"Actually you are the first person to bring up this issue"



"tcmedara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:mXI9c.20940$oH2.4343@lakeread01...
>
> In reality, I'm quite curious about the real impact of the
> infamous
ejection
> force. I wonder if it's really something to worry about,
> or is it
something
> that can be mitigated by proper use of the QR (I know your
> answer James,
so
> just leave that alone).

The trouble is that in real life QR's do fail - if we leave
aside the why, it doesn't matter whether it's improper use
or vibrating loose as per James's theories the fact is they
do come loose. The ejection force is very real and seems to
have been accepted by most people with an appreciation of
force vectors and / or basic physics. The REAL point is that
at present the system fails catastrophically but had it not
been designed negligently and the calipers positioned in the
most sensible place then it would fail safe in that braking
would ensure that the wheel would remain in the dropouts.

It's very easy for the manufacturers to fix on new forks -
just put the mounting tabs on the front of the fork -
nothing else is needed. BUT, and it's a big but, in doing
this the manufactuers would effectively be admitting that
there's a *potential* problem and would open the floodgates
to claims and demand for retrospective fixing of the
problem. Whilst there are no large legal cases (and hence
costs) relating to this particular problem then there's no
reason for manufacturers to risk changing it. It's difficult
to see how any safety body can address the problem while the
vibrating loose theory remains just that, a theory (albeit
one that's been accepted in court cases in the US albeit
unrelated to disc brakes) - the QR and the lawyers lips
should in the vast majority of cases ensure safety, it's
just that one in a million one where thay don't, this will
need to be forced on he manufacturers by cost implications
or possibly by consumer pressure.

> Anecdotes aside, the question is yet to be answered. I
> manage the "gravity/fat ass force" on my seatpost with a
> QR despite the inherent design flaw that forces it into
> the seat tube even
with
> constant loading and unloading, so I wonder if the same
> can be done with
the
> fork.

It's a little less catastrophic if your seat post slips
though isn't it, even if the QR fails comletely - difficult
to see how you can end up paralysed as a result of that.

There's too many people focusing on whether the (wheel) QR
can fail if properly fastened rather than accepting the
anecdotal evidence that they do fail (even if it is as a
result of incorrect use) on an alarmingly regular basis. It
doesn't matter why they fail - it's the consequences of it
happening that's the issue, systems should fail safe and we
should all be petitioning the manufacturers to make this
simple change to the design of the forks to ensure that they
fail safe rather than failing catastrophically in order to
ensure that bad things don't happen whether or not it can be
proved that they have or haven't already happened.

In answer to your original question the real impact of the
infamous ejection force can almost certainly be mitigated by
the proper use of the QR but mitigation only reduces the
chance of something happening - the impact of the infamous
ejection force can be REMOVED completely by a simple design
change. It beggars belief that anyone can actually argue
that this would be a bad thing and that we should not be
campaigning for this to happen.

The issue of retrospectively recalling all existing forks is
much more problematical and possibly unecessary, that's
something that will be addressed by the manufacturrs in the
light of legal cases and costs.

Russ
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Richard Brockie writes:

> I didn't see a picture of this tricycle but short
> wheelbase recumbent bicycles, ones where pedal cranks are
> ahead of the front wheel, do endo's more easily than a
> conventional bicycle. Drawing a visual line from the
> rider's belly button (rider CG) to the contact patch of
> the front wheel shows that the CG is no better positioned
> than that of a conventional bicycle and usually worse.

Not necessarily. I measured both my recumbent and my
wedgie and the recumbent had the angle from the contact
patch to the rider CoG set about 15 degrees further back
than the tourer. My recumbent is a fairly low one, with
the seat inclined at around 30 degrees, and my tourer is a
24 1/2" frame; higher-seated SWB recumbents will be
different of course as will smaller-framed wedgies or
those with different geometry. And indeed it will change
from rider to rider.

Thus far I have not managed to raise the rear wheel of the
'bent. I have tried. I have raised the rear wheel of the
tourer. The recumbent has hydraulic discs, the tourer has
conventional cantilever rim brakes.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
 
[email protected] wrote:
> In any case, I have never seen a recumbent on any of the
> trails in the Santa Cruz Mountains nor in the Alps in the
> many years that I have ridden.

