PDA

View Full Version : DANGER: Trek multitrack 7300 (hybrid) aluminum bracket sheers off, rips apart entire rear end of bike


Dan
March 28th 05, 04:16 AM
Hi,

Because this is a hybrid I'm not sure whether to place it in racing or
off-road. But here goes my story.

Saturday afternoon I was riding along a clean flat nature trail; no
sticks in the gears, no nothing. I was going at an even speed of
about 20-25mph in the next-highest gear when all of a sudden I hear a
*SNAP*, then something smashed into the rear spokes, causing an almost
instant stop. I was lucky I wasn't going downhill when this occurred,
or I would've flown over the handlebars.

It turns out that a small piece of the aluminum frame supporting the
gear shifter wore out due to metal fatigue. The shifter mechanism
ripped off the aluminum frame, got caught in the rear spokes, and
destroyed the entire rear end of the bike. Several spokes are broken
and/or bent. The shifter mechanism is bent in several places, the
shifter wire is shredded, and the front crank apparatus also has some
damage due to the sudden awkward pull on the chain.

I was not happy. I had to walk 8 miles home while contending with a
pair of minor stress fractures in the legs (I was biking because I
can't run for the moment). I've contacted the dealer but so far no
reply. This $420 bike is just barely over 2 years old, with less than
500 miles on it. I expected to get more than a dollar per mile for
this bike, and I'm really not happy with Trek's poor design of this
frame and model.

If the dealer or Trek will support the repair of this obvious
manufacturer's defect, I will keep you apprised.

Dan

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

MagillaGorilla
March 28th 05, 05:27 PM
Dan wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Because this is a hybrid I'm not sure whether to place it in racing or
> off-road. But here goes my story.
>
> Saturday afternoon I was riding along a clean flat nature trail; no
> sticks in the gears, no nothing. I was going at an even speed of
> about 20-25mph in the next-highest gear when all of a sudden I hear a
> *SNAP*, then something smashed into the rear spokes, causing an almost
> instant stop. I was lucky I wasn't going downhill when this occurred,
> or I would've flown over the handlebars.
>
> It turns out that a small piece of the aluminum frame supporting the
> gear shifter wore out due to metal fatigue. The shifter mechanism
> ripped off the aluminum frame, got caught in the rear spokes, and
> destroyed the entire rear end of the bike. Several spokes are broken
> and/or bent. The shifter mechanism is bent in several places, the
> shifter wire is shredded, and the front crank apparatus also has some
> damage due to the sudden awkward pull on the chain.
>
> I was not happy. I had to walk 8 miles home while contending with a
> pair of minor stress fractures in the legs (I was biking because I
> can't run for the moment). I've contacted the dealer but so far no
> reply. This $420 bike is just barely over 2 years old, with less than
> 500 miles on it. I expected to get more than a dollar per mile for
> this bike, and I'm really not happy with Trek's poor design of this
> frame and model.
>
> If the dealer or Trek will support the repair of this obvious
> manufacturer's defect, I will keep you apprised.
>
> Dan
>


Dan,

Given that TREK uses CAD/CAM and extensive quality control to design its
bikes, the metal fatigue on the derailleur hanger was most likely due to
damage that occurred in shipping or when the 16 year old mechanic who
put the bike together at the shop you got it from took it for a spin and
mashed it against a curb or something (believe it or not teenagers who
make minimum wage do stupid stuff like that).

One of the most common things in a crash is for the derailluer hanger to
get bent. And the way most people "fix" it is to bend it back, not
realizing that doing so causes substantial yet invisible metal fatigue.

So calm down on the CONSUMER PRODUCT WARNING thing unless you know for a
fact that defect originated in the manufacturing process.

Thanks,

Magilla

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Werehatrack
March 28th 05, 10:16 PM
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:16:11 CST, Dan > may have
said:

>Hi,
>
>Because this is a hybrid I'm not sure whether to place it in racing or
>off-road. But here goes my story.
>
>Saturday afternoon I was riding along a clean flat nature trail; no
>sticks in the gears, no nothing. I was going at an even speed of
>about 20-25mph in the next-highest gear when all of a sudden I hear a
>*SNAP*, then something smashed into the rear spokes, causing an almost
>instant stop. I was lucky I wasn't going downhill when this occurred,
>or I would've flown over the handlebars.
>
>It turns out that a small piece of the aluminum frame supporting the
>gear shifter wore out due to metal fatigue. The shifter mechanism
>ripped off the aluminum frame, got caught in the rear spokes, and
>destroyed the entire rear end of the bike.

I find a different analysis more plausible; the rear derailleur cage
is much more likely to have snagged in the spokes, following the wheel
around and ripping the der support from the dropout in the process.
The der support tab has so little strain on it that it will not fail
due to "metal fatigue" even after an extremely long period in service.
There are at least three other ways by which the cited failure could
occur in my experience.

>Several spokes are broken
>and/or bent.

Quite typical of a spokejam due to der cage snagging.

>The shifter mechanism is bent in several places, the
>shifter wire is shredded, and the front crank apparatus also has some
>damage due to the sudden awkward pull on the chain.

This should tell you something. Had the der mounting tab merely
failed, the der would have dropped off and hung from the chain, but
would not have been likely to get into the spokes; the der has to be
firmly mounted and the der cage extended (which won't be the case if
the der's mount breaks) in order for the cage to be able to grab the
spokes.

>I was not happy. I had to walk 8 miles home while contending with a
>pair of minor stress fractures in the legs (I was biking because I
>can't run for the moment). I've contacted the dealer but so far no
>reply. This $420 bike is just barely over 2 years old, with less than
>500 miles on it. I expected to get more than a dollar per mile for
>this bike, and I'm really not happy with Trek's poor design of this
>frame and model.
>
>If the dealer or Trek will support the repair of this obvious
>manufacturer's defect, I will keep you apprised.

