Missy Giove's QR pops open



Status
Not open for further replies.
In article <[email protected]>, "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote:

> In news:[email protected], Tim McNamara <[email protected]> typed:
> >
> > From the mechanical perspective, putting the caliper in front of the fork leg is the correct
> > solution. Whether that creates a significant risk to damaging the caliper in a collision, I
> > don't know. In my years of trail riding mostly not on mountain bikes which I don't care for, I
> > really haven't hit much stuff- if anything- with the front of the left fork leg.
>
> Why is that the correct solution? Why not have a forward facing dropout with the caliper at the
> back of the leg? The relationship of the ejection forces to the drop out will then mimic exactly
> those of rim brakes with vertical dropouts.

An interesting question to which I do not know the answer.

One possible objection is that the dropout you propose would be shaped like an old road horizontal
dropout, with the caliper force pushing against the lower "jaw" of the dropout and possibly breaking
it off after a few cycles (especially if it's aluminum). That would simply recreate the results of
ejecting the axle from the standard dropout.

> It also avoids all the problems of putting the mounting tabs under tension, where they are much
> weaker, instead of compression.

I'd have to leave this to the engineers, but in this case I don't think there'd be a difference.
Seems to me that if there are two mounting points- an upper and a lower- one would be loaded in
tension and the other in compression regardless of whether the caliper is in front or behind.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> I had a skewer break once, but fortunately just as I finished tightened it.
> >
> >This is something I've never seen. Where did it break (I'd guess at the start of the threads is
> >the most likely location)? Had it been damaged in some way before this happened?
>
> As far as I know, there was no damage to the skewer before it broke. And this wasn't some chi chi
> titanium skewer either - it was a newish Campy steel skewer (no older than '95).
>
> I had just changed a flat, and was remounting the front wheel. I snugged it down nice and tight.
> Then for no apparent reason, I gave the skewer one more little bump with my palm. POW!
>
> The skewer's rod broke at the base of the threads, ejecting the fixed nut from the wheel.

I'll bet *that* was a surprise!

> I can only hope that if HAD broken later in that ride that it a) would have made enough noise
> to get my attention and b) NOT been on the descent 3 miles down the road that I often exceed
> 40mph on.

A very good thing. A good bump, a little air, a lot of asphalt.
 
"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Perhaps people feel like they are being told they were stupid for falling for the disk brake
> hype, which in fact is not at all the point.

Oh, no, let's no go THERE again. Let's just say that the a.m.b. people
(i.e. people who actually ride mountain bikes frequently, have for years, have used many different
types of frames, forks and brakes as they have EVOLVED over the past 15 years) roll their eyes
in bemusement when some clueless and inexperienced moron yet again asserts that disc brakes
are mere hype rather than the best all around performing equipment for the vast majority of
off-road applications.

>The point is that there is a significant flaw in the design which seems to have resulted in serious
>risks of personal injury.

The *hypothesis* that there is a design flaw is not disputed. Apparently, as you assert (over my
non-tech head), the hypothesis is supported by

pointed out, are controlled experiments to prove the hypothesis in fact.

> Fortunately cooler heads are prevailing, with Trek and Orbit among others looking into this.

We have read the articles which indicate that certain companies are intrigued by the hypothesis and
the theory behind it, and intend to field test the equipment to determine if it is fact.

> These entities, however, are between a rock and a hard place. If they admit the problem, that
> paves the way for litigation. If they deny the problem, that paves the way for different
> litigation. Hopefully they will be ethical and courageous enough to do good investigation and to
> honestly report the findings, whatever they may be.

The good news is that to date catastrophic results from the hypothesized flaw are statistically
miniscule. It happens very infrequently given the vast number of disc equiped mountain bikes in use,
and the legions of yahoos as well as experienced folk who ride them. If this were NOT the case,
trust me, as an attorney, the lawsuits would have commenced in floods by now, and they have not.

It remains to be seen whether the hypothesized flaw is proved to be correct per se; and if correct,
the degree of risk posed , and the means and cost to reduce or eliminate.
 
