The subject mostly says it. We need owners of mold-breaking, non-UCI-legal, moon-shooting, slowman-beloved bicycles to produce some video evidence that shows how flimsy, crappy, and structurally unsafe they really are -- or perhaps the opposite, if such a thing can be substantiated with similar evidence. We welcome other admissions, like the 2013 Culprit or other apparent engineering disasters.

The way to play for those who own one of these craptraps is simple. Conduct a series of three ten second videos modeled after the following three videos (here and here and here) and share with the community on this thread. We are looking to assess torsional stiffness, vertical/horizontal compliance, and just generally shit carbon layups.

I'll stipulate that an unsubstantiated opinion from me does not constitute fact and shall not form the basis for any form of libel. But that said, my working assumptions here are essentially as follows:

• These bikes are more liabilities than assets this early in the game, because they are structurally flawed, noodle flimsy, and potentially unsafe for their owners/riders
• These products should not (or cannot) be ridden on any trainer, or at least, not any modern trainer that secures the bike in some fashion by the rear skewer (all of them?), despite what manufacturers claim
• There is no reason to buy any one of these bicycles over a bicycle that possesses seatstays, chainstays, seat tubes, down tubes, or all of the foregoing (e.g. nouveau Cube/BMC, Trek Speed Concept, Cervelo P5, Spesh Shiv, Felt IA, Premier Tactical, et al)
• Manufacturers are only giving us these bikes because they cannot or will not give us better and faster bikes -- so they are giving us different bikes. These new beam bikes are not good in any sense -- they are slower, heavier, expensiver, more cumbersome, and I fear they could even spread degenerative disease.