Carlton Reid on QR safety

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by James Annan, Feb 4, 2006.

  1. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    Carlton Reid has a puff piece about a new "Secure QR system" on bikebiz:
    <http://www.bikebiz.co.uk/daily-news/article.php?id=6427>

    While promoting this new mechanism as "safer" than the existing system,
    he also insists that "industry experts say QRs are safe, when used
    correctly".

    This assertion is backed up with a quote from "industry expert" Bob
    Burns (actually Trek's *lawyer*), which is nothing more than a
    boilerplate denial dating to a few years ago when the QR/disk issue
    first surfaced.

    Strangely, alongside this there is no space in his article for these
    quotes from people who actually have some relevant engineering and
    technical experience:

    ---
    Chris Juden, Technical officer, CTC:
    "It's not just scaremongering, but all hangs together and makes
    perfect sense. In fact I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it before."

    "changes must be made to the way disk brakes and front wheels are
    attached to forks"

    Jobst Brandt, author, "The Bicycle Wheel":
    "The more I see on this the more I find the defense of the status quo
    stranger than fiction. Why are writers trying to say that it can't
    happen? What motivates writers to claim that disc brakes as currently
    offered are not a hazard?

    The mechanism has been clearly stated, the forces have been identified
    in magnitude and direction, and credible descriptions of failures have
    been presented. What's going on here! There is no easter bunny.
    Believe it!"

    John Forester, author, "Effective Cycling":
    "All that I can say is gross negligence."

    Unnamed Marzocchi Tech Support:
    "It is recommended that an 8" rotor is not used on a standard axle fork
    because the forces exerted on the wheel can potentially pull the axle
    out of the dropouts."

    Brant Richards, On-One:
    "From the next batch, our rigid forks will have dropouts which are
    angled forward at 45degrees or thereabouts.

    This is because when I was coming home, and pulling a stoppy outside my
    driveway, I kept finding the front wheel shifted in the dropout."

    Dave Gray, Surly:
    "You are correct. I've noticed the problem on my Karate Monkey fork."

    Ben Cooper, Kinetics, describing his experiment:
    "Conclusion: From the above, there seems to be an effect from the disc
    brake which causes the quick release to loosen."
    ---


    And even more strangely, although he mentions the ongoing Walmart case
    concerning children's bikes, and refers repeatedly to user error, he
    also didn't find space to mention the recent out of court settlement in
    which a manufacturer paid off an (experienced adult) rider who was
    seriously injured by a front wheel ejection on a disk+QR fork.


    James
    --
    James Annan
    see web pages for email
    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
     
    Tags:


  2. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
    brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter. Is it
    possible for you to accept the fact that for the majority of the
    readers, the evidence thus far published is not persuasive that there
    is a serious problem here which is not related to user error? Merely
    casting aspersions on an announcement because it contains a statement
    of fact by an attorney (which no one represented as anything but what
    it was) is not saying much about the subject.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  3. David Martin

    David Martin Guest

    Werehatrack wrote:
    > Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
    > brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter. Is it
    > possible for you to accept the fact that for the majority of the
    > readers, the evidence thus far published is not persuasive that there
    > is a serious problem here which is not related to user error?


    Why do you claim to speak for the majority of readers, most of whom
    have expressed no public opinion on the matter?

    ...d
     
  4. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    Werehatrack wrote:

    > Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
    > brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter.


    However, those who read Carlton's article on Bikebiz might think it safe
    to draw the conclusion that "industry experts say QRs are safe, when
    used correctly", even though numerous industry experts have quite
    clearly expressed the contrary view.

    They will also not know that one case was recently settled in favour of
    the rider.

    James
    --
    James Annan
    see web pages for email
    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
     
  5. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    Werehatrack <[email protected]> writes:

    > Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of
    > disc brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter.
    > Is it possible for you to accept the fact that for the majority of
    > the readers, the evidence thus far published is not persuasive that
    > there is a serious problem here which is not related to user error?


    All that would prove is that the majority of readers lack an adequate
    understanding of science. Given how weak science education is in the
    US, this is not a surprise.

