CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
Kenny
"Hi,
As I'm not active on these forums I'm not sure exactly what has been
written on this issue but all comments and help for me would be most
grateful.
I ride a SCOTT CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month. I'm a
keen road cyclist for fun/exercise but am not competetive. I should
add that I have had the bike from new and it has never been subject to
any crash, nor impact.
Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. The
front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on the road and
the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the bike split
into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all to react.
Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable severity.
I had to attend my local hospital where I received 11 stitches to my
face. I also required an Xray which showed there was no fracture to my
jaw. I sustained further grazes/lacerations to both knees, both
shoulder, both elbows and hands. I have also shattered 2 of my teeth,
for which I'm seeing a dentist today.
Whilst I accept that road cycling involves a degree of (controlled)
risk, this is absolutely not something I anticipated.
As a doctor, I of course have an interest in health and safety issues
and thought I would raise this on here. I'm actually glad I'm alive,
because a 12inch portion of the downtube shattered off entirely. This
could easily have embededded itself into me.
I have pictures on my phone that I can include if you feel that this
would be useful.
My question is really.....is this to be expected? I am strongly of the
opinion that I will raise this issue with Scott, but would value all
your opinions greatly.
Thanks in advance,
Steve
P.S. Pictures have been added here: http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z284/Steebler/
P.P.S. I am 9 1/2 stone and 5'8 tall, so hardly a heavyweight. "
jim beam
cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
bottom line, your frame should not have failed - probably a
manufacturing defect - but at the same time, you absolutely /have/ to
heed any pre-failure warning noises.
jim beam
in fact, you posted "Stem Handlebar Interface Creak Noise" on 7/5 didn't
you?
A Muzi
> P.P.S. I am 9 1/2 stone and 5'8 tall, so hardly a heavyweight. "
An horrible story and my deepest sympathy.
But, as we say here often, don't let attorneys work on your bike and
don't take legal advice from bicycle mechanics. That goes for the bulk
of r.b.t. denizens as well (practicing attorneys in this area excepted).
You need competent legal advice and promptly. Stop talking about the
incident and let your counsel find the appropriate experts to analyze
the bike, the situation and the ramifications. Then write back to tell
us later. If you are in USA (your writing style implies not) there are
several people who specialize in this area, write me. Otherwise call
your local bar association for a referral. You need an expert as the
'facts' are always voluminous and complicated and the way they are
discerned has huge import to you.
cheap shots about 'carbon' and 'scott' are unhelpful here.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Kenny
doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
Kenny
A Muzi
Yes. There is likely a lot more going on here which is why I suggested
he consult an attorney expert in the area. That person will have the
resources to sort out what really happened. We don't.
amakyonin
It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
(curb?) to cause the third break.
It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
Crescentius Vespasianus
So at first it's a creak, creak noise.
Then CREAK, then a giant zipping noise
like when they zip up a body bag, and
then you're on the ground.
Even a large diameter branch, on a tree,
first gives a creak, then a ripping
noise before it crashes to the ground.
Had some storms around here lately, it's
amazing how wind can break a 4 inch
diameter branch, like it's a toothpick.
I did see in the pics that the Scott
runs the cables inside the tubes, might
that have something to do this this.
Like some rubbing cable, cuts through
the tube.
A Muzi
>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
amakyonin wrote:
> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> (curb?) to cause the third break.
> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About
0.4 Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
A Muzi
>>>> http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z284/Steebler/
>>>> P.P.S. I am 9 1/2 stone and 5'8 tall, so hardly a heavyweight. "
>>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and
>>> the fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and
>>> the probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a
>>> period within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
>>> bottom line, your frame should not have failed - probably a
>>> manufacturing defect - but at the same time, you absolutely /have/ to
>>> heed any pre-failure warning noises.
> jim beam also wrote:
>> in fact, you posted "Stem Handlebar Interface Creak Noise" on 7/5
>> didn't you?
Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
> So at first it's a creak, creak noise. Then CREAK, then a giant zipping
> noise like when they zip up a body bag, and then you're on the ground.
> Even a large diameter branch, on a tree, first gives a creak, then a
> ripping noise before it crashes to the ground. Had some storms around
> here lately, it's amazing how wind can break a 4 inch diameter branch,
> like it's a toothpick.
> I did see in the pics that the Scott runs the cables inside the tubes,
> might that have something to do this this. Like some rubbing cable, cuts
> through the tube.
Cables chafed through a tube in just over 30 days?
Kenny
> On Aug 15, 12:31 am, Kenny <Postoas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> cleanly from the headtube.
No, what I see from the pictures is the head tube is 180 degrees
turned around and the break points are all jagged.
Mike Jacoubowsky
>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>
> amakyonin wrote:
>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
>
> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
Sure, but what do you make of-
"Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
exactly is he saying?
As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
RS
civil plaintiff's attornies in your area and go with one. I would also be sure
the bike remains safe and untouched. Take much better pictures to
document and take images of where the accident occured.
That's a horrendous amount of damage and a defect in that frame or the
manufacturing process cannot be ruled out. I would imagine Scott would
want to make this go away.
In article <1187148727....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Posto...@gmail.com says...
Derk
> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
> fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
> probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
> within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or similar in
their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing else.
