How to know when to replace rim?
Jeffrey L. Bell
Luckily I was pumping at the time and not moving.
Luckily I was using a floor pump or my ears would still be ringing.
Is there any measurement I should take to decide whether I should
replace my rim?
I have a set of dial calipers, but I don't know if there's anything I
could measure. Is there some thickness I could measure to decide?
The braking had been kind of grabby for a week, but I thought it was
just due to sap from the tree I park under. Is that what usually
happens before failure?
-Jeff Bell
Jobst Brandt
I think the grabbyness was gunk on the rim. I have not felt a change
in braking and I have worn out many rims.
Measure a new rim across its width and when in doubt measure the one
you are riding. For me, on MA-2 rims, the hollow cheek profile says
it all. Originally they are convex and when worn out they are about
0.5mm concave, something easily felt by thumb and forefinger acting
like a brake caliper.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jeffrey L. Bell
>> just due to sap from the tree I park under. Is that what usually
>> happens before failure?
>
>I think the grabbyness was gunk on the rim. I have not felt a change
>in braking and I have worn out many rims.
The grab was in the region where the blowout happened, and started
after the previous pump.
>Measure a new rim across its width and when in doubt measure the one
>you are riding. For me, on MA-2 rims, the hollow cheek profile says
>it all. Originally they are convex and when worn out they are about
>0.5mm concave, something easily felt by thumb and forefinger acting
>like a brake caliper.
Just out of curiosity I measured the wall thickness on the section
that broke loose.
It was in the range .9 to 1.0mm, except for one spot that had a funny
tear in it that was less than .8mm. This thin spot was at the joint
in the welded and machined rim.
Metalurgically, is there anything in the grain of the surface that
would tell me where the failure started?
-Jeff Bell
Jobst Brandt
> Just out of curiosity I measured the wall thickness on the section
> that broke loose.
> It was in the range .9 to 1.0mm, except for one spot that had a
> funny tear in it that was less than .8mm. This thin spot was at the
> joint in the welded and machined rim.
> Metalurgically, is there anything in the grain of the surface that
> would tell me where the failure started?
If it broke with that thick a wall it must have been an anodized rim
with crack propagation from the anodizing. Anodizing on the tensile
side, the inside of the sidewall is where cracks develop the best even
though the outside is worn free of the crust.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Tom Thompson
Jobst Brandt wrote
>If it broke with that thick a wall it must have been an anodized rim
>with crack propagation from the anodizing. Anodizing on the tensile
>side, the inside of the sidewall is where cracks develop the best even
>though the outside is worn free of the crust.
>
So, one cannot even see the cracks unless the tire is removed and the rim
then inspected from the inside?
Jeez, that's a little scary - and all the reason I need to stay away from
anodized rims.
Tom Thompson
Jobst Brandt
It's worse than that. Because most of our wreck.bike folks like to
buy the latest rave rim, tire, frame, wheel, etc, especially if it's
counter to good sense, the reliable standard equipment is no longer
available. A rim that isn't anodized, welded and machined is a
scarce object. As you see the most durable best all around rim, the
MA-2 was discontinued by Mavic, the largest rim supplier. That's
spooky.
This has been getting worse at a rapid rate. First plain functional
rims disappeared, then 32 and 36 spoke road rims vanish and all you
can get are $40-$50 rims.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Matt O'Toole
"Jobst Brandt" <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:8nn19b$2nm$2...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com...
> It's worse than that. Because most of our wreck.bike folks like to
> buy the latest rave rim, tire, frame, wheel, etc, especially if it's
> counter to good sense, the reliable standard equipment is no longer
> available.
No, the average biker doesn't really know what he wants. So he winds up
buying what bike company marketing goons like to sell him. They're too
uncreative and stupid to come up with anything but anodizing and machining,
or ersatz aerodynamics. It's these things they can wrap their
non-Stanford-educated minds around, and work into a selling routine.
> A rim that isn't anodized, welded and machined is a
> scarce object. As you see the most durable best all around rim, the
> MA-2 was discontinued by Mavic, the largest rim supplier. That's
> spooky.
> This has been getting worse at a rapid rate. First plain functional
> rims disappeared, then 32 and 36 spoke road rims vanish and all you
> can get are $40-$50 rims.
That's the idea, keeping those prices up.
Matt O.
Tom Thompson
Jobst Brandt wrote
>It's worse than that. Because most of our wreck.bike folks like to
>buy the latest rave rim, tire, frame, wheel, etc, especially if it's
>counter to good sense, the reliable standard equipment is no longer
>available. A rim that isn't anodized, welded and machined is a
>scarce object. As you see the most durable best all around rim, the
>MA-2 was discontinued by Mavic, the largest rim supplier. That's
>spooky.
>
>This has been getting worse at a rapid rate. First plain functional
>rims disappeared, then 32 and 36 spoke road rims vanish and all you
>can get are $40-$50 rims.
>
>Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
I'm thinking about getting another wheelset. My current wheels are nothing
special - WTB Speedmasters around 36 hole Sora hubs. My primary concern is a
good hub and a durable rim, since I do nearly all my riding on Michigan's
relatively poor roads. After all this talk about rims, etc, I'm beginning to
wonder what rim to choose. I'll probably take a crack at building my own
wheels because I'd like to learn. Any rim recommendations?
Tom Thompson
Fiamme Red
> spooky. >>
maybe mavic will start producing the ma-2s again due to popular demand. or was
it popular demand that ended production? btw, great rim.
-tom
Bob Mitke
>> buy the latest rave rim, tire, frame, wheel, etc, especially if it's
>> counter to good sense, the reliable standard equipment is no longer
>> available.
>
>buying what bike company marketing goons like to sell him. They're too
>uncreative and stupid to come up with anything but anodizing and machining,
>or ersatz aerodynamics.
Damn, maybe you should give them a call and tell them how to really design
stuff... Seems you know everything there is to know...
>It's these things they can wrap their
>non-Stanford-educated minds around, and work into a selling routine.
So, if they _were_ Stanford educated they wouldn't anodize or machine???
How pretentious can you be?
Anyway, Stanford sucks, when was the last time they won a National Football
Championship...
