Interesting article -- Why Carbon Fiber Bikes Are Failing

[Keith A]

Just started reading this article about "Why Carbon Fiber Bikes Are Failing" and thought I'd share it here...
https://www.outsideonline.com/2311816/carbon-fiber-bike-accidents-lawsuits

[cribbit]

Titanium supremacy

[DRZRM]

I submit this :banana: because we don't have an "eating popcorn" smiley. This should be fun.

Edit: Will this work?

https://giphy.com/gifs/popcorn-reaction-this-gonna-be-good-tFK8urY6XHj2w

[sparky33]

click bait, likely excerpted from the retro grouch reader.

Buy carbon product with known manufacture standards and use a torque wrench. Problem solved.

[Clancy]

click bait, likely excerpted from the retro grouch reader.

Buy carbon product with known manufacture standards and use a torque wrench. Problem solved.

Greatly oversimplified

An impact can cause hidden damage very easily, a tip over against an edge of a wall, a fall against a hard object. A friends uber expensive carbon bike fell over against a wrought iron fence, hairline crack on the upper chainstay. Frame was toast after that.

I have never understood carbon frame MTBs.

I’ve owned a dozen or more carbon bikes, never had a problem. I ride steel or titanium now only because I much prefer the ride, carbon just doesn’t do it for me anymore. But if I did continue to ride a carbon frame, I believe I’d always be just a little nervous about its lifespan and durability.

[Hilltopperny]

I can’t imagine buying an older used carbon bike these days unless it was from an extremely reputable source. The big guys and those on the higher end of things have better QC than random cheap bike parts.

While I do prefer metal bikes most of the time, I also own a couple of carbon bikes. I am over 200lbs and have no reservations riding my carbon hardtail over rough terrain. I am also building up a carbon cx/allroad Stigmata to ride on the trails.

I have various other carbon components and wheels that I use on and off road. They are from reputable manufacturers who I clearly trust with my well being. I wouldn’t ride a generic carbon frame or components with little to no quality control to save $.

All that being said, I am happy to see big manufacturers being held accountable for their defective products. I can’t imagine having an important component fail me on a ride.

The biggest thing I take from this article is that when carbon fails it can be catastrophic. I prefer titanium over all the other materials for framesets, but love all the other materials as well. A well made bike is a well made bike.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bicycletricycle]

its actually a pretty good article, even handed and clear. I don't understand why people sue the bicycle shop that sold them the bike if they are claiming a manufacturing defect caused the problem.

[duff_duffy]

Can’t we all just agree that:
Titanium>steel>aluminum>carbon

[oldpotatoe]

Can’t we all just agree that:
Titanium>steel>aluminum>carbon

Not a chance..are you kidding?:eek:

[ptourkin]

Greatly oversimplified

An impact can cause hidden damage very easily, a tip over against an edge of a wall, a fall against a hard object. A friends uber expensive carbon bike fell over against a wrought iron fence, hairline crack on the upper chainstay. Frame was toast after that.

I have never understood carbon frame MTBs.

I’ve owned a dozen or more carbon bikes, never had a problem. I ride steel or titanium now only because I much prefer the ride, carbon just doesn’t do it for me anymore. But if I did continue to ride a carbon frame, I believe I’d always be just a little nervous about its lifespan and durability.

Ride a modern carbon hardtail. You'll understand.

[Mark McM]

To those that claim that they prefer metal frames to carbon fiber (due to carbon fiber's reputation for fragility): How many of you put carbon fiber forks on their metal frames?

Frame failures (regardless of matererial) often don't cause crashes. Most commonly, a frame failure is detected before a crash happens (either by inspection, or by noticing changes in ride behavior). But fork failures are far more likely to cause a crash. And yet, carbon forks have nearly completely replaced metal forks at the high end - even on frames that are made of metal.

Personally, I'm not afraid of a carbon fiber frame failure. What I am concerned about is a carbon fiber fork failure.

(Note: The article linked is about a fork failure, not a frame failure.)

[ptourkin]

Also:

https://www.facebook.com/BillHollandCycles/videos/1627792417266942/

[Lionel]

carbon fiber bikes are falling ? I did not get that impression on my last group ride.

[notsew]

Deja vu

[ergott]

There's a lot of worst case scenario and fear mongering in that article.

The assumption is that there's no conclusive information about the lifespan of carbon fiber and that untrue. The material is tested extensively both in and out of the cycling industry.

It's true that Carbon fiber is more susceptible to improper assembly, without a doubt. It's also true that not all companies producing carbon fiber components/frames are created.

Bottom line, buy from companies with a solid reputation for quality and make sure you or your mechanic knows what they are doing. With that, you can enjoy all the advantages of the material.

[Ken Robb]

The most important pieces of info for me are the statements about hidden damage leading to catastrophic failures in the future. Even if we buy a used high quality carbon bike or component we have to worry about what might have happened to it before we get it. Even if it has never had a crash of any kind a former owner or inept shop mechanic may have over-tightened something that will seem fine but have suffered hidden damage that will progress to the point of failure.

If these cases become common knowledge I wonder how they will affect the resale market for used carbon bikes and components. I have bought/sold used carbon bikes and forks with no problem but maybe I have just been lucky so far?

[Clean39T]

Also:

https://www.facebook.com/BillHollandCycles/videos/1627792417266942/A Holland HC is the exception to any rule that's ever been written about carbon.

I dream in metal, but that carbon still gives me woo...

Ha ha.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[prototoast]

I believe the bike described in the incident at the beginning of the article has a carbon fork bonded to an aluminum steer tube, and "snapped in half" sure sounds like it failed at the bond (I haven't been able to find pictures of the failure). I've read other stories of this happening, and seems to me to be a much bigger issue than a carbon fiber part seemingly spontaneously failing. The article focuses on carbon fiber, but I suspect that the failure would have been avoided had the fork been full carbon fiber, and not a mix of carbon and aluminum.

[duff_duffy]

I’m an odd duck....I still like rim brakes, narrowing tires, and flat pedals;)


Not a chance..are you kidding?:eek:

[zap]

Can’t we all just agree that:
Titanium>steel>aluminum>carbon

Considering the number of observed and reported ti frame failures including mine that ripped like paper during hill repeats..............

[Matthew]

Just did 40 miles on my Colnago EPS. Glad I survived!!! Kidding of course. I think there are so many variables involved in the lifetime of a frame regardless of material. I plan on riding the crap out of this bike and my Meivici as long as they will stay together in one piece!!!!

