Originally Posted by
Racing Dan
Framing it like that you wrote the conclusion too. Now lets try an other perspective.
Imagine we had two cars. Both were the same weight, both provided 200,000 miles of riding pleasure, blindfolded drivers couldn't tell them apart, but one had only 3 out of 5 wheel bolts mounted and the other had 5/5, would 3/5 matter?
Well duh .. Yes! Because the safety margin is much smaller. It might not matter for 99.99% of the time, but that one day you hit the pothole ...
Same goes for the poorly manufactured carbon bike.
I dont know why it was cut up to begin with, but its safe to assume it was in fact broken.
Framing it like that you wrote the conclusion too. We know that driving around with only three of five wheel lugs installed is dangerous. Do we know that a sloppy inside to a frame is dangerous? Do we know it makes the safety margin smaller? This thread is full of dire analogies and impressive credentials, but no "a sloppy inside makes the frame unsafe to ride". Note I said "unsafe" not "has less of a safety margin than otherwise, meaning it would only take an abusive 400lb rider to destroy it instead of an abusive 500lb rider".
Without resorting to analogy or declaration, does anyone
know that that frame was unsafe to ride? I'm not asking for speculation that it might have been more likely than a different bike to fail under arbitrary abuse; was it dangerous to ride? BMC sold a lot of bikes and I haven't heard horror stories about them failing any more than any other brand, so I'm inclined to believe they're fine.