And a tree for a mascot??? Ohhhh, I'm scared...
-Bob "Go Huskers" Mitke
Tom Thompson
Bob Mitke wrote >
>Anyway, Stanford sucks, when was the last time they won a National Football
>Championship...
>
>And a tree for a mascot??? Ohhhh, I'm scared...
>
>-Bob "Go Huskers" Mitke
There's another NG for those who rate a school by its prowess in sports.
Tom Thompson
Bob Mitke
There is another newsgroup for those people who rate mental capacity by the
school they attended...
-Bob Mitke
Jeffrey L. Bell
>Matt O'Toole wrote
>...
>>It's these things they can wrap their
>>non-Stanford-educated minds around, and work into a selling routine.
>
>So, if they _were_ Stanford educated they wouldn't anodize or machine???
I think his point was that they would have come up with something
totally meaningless, such as renaming them to "Rim-Tech TM" or rim.com
or "al-loy 6160 plus", rather than messing with the rim design.
>And a tree for a mascot??? Ohhhh, I'm scared...
And the best we could do is a semi-extinct weasel.
We shoulda held out for the Banana Slug.
-Jeff Bell
Jobst Brandt
> I'm thinking about getting another wheelset. My current wheels are
> nothing special - WTB Speedmasters around 36 hole Sora hubs. My
> primary concern is a good hub and a durable rim, since I do nearly
> all my riding on Michigan's relatively poor roads. After all this
> talk about rims, etc, I'm beginning to wonder what rim to choose.
> I'll probably take a crack at building my own wheels because I'd
> like to learn. Any rim recommendations?
Not much. As I said, it's hard to find a reasonable rim because
around here people ride almost exclusively Helium, Rolf, Spinergy,
Ksyrium, Shamal, etc. If you ask for a 36 spoke wheel, they pull you
aside so you won't scare the other customers. Nevertheless, a
36-spoke wheel with 1.8-1.6mm diameter spokes is a durable one that
can last many years on all kinds of roads.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
alex wetmore
> Tom Thompson writes:
> > I'm thinking about getting another wheelset. My current wheels are
> > nothing special - WTB Speedmasters around 36 hole Sora hubs. My
> > primary concern is a good hub and a durable rim, since I do nearly
> > all my riding on Michigan's relatively poor roads. After all this
> > talk about rims, etc, I'm beginning to wonder what rim to choose.
> > I'll probably take a crack at building my own wheels because I'd
> > like to learn. Any rim recommendations?
>
> around here people ride almost exclusively Helium, Rolf, Spinergy,
> Ksyrium, Shamal, etc. If you ask for a 36 spoke wheel, they pull you
> aside so you won't scare the other customers. Nevertheless, a
> 36-spoke wheel with 1.8-1.6mm diameter spokes is a durable one that
> can last many years on all kinds of roads.
The Torelli Master has many of the characteristics of the old Mavic MA-2
and is pretty easy to find here (Seattle, WA), or at least my local bike
shop carries it in both 32 and 36 holes.
This rim is not machined, not anodized, has double eyelets, is
affordable ($30 here, msrp is $40), a decent width, and the rims
are very true when they are new.
http://www.torelli.com/parts/wheels.html has information on them.
I can't think of any reason why these rims aren't more popular,
besides the fact that they don't come in yellow with orange
spokes, or something else garish like that.
If you want a slightly wider/heavier duty rim than the Sun CR18
is a nice choice.
alex
Jobst Brandt
> The Torelli Master has many of the characteristics of the old Mavic
> MA-2 and is pretty easy to find here (Seattle, WA), or at least my
> local bike shop carries it in both 32 and 36 holes.
> This rim is not machined, not anodized, has double eyelets, is
> affordable ($30 here, msrp is $40), a decent width, and the rims are
> very true when they are new.
> http://www.torelli.com/parts/wheels.html has information on them.
> I can't think of any reason why these rims aren't more popular,
> besides the fact that they don't come in yellow with orange spokes,
> or something else garish like that.
From that web page:
* Master. 435 grams. A good all-round racing and training rim available
* in 32 and 36 hole. Silver $39.00. T-3 hardened $52.00
The cross section and description of the rim looks good but I wonder
about the "hardened" version. What does this mean and what do they do
to it that costs $13? ave you seen one of these?
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Art Harris
"alex wetmore" <al...@phred.org> wrote:
>
> The Torelli Master has many of the characteristics of the old Mavic
MA-2
> and is pretty easy to find here (Seattle, WA), or at least my local
> bike shop carries it in both 32 and 36 holes.
>
Do you happen to know the ERD for this rim? They never seem to give
that on the web sites!
--
Art Harris
Long Island, NY
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
alex wetmore
> Alex Wetmore writes:
> > The Torelli Master has many of the characteristics of the old Mavic
> > MA-2 and is pretty easy to find here (Seattle, WA), or at least my
> > local bike shop carries it in both 32 and 36 holes.
>
> > affordable ($30 here, msrp is $40), a decent width, and the rims are
> > very true when they are new.
>
> > http://www.torelli.com/parts/wheels.html has information on them.
>
> > I can't think of any reason why these rims aren't more popular,
> > besides the fact that they don't come in yellow with orange spokes,
> > or something else garish like that.
>
> From that web page:
> * Master. 435 grams. A good all-round racing and training rim
available
> * in 32 and 36 hole. Silver $39.00. T-3 hardened $52.00
>
> The cross section and description of the rim looks good but I wonder
> about the "hardened" version. What does this mean and what do they do
> to it that costs $13? ave you seen one of these?
I believe that the T-3 hardening is hard anodization (like the MA40). I
haven't seen a Master T-3, as my LBS only carries the less expensive
normal
version.
alex
Alex Rodriguez
>The cross section and description of the rim looks good but I wonder
>about the "hardened" version. What does this mean and what do they do
>to it that costs $13? ave you seen one of these?
They describe as:
Our T-3 hardening penetrates the surface of the rim 40-50 microns, giving
unmatched strength and a dark grey (almost black) color to our hardened rims.
