>>1063643Well, yes, because it wouldn't. Not to say that steel frames are indestructible, but if you think they break at the same point as carbon frames, you're retarded. Notice, however, that this bike is actually snapped in two places, even though there's clearly only one point of impact. Is that how a bike is supposed to hold up under stress?
Carbon bikes are stiff, but stiff does not mean "resistant to impact", because carbon bikes are not resistant to impact. Again, the fact that you can not clamp a carbon frame into a workstand is a very good indicator of how poorly carbon fiber handles stresses outside of those it is built for. Carbon fiber is great at handling lateral and torsional loads, which is why it's used for racing road bikes. It can not handle impact or compressive forces, and it is extremely inflexible. This is why it fails catastrophically once it reaches its breaking point, and again, that breaking point is extremely low for loads that are not lateral or torsional, which means just about every load that you would experience, say, riding a technical downhill trail.
>>1063644Okay. I was mistaken. Apparently they do make a fully rigid carbon MTB. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Per Salsa's website, the bike seems to be designed roughly for cross-country bikepacking. I'm sure it's great at that. I'm sure it can go over roots without shattering. But it still has limitations.
As for the video, I'm really not sure what this proves. The rider's skill is obviously very impressive, but if you think that the way the bike handled the course is impressive, you obviously have quite low expectations of carbon frames. Notice that he literally never takes a drop of more than two feet. Notice how slowly he goes over every root and rock on the course. This isn't because it would be uncomfortable, but because if he hits something too hard, his frame is going to snap.
