InvertedMP 

I take him with a grain of salt just like everyone does I'm sure. But this was a cool look at some Chinese made carbon wheels.

noodle soup

After seeing how he has the bars/shifters set up, I’m absolutely convinced that he knows nothing about cycling.

InvertedMP 

Thats fair haha! I have no idea why he did his setup like that...

BoraxKid

Hambini is not just a clown, he's the whole circus. Don't take his videos with a grain of salt, flush them down the toilet along with his crackpot nonsense.

Bah Humbug

We knew that already, of course.

WhyFi

I skipped though. People watch this guy? Eesh.

mattcalifornia

Nah - grain of salt is appropriate. He has pointed out some very legitimate manufacturing problems that don't get much attention elsewhere, and he shows you the defects, how he identifies and measures them, and how/whether they can be fixed. That's useful. On the other hand, his style can get pretty grating, and he definitely does not have any expertise at all in many aspects of cycling and bicycles. He's definitely not useless though. I have learned some real information from some of his videos.

Seattle Forrest

Seattle Forrest

Come on, don't sugar coat it. Tell us how you really feel!

ups

These comments remind me of the guy sitting in his mothers basement drumming for an audience of 1, talk *****e about Lars Ulrich of Metallica.

Hambini is for some, not for others. If you don't like it, go start your own YT channel.

smashndash

These comments are funny. Keep em coming LOL.

I am shocked by the bar setup as well. No way you can go flat-forearms on the hoods with those. And that is the most aero position. I’d like to hear him defend those bars - and I’m sure we all will.

Also I am suspicious of his claim that this is by far the fastest 50mm wheelset. First off, this wheelset only has 16/21 spokes. Fewer than the 20/24 of other rim brake wheelsets, and that was never accounted for. Yes, you can use fewer carbon spokes than steel ones, but that can apply to any rim. And how many 50mm wheels has Hambini tested? And how did he know these would be THE fastest before buying them? He sure got lucky there.

Lastly, he keeps banging on the “23 is faster” drum but a) the 23mm GP4ks are basically 25s and b) 23s are dead as far as most cyclists are concerned. Even pros are using true-to-size 25s. I personally would not buy a race bike that couldn’t clear 28s on fat rims (30-31mm WAM). That’s as narrow as I’d go.

Still a funny video.

asgelle

I have a watch like that. It’s broken, but twice a day it gives me some useful information.

guadzilla

The only legitimate problems he points out are specific, extreme cases of BB being out of tolerance - from which he extrapolates into the QC of an entire company.

Then he makes up stories about finding air bubbles inside frames without any evidence to support his statements. He does things like pointing to rough finishing on the inside of a frame as an example of bad QC (it isnt). He makes absurd statements about QC based on the fact that carbon fiber does not have the same tolerances as metal (no duh. That doesnt mean bad QC, you ducking prat). He has made a sock puppet on Slowtwitch that purportedly was his colleague at Boeing or whereever. He has lied about getting a legal letter from Flo lawyers. He has provided no evidence of his alleged aero wheel test. He has not offered any evidence to support his qualifications. He has gone on a tirade against one of the Cervelo guys as well as other experts in the field (people who actually are employed for, and who have to demonstrate, their expertise - as opposed to Youtube blowhards) after they all consistently pushed back on his nonsense.

While he certainly knows his bottom brackets and machining tolerances, everything else with him is just a con show. And for everyone thinking that he is a neutral party - yeah right. He's become a minor celebrity with his army of fans who think he is an expert because "he tells it like it is".

And worst of all - he isnt even entertaining. It is the same old shtick every show. He's like the child that knows that he will get attention if he acts up. Watch the difference between his episodes from 2-3 years ago to now.

guadzilla

No, I dont need to start a YT channel just to because I have the brains and knowledge to recognize an attention ***** (Hambini) when i see one.

mattcalifornia

I really have no interest in re-hashing the whole Hambini debate. I agree with some of what you said. (However as for the frame voids (they aren't exactly air bubbles but gaps in the resin/bonding material), I find it entirely credible. If you watch Raoul's channel, he cuts open lots of carbon frames and shows you many examples of such voids.) He clearly knows something about bottom brackets and ball bearings. And he has pointed out some genuine issues with frame manufacturing. I have found that useful. Some of his other claims are questionable. Some are just stupid. I don't care if people don't like him or criticize him. However, I find it absurd when people claim that he doesn't know anything and is a complete fraud. It's simply not true. He has some strong core knowledge, but spouts on beyond his expertise. And, with that, I've exhausted my interest in Hambini for today.

vespasianus

Well, if you go back 30 years, that is kinda how bikes were set up. I am going to assume that he is spending most of his time in the drops as well.

