Originally Posted by
cxwrench
As the story goes the old frame was around 20% more flexible in certain areas compared to the new frame. These days I'd say that's not possible unless some major mistakes are made.
I was hearing "micro-tears in the resin." Maybe somebody mixed a bad batch.
The "modular monocoque" construction used by the major mass producers certainly improves the consistency of carbon frames. This standardizes the construction of the key junctures of the frame--head tube, seat cluster, bottom bracket, and fork. It also limits the number of available sizes and possible variations in geometry. I'd read that Scott pioneered this technology with the first gen CR1, that they had problems with their fabricator in Taiwan, but corrected it with more training and closer supervision. This would have been after 2002 and before 2008. And there are constant improvements in the resins used to bond the carbon. And the post-preg carbon sleeve frames by Time might be totally beyond reproach.
I had a chance to demo the first Trek Emonda SLs a few years ago. The SL is made from OCLV 500, just like my Madone. Same geometry, just hundred grams lighter or so, and a newer Shimano drivetrain. It rode just like my 2012 Madone. For the most part, I have confidence in modern carbon frames, but I take reputation and warranty very seriously.