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
alex wetmore
news:8ns2p3$866$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> MA-2
> > and is pretty easy to find here (Seattle, WA), or at least my local
> > bike shop carries it in both 32 and 36 holes.
>
> that on the web sites!
Nope, but I know that it is not 611 or whatever the MA2 is (ie, it is
not a drop-in replacement). I would guess something like 606. It has a
deeper cross section than the MA2.
I just had my LBS do the spoke length calculations for me, and buy the
spokes and rim from them at the same time.
alex
Tim McNamara
<jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> Tom Thompson writes:
>
> > I'm thinking about getting another wheelset. My current wheels are
> > nothing special - WTB Speedmasters around 36 hole Sora hubs. My
> > primary concern is a good hub and a durable rim, since I do nearly
> > all my riding on Michigan's relatively poor roads. After all this
> > talk about rims, etc, I'm beginning to wonder what rim to choose.
> > I'll probably take a crack at building my own wheels because I'd
> > like to learn. Any rim recommendations?
>
> Not much. As I said, it's hard to find a reasonable rim because
> around here people ride almost exclusively Helium, Rolf, Spinergy,
> Ksyrium, Shamal, etc. If you ask for a 36 spoke wheel, they pull you
> aside so you won't scare the other customers. Nevertheless, a
> 36-spoke wheel with 1.8-1.6mm diameter spokes is a durable one that
> can last many years on all kinds of roads.
Yes, but a pair of 36 hole wheels doesn't make climbing easier by
removing the weight of about $750 from one's wallet.
Jobst Brandt
>> The cross section and description of the rim looks good but I
>> wonder about the "hardened" version. What does this mean and what
>> do they do to it that costs $13? have you seen one of these?
> They describe as:
> Our T-3 hardening penetrates the surface of the rim 40-50 microns,
> giving unmatched strength and a dark grey (almost black) color to
> our hardened rims.
Oh great! What is it with the bicycle industry. They live in a
different universe when it comes to engineering. The hazards of
anodizing, especially hard anodizing are well known in the metal
fabrication industry and have been detailed here on wreck.bike for
years and these guys persist in giving us these brittle rim
crackers... for extra price no less.
How are we to trust them with anything they make. First it's Mavic
claiming their rims are some 30% stronger from welding and then they
anodize them and machine them never mentioning the real reason they
are machined at great expense and shorter wear life.
This is depressing.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Tim McNamara
> The Torelli Master has many of the characteristics of the old Mavic MA-2
> and is pretty easy to find here (Seattle, WA), or at least my local bike
> shop carries it in both 32 and 36 holes.
>
> This rim is not machined, not anodized, has double eyelets, is
> affordable ($30 here, msrp is $40), a decent width, and the rims
> are very true when they are new.
I had just heard about these rims for the first time about a week or so
ago. Sounds pretty much like an MA2 clone, and IMHO that's no bad
thing. Who makes them for Torelli?
> http://www.torelli.com/parts/wheels.html has information on them.
>
> I can't think of any reason why these rims aren't more popular,
> besides the fact that they don't come in yellow with orange
> spokes, or something else garish like that.
That about sums it up. As my wife (a marketing director) says,
"presentation is everything." Too bad so many people fall for that.
David L. Johnson
> Thanks for the info. I may try a pair of these. Seems to me that the best
> place to sink my wheel money is the hubs, so these comparatively inexpensive
> and simple rims may be just what I need.
The last part I agree with, but really, if your hubs are in good condition
there is no need to replace them. Hubs last a long, long time, and the drag
from the bearings is very small compared to the more serious factors such as
air resistance and tire rolling resistance.
> I'm no racer, and the few grams
> difference in weight or the more aero properties of some of the boutique
> rims do nothing for me. I feel good when I can average more than 16 MPH for
> a 30-40 mile ride, so I'd get little benefit anyhow.
True. In fact, any good pair of wheels would serve for most racing situations
as well, time trials excepted.
> I think it means that I'll have to pay an extra $13 for something of
> questionable value.
This happens throughout the industry.
> I bought a low-level Bianchi because the frame fit me better and felt more
> comfortable than did the more expensive models, and am upgrading the bike
> over time, mostly for the satisfaction of doing it myself. Finding decent
> rims and building my own wheels is more of same - my way of making my bike
> mine.
Go for it. I will recommend against the MA-2, though, which you would have
trouble finding any more, anyway. I know lots of people here think these are
great rims, but the one I got had a flat spot at the seam; others have
mentioned this as well. I just discovered a bad enough ding in it to justify
replacing it, which is fine with me.
--
David L. Johnson david....@lehigh.edu
Department of Mathematics http://www.lehigh.edu/~dlj0/dlj0.html
Lehigh University
14 E. Packer Avenue (610) 758-3759
Bethlehem, PA 18015-3174
"What am I on? I'm on my bike, six hours a day, busting my ass. What are you
on?"
--Lance Armstrong
Nicholas Bluhm
jbr...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt) wrote:
> Measure a new rim across its width and when in doubt measure the one
> you are riding. For me, on MA-2 rims, the hollow cheek profile says
> it all. Originally they are convex and when worn out they are about
> 0.5mm concave, something easily felt by thumb and forefinger acting
> like a brake caliper.
>
> Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
I tried this and was able to feel the slightly convex section of my
CXP30 rims. However, being unfamiliar with what a totally worn rim feels
like, this method didn't allow me to be a good judge of wear.
I tried a different simple method: Stick a straight edge (eg. utility
knife blade) across the rim, then try placing various thickness feeler
guage blades between the straight edge and rim.
The thickest guage blade I was able to insert under the knife blade was
0.05 mm. I wasn't able to insert the next thickness blade of 0.1 mm.
Therefore I concluded that the rim was somewhere between 0.05 and 0.1 mm
concave. This is after 10,000 km of cycling. If I am ever able to stick
the 0.5 mm feeler guage blade under the knife-blade/straight-edge, then
I'll know it's high time to change the rim.
Is there anything inherently wrong with measuring rim wear this way?
Cheers,
Nicholas
--
Nicholas M. Bluhm
Tom Thompson
>Alex Wetmore wrote:
>
>> The Torelli Master has many of the characteristics of the old Mavic
>> MA-2 and is pretty easy to find here (Seattle, WA), or at least my
>> local bike shop carries it in both 32 and 36 holes.