[Davist]

Person in article bought a "new to her" 2007 Giant OCR1 (ie unkown provenance) and the fork as described above snapped, not the frame, which is aluminum per google with a bonded fork..

[Keith A]

Considering the number of observed and reported ti frame failures including mine that ripped like paper during hill repeats..............All materials can certainly fail. I was riding with a friend several years ago and he was on a Ti frame. When we went over some railroad tracks, his seat tube broke loose from the bottom bracket :eek:

[Mr. Pink]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-qsLYlVWkbQ

I would never own carbon wheels. Well, maybe with disc brakes. But, isn't that the whole point of disc brakes? They want you to drop big bucks on a new bike with really expensive wheels.

[ptourkin]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-qsLYlVWkbQ

I would never own carbon wheels. Well, maybe with disc brakes. But, isn't that the whole point of disc brakes? They want you to drop big bucks on a new bike with really expensive wheels.

Yes. You've cracked the code. Everything that existed at the exact moment your life peaked is perfect. Everything that comes after that sucks.

[Drmojo]

I have broken 3 carbon frames
One carbon handlebar
One carbon seatpost
Two carbon rims
Luckily no carbon fork
Have never broken a metal frame/rim/component
Yet

[eBAUMANN]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-qsLYlVWkbQ

I would never own carbon wheels. Well, maybe with disc brakes. But, isn't that the whole point of disc brakes? They want you to drop big bucks on a new bike with really expensive wheels.

quality carbon wheels are fine...and really do make a big difference in the way a bike feels on the road and also help keep the total system-weight of a disc bike within a reasonable range. i know bike weight isnt everything but there is a big difference between the way a 22lb bike and a 17lb bike feel in use, IMO. also, if you are doing any loaded or off-road/overland/muddy/etc riding, every pound counts, starting 5lbs lighter out of the gate is always welcome.

carbon wheels are not that expensive if you buy lightly used 2nd hand gear. i know some of your will shriek with terror at the idea of buying used carbon but i will tell you now, the MAJORITY of carbon gear ive owned was bought used and with the exception of one enve xc29 tubular rim, i have not had a single part fail on me.

as far as carbon wheels for mtb use...SO MUCH BETTER. in every way. lightweight aluminum cannot take a root/rock hit...it WILL dent, every time. carbon will take the hit and just keep rolling (in my experience), even more-so these days with the hookless rim designs.

quality carbon forks will often times be the last thing standing in a crash involving almost any material frame, even in a head on impact. the frame will almost certainly buckle/break along the tapers in the tube wall before the fork does. there is a MOUNTAIN of photographic evidence out there to support this.

go watch some santa cruz frame/wheel failure test videos - carbon beats metal every time...by a lot.

ALSO, almost all damage to carbon frames is repairable, short of the thing being smashed into multiple pieces. ive owned/ridden/raced multiple repaired carbon frames without incident even the slightest hint that the thing was anything BUT straight off the showroom floor.

k, ill stop there.

[seanile]

ALSO, almost all damage to carbon frames is repairable, short of the thing being smashed into multiple pieces. ive owned/ridden/raced multiple repaired carbon frames without incident even the slightest hint that the thing was anything BUT straight off the showroom floor.

k, ill stop there.
this is a big point. i got Hot Tubes to repair a squished dropout on a $3100 msrp giant tcr sl frame, and a sheered seat tube on a $1300 msrp giant xtc. cost to me overall, less than $500 ;). my only fear is being on the carbon when i fails..particularly seat posts

[Mr. Pink]

this is a big point. i got Hot Tubes to repair a squished dropout on a $3100 msrp giant tcr sl frame, and a sheered seat tube on a $1300 msrp giant xtc. cost to me overall, less than $500 ;). my only fear is being on the carbon when i fails..particularly seat posts

Um yeah, sure you can repair it, but, will you trust it afterwards?

Worse than a cheating spouse.

[eBAUMANN]

this is a big point. i got Hot Tubes to repair a squished dropout on a $3100 msrp giant tcr sl frame, and a sheered seat tube on a $1300 msrp giant xtc. cost to me overall, less than $500 ;). my only fear is being on the carbon when i fails..particularly seat posts

i bought an edge seatpost that the previous owner had sanded the logos off of...turns out he sanded it a bit too much and left a very thin area below the clamp that would buckle slightly when it was weighted in the right way. i rode that post, like that, for AT LEAST the most rugged "jungle cx" race ive ever done (half the field and the winner were on mtb's) and the thing didnt fail catastrophically.

Um yeah, sure you can repair it, but, will you trust it afterwards?

Personally, i would trust it MORE. Because that area has now been reinforced to about 10x's factory spec.
Not to mention almost any qualified carbon repair outfit will warranty their work for 5-10 years...because they know the likelihood of it breaking again in the repaired area is almost zero.

I own a sample BMC teammachine SLR01 frame from maybe 5 years ago that was "destroyed" deliberately by BMC employees because it was company policy. they broke the rear triangle, snapped off the driveside dropout/seat stay from the bridge down and chainstay near BB. while the chainstay was hollow, the seat stays were literally WOOD dowel sticks wrapped continuously in carbon until they hit the necessary diameter. thats IT. cant really think of an easier structure to repair if needed.

[Mr. Pink]

Yes. You've cracked the code. Everything that existed at the exact moment your life peaked is perfect. Everything that comes after that sucks.

Pretty much in the music department.

Skis just get better and better, and carbon is part of that, but, sorry, don't see the need for something beyond my custom steel. But, I'm old and slow.

[Mr. Pink]

Personally, i would trust it MORE. Because that area has no been reinforced to about 10x's factory spec.
Not to mention almost any qualified carbon repair outfit will warranty their work for 5-10 years...because they know the likelihood of it breaking again in the repaired area is almost zero.

How about right next to the repaired area? I would think that the stress from an impact would go to there, right?

Freaks me out to think that there could be invisible cracks that could kill or maim me in my plastic bicycle.

[eBAUMANN]

How about right next to the repaired area? I would think that the stress from an impact would go to there, right?

Freaks me out to think that there could be invisible cracks that could kill or maim me in my plastic bicycle.

yes, thats why any competent repair will be executed over a proportionately wide section of the tube, far greater than just the exact location of the damage.

id LOVE to see the stats about frame failure rates across all materials.
as i feel like the post-QC rate of weld failure in metal frames is probably about the same as manufacturing defects on their carbon equivalents.