"Eric Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Chris Snell
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Chris Snell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]... The advent of lawyers lips really worsened
> >QR convenience. I'm sure better minds than mine will come up with elegant
solutions.
>
>
> They already have-- QRs with more throw. I got a set of inexpensive TI skewers from Performance
> and was delighted to find that they go over the lawyer lips on a Ouzo Pro without fiddling with
> the nut.
>
> I don't know if they're built this way on purpose or it is a happy accident. I expect it's on
> purpose.
>
> All it takes is a different cam shape. If its done right it won't be any harder to tighten
> appropriately.
>
> Eric
>
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the lawyer lips though? I thought they point was to retain the
wheel even if the QR opens while riding, hence the "open and unscrew" operation.

So you might then as well grind the lips off, and run with scissors, if that is your predilection.

DISCLAIMER: I do not recommend such a course of action.

- Chris.
 
Tim McNamara said...

> All a matter of perspective, perhaps. You frothed invective and ad hominem all over the place, and
> added nothing of substance to the conversation. All you did was misattribute ulterior motives to
> those who recognize that current disk brake forks are a bad design.

I have conceded more than once that the current design leaves something to be desired. I really
don't think you read my posts at all, yet you prattle on about them as if you know what you are
talking about. Nothing of substance? You're quite a piece of work, Mr. McNamara. If you had actually
read my posts instead of indulging your bad temper, you would have noticed that I pointed out that
QR mechanisms, and dropouts too, are not safety features, but convenience features, and that there
are already forks available that address all of Mr. Annan's concerns. You and Mr. Annan seem to
labor under the mistaken idea that any piece of equipment is appropriate for any type of use and
should be able to put up with any type of abuse. Do you know anything about mountain biking at all?
Parts break all the time under aggressive riders. Wheels, bars, stems, forks, frames, you name it.
This supposedly important issue is either nonexistent, or so statistically small that it doesn't
even register with anyone but the roadies in r.b.t. You have admitted that you don't ride mountain
bikes much and don't care for them. So why have you chosen to become so involved in this spectacle
at all? No need to answer, I already know. It's because it is a spectacle and guys like you like
nothing better than to argue and flame on the Internet.
 
Doug Taylor wrote:

> The good news is that to date catastrophic results from the hypothesized flaw are statistically
> miniscule. It happens very infrequently given the vast number of disc equiped mountain bikes in
> use, and the legions of yahoos as well as experienced folk who ride them. If this were NOT the
> case, trust me, as an attorney, the lawsuits would have commenced in floods by now, and they
> have not.

As an attorney, you will have noted the comments from Russ Rose (Rockshox/SRAM) and Trek's lawyer,
indicating their experience in dealing with claims due to wheel loss. As an attorney, I bet if
someone had come to you asking for representation in such a case 2 months ago, you would have told
them there was no point in pursuing the matter as it was well established that the QR was
infallible. I doubt you would tell them that today.

However, of the dozen(ish) wheel loss incidents I have heard about (about half of which resulted in
hospital trips), I don't think a single one has even been reported to the fork manufacturer (except,
of course, the one where the fork manufacturer himself lost his own front wheel). I don't really
know to what extent these dozen incidents might represent merely the tip of the iceberg. It's not
surprising that experienced cyclists didn't realise the fork was at fault. I think that will change
soon and I would expect claims for compensation to be made on a regular basis from now on, including
perhaps some backdated ones. When claims are made, I'd certainly expect many to win. In fact I'd bet
my house on
it. How lucky are _you_ feeling today?

James
 
James Annan said...

