The big names may be using a more expensive prepreg, but the effect on the frame or on what the rider feels will be negligible IMO. The designs may be better, but that's a separate argument and can be very subjective. If they have 68% fiber versus 60% fiber, that could save about 100 g on a 1 kg frame, assuming the design uses the same amount of fiber (for equal strength and stiffness) and that they are able to use the higher fiber % composite for the entire frame. The actual savings is probably less. Most of the stuff they put out about carbon fiber is marketing speak.
I work for a company that makes a high performance thermoplastic resin. Most of our material goes into molded and extruded parts, but we also make composite tapes. I'm not a composites expert, but I think I am smarter than your average bear on composites and materials in general. To me, the best measure of quality control is how well the fibers are wetted out. If the fracture has a lot of 'dry' fibers sticking out or obvious delamination between the layers, that means it was poorly made and failed at a lower stress or strain than it should have. It's tough to tell from the pictures, but it looks like the material was pretty well made. If you smashed the seat stays of a name brand frame with a rock I bet you'd see the same thing.
Carbonazza, any chance for some close ups of the fracture surfaces? Also, where did the rock hit the frame? At one of the fractures, or in between?
edit- also, if anything is highly innovative in the carbon fiber, it's done by the fiber maker or prepreg maker and is available to all bike makers willing to pay for it.
