are plenty of non-pros who do.

"There is no speed benefit for a non professional on a carbon frame"

Yes there is, I and many people have directly measured it.

The author is explicitly talking about non-racers/people who aren't racing at the level where it (explicitly does) matters.

Did you read the article? Because he mentions athletes right there in the beginning of the article saying that most of the times they get the bikes for free. His article is about the average Joe.

The author makes it look like only pro racers are fast enough to benefit from carbon bikes. I guess he's never met good amateur racers, they are very fast, the big difference between an amateur racer and a pro is in how long they can sustain a given power, and the ability to sustain it after a very long race. But most amateur races are done at speeds above 40km/h on the flat, where aero matters a lot.

By that logic Lambo Countach is the best car. Even if all you need is to drive to Walmart to buy a gigant^W American size amount of groceries.