Way back in the time machine, when CF first was available, I swore off it. Bonding failures for dropouts, brake bridges etc turned me against CF. But..over time, like aluminum before it, CF has been sorted out to be a much better product. Remember when the old Viscount alu forks would spontaneously snap and put you on the ground? Not often to see an alu part break these days. Same with CF. They sorted out the bonding and problems with galvanic corrosion. And they stopped designing them like steel frames (just like alu before) and actually engineered the parts to utilize the strengths of the material, like alu before it. Most failures occur because of crash damage and damage from improperly installed parts etc. Pure CF, like a handlebar, is extremely strong. If you cut some fibres inadvertently in a crash or by scratching/denting the part during installation. Steel was unique because it generally never failed, lifetime frame warranty. Crash a steel frame and you just cold-set it back to straight. Job done. Alu was not so forgiving hence the limited frame warranty. CF, same. Limited warranty. Here is one of the first alu frames:
Notice the attempt to maintain the same general dims of steel, altogether poor materials engineering. Compare that with my MTB frame:
Notice the huge frame tubes that are custom formed for their position in the frame. Huge diference. Similar to CF. Early Allez frame (if you have one never ride it!)
Once again, trying to mimic the steel frames of the day and completely misusing the technology of CF. Compare that with the current monocoque type frames made of CF.
So it's obvious how far the CF design and manufacture has come. Do the same caveats apply to CF as far as crash damage and failures? Yeah..but they've never been better..and they are simply awesome to ride. I'd be very diligent in watching scratches, cracks and noises and just love riding such a great bike. The quality of riding and weight would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.