[Wayne77]

Just started reading this article about "Why Carbon Fiber Bikes Are Failing" and thought I'd share it here...
https://www.outsideonline.com/2311816/carbon-fiber-bike-accidents-lawsuits

"The high-tech material has been used to build frames and components for decades, but as bikes age, catastrophic failures are leading to lawsuits"

That is patently false. CF does NOT fail due to age. Nor does it "soften" over time. I'll have to look for the exact reference but I'm pretty sure even Craig Calfee has stated that CF doesn't have a fatigue life. If Craig is here and I am misquoting him, feel free to correct me. I've also heard this first hand from an Engineer who works at Morton Thiokol (rocket motors, aerospace, contractor for NASA). You can flex CF (within its design limits) and it will never fail due to fatigue. All metal has a fatigue life. The wings of a 787 I believe are CF...those wings are designed to flex to a vertical plane without failure. I also spent some time chatting with THM at NAHBS last year about their Fibula crank. He said the same thing...obviously a bit biased, but just another data point.

If CF is failing, its due to accident induced structural damage, user stupidity/over-torqueing, manufacturing errors, etc.

Seems like a lot of people on the internets talk about CF like its some magical mystery material that is feather light and will break if you look at it wrong. I question the credibility of that entire article due to the headline statement at the beginning. Seems like a hype-statement designed to feed off a common paranoia in order to draw people in

Just my .02!

[rcnute]

its actually a pretty good article, even handed and clear. I don't understand why people sue the bicycle shop that sold them the bike if they are claiming a manufacturing defect caused the problem.

If you can't get a U.S. court to have jurisdiction over the overseas manufacturer.

Ryan

[BikeNY]

To those that claim that they prefer metal frames to carbon fiber (due to carbon fiber's reputation for fragility): How many of you put carbon fiber forks on their metal frames?

Frame failures (regardless of matererial) often don't cause crashes. Most commonly, a frame failure is detected before a crash happens (either by inspection, or by noticing changes in ride behavior). But fork failures are far more likely to cause a crash. And yet, carbon forks have nearly completely replaced metal forks at the high end - even on frames that are made of metal.

Personally, I'm not afraid of a carbon fiber frame failure. What I am concerned about is a carbon fiber fork failure.

(Note: The article linked is about a fork failure, not a frame failure.)

As you know, I am one of those people that prefer metal frames over carbon fiber. And to answer your question, I have exactly 0 carbon forks, mine are all steel and titanium, and an aluminum suspension fork.

I totally agree with you statements above though. It's interesting that carbon forks have almost completely taken over the road bike market. Then again, carbon forks have been around longer than frames I believe, and easier to make a quality fork vs. a full frame.

Fork failures are indeed scary. In my 30+ years of serious riding I've had one fork failure crash which put me off a bike for 6 months or so. That was a lightweight titanium MTB fork from a small builder. I once had a carbon MTB fork as well, and found a crack during routine inspection cleaning, and that was my first and last carbon fork. I've also had 2 frames crack on me, luckily both were found before catastrophic failure.

I don't think I would buy any second hand carbon bike parts!

[ergott]

Then again, carbon forks have been around longer than frames I believe, and easier to make a quality fork vs. a full frame.

Judging by the number of fork manufacturers out there, I'd disagree. Forks are harder to design and meet safety standards. There's also more to go wrong since it's immediately modified when installing in frame for customer.

The crown area is hard to get a good layup schedule that yields good compaction and enough uninterrupted fibers.

[Mark McM]

Judging by the number of fork manufacturers out there, I'd disagree. Forks are harder to design and meet safety standards. There's also more to go wrong since it's immediately modified when installing in frame for customer.

The crown area is hard to get a good layup schedule that yields good compaction and enough uninterrupted fibers.

I'm not sure I agree with this. Most large scale carbon frame makers produce their own carbon forks, and in addition to that there multiple carbon fork makers that don't produce frames. So there are actually probably more large scale carbon fork makers than carbon frame makers. There used to be even more aftermarket carbon fork makers, but this market largely grew to meet the demand for replacing OEM steel and aluminum forks with carbon forks. Now that most carbon frames are supplied with carbon forks, the aftermarket is much smaller, and many suppliers left this market. If smaller carbon frame builders don't make their own forks, it is likely because forks are less of a differentiator between bikes, so it is not worth their effort to make their own forks.

I'm not sure why you say that designing forks to meet safety standards is so hard, since so many forks are made that meet the standards (whether the current standards have kept up to date with modern materials is a different question).

*It is true that many carbon fiber bike brands are actually produced by just a few factories in Asia, but these factories by and large also produce the carbon forks supplied with the frames.

[Wayne77]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-qsLYlVWkbQ

I would never own carbon wheels. Well, maybe with disc brakes. But, isn't that the whole point of disc brakes? They want you to drop big bucks on a new bike with really expensive wheels.

Why not? CF wheels can be engineered to be MUCH stiffer than an aluminum wheel of the same weight. I'm sure there are exceptions. There are DH guys that do massive drops on Enve DH rims. They are basically indestructible. Watch the Red Bull series. I had M60's, also a very robust all-mountain rim and it was way over built for my use case (Gravel bike). But I certainly loved the peace of mind knowing there was very little I could do to destroy them :-)

Martyn Ashton (now disabled :-( due to a non-cf related accident) did crazy tricks on a CF road bike with skinny tires and carbon wheels. We're talking flips, 10' drops, trials style riding, etc.

[mattnes17]

I have a close friend that did carbon fiber fabrication and repair for 10 years from his basement. He made a small run (30?) fatbikes using his own molds. While extremely lite, he claimed they were too thin and prone to failure.

He is a huge dude @ 6'4" 230lbs. This winter he raced this ancient (at least 10 years old) carbon fatbike and had zero issues. He is also big into deng fu and a few other cheaper Chinese mfgs he claims are reputable.

He only ever warned me about carbon fiber wheels.. He never told me why, but he strictly stuck with aluminum. His tiny wife always had carbon wheels..

[ergott]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Most large scale carbon frame makers produce their own carbon forks, and in addition to that there multiple carbon fork makers that don't produce frames.

Large scale makes anything easier. On a small scale you see few and you see more builders with the ability to make a carbon frame.