>
>> This rim is not machined, not anodized, has double eyelets, is
>> affordable ($30 here, msrp is $40), a decent width, and the rims are
>> very true when they are new.
>
>
>> I can't think of any reason why these rims aren't more popular,
>> besides the fact that they don't come in yellow with orange spokes,
>> or something else garish like that.
Thanks for the info. I may try a pair of these. Seems to me that the best
place to sink my wheel money is the hubs, so these comparatively inexpensive
and simple rims may be just what I need. I'm no racer, and the few grams
difference in weight or the more aero properties of some of the boutique
rims do nothing for me. I feel good when I can average more than 16 MPH for
a 30-40 mile ride, so I'd get little benefit anyhow.
>From that web page:
>* Master. 435 grams. A good all-round racing and training rim available
>* in 32 and 36 hole. Silver $39.00. T-3 hardened $52.00
Jobst Brandt wrote
>
>The cross section and description of the rim looks good but I wonder
>about the "hardened" version. What does this mean and what do they do
>to it that costs $13? ave you seen one of these?
>
I think it means that I'll have to pay an extra $13 for something of
questionable value. I've never owned an anodized or "hardened" rim, and I've
never thought I was deprived. Come to think of it, all my rims have been
basic silver. I'm not very big, and could probably ride most any wheel made
were I careful, but I'm after something I don't have to baby along, and can
build myself.
I bought a low-level Bianchi because the frame fit me better and felt more
comfortable than did the more expensive models, and am upgrading the bike
over time, mostly for the satisfaction of doing it myself. Finding decent
rims and building my own wheels is more of same - my way of making my bike
mine.
Tom Thompson
Tim McNamara
<david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> Go for it. I will recommend against the MA-2, though, which you would have
> trouble finding any more, anyway. I know lots of people here think these are
> great rims, but the one I got had a flat spot at the seam; others have
> mentioned this as well.
Well, and here I thought I had something unusual in the MA2 I just
built up a couple of weeks ago. It has a pronounced low spot of about
2-3 mm, about two spokes in length, just at the seam. Oh, well,
nothing is perfect.
Otherwise I'd like to second something David implied, which is that
riding bikes can be fun! And having fun on a bike does not require the
latest, the greatest, the lightest... in fact, that stuff is likely to
detract from the fun when you're having to fix it on the side of the
road when it breaks.
Building your own stuff up is very satisfying, a nice way to spend
winter evenings and tremendously educational. I recommend it highly.
Tom Thompson
David L. Johnson wrote :
>Tom Thompson wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info. I may try a pair of these. Seems to me that the best
>> place to sink my wheel money is the hubs, so these comparatively
inexpensive
>> and simple rims may be just what I need.
>
>there is no need to replace them. Hubs last a long, long time, and the
drag
>from the bearings is very small compared to the more serious factors such
as
>air resistance and tire rolling resistance.
>
I agree, and would reuse my Sora hubs were I simply replacing the wheels.
But, I'm keeping the existing wheels and building a completely new set. My
current wheels are nearly bulletproof, so I'll likely use them for riding in
the winter and around town with wider "touring" tires, and use the new ones
for riding on the nicer country roads on the weekends with a narrower "road"
tire. My frame will accomodate up to a 32mm tire if I'm careful about the
brand (some 32mm brands won't fit under the brake arch and some will.
Tom Thompson
alex wetmore
news:Xgmo5.2733$J5.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net...
>
> >Alex Wetmore wrote:
> >
> >> The Torelli Master has many of the characteristics of the old Mavic
> >> MA-2 and is pretty easy to find here (Seattle, WA), or at least my
> >> local bike shop carries it in both 32 and 36 holes.
> >
> >> This rim is not machined, not anodized, has double eyelets, is
> >> affordable ($30 here, msrp is $40), a decent width, and the rims
are
> >> very true when they are new.
> >
> >> http://www.torelli.com/parts/wheels.html has information on them.
> >
> >> I can't think of any reason why these rims aren't more popular,
> >> besides the fact that they don't come in yellow with orange spokes,
> >> or something else garish like that.
>
>
> Thanks for the info. I may try a pair of these. Seems to me that the
best
> place to sink my wheel money is the hubs, so these comparatively
inexpensive
> and simple rims may be just what I need. I'm no racer, and the few
grams
> difference in weight or the more aero properties of some of the
boutique
> rims do nothing for me. I feel good when I can average more than 16
MPH for
> a 30-40 mile ride, so I'd get little benefit anyhow.
You aren't even giving up much in weight here. 435g is very competitive
in
weight for today's rims, especially when compared against deep aero
rims.
The two Torelli Master rims that I've built up were truer out of the box
then
any Mavic rim that I've used. The first one literally built up true
without
a truing stand. I was just careful to get very even tension when
building up
the wheel. When I put it into the truing stand for final truing it was
already just about perfect. I've never had that happen before.
My second rim wasn't as perfect, but I was also in a rush when building
it
and the spoke tensions aren't as well matched.
The rim joint in unnoticable on both rims. I was very surprised to find
that out these were not machined rims.
My only minor complaint is that they don't have the same ERD as an MA-2,
so when my MA-2 rims wear out I'll have to buy new spokes if I want
to use these rims.
alex
Gordon D Renkes
: Oh great! What is it with the bicycle industry. They live in a
: different universe when it comes to engineering. The hazards of
: anodizing, especially hard anodizing are well known in the metal
: fabrication industry and have been detailed here on wreck.bike for
: years and these guys persist in giving us these brittle rim
: crackers... for extra price no less.
: How are we to trust them with anything they make. First it's Mavic
: claiming their rims are some 30% stronger from welding and then they
: anodize them and machine them never mentioning the real reason they
: are machined at great expense and shorter wear life.
: This is depressing.
Has anyone ever sued a wheel manufacturer after crashing, because
one of these wheels failed due to the reasons you have explained?