Not, admittedly, the world's best photograph by the time it
got here, but
http://legslarry.8bit.co.uk/BikeStull/Alleweders.jpg shows
Ymte Sybrandy (left) and Theo van Andel at the summit of the
St Gotthard pass, during the course of a seventeen day round
trip from Lelystad to Magliano Alpi and back. Full story and
further pictures at
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/PDF/Issue48.pdf

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
 
bomba <[email protected]> writes:

>On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:06:36 -0800, Carl Fogel wrote:

>> Do disk brakes on bicycles actually offer more braking
>> force than rim caliper brakes? If so, is the greater
>> force useful? That is, would a street bike be able to
>> stop shorter with a disk brake than with a caliper brake?

>Yes, yes and yes.

The front wheel will start skidding when deceleration (in
terms of G) exceeds the coefficient of friction between
ground and tyre multiplied by the cosine of the angle
between horizontal and the line between the combined
centre of gravity of bike and rider and the front wheel
contact patch.

If the coefficent of friction gets lesser, the maximum
braking you can do before skidding the front wheel lessens
in proportion.

If you go down a hill, the maximum braking force lessens as
the centre of gravity with respect to the front wheel
contact patch rises.

There's no escape from that simple piece of Newtonian
mechanics.

It is impossible to stop faster than that, no matter how
good your brakes are.

Since most bike brakes are capable of skidding the front
wheel in most circs, all that better brakes give you is
finer control of braking force and less grip effort. Finer
control of braking force will let you get closer to skidding
(maximum braking) without exceeding it. For example, rim
brakes will grab harder once a rev if the wheel is slightly
buckled, reducing how close you can get to skidding before
the grab causes it.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:

>in message <[email protected]>, Tim McNamara
>('[email protected]') wrote:

>> Ummm, no. The limit of braking power is not the force
>> with which the brake can clamp onto the rim, but the
>> coefficient of friction between the tire and the riding
>> surface. Clean dry pavement offers a higher coefficient
>> of friction than dirt with the same tires, although
>> perhaps pumice or slickrock might equal or exceed cement
>> pavement.

>Speaking as someone who regularly rides both types of
>bikes, I don't agree with you. Mind you, I could be wrong
>- the caliper brakes on my road bike are single pivot and
>not especially clever. I don't know the extreme limits of
>braking on either system, since I'm now to old and have
>too much respect for the fragility of my skull to just
>slam on the anchors and see what happens. But I do know
>that I can stop shorter - a lot shorter - on my hill bike
>than on my road bike, on the same road and braking from
>the same speed.

I presume that on both bikes you can brake hard enough to
skid the front wheel. So what affects the maximum braking is
the coefficient of friction and the angle above horizontal
of the CofG to the front wheel contact patch.

If you're higher off the ground on your road bike it won't
be able to stop as fast. If the off-road tyre rubber is
stickier you won't be able to stop as fast on the road
bike. If the larger contact patch and softer inflation of
the off-road tyre permit "cogging" into the rough road
surface this will increase the tyre-road coefficient of
friction. And so on.

If the brakes can skid the wheels the brakes have nothing to
do with maximum braking, it's all these other factors which
affect the braking
limit.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tim McNamara wrote:
>bomba <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 12:06:36 -0800, Carl Fogel wrote:
>>
>>> Do disk brakes on bicycles actually offer more braking
>>> force than rim caliper brakes? If so, is the greater
>>> force useful? That is, would a street bike be able to
>>> stop shorter with a disk brake than with a caliper
>>> brake?
>>
>> Yes, yes and yes.
>
>Ummm, no. The limit of braking power is not the force with
>which the brake can clamp onto the rim, but the coefficient
>of friction between the tire and the riding surface. Clean
>dry pavement offers a higher coefficient of friction than
>dirt with the same tires, although perhaps pumice or
>slickrock might equal or exceed cement pavement.

Ummm, no. If you can brake hard enough to lift the rear
wheel, that's the limiting factor, and any further
improvement in grip between the front tyre and ground
doesn't make a significant difference. Disks, of course,
don't change that.
 
[email protected] wrote:

>
> If you consider forks without offset at the dropout end,
> as they are commonly made today, where offset is achieved
> at the fork crown, No change other than placing the
> mounting lugs for the disc brake caliper on the front side
> is required. I think the same caliper would be adequate
> for most brands with the distance between caliper and fork
> leg remaining as it is today. This requires a new fork
> strut anyway.
>

It might even be possible to simply swap the left and right
fork lowers. Sometimes one sees bikes where the forks have
been installed backwards...usually on ebay.

