Post-recall R-Sys wheel failure

On Jun 10, 7:55*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...



Where is your (or anybody else's) evidence of this? Carbon generally
fails *after* the faceplant has already happened. What it does after
the
rider is already on the ground is kinda irrelevant, don't you think?

It's irrelevant until it comes time to pay to replace/repair it.

For the argument that carbon is expensive, that's true. But mostly
people seem to be concerned about safety.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

OK Mike, you are in a bike shop...have any R-Sys for sale? Will you
sell them?

"P. Chisholm" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 7:55 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message

...



Where is your (or anybody else's) evidence of this? Carbon
generally
fails *after* the faceplant has already happened. What it does
after
the
rider is already on the ground is kinda irrelevant, don't you
think?

It's irrelevant until it comes time to pay to replace/repair it.

For the argument that carbon is expensive, that's true. But mostly
people seem to be concerned about safety.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

OK Mike, you are in a bike shop...have any R-Sys for sale? Will you
sell them?

Peter: Mavic customer "service" is the reason we don't sell the product.
So no, we don't have any, but I'm not claiming that's because I spotted
a bad product and didn't bring it into the store. As they say, There but
for the grace of God go I. This is a real disaster for Mavic (and,
obviously, anyone who has a severe product failure). I wouldn't wish it
on anyone.

I'm not into stupid-light myself. The carbon wheels I ride have steel
spokes, and over 21,000 miles without ever having to be touched. Most
impressive wheels I've ever owned, but at $2500/pr, it's not like
they're the answer for everybody. But it does show you can build a
superior product that rides great and is very strong without venturing
into the stupid-light category (they weigh about 1350g for the pair,
which is no lighter than some aluminum-rim wheels you can readily buy
for much less money).

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Jun 10, 7:34*am, "P. Chisholm" wrote:
On Jun 9, 7:50*pm, Bob Schwartz
wrote:

Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 12:16:46 -0700, "Robert Chung"
wrote:

http://www.velonews.com/article/9305...rience---a-pos....

Yeah, that sounds like rider error. *The error of riding wheels with
little carbon spokes.

A SS spoke weighs 5-7 grams. I wonder how much weight they saved going
with carbon. After all there were 16 of them in that wheel.

Bob Schwartz

1400 gram wheelset for $1400....Building a 1600 gram wheelset is easy
using normal stuff. 200 grams(AND $700+) saved and spent on a 80,000+
gram package of rider and bicycle. marketing run amok.

Hey, racers do try to buy speed. The more it costs, the faster they
can go!
tri-geeks too. There is a market for this overpriced no-real-benefit
stuff or they wouldn't be selling it.

Rick

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

Perhaps. But one of the most-interesting things about this is that it
was in VeloNews, a publication that Mavic advertises in pretty
heavily

Dumbass,

It happened to the Editor in Chief for Velonews. Think if it'd
happened to one of us (same circumstances same witnesses same article)
they'd've published it?

The Editor in Chief, of all people, is made sensitive to the needs of
advertisers. More likely to see that sort of thing come out from a
less-senior staff member, and then an editor gets in all manner of
trouble for allowing it to be printed.

My guess is that Mavic made a monumental error in even suggesting the
possibility that the rider may have been at fault. That probably set him
off. Even if it's possible the rider *was* somehow responsible, that
sort of thing has to be handled very carefully when the rider has, well,
teeth. And the Editor of a cycling publication has teeth.

The publication has no more teeth than the advertisers allow.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
Bob Schwartz wrote:

Fred Fredburger wrote:
At the other end of the spectrum there's Bicycling, which exists solely
to provide ad space. Who takes that magazine seriously?

I subscribe to our local dead tree newspaper only because my
wife wants to get the advertising circulars. They have a
relationship with the local chamber of commerce that I might
describe in colorful terms but won't because I know many
here have delicate sensibilities.

I have them, but do not allow them to get in my way.

There are times when I don't take them seriously. But I do
understand that traditional media is under financial pressure.

--
Michael Press

In article
,
"P. Chisholm" wrote:

On Jun 9, 8:04Â*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:
"Robert Chung" wrote in message

...

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

Perhaps. But one of the most-interesting things about this is that it
was in VeloNews, a publication that Mavic advertises in pretty
heavily

Dumbass,

It happened to the Editor in Chief for Velonews. Think if it'd
happened to one of us (same circumstances same witnesses same article)
they'd've published it?

The Editor in Chief, of all people, is made sensitive to the needs of
advertisers. More likely to see that sort of thing come out from a
less-senior staff member, and then an editor gets in all manner of
trouble for allowing it to be printed.

My guess is that Mavic made a monumental error in even suggesting the
possibility that the rider may have been at fault. That probably set him
off. Even if it's possible the rider *was* somehow responsible, that
sort of thing has to be handled very carefully when the rider has, well,
teeth. And the Editor of a cycling publication has teeth.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"Robert Chung" wrote in message

...

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

Perhaps. But one of the most-interesting things about this is that it
was in VeloNews, a publication that Mavic advertises in pretty
heavily

Dumbass,

It happened to the Editor in Chief for Velonews. Think if it'd
happened to one of us (same circumstances same witnesses same article)
they'd've published it?