--
Gordon Renkes gre...@gcfn.org
Columbus O.
gary_...@my-deja.com
I've often wondered this myself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine
that car makers could make patently false statements about parts that
effect safety without opening the door to huge liabilities. Is the
difference that the amount of money is so much less in bicycling (parts
are generally less expensive and injuries less extensive)? Even so,
lawyers do have ways of bringing suit when small sums are involved.
Perhaps some enterprising lawyer will bring a class action suit on
behalf of the thousands of cyclists who have been deluded by false
claims and gotten less than fair value. Are there any lawyers here who
can explain why this doesn't happen?
Gary Young
gyo...@amlaw.com
Jobst Brandt
> I've often wondered this myself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't
> imagine that car makers could make patently false statements about
> parts that effect safety without opening the door to huge
> liabilities. Is the difference that the amount of money is so much
> less in bicycling (parts are generally less expensive and injuries
> less extensive)? Even so, lawyers do have ways of bringing suit when
> small sums are involved. Perhaps some enterprising lawyer will
> bring a class action suit on behalf of the thousands of cyclists who
> have been deluded by false claims and gotten less than fair value.
> Are there any lawyers here who can explain why this doesn't happen?
People sue all the time, actually men do this, but it's not for the
right reasons but rather to protect their egos. From the cases in
which I was involved as an expert witness, all involved falling off
the bicycle for a stupid reason and to cover for that a clever
believable scenario was concocted. The trouble with this is that the
mechanical evidence to support this is not there although there is a
cabal of "experts" who will testify to anything in front of a jury
that knows nothing abut bicycles. In all cases the evidence showed
that the incident did not occur as described and that it was operator
error.
I don't know what the people with material failure and design flaws
do. Their cases don't seem to be visible. I for one, do my utmost to
avoid using these components so that I don't have a manufacturers
failure on my bicycle. The cranks and BB spindles that have broken
all did so in a benign way and were replaced by warranty. The other
failures could be attributed to wear and tear. I haven't had any
cracked rims but these also could be argued to be wear and tear. Just
how much a rim should withstand would be expensive to prove in court
although I know that in the absence of wearing through, they last many
10000 mile years.
I think the bicycle industry just squeaks by most of the time. The
judgments against them are mostly these bagatelles of some guy who
fell and concocted a big story, hired an attorney who got an "expert"
to squeeze a few thousand dollars out of an insurance company. No
precedent set! Expert John Howard, on the other hand, got the "lawyer
lips" for us. How can he sleep with that sleazy verdict to his credit
built on the big lie that wheel QR's always work loose with time and
are unreliable. This after racing and riding on them for many years.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jon Isaacs
>lips" for us. How can he sleep with that sleazy verdict to his credit
>built on the big lie that wheel QR's always work loose with time and
>are unreliable. This after racing and riding on them for many years.
>
>Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
I am interested in clarifying this a bit. Did John Howard contend that a
properly installed and tightened QR would "always" or even "might" work loose
with time? I wonder what sort of testing he did to establish this.
I think LL's may offer protection against an improperly installed wheel and I
think they are some help for someone who is inexperienced with bicycles. I
certainly have never experienced a QR loosing up on its own.
jon isaacs
Tim McNamara
wrote:
> I've often wondered this myself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine
> that car makers could make patently false statements about parts that
> effect safety without opening the door to huge liabilities.
Chevrolet Corvair
Suzuki Samurai
Ford Bronco II
Ford Pinto
Ford Mustang
Auto makers have a long history of selling unsafe products and then
lying about it. Ford (IIRC) had an infamous memo that it was cheaper
to settle the lawsuits than to fix the safety problem. Ain't nothing
new. I laughed my ass off when I saw the recent commercial with Ford's
English-accented Chief Apologist droning on about how "there are two
things Ford doesn't take for granted: your safety and your trust."
ROTFL! Of course, the problems with the tires are not Ford's fault,
they are Firestone's. Seems to me like it should be Firestone publicly
apologizing to the world, not Ford.
> Is the
> difference that the amount of money is so much less in bicycling (parts
> are generally less expensive and injuries less extensive)? Even so,
> lawyers do have ways of bringing suit when small sums are involved.
Lawyers have brought many lawsuits against the bike industry. Most of
the suits are without merit (the injuries were due to the rider's
incompetence or negligence, not a manufacturing defect) but the juries
don't understand this.
For example, Derby (owners of Raleigh USA) was sued after a rider was
hit by a car while night riding without lights. The rational? Derby
didn't put a sticker on the bike warning the rider that night riding
without lights is dangerous.
> Perhaps some enterprising lawyer will bring a class action suit on
> behalf of the thousands of cyclists who have been deluded by false
> claims and gotten less than fair value. Are there any lawyers here who
> can explain why this doesn't happen?
Your perception is wrong. Hundreds, if not thousands, of suits have
been settled unfairly to the advantage of the cyclist who misused the
equipment, to the detriment of bicyclists and the industry. Many
states do not have a "reasonably prudent person" law that takes the
standard of common sense into account. Manufacturers then have to try
to make idiot proof bikes; the problem with that is that if you make a
bike idiot proof, someone will build a better idiot.
So we end up with stupid crap, like wheel reflectors on top of the line
racing bikes that are designed to be non-removable, lawyer lips on fork
ends, etc.
Tim McNamara
<jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> Expert John Howard, on the other hand, got the "lawyer
> lips" for us. How can he sleep with that sleazy verdict to his credit
> built on the big lie that wheel QR's always work loose with time and
> are unreliable.
Ah, well. JH is also the guy who posted a note to rec.bicycles.racing
about 5 years ago that advocated keeping your hands off the bars when
riding.
Jobst Brandt
>> Expert John Howard, on the other hand, got the "lawyer lips" for
>> us. How can he sleep with that sleazy verdict to his credit built
>> on the big lie that wheel QR's always work loose with time and are
>> unreliable. This after racing and riding on them for many years.
> I am interested in clarifying this a bit. Did John Howard contend
> that a properly installed and tightened QR would "always" or even
> "might" work loose with time? I wonder what sort of testing he did
> to establish this.
As an expert, he stated that in his experience, QR's were known to
come loose under normal use and that they must be checked for closure
before riding. He said that one could not rely on having closed it
properly once, which is what plaintiff claimed was done.
