Bdop seems like the man and I ain't hatin'... but his last bit about how the crash shouldn't have ended the frame's existence seems like a reach to me. The guy hit a MOTORCYCLE. That's essentially an immovable object from a sub 20-lb bike's perspective. Not to mention whatever direct hit(s) the frame might have taken to individual tube members during the crash at whatever angles, which are huge yet utterly unknown variables.

A properly executed frame- bike or otherwise- has a strength in "purposeful unity" that far exceeds the sum of the individual parts. Meaning, it carries loads that it was designed to carry but counts on the integrity of the whole. Once the whole fails, all bets are off for individual parts. In the case of a bike frame- highly refined objects, designed for minimal weight- this is even more true than with many other, less refined, frameworks.

I think you are confusing observations with conclusions. Note that in my post I make no conclusions that are bike related but instead make observations. You state that BDop is making observations, and as to his observations I have no qualms. However, he also states several conclusions and those conclusions are reached through faulty reasoning (which of course doesn't mean they are wrong). Some of those conclusions are characterized as speculation but that doesn't change the fact that they are conclusions.

As to your argument, an appeal to authority is still a fallacy even if the authority is correct or you like the authority. Calling it "experience" doesn't change the fact that it is an appeal to authority. People with experience are no more immune from confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance than the rest of us and often those with authority are more influenced by those psychological urges. Those with the most experience often form hypotheses, but the fact that they have experience does not mean they get to skip over testing an analysis and go right to conclusion and call it science.

Yes I have an unbranded frame and have posted pictures of it. I assume your stated "suspicion" of that fact is simply a veiled reference to another type of fallacy (i.e. red herring). I am not suggesting my frame, or any unbranded frame is inferior or superior to other types of frames, nor am I, nor did I, use my first hand experience with my frame in my post (a personal example is just another form of anecdote). I also have a CAAD with thousands of miles on it which is also irrelevant. What I am trying to suggest is that if a conclusion is reached it should be supported, not pulled out of someone's . . . . air.

Now this is an internet forum and I'm really not expecting rational posts or logically consistent posts, nor am I expecting someone to buy 500 CAADs and 500 unbranded frames and stress test all of them to the breaking point to run a comparison. However, at some level the most basic reasoning should be expected. If an assertion is made the person making the assertion has the burden of proof and persuasion which is not met with "cuz I said so based on stuff I've experienced."

The idea that the OP's picture and description of the accident support any conclusion about the build quality of the frame is ridiculous.

Opinions are freely given, freely discarded. No need to make a fuss.

Now, now, don't philosophy 101 me. We are just BS'ing here on the internet. BDop has experience that I and, I suspect, you, do not have. He makes some observations that are a little more interesting than your average internet conversation.

Look at that, I guessed right. Nobody is questioning your choice of purchase (except maybe you). We all make our own decisions. Just because someone doesn't think your decision was wise for them doesn't make the decision any less proper for you.

Don't confuse holding your thumb up to a picture and extrapolating observations with an "analysis" of any sort. BDop is stating his observations based on what he sees, you are stating your observations based on what you see. Both are appeals to authority, which is natural being that this is the internet and not a refereed journal.

Naturally. Nobody is actually suggesting otherwise. But this is not a black and white thing. We know that bikes aren't meant to absorb crash loads. Some of us know that some bikes we've ridden have survived crashes worse than that with no frame failure. Everything is an extrapolation (including your own observations and conclusions), and extrapolations can sometimes be wildly off, but just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing.

Look, you are having doubts about your generic, unmarked, Chinese frame you have in your possession. Obviously. Otherwise you wouldn't be this defensive about a topic you didn't actually start. Every time you buy something, there is a risk it doesn't work out. It might fail. You might not like it. It might be of lower quality than expected. There are systems in place which manufacturers use to reinforce customer confidence. The name branding is part of it (read: product history). The warrantee is part of it too. When you buy unlabeled, unbranded, unwarranteed stuff on the internet, you naturally get it cheaper, but you live with a little more uncertainty. Don't take it out on others who are just trying to have a conversation.

T300 is roughly 70% of the tensile strength of T700 (3500MPa vs. 5000MPa, just researching for a minute on the interweb).

Ha - good try - too bad there isn't a red herring icon. Actually I don't have any more doubts about it than I do about any other purchase I make, which is not the same as saying I have no doubts. I read threads about CAADs because I have one. I read threads about unbranded frames because I have one. I am more likely to comment on either because I am much more likely to read those threads and am less likely to comment on other threads (since I didn't read them, which would generally be a condition precedent to commenting - at least for me anyway).

The last part of the quoted paragraph is the part I have the most trouble accepting which is the most common argument I see related to unbranded frames. I agree that name branding and history is a part of the verification of quality prepurchase that isn't available for unbranded items. The comment about "systems in place" is what I don't see much evidence of. There seems to be this idea that a branded item, because it is branded, necessarily has better quality control at a statistically significant level. How many more Pintos have to be made before we realize that companies are here primarily to make a profit, not to protect us, and they only protect us from their product to the minimum extent necessary to prevent an unacceptable impact on profits, whether due to fines, loss of customers, personal injury damages, or otherwise. This is true for Ford, Cervelo, Chevy, Huizhou Flybike Sports Equipment Co.,Ltd., or Enron. They also know that a lack of quality control will impact their profits. This is true for Ford, Cervelo, Chevy, Huizhou Flybike Sports Equipment Co.,Ltd., or Enron. Each company has to strike that balance which will always tilt toward company interests as much as possible. Cannondale is no more immune from the profit motive than is a factory in China selling direct - if either one has "too many" problems it will impact profits.