I suspect that failure analysis will determine that either the der had
been bent prior to the incident, putting its cage swing path into the
conincal region of the drive-side spokes, or that the der was stiff
due to congealed lubricant producing a motion pattern that put the der
into the spokes. I have had both types of failure occur; neither
would be a warranty matter.

Keep us informed in any event; it will be instructive for all
concerned if there's an actual defect involved.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Carl Sundquist
March 28th 05, 10:21 PM
"Dan" > wrote in message
...
> Hi,
>
> Because this is a hybrid I'm not sure whether to place it in racing or
> off-road. But here goes my story.
>
> Saturday afternoon I was riding along a clean flat nature trail; no
> sticks in the gears, no nothing. I was going at an even speed of
> about 20-25mph in the next-highest gear when all of a sudden I hear a
> *SNAP*, then something smashed into the rear spokes, causing an almost
> instant stop. I was lucky I wasn't going downhill when this occurred,
> or I would've flown over the handlebars.
>
> It turns out that a small piece of the aluminum frame supporting the
> gear shifter wore out due to metal fatigue. The shifter mechanism
> ripped off the aluminum frame, got caught in the rear spokes, and
> destroyed the entire rear end of the bike. Several spokes are broken
> and/or bent. The shifter mechanism is bent in several places, the
> shifter wire is shredded, and the front crank apparatus also has some
> damage due to the sudden awkward pull on the chain.
>
> I was not happy. I had to walk 8 miles home while contending with a
> pair of minor stress fractures in the legs (I was biking because I
> can't run for the moment). I've contacted the dealer but so far no
> reply. This $420 bike is just barely over 2 years old, with less than
> 500 miles on it. I expected to get more than a dollar per mile for
> this bike, and I'm really not happy with Trek's poor design of this
> frame and model.
>
> If the dealer or Trek will support the repair of this obvious
> manufacturer's defect, I will keep you apprised.
>
> Dan
>

Thank God it wasn't a Bianchi.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

March 29th 05, 06:36 PM
Dan wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Because this is a hybrid I'm not sure whether to place it in racing
or
> off-road. But here goes my story.
>
> Saturday afternoon I was riding along a clean flat nature trail; no
> sticks in the gears, no nothing. I was going at an even speed of
> about 20-25mph in the next-highest gear when all of a sudden I hear a
> *SNAP*, then something smashed into the rear spokes, causing an
almost
> instant stop. I was lucky I wasn't going downhill when this
occurred,
> or I would've flown over the handlebars.
>
> It turns out that a small piece of the aluminum frame supporting the
> gear shifter wore out due to metal fatigue. The shifter mechanism
> ripped off the aluminum frame, got caught in the rear spokes, and
> destroyed the entire rear end of the bike. Several spokes are broken
> and/or bent. The shifter mechanism is bent in several places, the
> shifter wire is shredded, and the front crank apparatus also has some
> damage due to the sudden awkward pull on the chain.
>
> I was not happy. I had to walk 8 miles home while contending with a
> pair of minor stress fractures in the legs (I was biking because I
> can't run for the moment). I've contacted the dealer but so far no
> reply. This $420 bike is just barely over 2 years old, with less
than
> 500 miles on it. I expected to get more than a dollar per mile for
> this bike, and I'm really not happy with Trek's poor design of this
> frame and model.
>
> If the dealer or Trek will support the repair of this obvious
> manufacturer's defect, I will keep you apprised.
>
> Dan
>
> --
> rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help
solving
> posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see
http://rbor.org/
> Please read the charter before posting:
http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Your bike sounds like a prime candidate to become a singlespeed.

/s

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Phil, Squid-in-Training
March 30th 05, 02:14 PM
wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Because this is a hybrid I'm not sure whether to place it in racing
>> or off-road. But here goes my story.
>>
>> Saturday afternoon I was riding along a clean flat nature trail; no
>> sticks in the gears, no nothing. I was going at an even speed of
>> about 20-25mph in the next-highest gear when all of a sudden I hear a
>> *SNAP*, then something smashed into the rear spokes, causing an
>> almost instant stop. I was lucky I wasn't going downhill when this
>> occurred, or I would've flown over the handlebars.
>>
>> It turns out that a small piece of the aluminum frame supporting the
>> gear shifter wore out due to metal fatigue. The shifter mechanism
>> ripped off the aluminum frame, got caught in the rear spokes, and
>> destroyed the entire rear end of the bike. Several spokes are broken
>> and/or bent. The shifter mechanism is bent in several places, the
>> shifter wire is shredded, and the front crank apparatus also has some
>> damage due to the sudden awkward pull on the chain.
>>
>> I was not happy. I had to walk 8 miles home while contending with a
>> pair of minor stress fractures in the legs (I was biking because I
>> can't run for the moment). I've contacted the dealer but so far no
>> reply. This $420 bike is just barely over 2 years old, with less
>> than 500 miles on it. I expected to get more than a dollar per mile
>> for this bike, and I'm really not happy with Trek's poor design of
>> this frame and model.
>>
>> If the dealer or Trek will support the repair of this obvious
>> manufacturer's defect, I will keep you apprised.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> --
>> rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help
>> solving posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see
>> http://rbor.org/ Please read the charter before posting:
> http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt
>
> Your bike sounds like a prime candidate to become a singlespeed.

LOL nice way to look at it...

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training


--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Werehatrack
March 30th 05, 07:25 PM
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:14:36 CST, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
> may have said:

wrote:
>> Your bike sounds like a prime candidate to become a singlespeed.
>
>LOL nice way to look at it...

If half the right dropout is gone, it's not much of a candidate for
conversion until the dropout has been replaced. (Not to mention the
possible bent stays.)

