CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot

[D'ohBoy]

On Aug 15, 7:55 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> DougC wrote:
> > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:32:07 -0700, Kenny <[email protected]>
> >> 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]

On Aug 15, 8:52 am, D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 7:55 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > DougC wrote:
> > > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:32:07 -0700, Kenny <[email protected]>
> > >> 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


Although they may not do the actual construction, they are responsible
for the design.

D'ohBoy

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> 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]

In article <[email protected]>,
amakyonin <[email protected]> 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]

Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
> j
>>> 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?

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]

>>>> 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.

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 Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 15, 1:23 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> 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?
> >> 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.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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]

>> 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?
> 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
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[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.

>> 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.

> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
>> there's more to this story.

[email protected] 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
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Jay Beattie]

On Aug 15, 1:02 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> 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?
> >>>> 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.
> > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> >> there's more to this story.
> [email protected] 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.
>
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.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 15, 4:02 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> 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?
> >>>> 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.
> > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> >> there's more to this story.
> [email protected] 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 Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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.

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 14, 10:53 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
>
> 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.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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]

>>>>>>>> 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.

>>>> 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.

>>> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
>>>> there's more to this story.

>> [email protected] 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.

> A Muzi <[email protected]> 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.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[[email protected]]

On Aug 15, 4:20 pm, Jay Beattie <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 1:02 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> 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?
> > >>>> 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.
> > > A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> > >> there's more to this story.
> > [email protected] 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.
>
> 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 -

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]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] 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 ****. </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]

In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> 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.

 

[still me]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:20:54 -0700, Jay Beattie
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
>Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.

Disagree. The last thing he should do is start talking to the
opposition. His attorney should do that. Perhaps he could send them a
picture of the bike, a medical report, and a one line letter: "care to
settle". That much will come out in discovery anyway. Talking directly
to the proposed defendant is a very bad idea.

 

[A Muzi]

>>> 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.
-snip format issues-

> [email protected] 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.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:54:05 -0700, jim beam
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.
>> 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
>
>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.

Why would the doofus time a swerve to when you are going by?

The whole "on your left" thing is dopey anyway.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:23:34 -0500, A Muzi <[email protected]>
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?
>
>>> 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.

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.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************