> How long will it take to get the disc caliper ahead of the
> fork leg?

I wouldn't be surprised to see different wheel attachment
instead. There are already various quick(ish) release
20mm systems that seem little more trouble than a QR with
retention lips. That can also be sold as an upgrade
rather than merely a bug-fix. And you get to buy a new
shiny hub too!

James
 
[email protected] writes:

>Tim McNamara writes:

>>> Should not the criticism be leveled at the fork
>>> manufacturers and not the brake manufacturers?

>> IMHO both, since they are equal parts of the system. The
>> brake is designed by its maker to be mounted behind the
>> fork leg, and the fork is designed to put it there by its
>> maker. Both are equal contributors to the problem.

>> I don't know but do suspect that changing the dropout
>> design might be the easier solution, and I don't know but
>> do suspect that changing the location of the brake would
>> be the better solution.

>If you consider forks without offset at the dropout end,
>as they are commonly made today, where offset is achieved
>at the fork crown, No change other than placing the
>mounting lugs for the disc brake caliper on the front side
>is required. I think the same caliper would be adequate
>for most brands with the distance between caliper and fork
>leg remaining as it is today. This requires a new fork
>strut anyway.

>Changing the dropout is not a reasonable option because the
>dropout would need to face upward, which would release the
>wheel on normal wheel loads, while reversing loads of rider
>and brake force, being opposite, could still cause QR
>loosening. The dropout should be loaded in the same
>direction at all times as it is with rim brakes.

>That stress reversals cause unanticipated failures was
>evident in the old Shimano short splined hollow BB
>axles. Riders who descended standing, right foot
>forward, had crank loosening and spline failures as I
>predicted. We had a similar thread to this one on that
>issue as well as one on the progressive ratio Campagnolo
>Delta brake. Both products are no longer made for
>practical and safety reasons.

>How long will it take to get the disc caliper ahead of the
>fork leg?

Since plenty of folk who don't understand the physics of
braking think this problem should be settled by statistical
surveys, lab experiments, and submitting the results to law
courts to be decided by lawyers, judges, and juries, who of
course don't understand the physics of braking either, I
guess the answer is not until lots of lawyers have made lots
of money out of everyone's ignorance, confusion, assisted
greatly by the legally advisable obfuscation of the
manufacturer.

I blame the education system.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 
"Alan Braggins" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >Ummm, no. The limit of braking power is not the force
> >with which the brake can clamp onto the rim, but the
> >coefficient of friction between the tire and the riding
> >surface.

> Ummm, no. If you can brake hard enough to lift the rear
> wheel, that's the limiting factor, and any further
> improvement in grip between the front tyre and ground
> doesn't make a significant difference. Disks, of course,
> don't change that.

James rides tandem and I ride a recumbent, so for both of us
the former is more signifcant than the latter.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
 
"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> bomba <[email protected]> writes:

> Since most bike brakes are capable of skidding the front
> wheel in most circs, all that better brakes give you is
> finer control of braking force and less grip effort.

And less fade. And less rim wear. And less chance of water
reducing braking force, since the braking surface is away
from the contact point. And better braking if your bike is
not a standard wedgie (e.g. tandem / recumbent). And less
chance of causing a tyre blowout due to rim heating
(allegedly).

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
 
Russ wrote:

>
> It's very easy for the manufacturers to fix on new forks -
> just put the mounting tabs on the front of the fork -
> nothing else is needed. BUT, and it's a big but, in doing
> this the manufactuers would effectively be admitting that
> there's a *potential* problem and would open the
> floodgates to claims and demand for retrospective fixing
> of the problem. Whilst there are no large legal cases (and
> hence costs) relating to this particular problem then
> there's no reason for manufacturers to risk changing it.
> It's difficult to see how any safety body can address the
> problem while the vibrating loose theory remains just
> that, a theory (albeit one that's been accepted in court
> cases in the US albeit unrelated to disc brakes) - the QR
> and the lawyers lips should in the vast majority of cases
> ensure safety, it's just that one in a million one where
> thay don't, this will need to be forced on he
> manufacturers by cost implications or possibly by consumer
> pressure.
>

There is a very real reason for manufacturers not to ignore
it and that is if there is now an accident that can be shown
in court to be a result of wheel ejection, the manufacturers
would face punitive damages. The intention is to make sure
that ignoring it in the way you suggest is not a viable
option for a company or its management unless they believe
they are on very solid ground.