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

David L. Johnson
March 30th 05, 09:35 PM
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:16:11 -0600, Dan wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Because this is a hybrid I'm not sure whether to place it in racing or
> off-road. But here goes my story.

*.racing trimmed off as irrelevant.
>
> Saturday afternoon I was riding along a clean flat nature trail; no
> sticks in the gears, no nothing. I was going at an even speed of
> about 20-25mph in the next-highest gear when all of a sudden I hear a
> *SNAP*, then something smashed into the rear spokes, causing an almost
> instant stop. I was lucky I wasn't going downhill when this occurred,
> or I would've flown over the handlebars.
>
> It turns out that a small piece of the aluminum frame supporting the
> gear shifter wore out due to metal fatigue.

How do you figure this was due to metal fatigue? I assume that this small
piece of aluminum is the derailleur hanger, which is not subject to a lot
of stress under normal use. In order to claim some sort of fault of the
manufacturer, you have to be able to convince them that this was the cause
of the problem. The rest of the damage was collateral.

In my experience, derailleurs usually snap off either because the chain
dropped and got tangled in the pulleys, which then twisted the derailleur
off since you were still applying pressure to the pedals, or there was a
missed shift under load, causing essentially the same chain of events. I
have seen both of these occur, one on the flat, and the other (the
missed-shift then crunch) on a short, steep climb. One other possibility
that can occur is if you shift it into the spokes, which is caused by a
misadjusted derailleur. However, I don't imagine this was the cause due
to the circumstances you describe.

Are you _sure_ you hadn't shifted at that point, or had the chain fall off
the chainring? I know it's easy for the dealer to just say it was
operator error and not take responsibility, but you need an explanation
why this was not the case here.


> If the dealer or Trek will support the repair of this obvious
> manufacturer's defect, I will keep you apprised.

Don't be surprised if the obviousness of the defect is missed by the
dealer. I don't see it, and would have to be convinced.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems.
_`\(,_ | -- Paul Erdos
(_)/ (_) |


--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Keith Rickert
March 31st 05, 04:18 AM
In article >,
"David L. Johnson" > wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 21:16:11 -0600, Dan wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Because this is a hybrid I'm not sure whether to place it in racing or
> > off-road. But here goes my story.
>
> *.racing trimmed off as irrelevant.
> >
> > Saturday afternoon I was riding along a clean flat nature trail; no
> > sticks in the gears, no nothing. I was going at an even speed of
> > about 20-25mph in the next-highest gear when all of a sudden I hear a
> > *SNAP*, then something smashed into the rear spokes, causing an almost
> > instant stop. I was lucky I wasn't going downhill when this occurred,
> > or I would've flown over the handlebars.
> >
> > It turns out that a small piece of the aluminum frame supporting the
> > gear shifter wore out due to metal fatigue.
>
> How do you figure this was due to metal fatigue? I assume that this small
> piece of aluminum is the derailleur hanger, which is not subject to a lot
> of stress under normal use. In order to claim some sort of fault of the
> manufacturer, you have to be able to convince them that this was the cause
> of the problem. The rest of the damage was collateral.
>
> In my experience, derailleurs usually snap off either because the chain
> dropped and got tangled in the pulleys, which then twisted the derailleur
> off since you were still applying pressure to the pedals, or there was a
> missed shift under load, causing essentially the same chain of events. I
> have seen both of these occur, one on the flat, and the other (the
> missed-shift then crunch) on a short, steep climb. One other possibility
> that can occur is if you shift it into the spokes, which is caused by a
> misadjusted derailleur. However, I don't imagine this was the cause due
> to the circumstances you describe.

The other cause that I've seen has been either picking up a stick
(mountain biking) or (happened to me) wheel reflector comes partly
loose, twists sideways, and takes out the derailleur along the way.

Keith

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

April 1st 05, 02:25 PM
Dan wrote:

<snip>

> It turns out that a small piece of the aluminum frame supporting the
> gear shifter wore out due to metal fatigue. The shifter mechanism
> ripped off the aluminum frame, got caught in the rear spokes, and
> destroyed the entire rear end of the bike. Several spokes are broken
> and/or bent. The shifter mechanism is bent in several places, the
> shifter wire is shredded, and the front crank apparatus also has some
> damage due to the sudden awkward pull on the chain.

I would be willing to bet that the manufacturer finds an excuse to not
do anything, even if the dealer goes to bat for you. It doesn't matter
what the actual cause of the failure was, it's whether or not they can
find a way to not do anything, since it's your word against their's.
There could be several reasons why the hanger was stressed, i.e. the
chain could have fallen off and gotten stuck, while you tried to pedal
harder because you didn't realize what happened. If they do do
something for you, it both admits liability, and it implies that there
is a problem with the product, neither of which is worth keeping you as
a customer.

You really want to avoid aluminum frames if at all possible, but you're
not going to find many $420 bicycles with chromoloy steel frames! Metal
fatigue is a huge problem with aluminum, and not just on bicycles. Of
course most of the time you'll be just fine, but it's those
catastrophic failures, that are much more likely to occur with
aluminum, that are scary. The derailleur hanger can be subjected to a
lot of stress, with not a lot of metal there.

--------------Begin Obligatory Airplane Comparison---------------
"When discussing aluminum, someone always brings up airplanes. Airplane
design showcases what aluminum does best: acceptable strength and a low
relative weight. But, aluminum's lack of a fatigue limit is one very
good reason why there is stringent monitoring of dynamically or
cyclically stressed aluminum structures."
----------------End Obligatory Airplane Comparison---------------

You can see what happens when aluminum fails on an aircraft
"http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/2001/Jan/18/118localnews1.html"

There are still some chromoloy frame mountain bikes available. Slap on
some slicks, and call it a hybrid. Marin still makes several steel
mountain bikes that are not excessively expensive (but more than $420).
See
"http://marinbikes.com/bicycles_2005/html/bikes/bike_series/bikes_ser_steelht.html"
The Bear Valley is $650 MSRP, though REI still has some (or one) 17"
2004 Bear Valley's on sale for $390 (see
"http://www.rei.com/outlet/product/47943588.htm?vcat=OUTLET_SSHP_CYCLING_SA").