Derk
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
[JRA story snipped]
>My question is really.....is this to be expected?
Do you actually think that it's expected that bikes regularly shatter
on tiny impacts?
Really, do you?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
>doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
It's hard to believe.
DougC
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:32:07 -0700, Kenny <Posto...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [JRA story snipped]
>> My question is really.....is this to be expected?
>
> Do you actually think that it's expected that bikes regularly shatter
> on tiny impacts?
>
> Really, do you?
>
>
What I'm wondering here is.... why no kevlar layer?
Yea I know cyclists are pissy about their ounces, but really.
Wouldn't guarantee you'd always land safely, but it does greatly help
with the effects of a composite component failure.
~
jim beam
isn't it illegal?
but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you because
he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left", is asking
for a darwin award.
jim beam
if the correct materials are used in the first place, it wouldn't be
adding any safety at all.
regardless, something was seriously wrong here. where are these frames
made btw?
D'ohBoy
> DougC wrote:
> > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >> [JRA story snipped]
> >>> My question is really.....is this to be expected?
>
> >> Do you actually think that it's expected that bikes regularly shatter
> >> on tiny impacts?
> >> Really, do you?
>
> > What I'm wondering here is.... why no kevlar layer?
> > Yea I know cyclists are pissy about their ounces, but really.
>
> > Wouldn't guarantee you'd always land safely, but it does greatly help
> > with the effects of a composite component failure.
> > ~
>
> if the correct materials are used in the first place, it wouldn't be
> adding any safety at all.
>
> regardless, something was seriously wrong here. where are these frames
> made btw?
Germany.
>From cyclingnews.com:
"Denk Engineering GmbH and Scott USA to cease relationship
Denk Engineering GmbH and Scott USA have announced the end of their
working relationship effective the end of October 2007. The German
engineering firm was responsible for many of Scott's frame and
suspension hallmarks over the past twelve years, including the Spark
cross country bike, the Genius trail bike frames, the full-carbon
Ransom all-mountain platform, and their associated proprietary shocks.
Road innovations include the revolutionary CR1, Addict, and Plasma
framesets as well as their CR1 tube-to-tube and IMP carbon
construction processes.
Denk Engineering has stated that it still has three collaborative
projects pending, each of which are to be completed by the end of
October and presented through the 2008 trade shows."
D'ohBoy
D'ohBoy
Although they may not do the actual construction, they are responsible
for the design.
D'ohBoy
Crescentius Vespasianus
>> Wouldn't guarantee you'd always land safely, but it does greatly help
>> with the effects of a composite component failure.
>> ~
Body armor may stop a round fired from
an AK-47, which it has been tested for,
but I seriously doubt they have been
tested for spearing from a sharpened CF
tube. Without testing, how can you be sure?
Tim McNamara
A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> But, as we say here often, don't let attorneys work on your bike and
> don't take legal advice from bicycle mechanics.
Excellent advice.
But to talk about the bike itself seems within our purview. I have seen
a few photos of similar failures of CF bikes, where the front part of
the frame breaks off, but IIRC all those had occurred in professional
racing situations in sprint pile-ups. I can't recall with certainty if
we have had a report similar to this in this newsgroup but I am vaguely
recalling that we have. Does anyone else remember?
Tim McNamara
amakyonin <amakyo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
Read the first post again. The rider's height and weight are given at
the end of the post.
DougC
Kevlar doesn't stretch (much) or shatter, it stays tough and flexible.
The difference here being, the frame would have likely stayed in one
piece, and the rider may well not have crashed. Is that important?
From http://www.modelaircraft.org/insider/06_03/04.html -
"...The aramid composites resist shattering upon impact, and the
presence of the fiber inhibits propagation of cracks...."
?:|
A Muzi
>>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>> amakyonin wrote:
>>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
>>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
>>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
>>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
>>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
>>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
>> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
>> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Sure, but what do you make of-
> "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
> Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
> exactly is he saying?
> As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
> is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
> rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
> don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
> about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
> at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
> environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
> street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
there's more to this story.
Dan...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is it really all that common for people to be destroying MTB frames on
curbs? I'm honestly surprised to hear this from people who work in
shops. I'd expect that type of failure from the BST's, but not from a
real mountain bike. My hardtail has been being thrashed & crashed
since the mid 90's, and my FS since '01 or '02. Stuff breaks, but the
frames have held up nicely (knock on wood).
Are we talking super-lightweight bikes, super-heavy riders or am I
just under a misimpression that (real) MTB frames are made to
withstand some abuse? I run into plenty of solid stuff both on and
off road, rock ledges and concrete stairs or ledges being toward the
top of the list. Not that long ago I slammed a wooden bridge approach
out in the woods, and the only thing that gave was me.
A Muzi
>>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
>>> fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
>>> probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
>>> within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
> Derk wrote:
>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>> similar in
>> their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing else.
jim beam wrote:
> isn't it illegal?
> but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you because
> he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left", is asking
> for a darwin award.
I'm more concerned with the SUV pilots. Damned space cadets are
gesticulating and yelling into the phone more often now. Their lane
drift and left turn trajectories are an adrenalin buzz!
--
Andrew Muzi
A Muzi
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
>> there's more to this story.