> As an attorney, you will have noted the comments from Russ Rose (Rockshox/SRAM) and Trek's lawyer,
> indicating their experience in dealing with claims due to wheel loss. As an attorney, I bet if
> someone had come to you asking for representation in such a case 2 months ago, you would have told
> them there was no point in pursuing the matter as it was well established that the QR was
> infallible. I doubt you would tell them that today.
>
> However, of the dozen(ish) wheel loss incidents I have heard about (about half of which resulted
> in hospital trips), I don't think a single one has even been reported to the fork manufacturer
> (except, of course, the one where the fork manufacturer himself lost his own front wheel). I don't
> really know to what extent these dozen incidents might represent merely the tip of the iceberg.
> It's not surprising that experienced cyclists didn't realise the fork was at fault. I think that
> will change soon and I would expect claims for compensation to be made on a regular basis from now
> on, including perhaps some backdated ones. When claims are made, I'd certainly expect many to win.
> In fact I'd bet my house on
> it. How lucky are _you_ feeling today?
>
> James

Ah, so the sordid truth is finally spelled out. It IS a lawsuit scam. Follow the money and you will
find the source of the unsavory smell every time. No wonder you are impervious to reason. No wonder
you come up with those highly biased stories. Oooookay. On that note, I will retire from this ****
flinging contest and leave Mr. Nader to his dishonest schemes. I know all I need to know about the
real motivation behind this spectacle and the futility of trying to use reason against
it.
 
SuperSlinky <[email protected]> wrote:
>James Annan said...
>>soon and I would expect claims for compensation to be made on a regular basis from now on,
>>including perhaps some backdated ones. When claims are made, I'd certainly expect many to win. In
>>fact I'd bet my house on
>>it. How lucky are _you_ feeling today?
>Ah, so the sordid truth is finally spelled out. It IS a lawsuit scam. Follow the money and you will
>find the source of the unsavory smell every time. No wonder you are impervious to reason. No wonder
>you come up with those highly biased stories. Oooookay. On that note, I will retire from this ****
>flinging contest

Otherwise you might have to explain exactly _how_ James is going to make money off the "scam", hmm?
And that might be a little tricky.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> Kill the tomato!
 
SuperSlinky wrote:

> Ah, so the sordid truth is finally spelled out. It IS a lawsuit scam.

I thought I'd better respond in language that your pal attorney Doug Taylor (and perhaps the fork
manufacturers) would understand. There's certainly no question of me making any financial gain out
of this, although I did crash due to a badly designed fork, the builder of my fork apologised as
soon as he realised his error, and fortunately no serious harm was done.

James
 
James Annan <[email protected]> wrote:

>SuperSlinky wrote:
>
>> Ah, so the sordid truth is finally spelled out. It IS a lawsuit scam.
>
>I thought I'd better respond in language that your pal attorney Doug Taylor (and perhaps the fork
>manufacturers) would understand. There's certainly no question of me making any financial gain out
>of this, although I did crash due to a badly designed fork, the builder of my fork apologised as
>soon as he realised his error, and fortunately no serious harm was done.

Aha. Maybe the real "truth" is operator error, after all (James IS quite defensive on this point)
and this whole fracas is a huge smoke screen for James to save face. All you have to do is stop
riding your flimsy x-c bike over 5 foot drops and boulders and your wheel won't come out anymore.

:) Tongue firmly held in cheek
--dt
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Perhaps people feel like they are being told they were stupid for falling for the disk brake
> > hype, which in fact is not at all the point.
>
> Oh, no, let's no go THERE again.

I wasn't going there, indeed I was stating that I specifcally was not going there. Perhaps you
didn't read carefully?

> Let's just say that the a.m.b. people (i.e. people who actually ride mountain bikes frequently,
> have for years, have used many different types of frames, forks and brakes as they have EVOLVED
> over the past 15 years) roll their eyes in bemusement when some clueless and inexperienced moron
> yet again asserts that disc brakes are mere hype rather than the best all around performing
> equipment for the vast majority of off-road applications.

James Annan, Jobst Brandt and Chris Juden- to name three- are not "clueless and inexperienced
morons." I've been a bikie for 30+ years and started riding mountain bikes 19 years ago in the days
of bullmoose bars and thumbshifters- and rode trails for 10+ years before that on old Schwinns; you
may feel free to consider me a moron because I don't give a rat's ass if you do.