I don't think that there are any chromolloy steel hybrids available
anymore; hybrids tend to be relatively inexpensive, and aluminum is a
lot less expensive than chromoly steel.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Bob Schwartz
April 1st 05, 10:25 PM
In rec.bicycles.racing wrote:
> Dan wrote:

> <snip>

>> It turns out that a small piece of the aluminum frame supporting the
>> gear shifter wore out due to metal fatigue. The shifter mechanism
>> ripped off the aluminum frame, got caught in the rear spokes, and
>> destroyed the entire rear end of the bike. Several spokes are broken
>> and/or bent. The shifter mechanism is bent in several places, the
>> shifter wire is shredded, and the front crank apparatus also has some
>> damage due to the sudden awkward pull on the chain.

> I would be willing to bet that the manufacturer finds an excuse to not
> do anything, even if the dealer goes to bat for you. It doesn't matter
> what the actual cause of the failure was, it's whether or not they can
> find a way to not do anything, since it's your word against their's.

Look, it was his own damn fault. Frames don't fail that way without
some measure of operator error. He should suck it up and buy a new
bike or frame and not expect Trek to cover for his mistakes.

> You really want to avoid aluminum frames if at all possible, but you're
> not going to find many $420 bicycles with chromoloy steel frames! Metal
> fatigue is a huge problem with aluminum, and not just on bicycles. Of
> course most of the time you'll be just fine, but it's those
> catastrophic failures, that are much more likely to occur with
> aluminum, that are scary. The derailleur hanger can be subjected to a
> lot of stress, with not a lot of metal there.

This is flat out bull****.

I've broken my share of bikes. The really hairy frame failures have
all involved steel. The only damage I've done to any of the aluminum
bikes I've owned was my own damn fault.

The time I ripped the down tube out of the lower head lug in a crit,
it was a steel frame. The time I had a chain stay come loose from
the bottom bracket shell, it was steel. The time I was wondering
what the !@#$% was up with my front brake and realized, once I had
stopped, that the fork leg was failing at the crown, it was steel.

And the time I crashed and whacked an aluminum derailleur hanger, I
fixed it with a cresent wrench and an alignment tool. If it would
have failed later I'd have sucked it up and bought a new frame
because it would have been my own damn fault.

Derailleur hangers do not see a lot of stress unless someone screws
up.

Bob Schwartz


--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

April 1st 05, 10:55 PM
Werehatrack wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:14:36 CST, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
> > may have said:
>
> wrote:
> >> Your bike sounds like a prime candidate to become a singlespeed.
> >
> >LOL nice way to look at it...
>
> If half the right dropout is gone, it's not much of a candidate for
> conversion until the dropout has been replaced. (Not to mention the
> possible bent stays.)
>
> --

I figured he snapped off part of the hanger. Half of the dropout would
be impressive.
Bent aluminum stays? Really? You think?
/s

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

April 2nd 05, 02:16 AM
Bob Schwartz wrote:

> Look, it was his own damn fault. Frames don't fail that way without
> some measure of operator error.

If it was a replaceable, breakaway hanger, there was no frame failure,
the hanger broke away as it was designed to do. Unfortunately, after it
broke was when the real damage occurred, but you can't expect the
manufacturer to cover collateral damage like that.

> He should suck it up and buy a new
> bike or frame and not expect Trek to cover for his mistakes.

I agree that he will have to buy a new bike, and that it is
unreasonable for Trek to cover the damage, if in fact it was a
replaceable, breakaway hanger that broke off.

> This is flat out bull****.
>
> I've broken my share of bikes. The really hairy frame failures have
> all involved steel. The only damage I've done to any of the aluminum
> bikes I've owned was my own damn fault.

Your personal experience is not proof of anything.

Aluminum is not designed to be stressed. The clever workaround is the
replaceable, breakaway, derailleur hanger, which is designed to prevent
frame damage. As the orignal poster found, things don't always fail in
the perfect manner. Aluminum has some good attributes, it's light and
it's cheap. But in some cases, it's better to have something bendable
than breakable.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

April 2nd 05, 06:04 AM
wrote:
>
>
> Your personal experience is not proof of anything.
>
> Aluminum is not designed to be stressed. The clever workaround is the
> replaceable, breakaway, derailleur hanger, which is designed to
prevent
> frame damage. As the orignal poster found, things don't always fail
in
> the perfect manner. Aluminum has some good attributes, it's light and
> it's cheap. But in some cases, it's better to have something bendable
> than breakable.

:-) "Aluminum is not designed to be stressed!" IOW, we should all
rush out and get good solid steel parts to replace our aluminum frames.
And aluminum cranks. And aluminum brakes. And aluminum derailleurs.
And handlebars. And stems. And rims. And hubs. And seatposts...

Sadly, I don't think your posts have anything to do with April First!


- Frank Krygowski

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

April 2nd 05, 07:44 AM
Don't made bikes made in asia if you care about safety. Buy
cannondale or american made.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Robert Chung
April 2nd 05, 08:25 AM
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Look, it was his own damn fault. Frames don't fail that way without
> some measure of operator error. He should suck it up and buy a new
> bike or frame and not expect Trek to cover for his mistakes.

Several years ago, while JRA, I ran over a stick (or perhaps, a vicious
and wily stick jumped up and attacked my innocent rear wheel). It lodged
into the wheel and ripped the derailleur out of the rear hanger, bent the
aluminum hanger, broke one spoke and bent a couple of others. I consider
that my own damn fault, not the manufacturer's.