Dan...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it really all that common for people to be destroying MTB frames on
> curbs? I'm honestly surprised to hear this from people who work in
> shops. I'd expect that type of failure from the BST's, but not from a
> real mountain bike. My hardtail has been being thrashed & crashed
> since the mid 90's, and my FS since '01 or '02. Stuff breaks, but the
> frames have held up nicely (knock on wood).
> Are we talking super-lightweight bikes, super-heavy riders or am I
> just under a misimpression that (real) MTB frames are made to
> withstand some abuse? I run into plenty of solid stuff both on and
> off road, rock ledges and concrete stairs or ledges being toward the
> top of the list. Not that long ago I slammed a wooden bridge approach
> out in the woods, and the only thing that gave was me.
I surely have no idea. Nor have I speculated.
My _first_ suggestion was to consult attorneys practiced in the area for
consultation. You'll get counsel and expertise from their established
network.
I still think that's a good idea.
--
Andrew Muzi
Jay Beattie
> > Is it really all that common for people to be destroying MTB frames on
> > curbs? I'm honestly surprised to hear this from people who work in
> > shops. I'd expect that type of failure from the BST's, but not from a
> > real mountain bike. My hardtail has been being thrashed & crashed
> > since the mid 90's, and my FS since '01 or '02. Stuff breaks, but the
> > frames have held up nicely (knock on wood).
> > Are we talking super-lightweight bikes, super-heavy riders or am I
> > just under a misimpression that (real) MTB frames are made to
> > withstand some abuse? I run into plenty of solid stuff both on and
> > off road, rock ledges and concrete stairs or ledges being toward the
> > top of the list. Not that long ago I slammed a wooden bridge approach
> > out in the woods, and the only thing that gave was me.
>
> I surely have no idea. Nor have I speculated.
> My _first_ suggestion was to consult attorneys practiced in the area for
> consultation. You'll get counsel and expertise from their established
> network.
> I still think that's a good idea.
>
case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot to
smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider hit a
hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter. In
those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and the
rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since there are
no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.
Dan...@gmail.com
> > Is it really all that common for people to be destroying MTB frames on
> > curbs? I'm honestly surprised to hear this from people who work in
> > shops. I'd expect that type of failure from the BST's, but not from a
> > real mountain bike. My hardtail has been being thrashed & crashed
> > since the mid 90's, and my FS since '01 or '02. Stuff breaks, but the
> > frames have held up nicely (knock on wood).
> > Are we talking super-lightweight bikes, super-heavy riders or am I
> > just under a misimpression that (real) MTB frames are made to
> > withstand some abuse? I run into plenty of solid stuff both on and
> > off road, rock ledges and concrete stairs or ledges being toward the
> > top of the list. Not that long ago I slammed a wooden bridge approach
> > out in the woods, and the only thing that gave was me.
>
> I surely have no idea. Nor have I speculated.
> My _first_ suggestion was to consult attorneys practiced in the area for
> consultation. You'll get counsel and expertise from their established
> network.
> I still think that's a good idea.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think something slipped between the lines here. I have no reason to
contact anyone, all my bikes are reasonably intact. I am an
uninvolved third party responding to the statement Mike made that you
seemed to agree with, regarding mountain bike frames being destroyed
by customers hitting curbs. I find this surprising, so I asked how
often you & Mike, being in the biz, see such a thing takes place
(regarding mountain bikes and curbs) and if it was mostly extra-light
bikes or extra-heavy riders.
BTW, I agree with your suggestion for the OP to contact an attorney.
To the OP, be careful which attorney you see. I was rear-ended on my
motorcycle a couple years back, and the attorney I went with was worse
than useless. In retrospect I should have contacted a motorcycle
advocacy group or something of the like for help finding the right
attorney for my case.
andre...@aol.com
> Kenny wrote:
> > After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> > doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> > catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>
> he consult an attorney expert in the area. That person will have the
> resources to sort out what really happened. We don't.
I agree with Andrew. Most of us have been riding alone and in groups
for many years. We have ridden over nasty roads, and have seen
accidents. In fact we probably have seen pretty serious accidents with
damage to bikes and components of all kinds. However, in my years
riding with people that ride everything from light to heavy and from
hydrogen to plutonium frames. I have never seen a bike suddenly
snapping in half as in the pictures. So, Kenny should get a lawyer to
help him sort this out, as Andrew suggested.
Andres
A Muzi
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> I surely have no idea. Nor have I speculated.
>> My _first_ suggestion was to consult attorneys practiced in the area for
>> consultation. You'll get counsel and expertise from their established
>> network.
>> I still think that's a good idea.
Jay Beattie wrote:
> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot to
> smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider hit a
> hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter. In
> those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and the
> rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since there are
> no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>
> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
Well, that _is_ expert counsel in my book.
He can always get a second opinion form an attorney experienced in the
area but there's no point in the others of us speculating or pontificating.
raa...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there is
no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls for
possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right to
expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the product
fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress and
further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
Tim McNamara
raa...@gmail.com wrote:
> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> > case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> > apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> > for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
> > to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
> > hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
> > In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
> > the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> > there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
> >
> > The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> > Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.- Hide
> > quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
<OT rant>Good grief I wish people would just get a darned newsreader and
stop using that Google crap. </OT rant>
> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
enough information.