Tony
 
tcmedara wrote:

> My problem here is that you (and many others) fail to
> acknowledge that there's lots of unanswered questions
> remaining.

The most interesting question (IMO the only meaningful one
remaining, but I would say that) is how often does it
happen? Plenty of people say they have never heard of it,
but it seems very likely to me that it is under-reported,
and overlooked when it is mentioned. I offer no proof (as
always:), merely two anecdotes.

1. Critics from a.m-b deny that the problem happens amongst
the "real mountain bikers" there. In fact, last time this
topic generated some noise, someone started a thread
there to ask if anyone had experienced
it. In amongst all the noise, someone said that yes, they
had indeed experienced it, on their disk-braked bike,
never with rim brakes.

2. Just a few days ago another poster in a.m-b mentioned
their wheel falling out. The rear wheel this time, but a
little googling suggests it was on a disk-braked bike
which quite probably came with skewers that seem to have
developed quite a reputation for unscrewing. I could be
wrong on several counts with this story, but no-one else
even seeemed to consider the possibility that it was
related to disk brake forcing. It was just one more
reason to check your bike carefully...**** happens, man.
It seems odd that a skewer coming loose can be "just one
of those things" and yet there is such vehement rejection
of a simple explanation as to how it can happen, but
that's a separate issue...

When this story comes up again (and rest assured, it most
certainly will), the same crowd will insist that they have
never heard of any cases of it happening in the real world.
They are simply not prepared to "see" the cases where it has
(or at least may have) happened.

Contrast with singletrackworld, where although there are
still many critics, there are plenty who are starting to
agree that it really can happen. So it tends to get noticed
more, and when as many as 3 people find their skewers loose
in a single group ride, it is even considered worth
commenting on.

James
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> There is a very real reason for manufacturers not to
> ignore it and that is if there is now an accident that can
> be shown in court to be a result of wheel ejection, the
> manufacturers would face punitive damages.

And indeed prison sentences, AIUI. But in practice I
suspect they may get away with claiming that they genuinely
had no reason to believe that the problem occurs in the
real world. So long as the reports do not come in, this
excuse might hold up.

> The intention is to make sure that ignoring it in the
> way you suggest is not a viable option for a company or
> its management unless they believe they are on very
> solid ground.

Perhaps, but the number of companies who _do_ end up with
punitive fines and prison sentences suggests that they
frequently miscalculate. We've already seen Mark Hickey's
suggestion as to how the law should be handled...

The "solid ground" argument sits awkwardly with the extreme
reluctance of several people to behave openly and ethically.
If there is truly nothing to fear, why are they doing this?
It's the deceit and lies that has motivated me as much as
(perhaps more than) the actual problem itself.

James
 
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Gary Young) wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >But your attitude seems to be, we could lift a finger,
> >but we don't want to spend the money. Better that our
> >customers should pay the price for our stupidity. Isn't
> >that what you're saying? -- we could fix the problem, but
> >we won't. The only costs will be born by someone else. We
> >don't mind killing off a few customers as long as it
> >doesn't hurt our bottom line.
> <snip>
> >I'm quite surprised to see you pursue this line. All I
> >can say is that if this is your idea of customer service,
> >then I'll never buy one of your frames.
>
> Your (il)logical conclusions and inability to
> understand my position are astonishing. You really
> "don't get it", do you?
>
> Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home
> of the $695 ti frame

Well, I should have been more temporate, for civility's
sake. Nonetheless, I think your position is contrary to the
law and morally obtuse. I find it troubling that you
haven't responded to a question I've posed a couple of
times: does the industry have a duty to warn its customers
about this problem?
 
"Russ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:rlR9c.27937$Y%[email protected]...

> The issue of retrospectively recalling all existing forks
> is much more problematical and possibly unecessary, that's
> something that will be addressed by the manufacturrs in
> the light of legal cases and costs.

I'd have thought that "lawyer-lips" have set a precedent
that gives manufacturers a loop-hole to use regarding forks
already on the market/in use.