Dan complained:
> I was not happy. I had to walk 8 miles home while contending
> with a pair of minor stress fractures in the legs

Poor baby. I took out my CPR-9, removed the broken derailleur, shortened
the chain to turn the bike into a single-speed, and did a rough true of
the wheel. Then I rode 10 miles home.


--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Curtis L. Russell
April 2nd 05, 08:24 PM
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:44:30 CST, wrote:

>Don't made bikes made in asia if you care about safety. Buy
>cannondale or american made.

Who the crap added rbr to these posts and let the tech nuts loose? If
you're riding like a townie and the shifter breaks, you either need to
learn to shift or take the bike back to the shop when it starts to
make the funny grinding noises. If you claim to be able to do all that
and are riding hard, then you need to learn that **** happens and its
part of the game.

I had a really bad day once, making the mistake of riding the day
after high school graduation. Even with dodging and trying to look
ahead until I was blind, I managed to go through two spares and the
four patches I had. Hitched a ride home in the back of migrant
worker's pick-up truck. Didn't sue the bike shop for not telling me
tires get flats, didn't sue Budweiser for making cheap ass bottles and
didn't sue Cheng Shin for the tubes. I did give the migrant worker a
six pack in cans...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Michael J. Klein
April 3rd 05, 04:35 PM
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:44:30 CST, wrote:

>Don't made bikes made in asia if you care about safety. Buy
>cannondale or american made.

I hate to tell you this, but I have been in a few Taiwan bicycle
factories where they asked me not to photograph the "American made"
frames they were building. More than 90% of the world's highest bike
technology comes from a small corridor in Taiwan, part of Taichung.

China is a different matter altogether.

Michael J. Klein
Yangmei Jen (Hukou), Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

April 3rd 05, 08:20 PM
Cannondale is still made in USA and my 2002 lemond was also made in
usa.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Mark Hickey
April 3rd 05, 11:05 PM
"Michael J. Klein" > wrote:

>On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:44:30 CST, wrote:
>
>>Don't made bikes made in asia if you care about safety. Buy
>>cannondale or american made.
>
>I hate to tell you this, but I have been in a few Taiwan bicycle
>factories where they asked me not to photograph the "American made"
>frames they were building. More than 90% of the world's highest bike
>technology comes from a small corridor in Taiwan, part of Taichung.
>
>China is a different matter altogether.

Yes, in China, they don't want you to photograph the "Taiwan made"
bicycles. (I'm not kidding).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Steven M. Scharf
April 4th 05, 03:35 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Cannondale is still made in USA and my 2002 lemond was also made in
> usa.

The manufacturing location doesn't guarantee anything. Cannondale has had
plenty of frame failures, and recalls of their frames. Honda has recalled
their aluminum framed motorcycles, year after year.

"http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/tech/recall-114903.html"
"http://www.mcnews.com/anforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=85957&whichpage=2"
"http://www.marinbikes.com/recall/"
"http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml04/04113.html"

"http://www.rivendellbicycles.com/html/101_framematerials.html"

There is just no way around the inherent properties of aluminum. Frame
failures are rare, but far greater, on a percentage basis, than on steel
frames.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

April 4th 05, 08:15 PM
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
> There is just no way around the inherent properties of aluminum.

Please make yourself clear. Are you _really_ recommending we all go
back to steel cranks, steel seatposts, steel stems, steel hubs, steel
rims, steel brakes, etc. etc.?

IOW are you _really_ saying we should all ride 1975 Huffys?

Is that what you ride?

- Frank Krygowski

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Michael J. Klein
April 4th 05, 08:19 PM
On 3 Apr 2005 22:05:01 GMT, Mark Hickey > wrote:

>"Michael J. Klein" > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 00:44:30 CST, wrote:
>>
>>>Don't made bikes made in asia if you care about safety. Buy
>>>cannondale or american made.
>>
>>I hate to tell you this, but I have been in a few Taiwan bicycle
>>factories where they asked me not to photograph the "American made"
>>frames they were building. More than 90% of the world's highest bike
>>technology comes from a small corridor in Taiwan, part of Taichung.
>>
>>China is a different matter altogether.
>
>Yes, in China, they don't want you to photograph the "Taiwan made"
>bicycles. (I'm not kidding).
>Home of the $695 ti frame

Those China factories were built by Taiwanese investment capitol, and
owned by Taiwanese. That is just about the only good think you can
say about them, IMO.

Michael J. Klein
Yangmei Jen (Hukou), Taoyuan Hsien, Taiwan, ROC
Please replace mousepotato with asiancastings
---------------------------------------------

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Tom
April 4th 05, 09:21 PM
You can't compare airplanes to bike frames, there is just no way.
Aluminum or airplanes is constantly pressurized and de-pressurized,
it's not even comparable. Aluminum does have a finite life, as does
most materials. Chromoly frames are great, as long as you like heavy
bike frames, and don't go spouting off about how light the new steel
is, because at the wall thicknesses that you have to use to make a
steel frame as light as an aluminum frame, I'm thinking one crash,
and you'd be done because it would dent and or fold on you.

I've had many bikes over the years, amazingly enough, the only frame
I've ever broken was a custom steel frame. Steel is not real, step
into the 21st century my friend.

Tom

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Steven M. Scharf
April 5th 05, 03:25 AM
"Tom" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> You can't compare airplanes to bike frames, there is just no way.

I agree! Yet the airplane analogy is brought up constantly, because it just
seems so obvious that if engineers make airplane hulls out of aluminum that
surely aluminum is good for bicycles!