> I think LL's may offer protection against an improperly installed
> wheel and I think they are some help for someone who is
> inexperienced with bicycles. I certainly have never experienced a
> QR loosing up on its own.
Well neither had anyone else, but this was the transition from the
times when only racers had Campagnolo equipped bicycles with the
classic QR of the time and when everyone wanted to have a racing bike
and could afford it. The result was that many folks who had neither
bicycling nor mechanical skills rode such bicycles.
The failure typically was that they didn't understand the lever but
used the screwed cap at the other end to secure the wheel manually.
Some do that today and complain of a loose wheel, fortunately with
lawyer lips. These folks should not have QR's on their bicycles. I
cannot imagine a good bicycle shop selling a QR bicycle and not
instructing the buyer on how to operate it. Today, I think there are
instruction manuals that take care of that even if the salesperson
fails to cover all of it.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jobst Brandt
> I've often wondered this myself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't
> imagine that car makers could make patently false statements about
> parts that effect safety without opening the door to huge
> liabilities.
Check the news today and follow the Firestone debacle. They certainly
knew of this for years, especially if I knew about it not even having
one of these tires but hearing them come apart on the road as they
passed me on my bicycle. I even wrote about it a few years ago here
on wreck.bike. I hope they get to pay for this and that heads will
roll at the company. It sounds like Roger Smith economy, the method
that made GM cars the joke of the industry.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
David L. Johnson
> I think LL's may offer protection against an improperly installed wheel and I
> think they are some help for someone who is inexperienced with bicycles. I
> certainly have never experienced a QR loosing up on its own.
I disagree. Since you have to re-set the QR each time you take the wheel off,
a novice would be more likely to get the tension wrong (or use the QR like a
wing nut) with the LL's. Without those bumps, once the tension is set the
rider doesn't have to re-do it each time. Also, it is quite possible for a
novice to clamp the wheel down on the LL instead of seating the wheel fully,
which then becomes loose when the wheel is pushed all the way on by riding the
bike.
The only way to make the bike safer with the lips than without is to make a QR
with more travel, so that the wheel can be removed without loosening the nut.
AFAIK there are no QR's that do this.
Jobst Brandt
>> I think LL's may offer protection against an improperly installed
>> wheel and I think they are some help for someone who is
>> inexperienced with bicycles. I certainly have never experienced a
>> QR loosing up on its own.
> I disagree. Since you have to re-set the QR each time you take the
> wheel off, a novice would be more likely to get the tension wrong
> (or use the QR like a wing nut) with the LL's. Without those bumps,
> once the tension is set the rider doesn't have to re-do it each
> time.
Oh, you don't say. For what other reason do you think the whole LL
solution is so stupid for average intelligent riders?
> Also, it is quite possible for a novice to clamp the wheel down on
> the LL instead of seating the wheel fully, which then becomes loose
> when the wheel is pushed all the way on by riding the bike.
Almost anything is "possible" judging from the things people propose
here on wreck.bike. On the other hand, what is probable and
reasonable is something else. There are many people who should not
ride bike for lack of skill, physical ability, and interest. These
incidents occur most often with one-time riders who wannabe like all
those other athletes, buy a bicycle and fall. If they don't fall the
bicycle remains in the garage for the rest of its existence anyway.
> The only way to make the bike safer with the lips than without is to
> make a QR with more travel, so that the wheel can be removed without
> loosening the nut. AFAIK there are no QR's that do this.
Oops! That would mean the LL would need to be higher so that the
wheel could not drop out if the QR were left open. That IS the
purpose of LL's after all, not to prevent a wheel that is lightly
clamped from dropping out.... they don't.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Alex Rodriguez
Today, I think there are
>instruction manuals that take care of that even if the salesperson
>fails to cover all of it.
All the new shimano hubs I have gotten recently had a small pamphlet attached
to the skewers with instructions on how to use them.
Helmut Springer
> Oh, you don't say. For what other reason do you think the whole
> LL solution is so stupid for average intelligent riders?
warranty of course 8-/
--
MfG/best regards, helmut springer
de...@FaVeVe.Uni-Stuttgart.DE
"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"
Alex Rodriguez
>Also, it is quite possible for a
>novice to clamp the wheel down on the LL instead of seating the wheel fully,
>which then becomes loose when the wheel is pushed all the way on by riding the
>bike.
Not just a novice. I won't mention names, but a friend with alot of experience
clamped the fork of his MTB to his roof rack and caught the LL. A couple of
miles down the road the bike came loose. Left a dent in the car and bent the
drop out. LL are very annoying for those of us who know how to properly use a
QR.
David L. Johnson
> > I disagree. Since you have to re-set the QR each time you take the
> > wheel off, a novice would be more likely to get the tension wrong
> > (or use the QR like a wing nut) with the LL's. Without those bumps,
> > once the tension is set the rider doesn't have to re-do it each
> > time.
>
> Oh, you don't say. For what other reason do you think the whole LL
> solution is so stupid for average intelligent riders?
>
What problem is (are) the LL's a solution to? Since QR's simply don't loosen
up in use, the only problem would be to hang on, somewhat, to badly-attached
wheels. And misuse of the QR is more likely with the lips than without.
True, average intelligent riders won't do that, but then the theoretical
problem is not with them, anyway.
> > Also, it is quite possible for a novice to clamp the wheel down on
> > the LL instead of seating the wheel fully, which then becomes loose
> > when the wheel is pushed all the way on by riding the bike.
>
> Almost anything is "possible" judging from the things people propose
> here on wreck.bike. On the other hand, what is probable and
> reasonable is something else.
Reasonable? No, but I did find a rider who had attached his wheel that way.
> > The only way to make the bike safer with the lips than without is to
> > make a QR with more travel, so that the wheel can be removed without
> > loosening the nut. AFAIK there are no QR's that do this.
>
> Oops! That would mean the LL would need to be higher so that the
> wheel could not drop out if the QR were left open. That IS the
> purpose of LL's after all, not to prevent a wheel that is lightly
> clamped from dropping out.... they don't.