Lawyer lips were created not because of any inherent design
flaw but because there was a risk of user error, ie the user
*might* forget to tighten the QR correctly before riding or
might not do it correctly. So there is no admission of an
engineering problem, just an acknowledgement that someone
may not use the device as intended and therefore a belt-and-
braces (belt-and-suspenders for our American friends)
approach has been adopted..

So based on this there is no reason why manufacturers
couldn't move the mounts to the other leg, they wouldn't
be admitting to any previous liability due to poor design
but would be seen to be further addressing the risk of
user error.

--
Regards, Pete
 
Originally posted by Tom Sherman
[email protected] wrote:

> ... I didn't see a picture of this tricycle but short
> wheelbase recumbent bicycles, ones where pedal cranks are
> ahead of the front wheel, do endo's more easily than a
> conventional bicycle. Drawing a visual line from the
> rider's belly button (rider CG) to the contact patch of
> the front wheel shows that the CG is no better positioned
> than that of a conventional bicycle and usually worse....

Picture of my trike. <
http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/df1a.jpg >.

Mr. Brandt's comments on short wheelbase (SWB) recumbents
indicate outdated and/or incomplete knowledge. The first
regular production SWB recumbent was the Hypercycle.
Among other design defects, the Hypercycle had a very
long pedal boom, which meant that the rear wheel would
lift easily when the front brake was applied, and hard
braking could well launch the rider off the front of the
bike in a near standing position and/or put the
chainring into the ground.

Better designed (not all, by any means) modern SWB
recumbents have a static weight distribution of
approximately 40%/60% front/rear and will not lift the rear
wheel under hard braking. Here is one such common design
that I have ridden extensively (including emergency braking)
without ever lifting the rear wheel. <
http://www.ransbikes.com/2004Bikes/Rocket.htm >.

Here is a picture of the SWB recumbent I regularly use for
longer rides. <
http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg >.
With the low seat height and short pedal boom, the angle
formed by the ground, front tire contact patch, and
combined bike/rider center of mass is very small. It would
take sudden stoppage of the front wheel (e.g., wedged in a
storm sewer inlet grating) for the rear wheel to lift off
of the ground.

--
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
Click to expand...

Dear Tom,

Without inquiring into why your tricycle would be
prone to pursuing sewage down those gratings,
its address is actually:

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer/df1a.jpg

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/Dragonflyer/index.html

Ya gotta include the "Dragonflyer" part, or your blue
beast stubbornly stays hidden down in the bowels
of the internet.

Carl "Never Fails to Proofread" gel
 
Tom Sherman writes:

>> I didn't see a picture of this tricycle but short
>> wheelbase recumbent bicycles, ones where pedal cranks are
>> ahead of the front wheel, do endo's more easily than a
>> conventional bicycle. Drawing a visual line from the
>> rider's belly button (rider CG) to the contact patch of
>> the front wheel shows that the CG is no better positioned
>> than that of a conventional bicycle and usually worse....

> Picture of my trike.

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/df1a.jpg

This picture could not be retrieved. The URL produces an
error.

> Mr. Brandt's comments on short wheelbase (SWB) recumbents
> indicate outdated and/or incomplete knowledge. The
> first regular production SWB recumbent was the
> Hypercycle. Among other design defects, the Hypercycle
> had a very long pedal boom, which meant that the rear
> wheel would lift easily when the front brake was
> applied, and hard braking could well launch the rider
> off the front of the bike in a near standing position
> and/or put the chainring into the ground.

> Better designed (not all, by any means) modern SWB
> recumbents have a static weight distribution of
> approximately 40%/60% front/rear and will not lift the
> rear wheel under hard braking. Here is one such common
> design that I have ridden extensively (including emergency
> braking) without ever lifting the rear wheel.

http://www.ransbikes.com/2004Bikes/Rocket.htm

This is the exact design to which I refer. Drawing a line
from the tire contact patch to the belly button of the
rider produces a steeper inclination than a conventional
bicycle. An endo was demonstrated by a rider who was
convinced it would not occur. He left the recumbent behind
as he went over the pedals to run down the parking lot. It
was a relatively benign dismount although the bicycle got a
few scrapes.

Don't try this at higher speeds.

