So the things I have learned from this thread
· There are fewer carbon frame bikes in use than other types
· Racing bikes can’t be expected to have the same lifespan as types made for other uses
· Manufactures are still updating designs to improve durability when something fails
· Carbon bikes need to be handled with more care. Common issues like throwing a chain has rendered bikes unusable
· There are people on this site who have first hand knowledge of “unmolested” carbon frames “asploding”
The fact carbon bikes are less common yet account for the majority of the warranty repairs is telling. Carbon technology is still in its infancy when compared to other technologies. There aren’t any 40 year old carbon bikes to draw conclusions from. The longer a bike is used the greater the chance of it being "molested". Statistics concerning carbon durability might be biased by early technologies that are no longer used today.
As with all items concerning risk one needs to weigh the probability of something failing to the potential consequences of failure. Most carbon failures listed here were not life threatening. Some were. But without hard numbers of failures per mile it is impossible to quantify the relative risk of carbon vs. other materials.
The last thing that seems apparent to me at least
· Some people will ignore all of the above to avoid the perception of losing an internet argument