Disk brakes are not the "best all around performing equipment for the vast majority of off-road
applications." That's just a carryover from cars, in which disk brakes are superior to drum brakes.
Of course, bikes have had dual caliper disk brakes since the invention of the pivoting lateral rim
brake (centerpulls, sidepulls, cantilevers, U-brakes, V-brakes) about 80 years ago.

Modern bicycle disk brakes are a real improvement in one situation only: mud. Which, depending on
where you live, can be significant. If you live in England, you ride in lots of mud; if you live in
New Mexico, not so much. When it's muddy, I don't ride on the trails because it's destructive and
leads to trail erosion and closures. Riding in the mud may be fun, but it's selfish.

> > The point is that there is a significant flaw in the design which seems to have resulted in
> > serious risks of personal injury.
>
> The *hypothesis* that there is a design flaw is not disputed. Apparently, as you assert (over my
> non-tech head), the hypothesis is supported by mathematical evidence. What is lacking to date,

> prove the hypothesis in fact.

In cases such as this, controlled experiments (by which I presume you mean double-blind placebo
controlled experiments) are unnecessary to prove the "hypothesis." That's because it isn't a
hypothesis. Disk brakes *do* exert an ejection force on the axle because the design necessarily
makes it so. Simple as that. If you want to experiment, turn your bike upside down, loosen the QR,
spin your wheel in the appropriate direction, and hit the brake. The axle will pop out of the
dropout either partially or completely. That *is* the design flaw and it's not a hypothesis, unless
you think that Newtonian laws of physics and pi are also hypotheses.

> > Fortunately cooler heads are prevailing, with Trek and Orbit among others looking into this.
>
> We have read the articles which indicate that certain companies are intrigued by the hypothesis
> and the theory behind it, and intend to field test the equipment to determine if it is fact.

Then you've read an article I haven't seen. I have seen no articles indicating that field tests are
going to be conducted.

> > These entities, however, are between a rock and a hard place. If they admit the problem, that
> > paves the way for litigation. If they deny the problem, that paves the way for different
> > litigation. Hopefully they will be ethical and courageous enough to do good investigation and to
> > honestly report the findings, whatever they may be.
>
> The good news is that to date catastrophic results from the hypothesized flaw are statistically
> miniscule.

Good news except to those affected. Or perhaps they don't count? Just like the auto industry doesn't
think SUV rollovers count?

> It happens very infrequently given the vast number of disc equiped mountain bikes in use, and the
> legions of yahoos as well as experienced folk who ride them. If this were NOT the case, trust me,
> as an attorney, the lawsuits would have commenced in floods by now, and they have not.

They have not because "everybody knows" that QRs don't accidentally open, except when the user has
made a mistake. My hunch is that every one of the people who've lost a front wheel from this problem
has thought "I must not have clamped the QR down tight enough."

BTW the number of disk brake equipped MTBs is miniscule compared to the number using rim brakes.
This is still a very small sample size, and to have (to pull a number out of thin air) 100 events in
the past 5 years is significant.

> It remains to be seen whether the hypothesized flaw is proved to be correct per se; and if
> correct, the degree of risk posed , and the means and cost to reduce or eliminate.

The design flaw exists. The degree of risk posed is as yet unknown, as James Annan keeps stating.
The means of correction are pretty straightforward. And the costs of correcting the design are on
the one hand inestimable- what is the value of quadraplegia or premature death- and on the other
hand cheaper than liability judgments.
 
In article <[email protected]>, SuperSlinky <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ah, so the sordid truth is finally spelled out. It IS a lawsuit scam. Follow the money and you
> will find the source of the unsavory smell every time. No wonder you are impervious to reason. No
> wonder you come up with those highly biased stories. Oooookay. On that note, I will retire from
> this **** flinging contest and leave Mr. Nader to his dishonest schemes. I know all I need to
> know about the real motivation behind this spectacle and the futility of trying to use reason
> against it.

Jeez, what an asshole. Slinky old pal, the one slinging **** around here is you. Too bad you can't
add anything of useful substance to the conversation, nor to show any sign of using the reason to
which you refer.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Chris Snell
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Eric Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, Chris Snell
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >news:[email protected]... The advent of lawyers lips really worsened
>> >QR convenience. I'm sure better minds than mine will come up with elegant
>solutions.
>>
>>
>> They already have-- QRs with more throw.

>Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the lawyer lips though? I thought they point was to retain the
>wheel even if the QR opens while riding, hence the "open and unscrew" operation.

That could have been their original point, but this thread's been about lawyer lips to retain the
axle from the forces generated by disc brakes.

I don't mind the lips; they are insurance for keeping the wheel on. It's the fiddling with the QR
nut I'm not fond of.

>So you might then as well grind the lips off, and run with scissors, if that is your predilection.

You safety weenies are such fun!

If you are not capable of closing your QRs, you probably can't walk and chew gum let alone ride a
bicycle safely. Better stay home on the couch where its safe.

Eric
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:

>> > Perhaps people feel like they are being told they were stupid for falling for the disk brake
>> > hype, which in fact is not at all the point.
>>
>> Oh, no, let's no go THERE again.
>
>I wasn't going there, indeed I was stating that I specifcally was not going there. Perhaps you
>didn't read carefully?
>
>> Let's just say that the a.m.b. people (i.e. people who actually ride mountain bikes frequently,
>> have for years, have used many different types of frames, forks and brakes as they have EVOLVED
>> over the past 15 years) roll their eyes in bemusement when some clueless and inexperienced moron
>> yet again asserts that disc brakes are mere hype rather than the best all around performing
>> equipment for the vast majority of off-road applications.
>
>James Annan, Jobst Brandt and Chris Juden- to name three- are not "clueless and inexperienced
>morons." I've been a bikie for 30+ years and started riding mountain bikes 19 years ago in the days
>of bullmoose bars and thumbshifters- and rode trails for 10+ years before that on old Schwinns; you
>may feel free to consider me a moron because I don't give a rat's ass if you do.
>
>Disk brakes are not the "best all around performing equipment for the vast majority of off-road
>applications." That's just a carryover from cars, in which disk brakes are superior to drum brakes.
>Of course, bikes have had dual caliper disk brakes since the invention of the pivoting lateral rim
>brake (centerpulls, sidepulls, cantilevers, U-brakes, V-brakes) about 80 years ago.
>
>Modern bicycle disk brakes are a real improvement in one situation only: mud. Which, depending on
>where you live, can be significant. If you live in England, you ride in lots of mud; if you live in
>New Mexico, not so much.

I thought you weren't going there. Oops. My mistake; you can't resist jumping up on any soap box
that comes in handy.

To stoop to your level, I hereby assert that if you REALLLY think that disc brakes are NOT superior
to V-s, Cantis and all other rim brakes in the vast majority of off-road applications (including
modulation, stopping power, mud, rain, wet, etc.) you:

infrequently; 4) are an unskilled mountain biker; 5) are an alien from another galaxy; 6) are
completely full of ****; 7) are talking out of your ass; 8) all of the above.

>When it's muddy, I don't ride on the trails because it's destructive and leads to trail erosion and
>closures. Riding in the mud may be fun, but it's selfish.

Good for you. Pin a gold start on your forehead. At least you have a partial clue, even if you are a
sanctimonious twit.

--dt
 
"Doug Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>
> The good news is that to date catastrophic results from the hypothesized flaw are statistically
> miniscule. It happens very infrequently given the vast number of disc equiped mountain bikes in
> use, and the legions of yahoos as well as experienced folk who ride them. If this were NOT the
> case, trust me, as an attorney, the lawsuits would have commenced in floods by now, and they
> have not.
<snip>

I've seen this hypothesis -- that the absence of lawsuits means a product is safe -- many times on
this list (most recently in a current thread on fork crown design). I don't think it's true. Lawyers
who sue manufacturers often have to make a significant initial investment that they may not see
repaid for years. Yes, there has been an explosion of litigation, but no, attorneys do not sue
everyone in sight, at least as far as I can tell as a legal reporter. They look for deep pockets,
big damages (or if damages are small, they look for cases that can be brought as class actions), and
quick turnarounds.