This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
Tim McNamara
A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix
> >>> and the fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture
> >>> progresses. and the probability of a fracture progressing from
> >>> zero to fail without a period within the audible warning zone is
> >>> slim to zero.
>
> > Derk wrote:
> >> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
> >> similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
> >> else.
>
> jim beam wrote:
> > isn't it illegal?
A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
law.
> > but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you
> > because he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left",
> > is asking for a darwin award.
>
> I'm more concerned with the SUV pilots. Damned space cadets are
> gesticulating and yelling into the phone more often now. Their lane
> drift and left turn trajectories are an adrenalin buzz!
Unfortunately there are doofii everywhere, operating all kinds of
vehicles.
A Muzi
>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
> raa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
Tim McNamara wrote:
> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
> enough information.
>
> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
John Forrest Tomlinson
Why would the doofus time a swerve to when you are going by?
The whole "on your left" thing is dopey anyway.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
I don't see many mangled bikes and also suspect there is more to this
story. The very fact that I see few mangled bikes makes me think
there is more to this story.
It's either an exceptionally badly built bike or one that was damaged
earlier or the story of the failure is not true.
raa...@gmail.com
> In article <1187214071.014172.286...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is correct; however it certainly does not go so far to say he has
no case. Talking to a good lawyer will do far more than anyone here
ever could. As I indicated a consumer has a right to a reasonable
expectation...everyone here could agree to that I think. Something
like that could happen to you or me or our kids and it is important
that the manufacturer be held accountable where they are at fault for
all our sakes.
Bill Sornson
CA supposedly has a new cell phone use while driving law, but I swear I see
MORE people with 'em now than ever. Closest calls I've had while riding
have virtually all been due to distracted, yakking drivers.
Bill "ticket 'em!!!" S.
Jay Beattie
> In article <1187214071.014172.286...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>
The important point for raam is that my "no case" quip was a joke. I
am a defense guy -- I am pathologically predisposed to saying there is
no case. But like you say, it all depends on the failure. In the true
JRA failure, the manufacturer settles -- 'cause bikes are not supposed
to fall apart. I have defended those kinds of cases, although they
are rare, and like I say, they usually result from someone in
production getting sleepy after lunch . . . or they involve a Chinese
OEM dabbling in cutting edge componentry (hey, topical and
inflammatory -- but true, sorry). Most of my other failure cases (and
I have done a lot of them) involve: (1) people beating the sh** out of
their bikes, or (2) new designs that fail to account for some weird
stress -- like when shock forks were first introduced and they were
ripping the front-ends off Al frames (thus, gussets). Notwithstanding
all the complaining in this group about the lack of engineering in the
bike field, I have worked with in-house engineers at some big
manufacuters who were well credentialed, one of whom was in the nuke-
bomb industry before moving to the bike business. -- Jay Beattie.
Artoi
> On Aug 15, 12:31 am, Kenny <Postoas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> > doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> > catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>
> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> (curb?) to cause the third break.
Nope, the headtube has been turned 180 degrees in the photo. The break
is in the top tube and down tube themselves.
--
raa...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for the clarification.
Paul Myron Hobson
>>>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>>>> similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
>>>> else.
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> isn't it illegal?
Tim McNamara wrote:
> A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
> earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
> Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
> law.
While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
oh well.
\\paul
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
Around here the school bus companies hire cretins. The drivers (and I
use that term loosely) change lanes without signaling and/or using their
mirrors.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> Derk wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
>>> fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
>>> probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
>>> within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
>> similar in
>> their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing else.
>>
>
> isn't it illegal?
>
> but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you because
> he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left", is asking
> for a darwin award.
Air Zound!
<http://www.deltacycle.com/product.php?g=1>
damyth
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
standards been so diluted?
I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
TWO places.
I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
Chalo
>
> The OP said he hit
> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> divot," whatever the heck that is.
The OP meant a pothole.
The term "divot" traditionally refers to a small chunk knocked out of
the turf by someone playing golf or polo.
A Muzi
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
damyth wrote:
> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
> standards been so diluted?
> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
> tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
> TWO places.
> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd comment.
--
Andrew Muzi
John Forrest Tomlinson
Good point.
John Forrest Tomlinson
<mdk.10...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
>more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
>Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
>somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
>standards been so diluted?
>I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
>The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
>tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
>TWO places.
>
>I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
>garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
>plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
If the bike is a high-end racing bike and has a serious crash and
fails, I don't care whether it's unrideable because it failed "a
little" or "a lot." It's still unrideable and the rider was still in
a serious crash.
Peter Cole
> The important point for raam is that my "no case" quip was a joke. I
> am a defense guy -- I am pathologically predisposed to saying there is
> no case. But like you say, it all depends on the failure. In the true
> JRA failure, the manufacturer settles -- 'cause bikes are not supposed
> to fall apart. I have defended those kinds of cases, although they
> are rare, and like I say, they usually result from someone in
> production getting sleepy after lunch . . . or they involve a Chinese
> OEM dabbling in cutting edge componentry (hey, topical and
> inflammatory -- but true, sorry). Most of my other failure cases (and
> I have done a lot of them) involve: (1) people beating the sh** out of
> their bikes, or (2) new designs that fail to account for some weird
> stress -- like when shock forks were first introduced and they were
> ripping the front-ends off Al frames (thus, gussets). Notwithstanding
> all the complaining in this group about the lack of engineering in the
> bike field, I have worked with in-house engineers at some big
> manufacuters who were well credentialed, one of whom was in the nuke-
> bomb industry before moving to the bike business. -- Jay Beattie.
