It is by far in cycling, as i found out recently. In amateur comp level bikes even the cost is about the same, and my alloy bike is like a coke can, so thin it sounds like a rock will punch a hole right through. CF better.
The problem is when we start throwing around absolutes like 'better'. CF is better for some things, worse for others, and the trade-off for Ducati does not appear to have been worth it. My dad was a club cyclist and two of his good friends were frame-builders with workshops near where I lived, we talked about this a lot and got lots of hands-on examples. If we compare steel, CF and aluminium frames for road racing, they behave and feel so different that eventually you are forced to pick the material that provides the characteristics that you need for the particular competition you're in, then just put up with its disadvantages.
CF is stiff and light, and is perfect for time trial and short-distance track events as far less pedalling energy is lost through frame flex. But it makes for a very unforgiving frame. That is why if you follow the Tour de France they use CF frames for the time trial stages but not for longer days, even in the mountains where their advantages would be put to good use. If you ride a CF bike for long days at high speed it quickly becomes unbearable. Of course if for an amateur rider with more money than sense who never rides long distances at high speed but has to have 'the best', it is an ideal material.
Aluminium frames used to be considered a woeful compromise as the primary benefit, lightness, was balanced out by a curious combination of far less rigidity but quite high apparent rigidity - the frame would flex heaps but due to its snap-back would feel very unforgiving (I remember that on two bikes with nearly identical setups and geometry I always finished feeling more tired and sore on my very nice Vitus ali frame than on my steel frame, and I was no quicker either). This all changed with the advent of oversized tubing, which as you say allows the use of large diameter but paper-thin tubing which is less prone to flex and feels less whippy.
The comfortable choice, and used by many teams up to the mid-90s, was a good carbon steel frame (with manganese and molybdinum) using Reynolds 531 or 753, or an equivalent from Columbus or one of the other tube-makers. Stiff but forgiving, much more comfortable and fun to ride, and not much heavier than alloy frames. I've tried all three, titanium as well, and my main bike is still a hand-made criterium frame made of Columbus SLX.
All that was just to say that I can imagine exactly what the advantages of CF are, and can imagine exactly how its properties can work against the rider. But if we've learned anything from this weekend's results and Rossi's subsequent comments, it is that the inherent problem is not the material but the design. As for Burgess, I'm sure he's doing the best he can with the parts he's given. Same as Nicky's crew. Same as Stoner's crew in previous seasons.
