Originally Posted by
sir_crash_alot
Fascinating stuff. It's interesting to think about this research and information from a non-pro perspective, where most of us likely aren't putting the kind of stress on a weight-optimized frame that a pro would, and in theory could extend the life of a CF frame longer. At the same time, perhaps even under normal person loads a lightweight frame would still degrade faster than a more overbuilt structure.
I'm still riding that 2000 Trek frame. i was the first in our group to buy carbon rather than custom steel. I bought that particular bike because it's the same frame, though a different size, as the frame LA won his first Tour on. But being an early frame, I'd guess it's overbuilt. The bike weighs 18.5 lbs. complete w/o bottles, gear, etc., though some of that is in the old components. Anyway, I've ridden it as hard as I could for a lot of miles. No detectable difference in performance as far as I can tell, but that's what I'd expect from the above papers.
An aside . . . research says that the catastrophic implosion of the Titan took .01 seconds or less, IOW as it is said, they never knew what hit them. They did not experience the collapse. I think the above papers shed some light on that disaster especially the discussion of single broken carbon fibers.