    The situation with disk brakes is very simple. It is a faulty design
    that poses a danger to the people who use disk brakes. Current disk
    brake designs cause an ejection force that canpush the front wheel out
    of the dropout. There is no way for that the be refuted, although
    once again the strange phenomenon of people defending bad design will
    no doubt rear its head in this thread.
     
  6. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    James Annan <[email protected]> writes:

    > Werehatrack wrote:
    >
    >> Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of
    >> disc brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the
    >> matter.

    >
    > However, those who read Carlton's article on Bikebiz might think it
    > safe to draw the conclusion that "industry experts say QRs are safe,
    > when used correctly", even though numerous industry experts have
    > quite clearly expressed the contrary view.


    Don't appeal to authority. Just state the facts, which are simple and
    straightforward.
     
  7. David

    David Guest

    James Annan wrote:
    > Werehatrack wrote:
    >
    >> Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
    >> brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter.

    >
    >
    > However, those who read Carlton's article on Bikebiz might think it safe
    > to draw the conclusion that "industry experts say QRs are safe, when
    > used correctly", even though numerous industry experts have quite
    > clearly expressed the contrary view.
    >
    > They will also not know that one case was recently settled in favour of
    > the rider.
    >
    > James


    Out of court settlements almost always include a statement that the
    plantiff is not admitting liability. It is often less costly to pay a
    small settlement than it is to defend the claim, particularly if the
    jurisdiction is known to be plaintiff-favorable.
     
  8. Tim McNamara writes:

    >> Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of
    >> disc brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the
    >> matter. Is it possible for you to accept the fact that for the
    >> majority of the readers, the evidence thus far published is not
    >> persuasive that there is a serious problem here which is not
    >> related to user error?


    > All that would prove is that the majority of readers lack an
    > adequate understanding of science. Given how weak science education
    > is in the US, this is not a surprise.


    > The situation with disk brakes is very simple. It is a faulty
    > design that poses a danger to the people who use disk brakes.
    > Current disk brake designs cause an ejection force that can push the
    > front wheel out of the dropout. There is no way for that the be
    > refuted, although once again the strange phenomenon of people
    > defending bad design will no doubt rear its head in this thread.


    Yes. So why is this kind response to technical failures so common, be
    that valve stem separation, spoke failures, crank failures, stem
    failures and many more. They seem so personal and vehement that one
    would guess that the writers were the manufacturers themselves. I
    sense a strong apologists tone in many of these.

    Jobst Brandt
     
  9. Andy H

    Andy H Guest

    "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Werehatrack wrote:
    >> Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
    >> brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter. Is it
    >> possible for you to accept the fact that for the majority of the
    >> readers, the evidence thus far published is not persuasive that there
    >> is a serious problem here which is not related to user error?

    >
    > Why do you claim to speak for the majority of readers, most of whom
    > have expressed no public opinion on the matter?
    >
    > ..d
    >

    Does the fact that the majority of people have expressed no public opinion
    (read; interest) speak volumes as to the severity of the problem? Do YOU
    know the relevant statistics to say that this is a major problem or design
    flaw?

    Life is inherently risky and I for one would rather check my qr's before a
    ride and have disk brakes than try to do what I do with rim brakes.

    Just my 2p

    Andy H
     
  10. Richard

    Richard Guest

    Andy H wrote:
    > Does the fact that the majority of people have expressed no public opinion
    > (read; interest)


    Why do you read that? I have hitherto expressed no public opinion.
    I've read James' webpages on the subject and found his hypothesis
    interesting and convincing; I would have liked to investigate the QR
    vibrational loosening in more detail, but as I neither sell, use,
    maintain, nor have any access to disk brakes or QR axles, I could add
    nothing useful to the debate.

    R.
     
  11. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    Andy H wrote:
    > "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >>Werehatrack wrote:
    >>
    >>>Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
    >>>brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter. Is it
    >>>possible for you to accept the fact that for the majority of the
    >>>readers, the evidence thus far published is not persuasive that there
    >>>is a serious problem here which is not related to user error?