> Aluminum or airplanes is constantly pressurized and de-pressurized,
> it's not even comparable. Aluminum does have a finite life, as does
> most materials. Chromoly frames are great, as long as you like heavy
> bike frames, and don't go spouting off about how light the new steel
> is, because at the wall thicknesses that you have to use to make a
> steel frame as light as an aluminum frame, I'm thinking one crash,
> and you'd be done because it would dent and or fold on you.

It is more expensive to make a light bicycle with a chromoly frame. You can
still buy them, but you'll pay a lot more. The advantage of steel is that
when it does fail, it does so preditictably, not catastrophically.

> I've had many bikes over the years, amazingly enough, the only frame
> I've ever broken was a custom steel frame. Steel is not real, step
> into the 21st century my friend.

Again, anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. You'd be hard pressed to
get statistics out of companies like Specialized or Trek, on numbers of
frame failures. But ask a long-time bike shop owner about comparative
numbers of frame failures, normalized for the number of bikes of each
material that they sell.

I've updated the section on aluminum versus steel on
http://bicycleshortlist.com .

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Steven M. Scharf
April 5th 05, 06:36 AM
"Tom" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> You can't compare airplanes to bike frames, there is just no way.

I agree! Yet the airplane analogy is brought up constantly, because it just
seems so obvious that if engineers make airplane hulls out of aluminum that
surely aluminum is good for bicycles!

> Aluminum or airplanes is constantly pressurized and de-pressurized,
> it's not even comparable. Aluminum does have a finite life, as does
> most materials. Chromoly frames are great, as long as you like heavy
> bike frames, and don't go spouting off about how light the new steel
> is, because at the wall thicknesses that you have to use to make a
> steel frame as light as an aluminum frame, I'm thinking one crash,
> and you'd be done because it would dent and or fold on you.

It is more expensive to make a light bicycle with a chromoly frame. You can
still buy them, but you'll pay a lot more. The advantage of steel is that
when it does fail, it does so preditictably, not catastrophically.

> I've had many bikes over the years, amazingly enough, the only frame
> I've ever broken was a custom steel frame. Steel is not real, step
> into the 21st century my friend.

Again, anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. You'd be hard pressed to
get statistics out of companies like Specialized or Trek, on numbers of
frame failures. But ask a long-time bike shop owner about comparative
numbers of frame failures, normalized for the number of bikes of each
material that they sell. Overwhelmingly, you'll find that frame failures
were very rare in the days of chromolloy steel frames, and became a big
problem with the early aluminum frames, and remain a problem though less
severe, with the current aluminum frames.

I've updated the section on aluminum versus steel on
http://bicycleshortlist.com .

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Steven M. Scharf
April 5th 05, 06:37 AM
"Tom" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> You can't compare airplanes to bike frames, there is just no way.

I agree! Yet the airplane analogy is brought up constantly, because it just
seems so obvious that if engineers make airplane hulls out of aluminum that
surely aluminum is good for bicycles!

> Aluminum or airplanes is constantly pressurized and de-pressurized,
> it's not even comparable. Aluminum does have a finite life, as does
> most materials. Chromoly frames are great, as long as you like heavy
> bike frames, and don't go spouting off about how light the new steel
> is, because at the wall thicknesses that you have to use to make a
> steel frame as light as an aluminum frame, I'm thinking one crash,
> and you'd be done because it would dent and or fold on you.

It is more expensive to make a light bicycle with a chromoly frame. You can
still buy them, but you'll pay a lot more. The advantage of steel is that
when it does fail, it does so preditictably, not catastrophically.

> I've had many bikes over the years, amazingly enough, the only frame
> I've ever broken was a custom steel frame. Steel is not real, step
> into the 21st century my friend.

Again, anecdotal evidence does not prove anything. You'd be hard pressed to
get statistics out of companies like Specialized or Trek, on numbers of
frame failures. But ask a long-time bike shop owner about comparative
numbers of frame failures, normalized for the number of bikes of each
material that they sell. Overwhelmingly, you'll find that frame failures
were very rare in the days of chromolloy steel frames, and became a big
problem with the early aluminum frames, and remain a problem though less
severe, with the current aluminum frames.

I've updated the section on aluminum versus steel on
http://bicycleshortlist.com .


--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

April 5th 05, 06:38 AM
Steven M. Scharf wrote:
>
>
> I've updated the section on aluminum versus steel on
> http://bicycleshortlist.com .

:-) Wow! Yet another Steven M. Scharf website for getting the last
word after losing an argument! :-)

But I have spotted a serious problem. Check out every one of the
bicycles listed as receiving the heretofore nonexistent, but
nonetheless "coveted Nordic Group Best Buy Award" [AKA the "Scharf
likes it" award].

Yes, it's shocking but true. All those bikes feature aluminum parts!
And yes, the aluminum parts are subject to stress! Those vile
purveyors of sin, the Aluminum Association, seem to have infiltrated
the Nordic Group [AKA "Scharf's web ramblings"]!

What's next, aluminum coffee cups? Oh, the horror!


- Frank Krygowski

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

April 6th 05, 08:33 PM
If that's true, now that the Tour de France (and all other races) are
composed purely of aluminum and carbon bikes, what is the rate of
failures there? After all, these are bikes that are ridden more in a
month than most bicycles get ridden in their entire lifetime. Plus,
they get ridden outside in the rain, get bashed over cobblestone roads
at high speed, and get washed with corrosive chemicals and blasted with
a hose every single day of their lives.

When WAS the last time a steel bike won any significant race, of any
kind, any where? I'm not old enough to remember.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Werehatrack
April 6th 05, 10:43 PM
On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:33:58 CST, wrote:

>If that's true, now that the Tour de France (and all other races) are
>composed purely of aluminum and carbon bikes, what is the rate of
>failures there? After all, these are bikes that are ridden more in a
>month than most bicycles get ridden in their entire lifetime.