The thing that concerns me about CF is that it's an inherently
labor-intensive process. That, combined with the fact that the only real
reason to use it is to shave weight means that parts won't be
over-designed and manufacturers will constantly try to squeeze costs.
Cheap CF seems like a recipe for disaster. I think it's much easier for
a piece of sloppy work to slip through CF production than the
highly-automated metal frame production.
>
Peter Cole
> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
>
Yes, that bothers me too.
Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
> >>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> >>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> >>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
> >>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> >>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> >>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> >>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
> >>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
> >> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
> >> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Sure, but what do you make of-
> > "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> > stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
> > Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
> > exactly is he saying?
> > As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
> > is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
> > rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
> > don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
> > about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
> > at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
> > environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
> > street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
>
> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> there's more to this story.
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
But honest, Mr Scott, I was just riding along and then............
Tim McNamara
Paul Myron Hobson <pho...@gatech.edu> wrote:
Logical consistency across laws is not necessarily the case. Eventually
that tends to get corrected but not always. Locally there is a "loud
car stereo" ordinance but it is, as far as I can tell, never enforced.
Tim McNamara
damyth <mdk.10...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 3:44 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he
> > > hit something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit
> > > a "road divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike
> > > exploded. We just don't have enough information and it seems
> > > like there is more to the story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and
> > > Peter et al are right in their caution about assuming that the
> > > bike failed because we just don't have enough information.
> >
> > > This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my
> > > own business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more
> > > than JRA.
> >
> > bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
>
> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
> standards been so diluted?
I don't find catastrophic frame failure acceptable, period. This is
exactly why I believe that carbon fiber is an unsuitable material for
bicycle frames, forks and any other critical component- when it fails it
fails catastrophically. However, we have not seen a spate of reports of
such failures which suggests that the material may be "good enough."
> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest
> diameter tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it
> fractured in TWO places.
>
> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with
> a plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
We'd need to know more about exactly what happened, what the maintenance
history of the bike was, whether there may have been previous damage
from some source (e.g., overly zealous clamping of the down tube on a
roof rack), etc.
Tim McNamara
raa...@gmail.com wrote:
> That is correct; however it certainly does not go so far to say he
> has no case.
In the legal system there is always a case to be made, with reasonable
grounds or not, it just has to pass through litmus tests in order to
come to trial.
> Talking to a good lawyer will do far more than anyone here ever
> could.
Hence the recommendations to the OP that he do exactly that.
> As I indicated a consumer has a right to a reasonable
> expectation...everyone here could agree to that I think. Something
> like that could happen to you or me or our kids and it is important
> that the manufacturer be held accountable where they are at fault for
> all our sakes.
At this point there is no clear evidence that the manufacturer was at
fault because we don't know what happened how it happened or why it
happened.
Tim McNamara
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
> It's either an exceptionally badly built bike or one that was damaged
> earlier or the story of the failure is not true.
Or possibly some combination of two or even all three.
damyth
By supporting "it's more than (a case of) JRA" you are making
commentary. At the very minimum you are implying that it is unlikely
to be a manufacturing defect. There is way too little evidence
presented so far to make a judgment either way (manufacturing defect
or user negligence).
At any rate there is no way this kind of spectacular failure would be
in any way acceptable. I'd say the manufacturer bears some
responsibility, even *if* the owner had been negligent. At the very
minimum the owner would get some jury sympathy if this went all the
way to court. This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
jim beam
you can't really say that. we don't know for sure what the reason for
this failure was. if it wasn't jra, and the 3-piece down tube indicates
that, then you can't say a metal frame wouldn't fail in an identical
situation.
> Certainly no
> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
>
and nor would carbon typically. that's why there has more to be this
than simple jra imo.
Scott Gordo
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think it's safe to say that your suspicions are quite plausible,
especially when the rider is being vague about stuff like heading
'slightly towards a curb'? Natch, most customers develop a selective
memory when they're trying to get a refund. But take something touted
as super light (thin tubed) and super stiff (which, when we're talking
thin tubes) usually adds up to brittle. Whatever caused one bond
separation or crack compromised the whole structure and could have
near-simultaneously led to the others. The photos don't really tell
enough of a story.
One thought. Say the owner hit a curb with some speed. There's a tire,
a tube, a rim and wheel, and a fork to f#ck up before we reach the
frame, all of which look fine from the photos. So, the energy was
transmitted to the head tube, which would either catapult the rider or
deform the top and down tube past the breaking point. Does this make
the frame the weakest link? Is this a pretty common finding among shop
owners amont all brands?
With all that said, for all we know the owner is gnat light, rides
gently on smooth surfaces, and puts the down tube in a bench vice to
lube the chain. With all due sympathy to the rider, the bicycle
industry is one tough business.
I'm going to hug all my steel frames tonight.
/s
/s
A Muzi
>>>> A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
>>>> earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
>>>> Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
>>>> law.