[bikingshearer]

To those that claim that they prefer metal frames to carbon fiber (due to carbon fiber's reputation for fragility): How many of you put carbon fiber forks on their metal frames?

Not me. The one metal frame I had with a CF fork (2000 Lemond Zurich) hasn't seen the light of day in over 10 years primarily because I am concerned about CF. It's plastic, and UV radiation does a number on the structural integrity of plastic over time. (It's a shame, too; it rode very nicely.)

I make no claim that my fears are scientifically valid, but they're my fears and I'm sticking with them. :p

The real point isn't that CF fails and nothing else does - that just isn't true. But the article confirms that CF fails catastrophically when it fails. I had a steel frame that was destroyed by a big-ass crack (which is not the same as a big ass-crack) involving the seat tube, down tube and BB shell - it was pretty impressive. I discovered it on a ride when the BB started swaying in a way it shouldn't have. While the frame was toast, it did not assplode and deposit my sorry self all over the road. There is no way that much harm could have come to a CF frame (or an aluminum frame, for that matter) without the frame buckling and/or disintegrating, causing a crash. The difference between cussing on the side of the road and leaving skin on the road is significant in my book.

So I'll cheerfully stick with my steel frames and forks. And I will hope for the sake of the CF contingent that I am 100% wrong about Sudden Carbon Fiber Disintegration Syndrome.

[Burnette]

Regressing into old clichés about carbon fiber. It's 2018 outside the echo chamber, I kid you not.

[Ken Robb]

I wonder if carbon frames made from tubes that are cut and joined with lugs like steel bikes a less likely to have structural flaws than carbon frames from molds.

[Drmojo]

yes, thats why any competent repair will be executed over a proportionately wide section of the tube, far greater than just the exact location of the damage.

id LOVE to see the stats about frame failure rates across all materials.
as i feel like the post-QC rate of weld failure in metal frames is probably about the same as manufacturing defects on their carbon equivalents.

The guy who once said "ride metal?!!"
Color me confused

[Volksbike]

Hmmmm. Been riding a 2004 Alpha Quadra Pro fork for many years now and would not want it to fail. It has a 400mm steerer tube so it is not that easy to replace. I don't even think that company is around anymore. Might be time for a new one?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bicycletricycle]

If you can't get a U.S. court to have jurisdiction over the overseas manufacturer.

Ryan

Giant has a business in the USA.

[sg8357]

You want to know if your fork is ok, a great gadget every bike shop
should have one.


https://www.suragus.com/en/products/carbon-fiber-testing/texture-and-defects/cf-map-6060/

[Clean39T]

I wonder if carbon frames made from tubes that are cut and joined with lugs like steel bikes a less likely to have structural flaws than carbon frames from molds.Dunno, but when it comes to carbon, my first choice would be a MeiVici, Look, Time, Parlee, or Holland... Though I also trust any of the high end stuff coming out - so long as I'm the first buyer.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

[eBAUMANN]

The guy who once said "ride metal?!!"
Color me confused

and ill still say it...because it doesnt mean DONT RIDE other stuff ;)

given the option ill always pick a metal frame over a carbon frame, but unfortunately the option is not always available.

salsa cutthroats are a great example...there is no production metal equivalent and thus, i will ride one until i have time and money to throw at a custom.

i also own a carbon full suspension mtb...because they are far stronger and better looking than their aluminum counterparts ;)

ultimately, im a fan of what WORKS BEST, and carbon just flat out works...best, in many MANY applications.

[93svt96]

Dunno, but when it comes to carbon, my first choice would be a MeiVici, Look, Time, Parlee, or Holland... Though I also trust any of the high end stuff coming out - so long as I'm the first buyer.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Total trust in my Meivici. But being a healthy 220 lbs everything else is aluminum.

[dddd]

I recall that the OCR-1 frameset was the subject of a carbon-fork replacement action, not sure if it was a CPSI-mandated recall or manufacturer simply replacing forks on bicycles in stock.
The OCR-1 frameset I bought even came with a different-colored replacement fork, perhaps for this very reason.
I warn people about buying critical parts from the Ali-Express distribution network, because many of the vendors have zero US assets to go after, which likely affects their attitude having to do with testing and quality-control.

By and large, today's testing standards are stricter, making bikes suitable for a wider range of rider weights and riding styles.

I've bought a few used carbon bikes and have had no issues to date, though there was paint cracking at the toptube-seattube junction of my Scott CR1 Pro due to a tall and heavy owner (who inherited the bike) having extended a flexy carbon post beyond it's limits. It's fine now with a zero-offset alloy post and my 144# weight:

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7039/26963066903_f066590859_c.jpg

[Peter P.]

The two big negatives for me regarding carbon fiber, as were stated in the article are; damage can be hidden, and failure has a greater potential to be catastrophic (sudden).

There is also a certain delicateness i.e., one poster mentions his friend's bike slipping and bumping a post or something. Carbon doesn't like to be abraded such as dragged against a rough surface or a rock on the trail.

With a metal frame, you may bend or dent a frame but in most cases you can still continue to ride it due to its slow failure mode.

I thought the article was reasonably fair, and not fake news. :)

[sonicCows]

My fear with my carbon fork is the bond between the alloy steerer/crown and the carbon legs. If it was full carbon I'd actually be more okay with it.

[Clean39T]

Good discussion being had upstairs...

https://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=140947&start=75

[cabbagelookin]

If anyone is interested, Ruckus Composites has a pretty interesting podcast just on carbon fiber - gets into the nitty gritty of repairs, fiber layups, manufacturing QC, etc

https://www.ruckuscomp.com/podcast

[marciero]

"The high-tech material has been used to build frames and components for decades, but as bikes age, catastrophic failures are leading to lawsuits"

That is patently false. CF does NOT fail due to age. Nor does it "soften" over time...



In fact both statements-yours and the one you cited-are, or can be, true. The statement you cite does not state that age causes failure, but merely that failures are happening as these bikes age. I am pretty convinced that poor quality standards, manufacturing errors, and accident-induced damage are the cause of the failures. (These were all cited in the article) But older bikes, often second-hand, are far more likely to have suffered bumps and knocks that would lead to failure.

Granted, that one statement is a little misleading as it seems to suggest that age is a cause, and agree that it is a bit of a hype statement. But the rest of the article is pretty non-controversial. I think we all know that CF "can fail catastrophically", etc. It is of interest to me that the number of failures, or lawsuits, is on the rise, if that is the case. But most of us ride CF frames or at least forks without issue.

I do have bikes with CF forks. I would ride a frame too. I draw the line at handlebars though. If overtorqueing can cause it to fail, then having it torqued to spec then tipping over would be enough to damage it.

I did have to laugh with the Trek techinical director investigating the cause of a frame failure-it "split in half", trying to explain it as the result of a rider falling on it. "It turns out a guy fell on it during the crash. That's the kind of impact that would cause any material to break". Yeah, right.

[ultraman6970]

Ive seen steel forks and steel frames fail...IMO any material is subject to a possible fatigue failure, the nice about good carbon stuff is that the QC is subject is better than steel and aluminum production.

[oldpotatoe]

A related article on design vs manufacturing..never great to have a new bike be tested and have it fail..ooops. For right above
the nice about good carbon stuff is that the QC is subject is better than steel and aluminum production.


Not always..

https://www.bikeradar.com/us/mtb/gear/category/bikes/mountain-bikes/full-suspension/product/polygon-xquareone-dh9-review-52156/

[oldpotatoe]

[QUOTE]"The high-tech material has been used to build frames and components for decades, but as bikes age, catastrophic failures are leading to lawsuits"

That is patently false. CF does NOT fail due to age. Nor does it "soften" over time.

Not an engineer of any type but is the fatigue also true of the epoxy/glue that must be used to hold the frames together? I realize CF 'cloth' doesn't fatigue or age but all carbon fiber anything has to be 'glued' together..

[Bob Ross]

A friends uber expensive carbon bike fell over against a wrought iron fence, hairline crack on the upper chainstay. Frame was toast after that.

I'm not sure if you can repair toast, but I know you can repair carbon fiber bicycle frames.

[Bob Ross]

I have broken 3 carbon frames
One carbon handlebar
One carbon seatpost
Two carbon rims
Luckily no carbon fork
Have never broken a metal frame/rim/component
Yet

Conversely, I have broken my steel frame twice due to crashes, and both times the carbon fork was unscathed, go figure! and I broke some alloy handlebars JRA. My full carbon bike -- which has been crashed at least once and certainly has fallen over a few times -- is still intact, unscathed, and instills confidence every time I ride it, despite being 12 years old.

Oh, and I break alloy wheels with annoying regularity. Never had carbon wheels so no anecdotes/data points about that.

[Big Dan]

Conversely, I have broken my steel frame twice due to crashes, and both times the carbon fork was unscathed, go figure! and I broke some alloy handlebars JRA. My full carbon bike -- which has been crashed at least once and certainly has fallen over a few times -- is still intact, unscathed, and instills confidence every time I ride it, despite being 12 years old.

Oh, and I break alloy wheels with annoying regularity. Never had carbon wheels so no anecdotes/data points about that.

You can count of Bob for the contrarian argument.

[Ronsonic]

its actually a pretty good article, even handed and clear. I don't understand why people sue the bicycle shop that sold them the bike if they are claiming a manufacturing defect caused the problem.

It gives the dealer (dealer's lawyers) an incentive to cooperate against the Mfr. Without skin in the game he isn't forced to chose and won't.

[Tickdoc]

$hit breaks. end of story.

[bobswire]

Boy, some of you guys sure crash a lot. Me, twice in my life and both minor mishaps. I never broke a frame, fork, seat post or handlebar no matter what material it was made of, though I do make sure my equipment is in good condition and inspected. I love bicycles.

[Mark McM]

That is patently false. CF does NOT fail due to age. Nor does it "soften" over time. I'll have to look for the exact reference but I'm pretty sure even Craig Calfee has stated that CF doesn't have a fatigue life. If Craig is here and I am misquoting him, feel free to correct me. I've also heard this first hand from an Engineer who works at Morton Thiokol (rocket motors, aerospace, contractor for NASA). You can flex CF (within its design limits) and it will never fail due to fatigue. All metal has a fatigue life. The wings of a 787 I believe are CF...those wings are designed to flex to a vertical plane without failure. I also spent some time chatting with THM at NAHBS last year about their Fibula crank. He said the same thing...obviously a bit biased, but just another data point.

If CF is failing, its due to accident induced structural damage, user stupidity/over-torqueing, manufacturing errors, etc.

This is not really true - carbon fiber is subject to fatigue. The fatigue characteristics may different from metal, and often the fatigue life is often much longer, but it does gradually weaken with usage. And, as it fatigues, its flex can become measurably larger. Google "carbon fiber fatigue" and you'll find many engineering articles going into more detail.

As far as the comments about carbon fiber failures due to structural flaws, this is of course true for all materials. In fact, most fatigue failures start from flaws inherent in materials. Just as it is very difficult to create a metal component with no microscopic flaws in the crystal structure, it is also very difficult to create a carbon fiber structure with no voids in the matrix. But with proper processes, these flaws can be minimized, so the component can achieve the desired fatigue life.

[Mr. Pink]

Conversely, I have broken my steel frame twice due to crashes, and both times the carbon fork was unscathed, go figure! and I broke some alloy handlebars JRA. My full carbon bike -- which has been crashed at least once and certainly has fallen over a few times -- is still intact, unscathed, and instills confidence every time I ride it, despite being 12 years old.

Oh, and I break alloy wheels with annoying regularity. Never had carbon wheels so no anecdotes/data points about that.

Enough about the bikes. How you doin'? Man, maybe you should consider another leisure activity.

[El Chaba]

Not that it has too much to do with the price of eggs in China, but on two occasions I have witnessed steel bikes topple over while parked and hit their top tubes on a sharp edge or corner resulting in a crease serious enough to question their integrity.

[Mark McM]

I wonder if carbon frames made from tubes that are cut and joined with lugs like steel bikes a less likely to have structural flaws than carbon frames from molds.

I can't quantify the greater or lesser likelihood of failure of tube and lug carbon fiber vs. one piece molded carbon fiber, but in the early days of carbon fiber I saw many failures of tube and lug carbon fiber frames. Many of them were bond failures between carbon fiber tubes and aluminum lugs (Specialized Allez frames were notorious for this, but other brands also had problems). Trek's OCLV frames, which bonded carbon tubes to molded carbon lugs, were also notorious for high failure rates during their early years. This even caused Trek to limit the warranty on their carbon frames - while their steel and aluminum frames still had lifetime warranties, they only offered 5 year warranties on their OCLV carbon frames.

[bicycletricycle]

I wonder about the metal frame broke but carbon fork was fine reports. I have no doubt that this happens. I am not sure it is very positive development. Assuming the fork was involved with the impact, like a large frontal impact. In a case like this I would rather have the fork bend to save the frame (which I have had happen). Also, if both the frame and fork are elastic enough they may have been able to absorb the impact rather than deform under the load. Both of these points have more to do with matching the properties of the frame and fork and are not specific to a particular material.

Anyways, the article outlines the problems with manufacturing defects and improper care, it doesn't claim that carbon fiber is a bad material for bicycles.

Conversely, I have broken my steel frame twice due to crashes, and both times the carbon fork was unscathed, go figure! and I broke some alloy handlebars JRA. My full carbon bike -- which has been crashed at least once and certainly has fallen over a few times -- is still intact, unscathed, and instills confidence every time I ride it, despite being 12 years old.

Oh, and I break alloy wheels with annoying regularity. Never had carbon wheels so no anecdotes/data points about that.

[bicycletricycle]

I think that UV can break down resins over time as well. Also, differences in thermal expansions rates and oxidation can break down the joints to metal inserts over time.


This is not really true - carbon fiber is subject to fatigue. The fatigue characteristics may different from metal, and often the fatigue life is often much longer, but it does gradually weaken with usage. And, as it fatigues, its flex can become measurably larger. Google "carbon fiber fatigue" and you'll find many engineering articles going into more detail.

As far as the comments about carbon fiber failures due to structural flaws, this is of course true for all materials. In fact, most fatigue failures start from flaws inherent in materials. Just as it is very difficult to create a metal component with no microscopic flaws in the crystal structure, it is also very difficult to create a carbon fiber structure with no voids in the matrix. But with proper processes, these flaws can be minimized, so the component can achieve the desired fatigue life.

[joosttx]

Ride a modern carbon hardtail. You'll understand.

I would submit this as my rebuttal.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1838/43867916672_ccb6b0a27a_b.jpg

with that posted I cannot argue too much with what you said.

[m4rk540]

Boy, some of you guys sure crash a lot. Me, twice in my life and both minor mishaps. I never broke a frame, fork, seat post or handlebar no matter what material it was made of, though I do make sure my equipment is in good condition and inspected. I love bicycles.

Do you like to ride at speeds over 15mph?

[bobswire]

Do you like to ride at speeds over 15mph?

Hell yeah, I'm 73 but I'd give you and most here a challenge if not beat you whippersnappers. :)

[johnniecakes]

Boy, some of you guys sure crash a lot. Me, twice in my life and both minor mishaps. I never broke a frame, fork, seat post or handlebar no matter what material it was made of, though I do make sure my equipment is in good condition and inspected. I love bicycles.

I have been riding since 1973 and raced USCF for 7 years. Crashed some but the worst equipment problem was bent aluminum bar and some broken spokes. Lost some skin along the way. I also never weighed more than 175 at 6'-1"

[m4rk540]

Hell yeah, I'm 73 but I'd give you and most here a challenge if not beat you whippersnappers. :)

Bob, two crashes in a lifetime of riding can only mean slow upright cruising, no group riding or Powerball-winner luck. It's extraordinary.

When I was logging about 1200K monthly, I averaged one crash yearly.

[Rada]

I think that UV can break down resins over time as well. Also, differences in thermal expansions rates and oxidation can break down the joints to metal inserts over time.

From my understanding UV rays only affect unpainted carbon.

[Mark McM]

From my understanding UV rays only affect unpainted carbon.

And "unpainted" carbon typically has a clear coat containing UV inhibitors.

[flydhest]

Bob, two crashes in a lifetime of riding can only mean slow upright cruising, no group riding or Powerball-winner luck. It's extraordinary.



When I was logging about 1200K monthly, I averaged one crash yearly.



Completely disagree. I have had numerous years racing with 7500 to 10,000 annual miles in which there were no crashes. Riding seriously since ‘85 with about 7 crashes, including during races.

[Mark McM]

Completely disagree. I have had numerous years racing with 7500 to 10,000 annual miles in which there were no crashes. Riding seriously since ‘85 with about 7 crashes, including during races.

I have a similar record. In the last 40 years of serious riding (including racing for about 25 years) I've had about the same number of crashes/mile as flydhest (I ride about half the annual mileage, and have had half the total number of crashes).

In my observation, there are some people who crash often, and some people who seldom crash. While I'm sure there's an element of luck in it, there's also large elements of experience/skill/attentiveness/reactions.

[Black Dog]

Bob, two crashes in a lifetime of riding can only mean slow upright cruising, no group riding or Powerball-winner luck. It's extraordinary.

When I was logging about 1200K monthly, I averaged one crash yearly.

Well 30+ plus years of riding and many years of that racing; still doing about 15000km a year (fast group rides included) and I have crashes about a half a dozen times, and none in the last 10 years. Not just luck or soft riding.

[m4rk540]

I should have defined what I meant by crashing. I've only had one crash in a race but I consider getting hit by a car, sliding out on wet train tracks, falling at 5mph while riding on the sidewalk because a friend stopped thinking I was a block back. That kind of thing. So I guess I meant falling.

[bicycletricycle]

And "unpainted" carbon typically has a clear coat containing UV inhibitors.

I have worked with some people who make carbon fiber masts for sail boats, they said that clear carbon fiber parts on a boat need to be repainted every 3 years or so to keep the the UV from damaging the resins. I guess the UV inhibitors break down. Obviously boats are in the sun much more than bicycles.

[Black Dog]

I should have defined what I meant by crashing. I've only had one crash in a race but I consider getting hit by a car, sliding out on wet train tracks, falling at 5mph while riding on the sidewalk because a friend stopped thinking I was a block back. That kind of thing. So I guess I meant falling.

Anytime I hit the deck for any reason is a crash in my books.

[rcnute]

Giant has a business in the USA.

Yes, but...

Ryan

Taiwan-based Giant quickly tried to bow out. The company argued in court filings that there’s an entirely independent Giant in the United States in charge of distribution to authorized retailers. While Giant of Taiwan made the bike, it can’t be held liable, the company claimed, because it doesn’t do business in Illinois, and the U.S.-based Giant shares no negligence either because it didn’t make the bike.

The company’s argument wasn’t new. It has been made in hundreds of similar lawsuits involving foreign-made bikes. In many of them, the logic has been enough to sway judges to throw out lawsuits or convince bike owners to settle. But the judge in Kowal’s case said the lawsuit could go forward against both Giant of Taiwan and its U.S.-based cousin. Giant appealed; in September, the Illinois Appellate Court agreed to let the lawsuit continue—the first time an appellate court has weighed in on such a case.

“This is an area of law that has been in flux in recent years,” says Ken Hoffman, Kowal’s Chicago-based attorney. “The bike manufacturers are like nesting dolls. They set up layers and layers of companies to try to protect themselves, but finally they are being held liable.”

[beeatnik]

Anytime I hit the deck for any reason is a crash in my books.

So you think two crashes in 40 plus years of riding is the median? And are we excluding cross and mtb?

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/938/43955073331_56aa09199e_b.jpg

[bfd]

I have worked with some people who make carbon fiber masts for sail boats, they said that clear carbon fiber parts on a boat need to be repainted every 3 years or so to keep the the UV from damaging the resins. I guess the UV inhibitors break down. Obviously boats are in the sun much more than bicycles.

If UV inhibitors breaking down is an issue, some builders like Calfee recommend using 303 UV Protectant:

https://www.amazon.com/303-30382-Protectant-plastic-finished/dp/B0185PU38A

Good Luck!

[illuminaught]

Watch the Santa Cruz carbon stress test video...

[Peter P.]

its actually a pretty good article, even handed and clear.

I thoroughly agree. Comprehensive and well written.

The one flaw in the article is this quote:

"Andrew Juskaitis,...“Like any material, carbon fiber has a fatigue rate, just like steel or aluminum or titanium or anything,”..."

Everywhere else I recall reading has said that carbon is like steel in that if the stress is kept below the elastic limit, it has an infinite lifespan. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Mark McM]

Everywhere else I recall reading has said that carbon is like steel in that if the stress is kept below the elastic limit, it has an infinite lifespan. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

This week's Velonews Technical FAQ (https://www.velonews.com/2018/12/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq-derailleurs-brakes-and-frame-fatigue_481933)had input from various bicycle industry engineers about carbon fiber fatigue (short answer: The fatigue life of carbon is usually better than for metals, but it is not infinite).

Also, in regard to fatigue life of steel: Steel is often said to have an "endurance limit" stress, which means that if load cycles are kept below this stress, it will never fatigue. The endurance limit is usually given as about 55% percent of the ultimate strength (breaking strength), which is quite a bit below the elastic limit (maximum stress before permanent deformation). However, the phenomenon of an endurance limit is mostly theoretical, and is not really seen in practice. The endurance limit relies on there being no imperfections in the loaded member, and this never happens in practice - imperfections can be caused by manufacturing processes/imprecisions, damage or wear in use, corrosion, etc. In addition, the endurance limit phenomenon observed under laboratory conditions only occurs in mild carbon steels, and not in high alloy steels (which is what are used in bicycle tubes). In other words, in the real world steel will eventually fatigue, even if stresses are kept below the "endurance limit".

[bicycletricycle]

It seems to me that composite structures are much more likely to fail because of imperfections in fabrication. Common fibers and resins seem to have ample fatigue life. The failures mostly seem to come from voids, dry areas, wrinkles, stresses/corrosion from metal inserts, etc.


This week's Velonews Technical FAQ (https://www.velonews.com/2018/12/bikes-and-tech/technical-faq-derailleurs-brakes-and-frame-fatigue_481933)had input from various bicycle industry engineers about carbon fiber fatigue (short answer: The fatigue life of carbon is usually better than for metals, but it is not infinite).

Also, in regard to fatigue life of steel: Steel is often said to have an "endurance limit" stress, which means that if load cycles are kept below this stress, it will never fatigue. The endurance limit is usually given as about 55% percent of the ultimate strength (breaking strength), which is quite a bit below the elastic limit (maximum stress before permanent deformation). However, the phenomenon of an endurance limit is mostly theoretical, and is not really seen in practice. The endurance limit relies on there being no imperfections in the loaded member, and this never happens in practice - imperfections can be caused by manufacturing processes/imprecisions, damage or wear in use, corrosion, etc. In addition, the endurance limit phenomenon observed under laboratory conditions only occurs in mild carbon steels, and not in high alloy steels (which is what are used in bicycle tubes). In other words, in the real world steel will eventually fatigue, even if stresses are kept below the "endurance limit".

[ergott]

It seems to me that composite structures are much more likely to fail because of imperfections in fabrication. Common fibers and resins seem to have ample fatigue life. The failures mostly seem to come from voids, dry areas, wrinkles, stresses/corrosion from metal inserts, etc.

All of which the more competent companies have worked out. The carbon bikes coming out today are so much better than 20 years ago in large part due to higher volume production having addressed those issues. Cutting open an older production bike can look like a nightmare compared to the better ones of today. More expensive isn't the indicator some may think.

Look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdghAAmjyLs

Trek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJl5V_KTRzc

[muz]

All of which the more competent companies have worked out. The carbon bikes coming out today are so much better than 20 years ago in large part due to higher volume production having addressed those issues. Cutting open an older production bike can look like a nightmare compared to the better ones of today. More expensive isn't the indicator some may think.

Look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdghAAmjyLs

Trek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJl5V_KTRzc

In all fairness, Trek has been doing carbon layup longer than Look, and they have much higher volume. So you would expect them to have solved all athe production issues.

[bicycletricycle]

Yes. manufacturers are getting better and better. I watch every video Luescher makes. That LOOK has strange voids around the seat tube and had a laminar void in the fork. The Trek has some dry fibers and corrosion on some of the riveted inserts but otherwise is extremely clean and nicely made. The "problems" he highlights may or may not have caused a failure over time. I assume manufacturers build some extra material into problem areas so that perfection does not need to be reached to create a satisfactory product.

Overall, It just seems like a lot more variables need to be managed to get a good composite frame made.

All of which the more competent companies have worked out. The carbon bikes coming out today are so much better than 20 years ago in large part due to higher volume production having addressed those issues. Cutting open an older production bike can look like a nightmare compared to the better ones of today. More expensive isn't the indicator some may think.

Look
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdghAAmjyLs

Trek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJl5V_KTRzc

[Mark McM]

It seems to me that composite structures are much more likely to fail because of imperfections in fabrication. Common fibers and resins seem to have ample fatigue life. The failures mostly seem to come from voids, dry areas, wrinkles, stresses/corrosion from metal inserts, etc.

That's probably true under "laboratory" conditions. But in the real world, I suspect that impact damage is what has the greatest affect on carbon fatigue life. If you give a hard whack to a metal tube, the resulting dent will reduce fatigue life by some amount. But if you whack a carbon tube hard enough to damage it, I suspect that the fatigue life will be diminished by an even larger amount. (Such is the nature of ductile vs. brittle materials.)

[93KgBike]

I don't understand why people sue the bicycle shop that sold them the bike if they are claiming a manufacturing defect caused the problem.

The rules of Civil Procedure dictate how to bring all of the related parties into a suit. It's part of the plaintiff lawyer's responsibility to name all the potential defendants required, and the judge's responsibility to decide if they are correct.

Here, the entire retail chain could have failed to follow manufacturer's specs for assembly, or failed to use the proper technique to do so, or followed specs that were obviously incorrect, or caused damage by negligence or so on and so on and so on. Facts are determined at trial through introducing evidence, not from that accusations in the filings.

[93KgBike]

Andrew Juskaitis, Giant’s U.S.-based global product marketing manager...conceded, ... “Like any material, carbon fiber has a fatigue rate, just like steel or aluminum or titanium or anything,” he said.

Isn't this technically incorrect about CF? Delamination and material fatigue are not the same process, right?

[bicycletricycle]

It would be great to have comprehensive failure data for bicycle frames. I think you are right about impacts. When I worked at bike shops it seemed to me that the most common failures on carbon frames came from glued in inserts or incompletely glued lap joints. Structural failures from fatigue or impact was more rare except for Uber light road frames or mountain bikes being crashed. Failures in both of these cases are common in metal frames as well. I also saw a lot of problems from corrosion but it was a beach town and metal bikes also have their own corrosion problems.



That's probably true under "laboratory" conditions. But in the real world, I suspect that impact damage is what has the greatest affect on carbon fatigue life. If you give a hard whack to a metal tube, the resulting dent will reduce fatigue life by some amount. But if you whack a carbon tube hard enough to damage it, I suspect that the fatigue life will be diminished by an even larger amount. (Such is the nature of ductile vs. brittle materials.)

[palincss]

All of which the more competent companies have worked out. The carbon bikes coming out today are so much better than 20 years ago in large part due to higher volume production having addressed those issues. Cutting open an older production bike can look like a nightmare compared to the better ones of today. More expensive isn't the indicator some may think.


But how is one to tell the better from the worse? On the outside, they all look the same - at least, to me. Is there a way to tell without cutting one apart and looking inside?

[palincss]

That's probably true under "laboratory" conditions. But in the real world, I suspect that impact damage is what has the greatest affect on carbon fatigue life. If you give a hard whack to a metal tube, the resulting dent will reduce fatigue life by some amount. But if you whack a carbon tube hard enough to damage it, I suspect that the fatigue life will be diminished by an even larger amount. (Such is the nature of ductile vs. brittle materials.)

And you get to see the dent. The damage to a carbon - invisible?

[Mark McM]

Isn't this technically incorrect about CF? Delamination and material fatigue are not the same process, right?

The mechanisms of carbon fiber fatigue and metal fatigue are the not the same, but they are somewhat analogous. Metal fatigue is essentially a process where there are "micro tears" (micro cracks) between metal crystals. These micro cracks typically start at some imperfection in the metal, such as a surface pit (or even an interior occlusion). Once a micro crack has started, successive load cycles can increase the size of the micro crack. Eventually, the cracks grow large enough that there can be a complete rupture of the part.

In carbon fiber, a void can be the start of a delamination. With successive load cycles, the delamination can grow, until the part finally fails. So while the mechanisms may be a bit different, both are fatigue processes.

[ergott]

But how is one to tell the better from the worse? On the outside, they all look the same - at least, to me. Is there a way to tell without cutting one apart and looking inside?

For carbon, I'd stick with high volume, high end like Trek or Specialized/Merida, Cervelo to a degree. For low volume I'd go Crumpton or someone else with the cred to do it right. Parlee isn't a bad option either. In between I'd consider Colnago or Time. Little else interests me.

Watch some more of those videos by Luescher Teknik.

[dddd]

But how is one to tell the better from the worse? On the outside, they all look the same - at least, to me. Is there a way to tell without cutting one apart and looking inside?

I wouldn't put too much stock in visual inspection as a way to determine a frame's net quality level.

The last word on quality will be in how conscientious that the company's testing and quality-control are applied.

Just as with a lugged-steel frame, where internal visual inspection might show the degree of mitering accuracy, but where a more significant effect on (and resulting from) the testing regimen might come from how well that the brazed surfaces were prepared, how well that the heat was controlled during brazing, and other variables unseen.

Again, it's the company's testing protocol, and their quality control (as determined by frequency of testing of the materials, and of the completed frames leaving the assembly line) that is the final validation before the end user does their own testing over the long term of ownership.

Where the completeness of compaction (and thus resin extraction) is validated is in the final weight of the frame, an area where small advances (reductions) are forever being sought.

[biker72]

Hell yeah, I'm 73 but I'd give you and most here a challenge if not beat you whippersnappers. :)

I'm afraid I can't make that statement. I've seen too many "whippersnappers" ride faster uphill than I can ride downhill....:)

[prototoast]

But how is one to tell the better from the worse? On the outside, they all look the same - at least, to me. Is there a way to tell without cutting one apart and looking inside?

Other than reputation, and people who have cut frames open, if you like to be extra safe, here are two things you can do:


Bonding aluminum to carbon fiber is a weak point. Avoid forks with alloy steer tubes. These are the source of the failures in the original article. I know we all hate press fit bottom braces, but threads require metal, which requires bonding an insert. These are also a fail point.
Avoid the lightest frames. Manufacturing imperfections can be overcome by overbuilding. A 600 gram frame doesn't have much margin for error. A 1000 gram frame does.

[bobswire]

I'm afraid I can't make that statement. I've seen too many "whippersnappers" ride faster uphill than I can ride downhill....:)
"Hell yeah, I'm 73 but I'd give you and most here a challenge if not beat you whippersnappers".

That was in response to someone suggesting I don't crash my bike because I must not ride faster than 15 mph. In truth, I'm a very good bike handler, know my limits and pick my moments. Some don't and face plant.