If it is "lightly clamped", then the standard LL's would still prevent it from
dropping out, even if a fully-open extra-wide QR would allow you to remove the
wheel.
What are these lips supposed to do, anyway? If they are to hang on to a
loosly-clamped wheel (which would fall out when??), then a lip small enough to
clear a fully-open QR is adequate. If they are supposed to hang on to the
wheel even when fully open, they fail, since the only way this would occur is
if the rider forgot to tighten the QR after putting the wheel onto the fork.
But if he forgot that, he would have forgotten to tighten the nut as well, and
the QR would be open enough to let the wheel fall out as soon as the bike is
airborne.
Tim McNamara
<david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
> What are these lips supposed to do, anyway?
They are supposed to protect the manufacturer from litigation when some
idiot manages to improperly use his QR and the front wheel falls off.
Although I should talk, I looked down on a ride about 6 weeks ago and
noticed my (Campy Record) QR lever swinging open, not clamped down at
all. It wasn't just loose, the lever was undone; I suppose the tension
must have been practically nil to begin with. How I got it up the
basement steps, lightly hopped over some expansion joints on a bridge
and didn't have the wheel flying off, I'll never know. Stopped,
clamped it down and off I went. An experience I've never had before
and hope to never have again.
Jobst Brandt
They are designed to not let the wheel out when the lever is opened.
If your suggestion were followed, then the lawyer lips would be made
taller so that the wheel could not fall out with the lever open. It's
a circular argument.
You're mixing logic with illogic. LL's are not a logical solution to
anything other than stupidity. The concept is that if someone were to
open the lever, the wheel should not drop out. The lawyers did > not
include in their scenario what you propose because that would > have
reflected stupidly on their client. Going back to the start, the
claim is that these things come loose by themselves and then the
handle could fully open and drop the wheel out.
> But if he forgot that, he would have forgotten to tighten the nut as
> well, and the QR would be open enough to let the wheel fall out as
> soon as the bike is airborne.
Well, as you see, in the subject "Defective Cycling" in
wreck.misc.bike, such people never jump their bicycles over curbs or
other obstacles, at least in the eyes of LL peoples perception. They
are permanent beginners, as I said.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
David L. Johnson
> You're mixing logic with illogic. LL's are not a logical solution to
> anything other than stupidity. The concept is that if someone were to
> open the lever, the wheel should not drop out.
Ah. That makes sense now... So, the real problem is that a QR was supposed
to release the wheel. We wouldn't want that.
Oh well, as long as I have a file I'll be OK.
Tim McNamara
God help me for quoting Jesse Ventura, but he had a point when he said
"you can't legislate against stupidity." Of course, he was referring
to a rash of snowmobile related deaths when people decided they
couldn't wait any longer for cold weather and took to the lakes on
their snomos anyway... But the principle applies to lawyer lips just
as handily.
Jay Beattie
Jobst Brandt wrote in message
<8o6v8t$sjb$1...@hplms2.hpl.hp.com>...
>David L. Johnson writes:
<snip>
>Well, as you see, in the subject "Defective
Cycling" in
>wreck.misc.bike, such people never jump their
bicycles over curbs or
>other obstacles, at least in the eyes of LL
peoples perception. They
>are permanent beginners, as I said.
The "LL people" are called "jurors." They
generally do not ride bikes and are mystified by
quick-releases -- among other simple mechanical
devices (at least when the plaintiff is a para or
a quad). Canada has it right: technical cases
tried to judges. -- Jay Beattie.
bob...@home.com
>In article <8o3aqo$jm7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <gary_...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>> I've often wondered this myself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't imagine
>> that car makers could make patently false statements about parts that
>> effect safety without opening the door to huge liabilities.
>
>Chevrolet Corvair
Had no real safety problem
>Suzuki Samurai
Had no real safety problem
>Ford Bronco II
What was the problem?
>Ford Pinto
Did have a big problem
>Ford Mustang
What was the problem? What years?
Jobst Brandt
>>> I've often wondered this myself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't
>>> imagine that car makers could make patently false statements about
>>> parts that effect safety without opening the door to huge
>>> liabilities.
>> Chevrolet Corvair
> Had no real safety problem
>> Suzuki Samurai
> Had no real safety problem
>> Ford Bronco II
> What was the problem?
>> Ford Pinto
> Did have a big problem
>> Ford Mustang
> What was the problem? What years?
Just statistically these "no real problem" cars were subjects of many
injury crashes, the Corvair being the worst. Automotive people know
well what the shortcomings of such a car layout are and the flaw was
known to GM. I don't know what makes you think there was no problem
but you are wrong in your assessment. I have had the opportunity to
watch videos of Corvairs roll-overs at 20mph on flat smooth pavement in
which the car and tires were as recommended in the owner's manual.
These included vies of the outside rear tire during the event.
I also worked as a development engineer during that time at Porsche in
Stuttgart where an effort was underway to convince VW to put anti-roll
bars and rear axle equalizers on their cars. This was not possible
until CEO Nordhoff retired. GM never did it even though they knew the
results.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jobst Brandt
>>> I've often wondered this myself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't
>>> imagine that car makers could make patently false statements about
>>> parts that effect safety without opening the door to huge
>>> liabilities.
>> Chevrolet Corvair
> Had no real safety problem
>> Suzuki Samurai
> Had no real safety problem
>> Ford Bronco II
> What was the problem?
>> Ford Pinto
> Did have a big problem
>> Ford Mustang
> What was the problem? What years?
Just statistically these "no real problem" cars were subjects of many
injury crashes, the Corvair being the worst. Automotive people know
well what the shortcomings of such a car layout are and the flaw was
known to GM. I don't know what makes you think there was no problem
but you are wrong in your assessment. I have had the opportunity to
watch videos of Corvair roll-overs at 20mph on flat smooth pavement,
in which the car and tires were as recommended in the owner's manual.
These included views of the outside rear tire during the event as it
gradually tucked under and the car rolled onto its roof.
C R Johnson
> >Ford Mustang
> What was the problem? What years?
The original mustang design, up to about 69 I think, had a drop-in gas
tank design and a cheesy back seat. The gas tank could rupture and spray
the passengers with gasoline in a rear end collision.