This isn't exactly on topic, since it doesn't involve products liability, but I recently wrote a
story about a surge of overtime litigation in Mississippi. A group of lawyers down there discovered
that many public school systems pay non-teacher employees in ways that violate federal overtime laws
(e.g., allowing a bus driver to work a second job in the cafeteria, but not aggregating his hours).
School districts across the country have been operating this way FOR DECADES! Yet it wasn't until a
couple of years ago that it occured to someone to bring these suits. (And by the way, these are not
frivolous suits -- school administrators admitted that they were in violation of the law, though
they claim unwittingly; over 90% of the Mississippi districts settled.) Now the suits are spreading
to the states bordering on Mississippi, mostly by word of mouth.

My conclusion -- it just isn't true that greedy lawyers have looked into every possibility. Just
like the rest of us, they often operate on a kind of herd mentality -- seeing what has worked for
other attorneys, getting the pleadings, and plugging in their client's names. Developing a new cause
of action, or even an understanding of an unfamiliar industry, requires a considerable investment of
time and money.
 
Eric Murray, you're such a clown.

Here's what I said: "All this fiddle fiddle too tight fiddle loose fiddle finally right stuff is a
pain. The advent of lawyers lips really worsened QR convenience."

Here's what you just said: "It's the fiddling with the QR nut I'm not fond of."

Here's what I said: "they point was to retain the wheel even if the QR opens while riding, hence the
"open and unscrew" operation."

Here's what you just said: "I don't mind the lips; they are insurance for keeping the wheel on."

At which point, you named ME "safety weenie" "not capable of closing my own QR" "who can't walk and
chew gum at the same time" and should "stay at home on the couch where its safe".

Well if the shoe fits! Bwahahahaha! Will you be wanting that shoe in extra big, extra red?
Bwahahahaha!

What I said, ya goon, was if anyone wants to defeat the lawyers lips then just file them off, not
pay for a product to do the same thing! Except I said it nicer than that, so as not to generate any
irrelevant replies, but it looks like I got one anyways.

- Chris.
 
Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I hereby assert that if you REALLLY think that disc brakes are NOT superior to V-s, Cantis and all
> other rim brakes in the vast majority of off-road applications (including modulation, stopping
> power, mud, rain, wet, etc.) you:
>

> infrequently; 4) are an unskilled mountain biker; 5) are an alien from another galaxy; 6) are
> completely full of ****; 7) are talking out of your ass; 8) all of the above.

Well, then, there are a lot of us out there like that.

CC
 
On 04 Jun 2003 14:01:33 +0100 (BST), David Damerell <[email protected]> wrote:

>Otherwise you might have to explain exactly _how_ James is going to make money off the "scam", hmm?
>And that might be a little tricky.

Two words: expert witness.

Well, actually, '"expert" witness' is more usually accurate for most of those pondscum.

Jasper
 
Jasper Janssen <[email protected]> wrote:
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>Otherwise you might have to explain exactly _how_ James is going to make money off the "scam",
>>hmm? And that might be a little tricky.
>Two words: expert witness.

You might be able to accuse Jobst of that, but James does not have the prior experience that would
let him effectively exploit such a possibility.
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?
 
[email protected] (Corvus Corvax) wrote:

>Doug Taylor <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> I hereby assert that if you REALLLY think that disc brakes are NOT superior to V-s, Cantis and
>> all other rim brakes in the vast majority of off-road applications (including modulation,
>> stopping power, mud, rain, wet, etc.) you:
>>

>> infrequently; 4) are an unskilled mountain biker; 5) are an alien from another galaxy; 6) are
>> completely full of ****; 7) are talking out of your ass; 8) all of the above.
>
>Well, then, there are a lot of us out there like that.

I have to believe Doug has never ridden a non-disc brake bike that's set up very well. Sure, disc
brakes work well, but so do cantis if they're set up well. The question is whether any incremental
improvement you get with disc brakes is worth the extra weight, expense and potential drag. For an
awful lot of riders out there, the answer is "no".

Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $695 ti frame
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom Back