And in many cases, are then discarded. These are *racing* bikes.
They aren't intended to be racing 2 years from now because they'll be
2 years out of date at that point. Your question makes as much sense
as asking "When was the last time a Chevy Monte Carlo won a race on
the nascar circuit?" the answer in that case, if you are speaking of
a vehicle substantially similar to one that might be driven daily on
the street, is "never". While it is possible to buy a bike
substantially similar to many of those used in the TdF, doing so when
the intent is to obtain a *durable* product is the wrong approach.
Racing hardware, whether it's intended for cars, motorcycles,
skateboards or bikes, is oriented towards short-term performance, not
longevity. It doesn't have to be the best stuff for *any* use, it
just has to be the best for the specific event, for long enough to get
to the end of the course.

>Plus,
>they get ridden outside in the rain, get bashed over cobblestone roads
>at high speed, and get washed with corrosive chemicals and blasted with
>a hose every single day of their lives.

And do you really think they don't also have multiple backup bikes,
techs to check them each day, and spares for everything that might
wear or fail?

>When WAS the last time a steel bike won any significant race, of any
>kind, any where? I'm not old enough to remember.

Probably in the '70s, maybe the '80s. What of it? Those were
tissue-thin steel frames, not intended to be any more durable than the
beer-can aluminum ones that replaced them. As with the new ones, a
bike for a high-end comepetitive TdF team hasn't been built for a
75000km life expectancy in a very long time. There's no reason to do
so; it's going to be retired at the end of the season, or maybe even
at the end of the race. It's been a long time since *that* wasn't
true.

More importantly, though, when was the last time that somebody who
doesn't train 6 hours a day won the TdF? *That*, not the frame
material, is where the real competitive edge lies. You can't make a
Lance Armstrong by putting his bike under a random rider. When the
competitor gets to within a few percentage points of the performance
of the leaders of the field for a given race, then the bike that's
under him may become an important factor. Until then, it's really
irrelevant.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Marvin
April 8th 05, 04:28 PM
Werehatrack wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:33:58 CST, wrote:
>
> >If that's true, now that the Tour de France (and all other races)
are
> >composed purely of aluminum and carbon bikes, what is the rate of
> >failures there? After all, these are bikes that are ridden more in a
> >month than most bicycles get ridden in their entire lifetime.
>
> And in many cases, are then discarded. These are *racing* bikes.
> They aren't intended to be racing 2 years from now because they'll be
> 2 years out of date at that point.

I've got a fairly convincing counterexample to that, and you'll hate
it, because it's composed entirely of fashion victims :-)

Seriously, there are an awful lot of riders who buy a bike "because
it's exactly what Lance rides". Somehow I can't imagine they throw
their bikes away every season, so either they keep riding them or
someone else does secondhand. My dad is currently riding the same
(make of) frame Lance won his second tour on, and I'm sure there are
many more like him. None of them are coming back with complaints, and
believe me if I'd dropped several thousand on a new bike I'd be
complaining if it broke any time soon.

> While it is possible to buy a bike
> substantially similar to many of those used in the TdF, doing so when
> the intent is to obtain a *durable* product is the wrong approach.
> Racing hardware, whether it's intended for cars, motorcycles,
> skateboards or bikes, is oriented towards short-term performance, not
> longevity. It doesn't have to be the best stuff for *any* use, it
> just has to be the best for the specific event, for long enough to
get
> to the end of the course.
>
> >Plus,
> >they get ridden outside in the rain, get bashed over cobblestone
roads
> >at high speed, and get washed with corrosive chemicals and blasted
with
> >a hose every single day of their lives.
>
> And do you really think they don't also have multiple backup bikes,
> techs to check them each day, and spares for everything that might
> wear or fail?

The Cervelo guys were insisting in a cyclingnews interview that the CSC
riders rode the same bike for all the flat stages (including crashes,
which CSC seemed rather prone to in last year's tour). Reading various
mechanic's diaries, they (claim to) replace a lot less stuff than you'd
imagine. Even after Roubaix they won't be throwing any frames away.
Chains yes, tubs by the handful, frames no.

> >When WAS the last time a steel bike won any significant race, of any
> >kind, any where? I'm not old enough to remember.
>
> Probably in the '70s, maybe the '80s. What of it? Those were
> tissue-thin steel frames, not intended to be any more durable than
the
> beer-can aluminum ones that replaced them. As with the new ones, a
> bike for a high-end comepetitive TdF team hasn't been built for a
> 75000km life expectancy in a very long time. There's no reason to do
> so; it's going to be retired at the end of the season, or maybe even
> at the end of the race. It's been a long time since *that* wasn't
> true.

Sticking with the same team, the Motorola team used to sell their
season's bikes on at the end of every year. I never heard tales of
people complaining about how their Lance mobile broke soon after being
bought, and I rather doubt Merckx (the Motorola sponsor at the time)
would have let anything with his name and the Motorola livery be ridden
if it was likely to break. The potential PR disaster just doesn't bear
thinking about.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Werehatrack
April 11th 05, 06:04 PM
On Fri, 8 Apr 2005 09:28:30 CST, "Marvin" >
wrote:

>Werehatrack wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:33:58 CST, wrote:
>>
>> >If that's true, now that the Tour de France (and all other races)
>are
>> >composed purely of aluminum and carbon bikes, what is the rate of
>> >failures there? After all, these are bikes that are ridden more in a
>> >month than most bicycles get ridden in their entire lifetime.
>>
>> And in many cases, are then discarded. These are *racing* bikes.
>> They aren't intended to be racing 2 years from now because they'll be
>> 2 years out of date at that point.
>
>I've got a fairly convincing counterexample to that, and you'll hate
>it, because it's composed entirely of fashion victims :-)
>
>Seriously, there are an awful lot of riders who buy a bike "because
>it's exactly what Lance rides". Somehow I can't imagine they throw
>their bikes away every season, so either they keep riding them or
>someone else does secondhand.