Nothing 'set him off'(being in Boulder and knowing a lot of these guys
has it's advantages). Two 'teams' met, represented by lawyers on both
sides, calm discussions ensued at the site, with the wheel and
bicycle, another in a conference room. Mavic just doesn't seem
interested in taking any responsibility here(my opinion). I am sure
this issue went up and down at Velonews considering the plus and
minuses of writing this. I think rider safety is an issue that
Velonews couldn't ignore.

Mavic: Hey, we gave you the wheel! What are you complaining about?

--
Michael Press

In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

As for steel, the manner in which it fails may be different, but
trust
me, many, many steel frames failed back in the day. Typically
severely-buckled downtubes.

Since down tubes act in tension a buckled down tube is not
the proximate cause of failure. How did those frames fail
that had buckled down tubes?

--
Michael Press

Frontal impact. Steel frames & forks were typically not very strong in
such situations. You and I may be interpreting this thread differently;
I am not talking about JRA (Just Riding Along) failures.

Okay.

--
Michael Press

In article
,
KGring wrote:

On Jun 10, 7:00Â*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in messagenews:G7GdnemzlOIRWLLXnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@earth link.com...

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
.. .

Since down tubes act in tension a buckled down tube is not
the proximate cause of failure. How did those frames fail
that had buckled down tubes?

Frontal impact. Steel frames & forks were typically not very strong
in such situations. You and I may be interpreting this thread
differently; I am not talking about JRA (Just Riding Along) failures.

Try hitting a dog while going 20 mph. A well known and expensive
carbon bike head tube broke off like it was paper mache'. A steel bike
wouldn't fail that way.

I assume you're joking. You are, aren't you? Not that I have any
personal experience with such things...

snip


Dumbass -

Unfortunately, he's not joking.

The reason some ignorant armchair engineers (like Kunich) get this
idea that steel is not as prone to failure as materials like carbon is
that in the case of bicycle frames steel will give audible signs
(creaking) of an impending failure while materials like carbon and
aluminum will do so at a much lesser extent or not at all. The result
is that people will check their steel frame and stop riding it once
they discover the crack, while a frame constructed of the other
materials will continue to be ridden if not inspected, leading to its
inevitable demise. The result is that steel gets this undeserved
reputation as more resistant to failure.

That _is_ a manner in which it is more resistant to catastrophic failure.
Without going into what is deserved or not,
it is a real reason for a good reputation.

--
Michael Press

In article ,
wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:19:47 -0700, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com
wrote:

Steel bends while carbon breaks. Total failure of both frame materials is
about the same these days but the steel frame tends to fail in a manner that
throws you sideways while carbon failures puts you face first into the
ground. Ain't much fun.

I'm guessing frame tendencies are far from a primary cause of how your
bike falls. If you are over the handlebars when it fails, you'll have
a nose like mine. FWIW, I haven't had enough carbon long enough to
know about frame failures, but half of my steel frame failures before
accidents were nasty looking separations, with lots of jokes about
what would of been if I had inthe wrong place at the wrong time. Two
were the traditional bent bar version.

I will take responsibility for the painted frame - I ignored signs of
internal damage. The damned chrome frame from hell (lots of issues
with that one) kept the damage to itself IMO and snapped when it made
its mind up to do so. Top tube and it was very pointy after snapping.
Very little frame stability with a two piece top tube.

There were lots of rumors of how nasty carbon was and you could see
the signs when you saw a frame that had shattered. OTOH, I don't
recall a single incident that resulted in someone headed to ER from
anything spectacular in a race or training ride. The closest was a
couple of carbon rims, and that was when the husband drove his wife's
wheels into a parking lot height control thing and shattered them a
couple of minutes before her race. That had all the signs of becoming
very bloody, but he wouldn't leave the car during the 'discussion', so
he came out OK.

Mostly when hearing stories I nod my head and think what I think.
In rare cases such as that one I yearn to have been there. Mercy!

--
Michael Press

"Michael Press" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote:

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

Perhaps. But one of the most-interesting things about this is that
it
was in VeloNews, a publication that Mavic advertises in pretty
heavily

Dumbass,

It happened to the Editor in Chief for Velonews. Think if it'd
happened to one of us (same circumstances same witnesses same
article)
they'd've published it?

The Editor in Chief, of all people, is made sensitive to the needs of
advertisers. More likely to see that sort of thing come out from a
less-senior staff member, and then an editor gets in all manner of
trouble for allowing it to be printed.

My guess is that Mavic made a monumental error in even suggesting the
possibility that the rider may have been at fault. That probably set
him
off. Even if it's possible the rider *was* somehow responsible, that
sort of thing has to be handled very carefully when the rider has,
well,
teeth. And the Editor of a cycling publication has teeth.

The publication has no more teeth than the advertisers allow.

--
Michael Press

It was suggested on a ride today that Velonews may have felt that they
to protect themselves, from a liability standpoint, by publishing what
had happened and what they know. The issue is that keeping quiet about a
potentially-dangerous issue could have caused others to suffer harm, and
lawsuits could have been pressed claiming that Velonews was putting
profit before safety. Mavic probably could not have made a reasonable
case for indemnification (covering any lawsuit against Velonews).

There is no way around it, this is one very messy situation.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA