Originally Posted by
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 that information. I DO know that Cervelo, Trek, Cannondale frames actually are NOT assploding under people, despite selling the most number of units on the market.
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.