Obviously past performance is not a perfect indicator of future performance, but surely it is of some worth. Word does tend to get around about who's who and what's what. Those names that survive tend to get a good reputation (albeit, sometimes the name out-survives the reputation, for a time; I don't think anybody is confusing Motobecane-USA/Bikes Direct for the Motobecane of old anymore).

The warrantee is a different issue. If one is offered, I can make a claim. It is a legal document, subject to courts in the US. The very fact that the company is based in the US and/or subject to US law (as opposed to, say, Chinese law), acts as a counter-force to pure profit motive. We know about the mistakes of Ford etc (even if after the fact) because the company is a US company and, for better or for worse, ours is a country that enjoys lawsuits. You think when a Chinese car company makes a mobile coffin more than a tiny fraction of their citizens know about it? (though this might be getting better in recent times; I hate that I am picking on the Chinese so much, but sometimes a spade is a spade)

If your factory direct, ebay frame even offers a warrantee, what incentive is there for them to ever work with you? If it breaks and spills you on your face, do you have a recourse? You going to pursue your case in Chinese court? You think this will impact profits? At worse, they'll switch user names on their ebay account, change the background used for their product pictures and keep selling.

We are pretty spoiled here in the US. Our strong court system and our much maligned tendency towards lawsuits gives us pretty nice s**t to buy. Ever wonder why we don't haggle over everything in the US? Yea, it's because most vendors ain't trying to pawn off literal garbage. Consumers have no leverage to bargain because quality is relatively uniformly good.

Agreed. We need one of those.

Since you like the comparison between the failure of the OP frame and the CAAD frame lets go with that. Lets consider materials.

If we ASSUME that the crashes were similar enough and the forces involved were similar enough then it would be reasonable to expect failures that were similar. And, when you compare the two failures there are indeed similarities.

The problem is that the materials are not similar at all and this should effect the way the frames failed, but it didn't. For me it's the way the failure in the middle of the TT looks (based on a single cell phone picture). It appears so clean and even all the way around the tube. There is no fraying or tearing like we see with most carbon failures. It looks sudden and complete.

In short it looks brittle, as brittle as the alloy failure. If that is the cace I simply speculated on why the frame may have been more brittle than I would have expected.

Again, it is just a friendly comment made by looking at a single cell phone picture. If I had the frame in my hands I might reach a completely different conclusion.

That is all.

Oh, frames are indeed tested for frontal impacts. There is a DIN standard test

Conversationally, we know no such thing. We know almost nothing about the particulars of this crash.

"almost" being the operative word here.

the off season is upon us.

What little we know is insufficient to make statements like "worse crashes" IMHO.

Hey, I'm grouchy today. So please take my comments in the spirit of conversation, even if they seem otherwise, eh? :)

WTF is the "off season"?

The arguing season? Pent-up cyclists with cabin fever battling SAD? :)

No 'off season' in India weather wise, but I guess with road rash that makes it difficult to walk, I just got an enforced off season.

Thanks guys, it's been an interesting discussion.

I doubt that any frame would have survived that crash, but having said that my replacement will be a branded bike ;-)

Currently looking at Wilier or Pinarello or Fuji. Depends on what I get a deal on.

Standard go to image or example of the carbon geeks. And yet I can't recall airliners coming apart or exploding from trivial forces. Clearly there are different standards and performance levels in the airline industry.
I'm just amazed by all the images of frames ruined with insignificant forces.

Ghost Ryder please leave this thread.

The properties of carbon are well know and it is a mature material. It hasn't been adopted by the airline/aerospace industry, it came from there.

The issue I'd wether those using the material to make bicycle parts understand the material and use it properly. Most do but some don't. The downside of this is that it is nearly impossible for and end user to tell with the naked eye unlike, say, steel or alloy where at least the welds are visible and can be a good indicator of the quality if the product.

As to the images you see of busted carbon, there could also be a website devoted to other failed materials. It all breaks under the right conditions.

Well enough anecdotes do make data and I repeat, the carbon fiber failures keep returning to the bike shop whilst memory of such experiences with steel is nil.
I have had 40 years of experience of riding steel with not a single failure and yet on my first cf bike the bolts attaching the bottle cage to the down tube has wrenched free of the carbon twice, in 4 years of use. That speaks volumes to me.

And this speaks volumes to me, skip to nine minutes into video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nVbmcnsXXs

It's time to post this once again:

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...h_1658574c.jpg

Oh, Lord.

There are millions, and I mean millions upon millions of carbon forks being ridden every day. Some fail. The vast majority don't. With any manufactured product there is a failure rate. If carbon products failed above that rate then manufacturers would stop using the material due to liability issues. Guess which way that is trending.

When the X-Ray machine was introduced there was a huge public outcry because the masses didn't understand the technology and were fearful. Try living without x-rays now.

Same exact thing happened to my Al frame MTB. Everyone back 30 lbs steel bikes!

Just curious, but how long would a pro use the same bike? Or set of bikes?

IIRC in the days of steel it was 4 frames a season.

I had a chance to ride one of Brian Walton's frames from his Motorola days. It was such a spent noodle that I could make the rear wheel rub on the chain stays with a moderate sprint.

wow, that sucks. poor bike

It doesn't list the geometry, but looks like a pinarello copycat
http://www.e-hongfu-bikes.com/index....products_id=46

bob can probably comment on the quality of this thing. I've been contemplating buying my carbon wheels from them.