Originally Posted by
wjclint
Too small of a data set to come to any conclusions, but if we are going to speculate at least use the available data in the thread and some basic logic. You have two pictures on this thread to compare -- the OP and the CAAD. Some observations: Both were head on collisions. Based upon the ride where the CAAD accident happened both were at very similar speeds. One was carbon into a motorcycle. One was aluminum into another rider. Aluminum doesn't use resin.
Now look at and compare the stress and breaking points in the two pictures.
Carbon Frame: Break in the TT about four to six inches from the head tube.
CAAD: Break in the TT about four to six inches from the head tube.
Carbon Frame: Break in the TT about four to six inches from the seat tube.
CAAD:Break in the TT at the seat tube.
Carbon Frame: Break in the DT where it connects to head tube.
CAAD: Bend, but no break, in the DT about three to four inches from the head tube.
Carbon Frame: Break in the DT where it connects to BB.
CAAD: Break in the DT where it connects to the BB.
I suspect you own a Chinese grey market frame, am I right? In any case, speculation one way doesn't offset speculation in another.
There seems to be a problem in this thread distinguishing between correlation and causation. An unbranded frame broke to pieces in a crash in no way equates to it broke to pieces because it was an unbranded frame. In fact if that was some sort of hypothesis that was being tested the evidence in this thread that is most comparable, the CAAD picture, directly contradicts that idea. Think of how ridiculous it would be to suggest a CAAD frame broke to pieces in a crash, therefore it broke to pieces because it was a CAAD.
"All speculation on my part but possible explanations as to why this frame ate it so badly in a crash that shouldn't have ended its existence." (my emphasis). Why shouldn't it have ended its existence? That assumption seems not only baseless but in direct contradiction to all of the other pictures in this thread. The starting point should be the cause of the "asplosion" was direct force applied to the front of the bicycle in an amount and at angles the frame wasn't designed to handle and that most frames, even CAAD frames, are not designed to handle.
I think the word you are looking for here is "experience". There are people (particularly BDop) on these forums who have seen a lot of different things. In the absence of data, I would be hesitant to discard their observations lightly, particularly if all I had to offer in return is other observations. Nobody knows if the frame build is scary or not. But observations can only add to what we know, it cannot be used to refute or cancel other observations. Remember the fable about the three blind men trying to describe an elephant? Each blind man is observing a piece of the overall picture; all the observations add but none can cancel or refute.
BDop has a lot of relatively inside knowledge about the bicycle component world, including frame manufacture. The stuff about the resins and quality of prepreg which tend to be used by off-market Chinese frames is knowledge which is not easily found outside the industry. I wouldn't discard it so lightly.
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --
the tiniest sprinter