>>> While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
>>> meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
>>> can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
>>> enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> Good point.
still me wrote:
> Despite my personal objection to those idiots with music playing way
> too loud in their cars, you have to realize that can't legislate
> everything. Even a factory car radio at somewhat reasonable volume can
> mask many road sounds (horns, sirens, etc) unless they are very close.
> We don't need the gov't telling us what volume settings are
> permissible in our cars.
Agreed. When I worked in Florida, it was legal to drink while driving
as long as you weren't drunk. Good policy IMHO. As with telephones it
isn't the technology so much as the pilot's inability to 'chew gum and
walk' as it were. Excessive regulation won't stop idiots and the cost
to everyone else is high (cel phones, alcohol, sound systems, etc).
--
Andrew Muzi
Tim McNamara
still me <wheel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:19:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's either an exceptionally badly built bike or one that was
> >> damaged earlier or the story of the failure is not true.
> >
> >Or possibly some combination of two or even all three.
>
>
> And he either should have been aware of the damage and potential for
> danger, or he was aware of the damage and not aware of the potential
> for danger, or he was not aware of the damage and therefore there was
> no potential for danger, or the damage was masked, or, or, or...
>
> He still needs to talk to a competent (not an ambulance chaser)
> attorney who will look at the case and figure out if it is legitimate
> and worth pursuing and through what channel. There are so many
> variables that we can't possibly know that affect this case.
Precisely.
A Muzi
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
>> experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
>> If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd comment.
damyth wrote:
> By supporting "it's more than (a case of) JRA" you are making
> commentary. At the very minimum you are implying that it is unlikely
> to be a manufacturing defect. There is way too little evidence
> presented so far to make a judgment either way (manufacturing defect
> or user negligence).
>
> At any rate there is no way this kind of spectacular failure would be
> in any way acceptable. I'd say the manufacturer bears some
> responsibility, even *if* the owner had been negligent. At the very
> minimum the owner would get some jury sympathy if this went all the
> way to court. This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
> don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
--
Andrew Muzi
jim beam
nice one! "jra"?
Jay Beattie
JRA in a trash compactor! -- Jay Beattie.
damyth
Yeah, you're a real Einstein. The point here is not just post any
random picture of a mangled random frame. Show me a mangled frame
with 2 (virtually) perfect wheels, drivetrain, forks, & stays, etc.,
and then we can start the discussion of whether it constitutes a case
of JRA or not.
In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break in
two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the same
place twice. What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
manufacturing defect? If you stuck a well-constructed CF tube in a
hydraulic bending mandrel, do you think it's going to section off in
two virtually perfect pieces like that? If you had paused to think
about this for more than a millisecond, this question ought to have to
occurred to you.
And in the case of the busted Bianchi you posted, even without knowing
anything regarding context, you don't think it's rather telling the
the seat tube broke right where the seatpost ends? All the other
"damage" you see in that picture can be easily explained if you regard
the seat tube as the origin of failure.
A Muzi
>>> This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
>>> don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
>>> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
> A Muzi wrote:
>> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
>> I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
>> Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
jim beam wrote:
> nice one! "jra"?
Middle of Lake Shore Drive, Chicago. Fell from a bus rack into traffic
in a center lane. CTA said "Bicycle? Sure, it was our error, just buy
one and we'll reimburse you". Their position changed when they got the
replacement estimate for a clean 1982 Bianchi Super Corsa. . .
A Muzi
an admitted red herring from > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>:
>> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
>> I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
>> Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
damyth wrote:
> Yeah, you're a real Einstein. The point here is not just post any
> random picture of a mangled random frame. Show me a mangled frame
> with 2 (virtually) perfect wheels, drivetrain, forks, & stays, etc.,
> and then we can start the discussion of whether it constitutes a case
> of JRA or not.
>
> In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break in
> two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the same
> place twice. What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
> manufacturing defect? If you stuck a well-constructed CF tube in a
> hydraulic bending mandrel, do you think it's going to section off in
> two virtually perfect pieces like that? If you had paused to think
> about this for more than a millisecond, this question ought to have to
> occurred to you.
>
> And in the case of the busted Bianchi you posted, even without knowing
> anything regarding context, you don't think it's rather telling the
> the seat tube broke right where the seatpost ends? All the other
> "damage" you see in that picture can be easily explained if you regard
> the seat tube as the origin of failure.
Geez, lighten up. That was supposed to inject some humor.( crushed on an
expressway in traffic)
I certainly did not say anything either way about cause, blame, course
of events, physics, materials, justice or mercy.
This is a puzzling thing with potentially large ramifications and I, for
one, am not qualified to judge.
(p.s. impact, multiple impacts, beam loading and torsion are quite
different. Which may or may not be relevant)
--
Andrew Muzi
Scott Gordo
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whew! At least the cranks are still good!
/s
Michael Press
<Qt-dnSyYVaEt3Fnb...@comcast.com>,
Peter Cole <peter...@comcast.net> wrote:
How is carbon fiber frame building more labor critical
than steel frame building? Overheating that steel head
tube joint is a serious risk.