    >>
    >>Why do you claim to speak for the majority of readers, most of whom
    >>have expressed no public opinion on the matter?
    >>
    >>..d
    >>

    >
    > Does the fact that the majority of people have expressed no public opinion
    > (read; interest) speak volumes as to the severity of the problem? Do YOU
    > know the relevant statistics to say that this is a major problem or design
    > flaw?
    >
    > Life is inherently risky and I for one would rather check my qr's before a
    > ride


    And what if it happened after 3 hours of riding even when you checked it
    before the ride?

    Greg

    --
    "All my time I spent in heaven
    Revelries of dance and wine
    Waking to the sound of laughter
    Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
     
  12. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    David wrote:
    > James Annan wrote:
    >
    >> Werehatrack wrote:
    >>
    >>> Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
    >>> brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> However, those who read Carlton's article on Bikebiz might think it
    >> safe to draw the conclusion that "industry experts say QRs are safe,
    >> when used correctly", even though numerous industry experts have quite
    >> clearly expressed the contrary view.
    >>
    >> They will also not know that one case was recently settled in favour
    >> of the rider.
    >>
    >> James

    >
    >
    > Out of court settlements almost always include a statement that the
    > plantiff is not admitting liability. It is often less costly to pay a
    > small settlement than it is to defend the claim, particularly if the
    > jurisdiction is known to be plaintiff-favorable.


    That first plantiff should be defendant.

    Greg

    --
    "All my time I spent in heaven
    Revelries of dance and wine
    Waking to the sound of laughter
    Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
     
  13. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    Tim McNamara wrote:

    > James Annan <[email protected]> writes:
    >
    >
    >>Werehatrack wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of
    >>>disc brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the
    >>>matter.

    >>
    >>However, those who read Carlton's article on Bikebiz might think it
    >>safe to draw the conclusion that "industry experts say QRs are safe,
    >>when used correctly", even though numerous industry experts have
    >>quite clearly expressed the contrary view.

    >
    >
    > Don't appeal to authority. Just state the facts, which are simple and
    > straightforward.


    I'm only pointing out that Carlton's appeal to authority isn't even
    honest, let alone correct. He knows that numerous industry experts
    dispute what he wrote.

    James
    --
    James Annan
    see web pages for email
    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
    http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
     
  14. Andy H

    Andy H Guest

    "Richard" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    Snip -
    >......but as I neither sell, use, maintain, nor have any access to disk
    >brakes or QR axles, I could add nothing useful to the debate.
    >
    > R.

    Then do just that, you have no potential problems do you? Do you have the
    statistics to hand?

    Andy H
     
  15. Andy H

    Andy H Guest

    "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Andy H wrote:
    >> "David Martin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >>
    >>>Werehatrack wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
    >>>>brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter. Is it
    >>>>possible for you to accept the fact that for the majority of the
    >>>>readers, the evidence thus far published is not persuasive that there
    >>>>is a serious problem here which is not related to user error?
    >>>
    >>>Why do you claim to speak for the majority of readers, most of whom
    >>>have expressed no public opinion on the matter?
    >>>
    >>>..d
    >>>

    >>
    >> Does the fact that the majority of people have expressed no public
    >> opinion (read; interest) speak volumes as to the severity of the problem?
    >> Do YOU know the relevant statistics to say that this is a major problem
    >> or design flaw?
    >>
    >> Life is inherently risky and I for one would rather check my qr's before
    >> a ride

    >
    > And what if it happened after 3 hours of riding even when you checked it
    > before the ride?
    >
    > Greg
    >

    Life sucks and shit happens, our (my anyway) pastime is rife with risk. If
    the design is inherently flawed why have we not all been maimed by our
    disk/qr problems? (As MV would no doubt wish :).

    We drive our cars with unsafe airbags and inherently flawed seat restraints.
    Trains crash and so do planes. I'm not trying to be a troll here but should
    we get some perspective on this.

    Andy H
     
  16. Andy H wrote:
    >
    > Life sucks and shit happens, our (my anyway) pastime is rife with risk. If
    > the design is inherently flawed why have we not all been maimed by our
    > disk/qr problems?


    As I understand it, it's because it takes particular circumstances to
    make the failure likely - for example, repeated very hard braking,
    especially on bumpy descents. Most riders do not encounter those
    circumstances.

