They give 5 year warranty which seems like a lot, but one of the bigger bike manufacturers in the Netherlands gives 10 years[0] on (metal) bikes. So my guess is they are less durable.
5 year warranty on bike frames is pretty standard. I've shopped around after my aluminium frame broke after 6 years and nearly all manufacturers offered 5 years.
For comparison, I ride two steel frames from 1982 and 1985, and own a Schwinn from 1963. All have shown signs of use and age, cosmetically, but are still fully functional and safe.
That's not to suggest a wooden frame is less durable, but just an anecdotal calibration of what my expectations are.
Pretty durable. Better than carbon and can compete with aluminium – since the build is filled.
I must admit that they look very nice!
> Better than carbon
[citation needed]
Carbon bikes are made from hollow tubes, hollow tubes can buckle / collapse, plus carbon bikes are designed for lightness, not sturdiness. Wood can take a beating, but is a lot heavier.
The wooden bikes mentioned are made from hollow tubes too. "Materia Bikes frames are hollow and lightweight"
Hollowness is nonsensical argument. Hollow tubes maximize strength per weight
Carbon bikes are made for stiffness and ride quality - you can make equally light bikes with Alu / Ti.