--
Michael Press
Jay Beattie
> In article
> <Qt-dnSyYVaEt3FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgn...@comcast.com>,
At least with older steels, overheating resulted in cracking at the
lug or filet and not a catestrophic failure. I think that with CF lay-
up problems, you probably get the same kind of slower failure, but
with fork blades and other glued-together joints, they can just come
apart. I would like to hear from the experts about what happens if
there are inclusions or air pockets or other lay-up problems and
whether those can cause catestrophic failures.
Also, you can have steel forks just fall apart too if there is nothing
more than a tack braze holding in the blades. That happened to a
friend of mine on a custom tandem. He and his fiancee were seriously
hurt. -- Jay Beattie.
Andrew Price
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
>earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
In the *USA*. But not everywhere.
Tim McNamara
Andrew Price <ajp...@free.fr> wrote:
Very true, although the use of term "states" in such a context has a
tendency to imply "within the United States of America" as relatively
few other countries are federated states. France, for example, has
departments rather than states, England/Ireland/Scotland have counties,
etc.
Had I been referring to sovereign nations, I would have been more likely
to use the words "nations" or "countries." It's an Americanism, to be
sure, but relatively consistent here. We generally only refer to other
nations as "states" in expressions such as "heads of state." We do it
this way to avoid confusion, as a result of the history of our nation's
beginnings as a federation of relatively sovereign states.
Tim McNamara
A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
Good grief! Was that bike run over by a dump truck? The only other
bike I have seen mangled like that- and not even as badly- was my wife's
XO-1 which was locked to a street sign at her workplace and run over by
a lady who got the gas and brake pedal confused while parking. She
bounced over the curb, across the parkway, over the sign and bike,
nearly into the front window of a beauty parlor and then down the
sidewalk until she hit a tree. She laid a streak of rubber the whole
way and you could see where she continued to burn rubber against the
tree until the engine died. Every tube on the XO-1 was bent, but that
Bianchi was crumpled into a ball! Yikes! I certainly hope no one was
riding it at the time of impact.
John Forrest Tomlinson
wrote:
>http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
A lot of those scratches will buff right out.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Tim McNamara
damyth <mdk.10...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> Yeah, you're a real Einstein.
And the need to be gratuitously nasty comes from...?
> The point here is not just post any random picture of a mangled
> random frame. Show me a mangled frame with 2 (virtually) perfect
> wheels, drivetrain, forks, & stays, etc., and then we can start the
> discussion of whether it constitutes a case of JRA or not.
>
> In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break in
> two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the same
> place twice.
We don't know that this is what happened. You're making an unfounded
assumption. The two breaks in the down tube could have happened
sequentially rather than simultaneously and from two different causes.
For example, the front end snaps off and as the bike falls to the
pavement, the down tube end strikes something and breaks a second time.
The break at the middle of "Scott" looks like the downtube was forced
upwards, peeling off a "flap" of CF like the strings in a stick of
celery. That, to me, suggests that it was the second break in the
downtube.
But it's all pretty baseless speculation, since all we have are three
photos and a vague description of the crash.
> What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
> manufacturing defect? If you stuck a well-constructed CF tube in a
> hydraulic bending mandrel, do you think it's going to section off in
> two virtually perfect pieces like that? If you had paused to think
> about this for more than a millisecond, this question ought to have
> to occurred to you.
That was one question. The other question that ought to have occurred
to you was what might have happened to the bike *before* the accident.
Was the downtube already damaged, perhaps by clamping it into a roof
rack with a down tube grabber?
Could it be a manufacturing defect? Sure. Could be be something else?
Sure. We have almost no data from which to work, however.
futrino
I just noticed inmy local paper that it was enforced today, cedar
rapids iowa
the fine was $65 but with court costs it =$135.80
http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/NEWS/70815069/1006/NEWS
Antti Salonen
> In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break in
> two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the same
> place twice. What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
> manufacturing defect?
I wouldn't put that much emphasis on the downtube breaking in two
places. From the photograph it looks like the downtube separated from
the head tube. Following this the top tube snapped in its weakest point
where the rear brake cable is routed inside the tube. I would guess that
the downtube snapped in the middle (probably where the bottle cage
thread is) only after the rider went down hard and the downtube hit the
ground or curb of whatever.
Antti
Artoi
> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
Ummm... We can weld it right back. Good as new!
--
Paul Myron Hobson
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:21:57 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenet...@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
>>>> earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
>>>> Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
>>>> law.
>>> While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
>>> meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
>>> can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
>>> enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
>
>
> Despite my personal objection to those idiots with music playing way
> too loud in their cars, you have to realize that can't legislate
> everything. Even a factory car radio at somewhat reasonable volume can
> mask many road sounds (horns, sirens, etc) unless they are very close.
>
> We don't need the gov't telling us what volume settings are
> permissible in our cars.
Agreed 100% My only point was that just because something is illegal
doesn't mean it's wrong and vise versa. But that's just life, eh?
\\paul
!Jones
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
>earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
>Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
>law.
I have seen it proposed; however, to the best of my knowledge (which
is less than exhaustive), it has not beed codified very many places.
My favorite idiotic law was the time Austin, TX required helmets. A
week or so after passage, TX repealed the helmet law for motorcycles.
Thus, helmets were required for bicycles, but not motorcycles... it
didn't last long.
Samey-same driving while dialing. I see it proposed all of the time
to prohibit it, but it doesn't happen.
Not that a law against plugging both ears is "idiotic"; it'll never be
enforced, so why bother?