Hambini is an autistic 5 year old. He says so himself. The first time it is interesting but it is the same shtick over and over again. To me, it gets tiring after the first 30 seconds.

With that said, most of what he says ends up being also mentioned by Luescher.

rubiksoval

This. 100%.

PoorInRichfield

^ This. Looking back at my '90s era Trek 5200, the bars bend the same way and I can't believe that's what was cool back then.

Back on topic... I was interested in the Hyper wheels for a while until I "discovered" Light Bicycle wheels. I don't see an advantage to going with the Hyper wheels in that they are completely proprietary rims, spokes, and hubs. If you have issues with them in the future, like a broken carbon spoke, you'll likely find it hard or impossible to fix them. My LB wheels are lighter, reasonably aero, but use DT hubs and Sapim spokes which are easy to find replacements for. My LB WR50 (50mm disc, 25mm wide) wheelset weighs in at 1,354g actual weight, where as the 50mm Hyper wheels have a claimed total weight of 1,425g. Cost-wise, both my wheelset and the equivalent Hyper wheels are about the same.

I see Winspace has decided to put a lot of weight into Habini's review of their wheels. I really wish there was another independent wheel testing group or person to refer to, perhaps someone who has a vocabulary that consists of words longer than 4 letters ...
https://www.winspace.cc/hyper-2020

guadzilla

So about that. The fact that there are voids in the carbon frame is just data - not information. For it to have meaning, it is useful to know:
- What is the typical acceptable limit for voids in a high quality frame that meets QC - in terms of size, quantity or whatever appropriate measure the structural guy thinks is relevant
- What is the impact on reliability of having more voids than normal

I certainly dont know enough to answer the question. I DO know that Cervelo, Trek, Cannondale frames actually are NOT assploding under people, despite selling the most number of units on the market. And if theory doesnt match reality, it is theory that needs to be revised, not reality.

InvertedMP 

This is absolutely correct.

Voids don’t necessarily equate to poor production or poor quality. It also doesn’t indicate a weaker frame necessarily. It’s been used as a benchmark to show build quality, and ok if that’s the metric we want to go on, so be it. But the fact is, everyone rags on Pinarello build quality yet everyone uses them and frames simply aren’t failing.

The airplane I own is composite, with a full carbon fiber wing, so I am totally geeky when it comes to composites. Vacuum forming composites and having wrinkles is super common, and nobody even remotely considers it an issue, it’s simply a drawback to vacuum forming. Wet layup avoids that issue.

When I say take Hambini with a grain of salt, this is where I don’t trust what he says. Sure he’s an engineer and educated but when it comes to finding small voids and making a judgement on whether the frame is safe or not, he does not have the qualifications to make. He makes no mention of the thickness or severity of specific voids, rather be just says “there are a lot of voids” but you never see what he is talking about.

mattcalifornia

I agree that small voids are unlikely to result in frame failure. Whether they can degrade rigidity in certain circumstances, depending on size and location, is another story. My guess is that they don't matter most of the time. However, it is also clear that the voids are unintended manufacturing shortcomings (or even defects, if you prefer). Frames with a large number of voids would seem to indicate sloppy manufacturing processes. Wrinkles seem much less likely to have any real-world negative effects. However, in some cases I've seen on Raoul's channel, the severity and amount of wrinkling is surprising and possibly due to a lack of adequate care in the layup process.

My only point is that all of these expensive carbon frames look incredible from the outside. They have sexy shapes and gorgeous paint jobs. From their appearance and price, you would reasonably assume that they are manufactured with incredible precision. But Hambini and Raoul have shown us that the manufacturing process is a bit uglier behind the scenes. The BB issues seem even more inexcusable than the voids and wrinkles -- especially on the super-expensive frames.