A Muzi
Corsa 140 owner. When Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed" hit the bookstores in
mid-1965, the 1965 model Corvairs with full independent rear suspension
had been on the road since September of 1964. The same swing-axle design
was used in the Volkswagen until, again, September of 1964. As late as
the mid-1980s I crewed at the SCCA nationals and Yenko Stinger Corvair
Corsas were competitive (though not victorious) against brand-new factory
machines with factory support. I think the original post was about
deprecating imagery, trial by press, litigation, and badmouthing of
product. Certainly the early models were prone to rollover, but GM had
done a complete redesign successfully BEFORE the smear campaign killed a
great car.
If you want a good example of design failure, how about the 1964 Renault
Dauphine whose carburetor overflow ran over the exhaust manifold? I
watched a one-week-old Renault immolate itself a half block from its
garage! Funny how nobody attacked this thing-they weren't popular enough
to be a deep-pocket target.
Jobst Brandt wrote:
--
Yellow Jersey, Ltd
http://www.yellowjersey.org
http://www.execpc.com/yellowje
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
David L. Johnson
>
> I cannot let this pass as a long, devoted hardtop and convertible Corvair
> Corsa 140 owner. When Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed" hit the bookstores in
> mid-1965, the 1965 model Corvairs with full independent rear suspension
> had been on the road since September of 1964.
Of course, the book was written about the earlier, awful design. The book
would have gone to press before the new models came out. They made the
earlier swing-axle designs for several years, even knowing the danger. The
problems with those cars make the current Firestone problems seem minor.
> The same swing-axle design
> was used in the Volkswagen until, again, September of 1964.
That's true, and the design is fatally flawed, but VW's did not have the
safety record of Corvair, depite the large sales volume of VW by that time. I
imagine Jobst could explain the differences.
Tim McNamara
> >Chevrolet Corvair
> Had no real safety problem
Heh. Do you really believe this? They rolled over like a spaniel,
they had inadequate protection for the occupants in front end
colisions, the gas tanks were prone to leaking...
> >Suzuki Samurai
> Had no real safety problem
Other than rolling over in normal traffic maneuvers?
> >Ford Bronco II
> What was the problem?
The 2WD version rolled over even better than the Samurai. I have a 4WD
version of the Bronco II and I drive much more carefully now than I
did, even though the 4WD is supposed to be less prone to becoming
supine. ;-) Ford had to settle a class action lawsuit about this.
> >Ford Pinto
> Did have a big problem
Yup. Explode-o-matic.
> >Ford Mustang
> What was the problem? What years?
The original body style models would spray the contents of the gas tank
into the passenger compartment in a rear end collision, with
predictably bad results. Even Ford's own crash test films show this
happening.
Jobst Brandt
>> I cannot let this pass as a long, devoted hardtop and convertible
>> Corvair Corsa 140 owner. When Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed" hit
>> the bookstores in mid-1965, the 1965 model Corvairs with full
>> independent rear suspension had been on the road since September of
>> 1964.
> Of course, the book was written about the earlier, awful design.
> The book would have gone to press before the new models came out.
> They made the earlier swing-axle designs for several years, even
> knowing the danger. The problems with those cars make the current
> Firestone problems seem minor.
>> The same swing-axle design was used in the Volkswagen until, again,
>> September of 1964.
> That's true, and the design is fatally flawed, but VW's did not have
> the safety record of Corvair, depite the large sales volume of VW by
> that time.
The difference was that the VW oversteered and spun out while the
Corvair rolled over. Without seat belts (that weren't available yet)
a rollover practically assured fatalities. The VW beetle was known
for going off the road backwards and being sensitive to crosswinds.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jobst Brandt
> I cannot let this pass as a long, devoted hardtop and convertible Corvair
> Corsa 140 owner. When Nader's "Unsafe At Any Speed" hit the bookstores in
> mid-1965, the 1965 model Corvairs with full independent rear suspension
> had been on the road since September of 1964. The same swing-axle design
> was used in the Volkswagen until, again, September of 1964. As late as
> the mid-1980s I crewed at the SCCA nationals and Yenko Stinger Corvair
> Corsas were competitive (though not victorious) against brand-new factory
> machines with factory support. I think the original post was about
> deprecating imagery, trial by press, litigation, and badmouthing of
> product. Certainly the early models were prone to rollover, but GM had
> done a complete redesign successfully BEFORE the smear campaign killed a
> great car.
The book was about the original cars and that GM fought the case in
court claiming there was no problem. I was an expert witness on such
a case and can speak from experience having had a 1960 Corvair sedan
and before that driven VW Beetles, quite aside from the design work I
did at Porsche on suspension at that time. Just the same there is no
excuse for air cooled automobile engines and engines behind the rear
axle, so your enthusiasm for these cars is misplaced. As I have
explained, the air cooled car is a misplaced effort fueled by the lack
of a carbon water pump seal before the second world war. Boiling cars
and radiator geysers were a result of low water, not water cooled
engines. The low water was caused by the rope seal held in place by a
gland nut to be tightened by "water pump pliers" aka channel locks.
> If you want a good example of design failure, how about the 1964
> Renault Dauphine whose carburetor overflow ran over the exhaust
> manifold? I watched a one-week-old Renault immolate itself a half
> block from its garage! Funny how nobody attacked this thing-they
> weren't popular enough to be a deep-pocket target.
The Dauphine was also an oversteerer that left the road backwards and
rolled over almost as well as a Corvair but having so small a market
in the USA it was never scrutinized. It was a dog all around.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
David L. Johnson
> > That's true, and the design is fatally flawed, but VW's did not have
> > the safety record of Corvair, depite the large sales volume of VW by
> > that time.
>
> The difference was that the VW oversteered and spun out while the
> Corvair rolled over. Without seat belts (that weren't available yet)
> a rollover practically assured fatalities. The VW beetle was known
> for going off the road backwards and being sensitive to crosswinds.
Well, my '62 VW did indeed have seat belts. Maybe they weren't yet mandated,
but they certainly were available. It also did have trouble with crosswinds.
Crossing the San Mateo Bridge was an adventure in motoring.