I did say, both are filament wound. It's the quality of construction that's the differnce.

That's exactly my point. A Yeti isn't a cheap frame. But the construction methods in the cf rear triangle appeared to be the cheapest form of the material on that particular model in that year. I understand they've improved it now.

A glassfibre frame would struggle to compete with an alloy frame on cost for the same weight and strength. But if you look at the Scott Ransom, so does a production CF frame.

When a tubular section breaks, you have the luxury of being able to see inside it. That's where the F1 engineer looked to make his analysis of the construction. When you've seen something thousands of times you just recognise it.

It's strange that you agree with the (possibly ficticious, although it's true) F1 engineer, but dismiss my argument as a Golfsmith qualified professional.

I think we're looking at this subject from different angles and would struggle to reach an agreement.

I'm busy for the next couple of days, so I'll thank you for the discussion and hope to have a similar chat on a different subject soon.

So you're suggesting the off the shelf Dogma is chopped strand, not up to the job and they snap if you look at them strangely, whilst the team ones are pukka?

I'm gonna stick my neck out and say you're wrong on that one!

I cut up a Scott Spark frame the other day, that was quite interesting, sadly I lost my phone yesterday, so I can't actually upload the pics!

That's exactly my point. A Yeti isn't a cheap frame.

In which case, how does "So when you buy a frame, you don't know what the underlying material is, but the price gives it away." work?

A glassfibre frame would struggle to compete with an alloy frame on cost for the same weight and strength.

Indeed – a point I meant to make, and there's an equally good reason why cheaper kayaks are made from glass rather than aluminium! Another reason why you don't get glassfibre bike frames – the point being that it's not anything technical at all, and the fact you can get kayaks made from glassfibre is no reflection on the quality and construction of high end cf ones. In fact glass isn't necessarily as cheap and low tech as you seem to think – I own a kayak made mostly from glass fibre but using sophisticated sandwich and vac bag techniques with proper woven cloth (which cost more than most cf bike frames!)

When a tubular section breaks, you have the luxury of being able to see inside it.

You do, but what you see is the broken end and the inside of the weave, neither of which tell you much about what's going on in the bit you can't see.

It's strange that you agree with the (possibly ficticious, although it's true) F1 engineer, but dismiss my argument as a Golfsmith qualified professional.

Well I agree with the point that chopped strand is a rubbish construction technique – has always been know as such, and only the very cheapest boats are made that way. Doesn't really matter whether the engineer is fictional or not to agree with that.

I'm not sure which argument of yours (which you are using your Golfsmith credentials to back up) you think I've dismissed out of hand – I might disagree with some of your points, but thought I'd argued why I disagreed. However if you're going to press me, I'd point out that AFAIK your Golfsmith qualification is actually nothing to do with engineering or carbon composite technology, and that the golf industry doubtless has vast amounts more marketing BS than even the bicycle industry (given the relative wealth of those taking part and the belief that you can buy performance). I'm still very dubious about your insinuation that different grades of carbon result in orders of magnitude differences in stiffness if the fibre alignment is indeed the same – when HM cf is in reality far less than twice as stiff as normal stuff.