    But those circumstances are part of the normal design conditions for
    certain bikes. If a design injures a person who's using it in the
    manner for which it was designed, there's a problem. The occurrence
    doesn't have to be common for this to be true.

    > We drive our cars with unsafe airbags and inherently flawed seat restraints.
    > Trains crash and so do planes. I'm not trying to be a troll here but should
    > we get some perspective on this.


    I won't defend airbags. But I'll point out that when people are
    injured by airbags, train or plane crashes, the law does not say "Oh,
    get over it. You knew that shit happens."

    - Frank Krygowski
     
  17. Adam Rush

    Adam Rush Guest

    I have come here not to express an opinion on the debate, but rather
    amazement at the fact that Annan is still posting here about it.
     
  18. Tim McNamara

    Tim McNamara Guest

    "Adam Rush" <[email protected]> writes:

    > I have come here not to express an opinion on the debate, but rather
    > amazement at the fact that Annan is still posting here about it.


    "Here" being which newsgroup or Web-leech portal?

    And why would you be surprised? He has found a serious design flaw
    and has detailed that flaw. It is up to the bike industry to correct
    it. In the meantime, individuals need to have this information in
    order to make an informed decision about whether to buy or use bikes
    with this design flaw.
     
  19. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On 4 Feb 2006 16:09:00 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

    >I won't defend airbags. But I'll point out that when people are
    >injured by airbags, train or plane crashes, the law does not say "Oh,
    >get over it. You knew that shit happens."


    Actually, the law gets closer to exactly that every day. Read the
    provisions recently enacted exempting the drug companies from class
    action suits, and then explore the similar changes which are being
    sought for other PLI issues.

    Not that this is a fundamentally flawed attitude, in fact; there are
    plenty of PLI lawsuits in which the plaintiff is really saying "I'm
    too stupid to know what's dangerous, and I want you to pay for my
    stupidity even though no one in their right mind would have done what
    I did."

    The balance has been swung too far in both directions in the past, and
    the urge is always to swing the pendulum hardest from the side that is
    currently most heavily burdened by it.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  20. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:24:51 -0800, "G.T." <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >David wrote:
    >> James Annan wrote:
    >>
    >>> Werehatrack wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
    >>>> brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> However, those who read Carlton's article on Bikebiz might think it
    >>> safe to draw the conclusion that "industry experts say QRs are safe,
    >>> when used correctly", even though numerous industry experts have quite
    >>> clearly expressed the contrary view.
    >>>
    >>> They will also not know that one case was recently settled in favour
    >>> of the rider.
    >>>
    >>> James

    >>
    >>
    >> Out of court settlements almost always include a statement that the
    >> plantiff is not admitting liability. It is often less costly to pay a
    >> small settlement than it is to defend the claim, particularly if the
    >> jurisdiction is known to be plaintiff-favorable.

    >
    >That first plantiff should be defendant.


    True, as is the statement so amended.

    And in fact, in most such cases, getting an out-of-court settlement
    also has two other beneficial results for the defendant; it ends the
    case completely without any opening for it to continue through some
    sort of appeal, and it precludes the possibility that the case can be
    used as a precedent. Given the combination of cost of defense, the
    possibility that the suit might initially be lost (and thereby often
    bring on a spate of me-too suits), the hazard that the defense expense
    might dwarf the actual settlement if an appeal is (or must be) filed,
    and the hazard that the finding might be cited in other cases as a
    precedent, there's lots of reason to shut down the process by making
    an offer to settle even when the case isn't necessarily all that
    strong for the plaintiff.

    In some states, the impetus to settle is being reduced by
    defendant-friendly changes to statute, often made under the guise of
    "ending lawsuit abuse". Sometimes, what's billed as an abuse-control
    measure turns out to be a PLI-defense attorney's nightmare...because
    the defense lawyers don't get paid the big bucks for doing the
    slam-dunk early dismissal filings, they only make the big bucks when
    the case goes on long enough to rack up some worthwhile billable
    hours.

    Look for subtle and stealthy moves by PLI defense attorneys, and more
    open ones by plaintiff lawyers, to get plaintiff-friendly changes made
    if their billable hours drop too low. They both have a vested
    interest in keeping the process alive.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
Loading...
Loading...