Jones
Pikachu
> >>> Derk wrote:
> >>>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
> >>>> similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
> >>>> else.
>
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>> isn't it illegal?
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
> > earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
> > Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
> > law.
>
> While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
> meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
> can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
> enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
In addition to really loud music, how about the sound insulation of new
luxury cars? Inside any of the modern luxury cars such as a Lexus
LS460, it is actually insulated enough to be able to hold a quiet
conversation at highway speeds. Wouldn't that be akin to playing loud
music, since the net effect is the same in that you can't hear any
external (read: warning) sounds?
Pikachu
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
>
> We don't need the gov't telling us what volume settings are
> permissible in our cars.
Yes, volume level INSIDE your car should not be regulated by the
government. We do need the government to regulate the volume level
OUTSIDE the car, however (or to legalize the use of RPG's on "boom cars").
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> In article <fa0c56$mir$1...@news-int2.gatech.edu>,
> Paul Myron Hobson <pho...@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> Derk wrote:
>>>>>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>>>>>> similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
>>>>>> else.
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> isn't it illegal?
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the
>>> use of earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or
>>> riding a bike. Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists
>>> violating that particular law.
>> While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
>> meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
>> can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
>> enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
>
> that tends to get corrected but not always. Locally there is a "loud
> car stereo" ordinance but it is, as far as I can tell, never enforced.
In Aurora Illinois, the police impound cars with excessively loud
stereo's, leaving the occupants to find alternate transportation home
from the police station. :)
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> -snip-
>>>> This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
>>>> don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
>>>> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
>>> I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
>>> Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> nice one! "jra"?
>
> Middle of Lake Shore Drive, Chicago. Fell from a bus rack into traffic
See - LSD and cycling do not mix.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:58:35 -0500, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
> wrote:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
>
> A lot of those scratches will buff right out.
Good opportunity for a repaint in a better color than "Waste Water
Treatment Plant Green". ;)
datakoll
reading occasional testimonials to carbon tubing, occasional carbon
craving, and very occasional bike waving roadside carbon riders, ya
gotta wonder what a survey would reveal on "if I buy it will I crash."
I haven't gone to the New River fest yet but always stop to chat with
the occasional 2 stroke hangglider-parafoil set, always carrying a
stick just in case.
I guess the incidence for sudden carbon tube failure is fairly low.
any guesses on what it is?
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> ...
> reading occasional testimonials to carbon tubing, occasional carbon
I only eat carbon based food.
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:42:05 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunset...@invailid.com> wrote:
>
>>> We don't need the gov't telling us what volume settings are
>>> permissible in our cars.
>> Yes, volume level INSIDE your car should not be regulated by the
>> government. We do need the government to regulate the volume level
>> OUTSIDE the car, however (or to legalize the use of RPG's on "boom cars").
>
> party next door, etc. Until it reaches "disturbing the peace" I don't
> think it's a legislative issue (yes, I know some of them do).
The jackhammer user is (almost always) performing a work task. Boom cars
and loud parties are in the same category.
> More annoying to me are loud motorcycles. They're outrageous now, and
> I don't see the Fed's regulating it out of the factory or the states
> doing anything at their level. It's out of control.
Quite a few cops ride loud motorcycles while off-duty, or wish that
their wife would allow them to ride a loud motorcycle while off-duty. :(
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD
damyth
> In article <1187286099.301494.222...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
It's obvious from your post that you've never handled carbon fiber
tubing, certainly not enough to be familiar with their properties.
Why don't you compare the typical breaking strength of carbon fiber
tubing with the yield strength of metal tubing used on bikes, and get
back to me whether you still think your theory of the second break of
the down tube by a "grounding crash" holds water. Quite frankly, your
theory is laughable to anyone with even the most rudimentary
understanding of the properties of (well-constructed) CF tubing.
When I said "at the same time," I didn't actually mean the same
instantaneous moment in time, more like "on the same ride." I could
have been clearing in my original post but all you ditto-heads who
clung to the obvious "more than JRA" theory (despite lack of evidence
for or against it) was just getting plain annoying, especially if
you've never batted around a CF tube to understand how unlikely it is
to break transversely as in the OP's pictures.
Pikachu
Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
How about aluminium, which probably is the most popular material for
low-mid range bicycles nowadays? At a Taipei bike show many years ago,
they exhibited a machine that accepted raw aluminium tubing and produced
completed frames (sans paint). I am assuming that the welding performed
by this type of machine is of consistent, acceptable quality, as there
does not seem to be any reports of frames with defective welds.
Pikachu
Peter Cole
I said labor-intensive, not labor critical. It's labor-intensive simply
because more manual operations are involved, more man-hours in the
process. Other than small operations, most metal frames these days are
fabricated by machine in highly automated processes. Tube cutting,
shaping, welding and painting are often done with robots.
Hand-made metal frames can suffer the same imperfections if
manufacturers push the cost cutting too far, by rushing the work or
using inadequately skilled workers. Since automated processes are so
repeatable, quality is more uniform.
Cheap CF is still constrained by the first law of bicycle design:
"cheap, light, reliable -- pick any two". Unreliable CF is a bit scarier
than unreliable metal due to the "sudden catastrophic failure" phenomenon.