The best handling and riding frames I've ever been on were a C40, a Dogma, and my S-works Tarmac; inversely I felt that the R3 SL, S5 VWD, and Trek 7 series (all frames that went for lightness) were handfuls to corner and ride.
So they are also just selling it because why not make $20,000 off some rich dumb dumbs to make back some back from the customization of layup cost.
you made my point about them making money on people with way too much money or "dumb dumbs", your words.
understood... thats why i said, if ANY bike was HIT right it would break.
Which is both absolutely true and completely meaningless.
The driver compartment of any car can be crushed if you hit it hard enough, does that mean vehicle safety standards are irrelevant? A helmet won't save you from a big enough impact, does that mean helmets aren't useful?
the point being that the other frames mention are not less durable than this mclaren frame. they have passed the same test, or do you think your 2000watt sprint will crack the frame? lol. just because its heavier doesnt mean its stronger, more durable or stiffer. design and materials is what gets all these elements to where the engineer wants them.
carbon composites give the bicycle builder/maker the freedom to do much more. just look at rolo, ax-lightness, trek emonda, etc. you can tune the character of the bike, weight, stiffness to ride how you want. because the bikes mention c40 etc are what you like, doesnt mean they are good. are you the ultimate bike tester and the last word on cycling? because you like it doesnt mean everyone else will.
btw. erik zabel had a SPIN bike with Colnago painted on it, cause the custom spin rode better, and it was a lot lighter. go figure.