Carlton Reid on QR safety

[James Annan]

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/

 

[Werehatrack]

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.

 

[David Martin]

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

 

[James Annan]

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/

 

[Tim McNamara]

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.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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.

 

[David]

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.

 

[[email protected]]

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

 

[Andy H]

"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

 

[Richard]

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.

 

[G.T.]

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

 

[G.T.]

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

 

[James Annan]

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/

 

[Andy H]

"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

 

[Andy H]

"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 **** 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

 

[[email protected]]

Andy H wrote:
>
> Life sucks and **** 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 **** happens."

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Adam Rush]

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.

 

[Tim McNamara]

"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.

 

[Werehatrack]

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 **** 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.

 

[Werehatrack]

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.