I saw this video on YT today - the chap who does it is an aerospace engineer and he puts out some very informative videos and thus far I've had no reason to doubt his reasoning. It would be interesting to see
@Yellow Saddle 's viewpoint on this one.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj__lexd_BI
Thanks - a pretty insightful video IMO
It seems that the argument for failure beginning due to corrosion at the joint in the spider holds the most weight; since any moisture sealed inside the assembly will be a function of the place it was manufactured; not where it's being used (which seems to be a significant factor).
My first thought regarding the voids was to dry them thoroughly and fill them with some sort of sealant / corrosion inhibitor; however if this is hydrocarbon based I think there's also the danger of it degrading the adhesive in that area and causing a similar failure; albeit through a different mechanism.
I’ve got the 105 5800 version of that Ultegra crank that failed and it looks identical, however the 105 series is slightly heavier so perhaps it’s just a bit more robust.
Bugger! I agree about the heavier build of the 105 cranks, but if we'r talking adhesive failure due to (presumably) the action of oxidation of the crank material forcing the two parts of the crank apart, I can't see how the thicker walls assumed from the 105's heavier construction would make any difference.
Another angle might be material choice - perhaps the Ultegra and DA cranks are made of a different grade of ally that's perhaps stronger (to allow thinner, lighter construction) but also more prone to corrosion...?
I'm still taking some comfort from the Instagram feed mentioned in the video, since of all the images of failed cranks it contains there are no 105s pictured, so they must be less prone to failure if not immune as your example has proven. Don't suppose you still have it? In light of all this it'd be interesting to take a closer look!