Bah Humbug

Also, pointedly, there are a lot of Cervelo riders around here (on the forum and in my area). Not one of them has said "wow I can't wait until I get change to a better bike than this POS". Most have had a string of Cervelos; those that have bought others bought others for specific reasons (gravel before the Aspero, for example, or specific tri features).

InvertedMP 

My Cervelo R3 is awesome. I have no idea what voids there are, but I have also never seen a functional failure of an R3 frame due to poor manufacturing. Now, frame manufacturers may sonic scan their frames, and they may have a tolerance that is not public to us, that is allowable, and will pass QA (quality assurance) to then be shipped.

The undeniable fact is that these voids are not materializing into failures, at all.

Princess_Allez

Isn't that his "cheap" aero bike that he is using as a model to prove speed can be had at a lower cost? If so, he likely has the bars setup for pure aero position, hence why it looks whacky.

guadzilla

Not necessarily. There is also the possibility that it is purely cosmetic and cleaning up the finishing on the inside of the tubings is something that would cost X man-hours of work and add $Y to the overall cost of the frame. The manufacturer may (rightfully) decide that it is not worth it. I certainly dont want to pay $500 more for my frame just so that the inner tubes are neatly cleaned up. To be clear - it is certainly your prerogative to demand a frame that is finished perfectly inside and outside - I am certainly not disputing that. I am just saying that a manufacturer choosing to take a different tack with the product doesnt mean that they are being sloppy.

Further, while this may be an indictment of craftsmanship, it is not necessarily an indictment of precision or quality. You need to know what level of precision is attainable with carbon fiber for a given price point (I am willing to bet dollars to donuts it is going to be a lot lower than with metal). All manufacturing is a balance between consistency, scalability and cost - the ability to churn out X units of a product at a cost of $Y with a failure rate of Z%. You can probably make a perfect carbon frame, inside out and outside, if you, say, add 10 hours more to the manufacturing process and accept a failure rate of 75%. But then you arent really going to have a competitive product. Alternatively, you could use a different manufacturing process that, erm... avoids the voids... but how does that affect other attributes of the bike (cost, reliability, structural characteristics, etc)?

So Luescher's pointing out these defects is not necessarily an indictment of reliability or quality. To get that, you need to know all the stuff i pointed out earlier:
- what is the baseline quality that is achievable at this price point - in this example, what is the typical incidence of voids --> without this, any info is useless
- is it actually a safety issue or a cosmetic issue --> this bit is kinda important. Everyone hears "void" and goes "oooh"... but so what?
- what is the failure rate (defined in this case as inability of the frame to meet the max void quanta/size threshold) for the product? A single product doesnt tell you anything.
- what is the tradeoff in terms of getting rid of the voids - cost, change in other attributes, change in reliability elsewhere

Dont get me wrong - I think it is a GREAT thing that customers keep manufacturers on their toes. However, being a bike mechanic or being able to cut up a frame and look inside doesnt make someone an expert on structural engineering or manufacturing processes, or even qualified to comment on overall quality. Hell, even expertise in manufacturing processes in one field does not carry over to a different field. Honestly, I'd trust the engineers of each company more when it comes to quality - they actualy have skin in the game when it comes to ensuring quality (if nothing else, simple market forces keep them honest).

I find a lot of these arguments to be pointlessly alarmist and exaggerated. As Bah Humbug pointed out, lots of people ride Cervelos, Cannondales, etc. Most of them love it. My R5 was the best bike I have ever ridden. But reading some of these blogs, you'd think it is a miracle those things even last a single ride (ok, I exaggerate but you know what I mean).

PS - on the BB front, I absolutely agree that customers absolutely should NOT have to put up with creaky or misshapen BBs. But given that CF is not going to be as precise to make, it seems to me that there is always a likelihood that a small percent of frames will make it through QC with BBs that are out of spec. Defects are a normal part of any manufacturing. However, failure to fix those defects absolutely needs to be highlighted, with naming and shaming involved.