WizardOfBoz

To get a better sense of this, I watched Hambini's review of Canyon. My thoughts:
1) Hambini has some technical knowledge. He claims to be an engineer, and some of the things he says support that.
2) He says he works in aerospace (and is wearing an Airbus overall in his vids). Aerospace has notably higher requirements for reliability than do bicycles.
3) He has a business producing bottom-bracket related stuff.

In the vid, he critiques the Canyon frame as being full of voids, delaminations, weak points and .. bottom bracket holes that aren't concentric or on spec for size. I suspect he's correct (I think he's probably using his friends at Airbus to get the assessments done, and I suspect that they do them correctly). My take:
1) The solution he provides to fix the non-concentricity is elementary and seems to be nicely executed.
2) On the other hand, if the frame is "scheeite" as he puts it, why would he fix such a frame? Isn't he putting the young rider at risk by giving him back a now-better-functioning frame with lots of hidden defects?

My last observation is that this is a very self-indulgent young man, and a man who is much less effective at delivering his message than he thinks. The self-indulgency refers to the constant barrage of curse-words and scatological terms. He either doesn't realize, or (here's the self-indulgent part) doesn't care that this lack of discipline and respect for others is offputting. Worse, he doesn't realize or care that it limits the effectiveness of his message. He's also pretty repetitive (I mean, how many times must he repeat his comparison to certain people in industry using scatological/anatomical terms?)

Try this message:
"There are a lot of bikes that are sold as super-high quality that aren't. I work in aerospace and we know high quality carbon fiber pretty well. When we do x-ray scans of the frames, we see all manner of voids and delaminations. Here's what these are and what they mean (insert explanations that are less wordy and repetitive and come to the point and don't have him scribbling over the powerpoint slides). There are some in industry, such as John Smith, who seem to sell poorly made Chinese frames but describe the frames as the epitome of German engineering. They're not."

Fill in some blanks, and you have a cogent, tight presentation of 3-5 minutes and the message is delivered and is effective. Instead Hambini goes off for the better part of an hour, a lot of which is spent on him describing, in ever-ascending arcs of scatological logorrhea, which body part (often covered with excrement) a person he doesn't like resembles. Frankly, if I were one of the subjects of his attacks I'd be glad for his lack of discipline and the lack of effectiveness of his presentation. If this is the type of presentation he delivers at work, he's going to limit his career progression. Unless, of course, Airbus has a high tolerance for ineffective, profane, and overly-long/verbose presentations.

The young man has some good points. And the solution for the Canyon lack of concentricity seems nicely done (even if he shouldn't have made that frame rideable on safety grounds). He hamstrings himself, though, with his lack of discipline.