"Gary Young" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
[email protected] (Scoochiro) wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
> >
[email protected] wrote in message
news:<
[email protected]>...
> > > K? Harper writes:
> > >
> > > >> The Cinelli crown has fairly thick lug extensions that go
inside the
> > > >> fork blades and end abruptly (because no one can see this) and
out of
> > > >> sight out of mind. However, fork blades fail in fatigue at
this
> > > >> transition, breaking off after an insignificant life duration.
As I
> > > >> said, I had tow of these failures and insisted on an external
crown
> > > >> that was filed to have a zero thickness transition. This has
worked
> > > >> for many more miles than any of my Cinelli forks survived.
> >
> > > > How many miles constitute an "insignificant life duration"?
> > >
> > > About 5000 miles.
> > >
> >
> > I'm interested in your observations on this, and I want to make sure that I've got your
> > statement clear: is it your experience that a Cinelli fully sloping crown can, and often does,
> > fail by breaking
fork
> > blades at or around 5000 miles? Did the ones you write of break at
or
> > near that mileage?
> >
> > Maybe I have misconstrued your statement but, if not, then I find it hard to believe. Since fork
> > crowns are made to be ridden, and since they are an integral part of the steering/safety of a
> > bicycle, and since we have no shortage of plaintiffs lawyers in this country, why wouldn't
> > Cinelli be fending off lawsuits left and right, presumably with your testimony as Exhibit A on
> > why these things are
unreasonably
> > hazardous?
> >
> > Now, of course, just because something exists in the marketplace is
no
> > real evidence at all of its safety, design wisdom, etc. That is obvious. But the Cinelli crown
> > has been around a long time, a lot
of
> > frames have been built using it, and if these facts resulted in a disproportionately large
> > number of breakages (and, presumably in
many
> > -- though not all -- cases, resulting injuries), then wouldn't the tort system/products
> > liability law force Cinelli to acknowledge a design defect?
> >
> > I know that you don't like the crown, and I have no reason to debate the engineering basis for
> > your dislike. In terms of the design's drawbacks, I have to assume you are correct.
> >
> > I'm just asking, is it as failure prone as you say (i.e., reasonable expectation that a
> > reasonable number of these things won't last over 5000 miles)?
> >
> I don't think personal injury lawyers pay much attention to bicycles. Sure, there are some lawyers
> who advertise in the back of Velonews, etc., but they're probably suing drivers in most instances.
> If lawyers were constantly breathing down the necks of the bicycle industry, do you think we would
> be seeing ever lighter components, including things like titanium pedal spindles that we know
> break in fair numbers? How many decades did Campagnolo produce cranks that were prone to breaking?
> How many boutique companies come and go, putting ill-thought-out products on the market and then
> disappearing from view in a few summers?
Actually, PI lawyers love a good bicycle-related products liability law suit. They do not present
the same problems as an auto versus bicycle case (drivers are jurors) and are usually subject to
much higher insurance limits. The "problem" is that bicycles and components do not often break in a
way that causes serious injury. I have broken four or five cranks, and never so much as fell off my
bike or smashed my privates.
> Personal injury lawyers are looking for deep pockets, quick turnaround, and the most bang for the
> buck (in other words, the biggest recovery given their investment in time and resources). Most
> bicycle accidents not involving cars are fairly minor compared to automobile accidents (and that
> automatically puts a limit on how much you can collect). If it involves a car, it's easier to go
> after the driver's insurer. Think about the effort involved in proving that Cinelli-style fork
> crowns are more dangerous than other designs. First, you'd have to get Cinelli and other fork
> makers to cough up a lot of proprietary data -- no mean effort. I believe it took months or years
> before lawyers suing Ford/Firestone realized that there was a pattern to SUV accidents. Ford and
> Firestone certainly weren't spreading the word.
This would be an easy strict liability case against Cinelli or the American distributor. One
expert, maybe two, to testify that the internal lug creates a stress-riser which results in the
early failure of the fork. Assuming that there is a pattern of failures, go for punitive damages.
Put those Italians out of business ladies and gentlemen. Remember Mussolini? Remeber the Fiat? I
am outraged!
<snip>
> Yes, I'm aware that there are lawsuits against bike manufacturers and that some people have
> collected on frivolous claims. But I haven't seen that translate into any impact on bicycle design
> (with the possible exception of lawyer lips, and that was probably adopted as much because it was
> virtually costless as for any other reason -- just like you see warning stickers on some products
> instead of a redesign). I suspect lawsuits have their biggest impact on the bicycle industry in
> the form of higher insurance premiums, and little else.
Design changes are frequently made to address consumer complaints and in response to law suits.
Changes that come to mind that were driven in part by law suits include the demise of the 5mm cap
screw/fork crown on mountain bikes; gussets on Al frames, wheel retention devices, endless warning
labels and disclaimers in manuals and handbooks, reflectors, lights (although this has not taken off
after the Derby case). Think of all the recalled products. The CPSC and SNELL/ANSI have requirements
which may result from incident reports or complaints that also turned into lawsuits.
<snip>
> I'm not entirely hopeless about the situation though. I do think it's heartening that people like
> James Annan and the contributors to this newsgroup are trying to uncover patterns that the bicycle
> manufacturers are indifferent to or too lacking in resources to uncover. If we publicize these
> things, the manufacturers (or, perhaps more importantly, their insurers) will probably begin to
> take notice.
I doubt the domestic manufacturers are indifferent. I have spent a lot of time representing several
domestic manufacturers and found that they did extensive and expensive testing on their products.
There are some foreign OEM manufacturers who are less diligent, IMO, and absent close oversight from
the American customer, may come up with a dangerous look-alike product. -- Jay Beattie.
...or should that be :-(