> Here is a picture of the SWB recumbent I regularly use for
> longer rides:

http://www.ihpva.org/incoming/2002/sunset/Sunset001.jpg

> With the low seat height and short pedal boom, the angle
> formed by the ground, front tire contact patch, and
> combined bike/rider center of mass is very small. It would
> take sudden stoppage of the front wheel (e.g., wedged in a
> storm sewer inlet grating) for the rear wheel to lift off
> of the ground.

That is certainly a compendium of mechanical oddities,
unistrut fork, front spoke guard, primary and secondary
chains with cross-over and dual tensioners. The tiller style
steering is also unusual for using arm force while pedaling.
How do you keep pant legs out of the chain?

In the line with this thread, I cannot see riding this on
steep trails or trails at all for that matter.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]
 
James Annan writes:

>> If you consider forks without offset at the dropout end,
>> as they are commonly made today, where offset is achieved
>> at the fork crown, No change other than placing the
>> mounting lugs for the disc brake caliper on the front
>> side is required. I think the same caliper would be
>> adequate for most brands with the distance between
>> caliper and fork leg remaining as it is today. This
>> requires a new fork strut anyway.

> It might even be possible to simply swap the left and
> right fork lowers. Sometimes one sees bikes where the
> forks have been installed backwards... usually on ebay.

>> How long will it take to get the disc caliper ahead of
>> the fork leg?

> I wouldn't be surprised to see different wheel attachment
> instead. There are already various quick(ish) release
> 20mm systems that seem little more trouble than a QR with
> retention lips. That can also be sold as an upgrade
> rather than merely a bug-fix. And you get to buy a new
> shiny hub too!

Well that won't do as I already mentioned. The reversing
load from braking and bouncing on the road makes anything
but a conical "lug nut" ineffective to reliably prevent
loosening.

Let's get the caliper in the right place!

Jobst Brandt [email protected]
 
"Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > If a single customer told you that their hub was
> > slipping in the dropouts under braking forces (or worse,
> > the QR works loose) then would you tell the
> > manufacturers?
>
> I relayed reports of this issue, several months ago (when
> it first appeared here), to a major manufacturer. Just
> because one of my customers hasn't had the issue doesn't
> mean it doesn't exist, and it would be irresponsible not
> to tell them about this thread. So, of course, you're
> wondering what they said, yada yada yada. In a nutshell,
> if there is an issue, it hasn't risen about the noise
> level (meaning that it hasn't called attention to itself).
> If you're a manufacturer, you have to prioritize your
> efforts and deal with what's in front of you. Theoretical
> stuff doesn't attract much attention (and it attracts even
> less when it's not even a product you manufacture, but
> rather one that's used industry-wide). Perhaps I should
> have explained it this way before, and you might have
> better seen the need to produce data from the sort of test
> I envisioned.
>

In other words, they were bullshitting you.

As a general matter, you don't get out of legal obligations
simply because you prefer not to think about them. (Try it
on the IRS some time.)

What's the name of this company? If they think making a safe
braking system is "theoretical stuff" too far over their
heads, then I'd like to avoid their products in the future.

I'm not an expert on products liability, but I believe the
law deals more harshly with "design defects" than it does
with manufacturing defects. That is, the courts are more
likely to assign responsibility for accidents to a
manufacturer if the problem was designed into the product,
as opposed to a flaw that was the unintended result of the
vagaries of the manufacturing process. I suspect this would
be classified as a design defect.

Furthermore, I doubt the "we don't make it" excuse will
wash. If someone gives a manufacturer reason to believe that
one of its suppliers is providing an unsafe product, but the
manufacturer continues to rely on the supplier, then the
manufacturer will likely share in the liability. That's one
of the reasons Ford and Firestone are busy pointing fingers
at each other.

I think the translation of this "noise level" nonsense is:
We're hoping to get away with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Re: "Actually you are the first person to bring up this issue"
Replies
0
Views
798
Cycling Equipment
Markus Bader
M
J
Need pedals with bearings that actually last.
Replies
3
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
dhk2
dhk2
a1phab3t-1
How does fancy equipment actually help your performance?
Replies
10
Views
2K
Cycling Equipment
jhuskey
jhuskey
dabac
interleaving the spokes- what good does it actually do?
Replies
10
Views
846
Cycling Equipment
datakoll
D
T
This actually works.
Replies
3
Views
362
Cycling Equipment
datakoll
D
Top Bottom Back