In reply to Toby_W:
While the video is interesting the whole carbon-aluminium comparison is a little meaningless if you're just looking at yeild loads for individual frames (granted they're two frames from the same maker built for the same activity in this case). The material difference mostly has a bearing on the failure mode, the frame design, tube/wall dimensions, layup, post treatment are what determine the strength (and the stiffness and the cost and the weight).
A more meaningful metric might be to compare the yield-strength/cost or yield-strength/weight or stiffness/weight ratio for fully optimised (for each material) practical frame designs aimed at the same market-sector/rider or to constrain the weight as equal for both frames.
It's also important to consider what's adequate. Should that carbon frame be viewed as super tough or is it perhaps a little overweight (not a big deal for a downhill bike I guess but important on the road). If the ali frame is strong enough it wouldn't be unreasonable to consider the carbon version overbuilt or aimed at a different market.
In fairness the video makers they do make some of these points but it does also have the whiff of a marketing exercise pushing magpie customers toward the more expensive shinier (ok, dull black) product/material.
jk
Post edited at 10:11