A good many of them seem to get little or no significant accumulated
mileage, and neither get replaced nor sold off very soon. (There are
exceptions; plenty of Trek madones show up on eBay either as frames or
complete bikes with very few limes on them. Not all of the sales are
genuine, of course...) I've known a few people who jsut *had* to have
'the very best", including one person who still has the bike "just
like Greg Lemond's" that he bought back then, and has put perhaps 500
miles on to date. (Today, he weighs about 75 lbs more than he did
when he bought the bike, and says that he needs to lose some weight
before he goes *back* to riding. I scoff; he never rode much in the
first place.) Yes, a goodly number of such bikes *do* get ridden hard
and often, but the status-driven buyer whose image is the most
important thing will buy the status-symbol bike just because of what
it is...and may not get on it more than once every few months.
Eventually, they tend to be a source for really nice older hardware
for the rest of us at a bargain price, often when the ex sells off the
assets cheap. Sometimes, the ex *doesn't* sell it cheap, though...

>My dad is currently riding the same
>(make of) frame Lance won his second tour on, and I'm sure there are
>many more like him.

Make, but is it the identical version? Production vs race-built can
be identical design but not identical execution, and if it's the
production version, I'd bet that it's *better* from a durability
standpoint.

>None of them are coming back with complaints, and
>believe me if I'd dropped several thousand on a new bike I'd be
>complaining if it broke any time soon.

With the exception of certain carbon frames, production bikes "like" a
given race version can have variances from the ones that were actually
used in competition, if for no other reason than the fact that
competition bikes don't have to be production units. In the case of
the current Trek carbon frames, it's my understanding that they may
very well be identical, though, since it's prohibitively expensive to
come up with a new design that you *won't* be putting into actual
production intact and unchanged. For any rule outside physics, an
exception can usually be found, and the cost of OCLV seems to have put
the Trek folks into the enviable position of *really* selling bikes
that are "just like" the winners. This still does not establish that
they've got the long-term material stability to be as durable as steel
or aluminum, but it does predict that while the material holds out,
they're likely to be damn good, and if the theories about their
durability are accurate, then their principle longevity threat is
owners who might expose them to destructive contaminants. (The same
is also true for metal frames, of course, such as salt spray, but the
difference is that while most people will readily recognize the
antagonists that will attack a steel or aluminum unit, the hazards for
carbon/epoxy materials are less obvious.)

>> And do you really think they don't also have multiple backup bikes,
>> techs to check them each day, and spares for everything that might
>> wear or fail?
>
>The Cervelo guys were insisting in a cyclingnews interview that the CSC
>riders rode the same bike for all the flat stages (including crashes,
>which CSC seemed rather prone to in last year's tour). Reading various
>mechanic's diaries, they (claim to) replace a lot less stuff than you'd
>imagine. Even after Roubaix they won't be throwing any frames away.
>Chains yes, tubs by the handful, frames no.

The frames may be the strong part of the unit, then. Of course, if
they're engineering a metal structure to be able to absorb the
overloads that *might* be present in the TdF, and if (as posited
above) the goal is a bike that has zero chance of a problem in the
race, I guess they very well might be making it strong enough to hold
up in everyday usage quite well. For all of that, though, durability
of the carbon matrix is still (at this point) not established as being
comparable to steel. In another 40 years, it may be...and something
else will very likely have replaced it by then. Maybe several times.

(As for the reported lack of unit swaps, one should also not discount
the possibility that the teams have a PR person watching what goes
into those diaries; if you had to replace a frame for a bike for your
team, would you admit that it had been done? Although I guess there
may be a rules issue involved; how often are the bikes checked for
rules compliance? Would such a swap, undisclosed, be a liability? If
so, then they'd have to engineer for a greater safety margin.)

>>... Those were tissue-thin steel frames, not intended to be any
>> more durable than the
>> beer-can aluminum ones that replaced them. As with the new ones, a
>> bike for a high-end comepetitive TdF team hasn't been built for a
>> 75000km life expectancy in a very long time. There's no reason to do
>> so; it's going to be retired at the end of the season, or maybe even
>> at the end of the race. It's been a long time since *that* wasn't
>> true.
>
>Sticking with the same team, the Motorola team used to sell their
>season's bikes on at the end of every year. I never heard tales of
>people complaining about how their Lance mobile broke soon after being
>bought, and I rather doubt Merckx (the Motorola sponsor at the time)
>would have let anything with his name and the Motorola livery be ridden
>if it was likely to break. The potential PR disaster just doesn't bear
>thinking about.

I have to wonder how many of those retired racers went into the
equivalent of a trophy case after a certain number of outings. If I
had the money to buy such a bike, it's likely that I'd ride something
else, so that the investment in the collectible unit would not be at
risk. I know this sort of thing has happened with race cars in the
past; one of the old Gulf Porsches of my acquaintance spent a *lot* of
years as a treasured showpiece, trotted out for the occasional token
run around a track somewhere, before being finally retired formally to
a museam. The owner had other cars that he actually *raced*. "The
bike that was ridden in $RACE_X by $RIDER_Y" would be a similar trophy
to a lot of buyers. I doubt that the sellers thought they had
anything to worry about, and I'm sure they also said "If you have any
problems with it, call us."
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Mark Hickey
April 12th 05, 03:10 AM
Werehatrack > wrote:

> (There are
>exceptions; plenty of Trek madones show up on eBay either as frames or
>complete bikes with very few limes on them.

Well I would hope so - I suspect the citric acid would play hell on
the carbon fiber...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

--
rec.bicycles.off-road is moderated by volunteers. To find help solving
posting problems, or contact the moderators, please see http://rbor.org/
Please read the charter before posting: http://rbor.org/rbor_charter.txt

Google

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home