Post-recall R-Sys wheel failure

"P. Chisholm" wrote in message
...
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.
============

Buying what one wants vs what one needs is probably a requirement for an
expanding economy, and the alternative (to an expanding economy) may not
be a pretty thing. We're seeing some of that now.

Seriously, people buy cars far beyond what is actually needed for their
purpose, yet rarely is it questioned. The parallels fall apart when you
consider that most people buying "too much" bike opt for things that may
not be as durable, while "too much" car will primarily damage your
pocketbook.

In all seriousness, the industry needs to address those who would like
to spend boatloads of $$$ on their bikes, by giving them product that's
appropriate for how they actually ride, rather than appropriate for
race-day (if even that) situations. This is not a Mavic-specific
indictment. I'd say it's industry-wide.

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

On Jun 11, 4:05*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

Buying what one wants vs what one needs is probably a requirement for an
expanding economy, and the alternative (to an expanding economy) may not
be a pretty thing. We're seeing some of that now.

Seriously, people buy cars far beyond what is actually needed for their
purpose, yet rarely is it questioned. The parallels fall apart when you
consider that most people buying "too much" bike opt for things that may
not be as durable, while "too much" car will primarily damage your
pocketbook.

In all seriousness, the industry needs to address those who would like
to spend boatloads of $$$ on their bikes, by giving them product that's
appropriate for how they actually ride, rather than appropriate for
race-day (if even that) situations. This is not a Mavic-specific
indictment. I'd say it's industry-wide.

Yeah, but who does that? I'll tell:
Grant f-ing Peterson. Or, for that matter, any
custom frame builder (in any material) who makes
expensive, finely detailed, not-cutting-edge-technology
frames and builds up the bike to match. If you
feel compelled to drop a lot of money on a bike frame
but don't race or are a weekend warrior, the bikes
that really make the most sense are available from
people like Sacha White, Rivendell, Waterford,
and many others, or get in line for a Richard Sachs.

The thing is, if these makers' names come up in rbr
or worse yet rbt, someone will (rightly) point out that a
custom frame does the "same job" for most people as
a $200 off-the-rack Taiwanese aluminum frame, costs
a lot more, and is quite possibly heavier. ("Same job"
discounting issues about tire clearance and riding
position that might be better for non-racers.)

There's a faction in rbt that will bitch and moan about how
Peterson is selling bikes that are functionally like the 1980s
Panasonic touring bike they trashpicked, but cost a lot
more. This ignores the point you identify, which is that
there are quite a few people that want a bike and also
want it to look nice, or even have cachet, and don't
want to trashpick a Panasonic or spend their leisure
time hunting down 7-speed parts for it.

Bikes are mature technology, which means that for
all practical purposes short of racing (and even for
some racing), sensible parts like 32-spoke wheels are
good enough. However, there is no bling or shiny-new-toy
factor with them.

Successful custom framebuilders have figured out how to
appeal to people who really do want custom features (like
unusual body shape, need for special braze-ons, whatever)
and to people who want the allure of a nicely designed,
artisanally made or bespoke object. (Some bike frames are
one of the few things you can still buy that's actually made
by a single person, apart from art and craft works.) I don't
immediately see how this would generalize to components,
though, apart from the occasional custom stem, and
small-business production of nice panniers, messenger bags
etc. Wheels, in general, are either boring, or flashy and likely
of reduced durability.

Ben
Of course, then there are people who own artisanally
made purple and yellow bikes.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...

In all seriousness, the industry needs to address those who would like to
spend boatloads of $$$ on their bikes, by giving them product that's
appropriate for how they actually ride, rather than appropriate for
race-day (if even that) situations. This is not a Mavic-specific
indictment. I'd say it's industry-wide.

I agree with you completely Mike. And I don't find anything wrong with
someone buying $2500 wheels if they want to and can afford it. Even though I
think it isn't very beneficial.

On Jun 11, 2:00*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,





*KGring wrote:
On Jun 10, 7:00*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.



Dumbass -

The negligance of the operator?

I guess.

The issue I have with it is people have this incorrect idea that steel
is more resistant to catostrophic failure when it really isn't.

The resistance to failure of any part is determined by the material
properties, design and intended use.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

In article
,
KG wrote:

On Jun 11, 2:00Â*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,





Â*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.



Dumbass -

The negligance of the operator?

I guess.

The issue I have with it is people have this incorrect idea that steel
is more resistant to catostrophic failure when it really isn't.

As a material it really is. It absorbs energy while failing.
Technical terms: ductile, tough. Steel is high in both.
Now do not flip-flop on me and reply by talking
about designing the whole system.

The resistance to failure of any part is determined by the material
properties, design and intended use.

Crikey, you done it.

--
Michael Press

In article
,
" wrote:

On Jun 11, 4:05*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

Buying what one wants vs what one needs is probably a requirement for an
expanding economy, and the alternative (to an expanding economy) may not
be a pretty thing. We're seeing some of that now.

In all seriousness, the industry needs to address those who would like
to spend boatloads of $$$ on their bikes, by giving them product that's
appropriate for how they actually ride,

Yeah, but who does that? I'll tell:
Grant f-ing Peterson. Or, for that matter, any
custom frame builder (in any material) who makes
expensive, finely detailed, not-cutting-edge-technology
frames and builds up the bike to match. If you
feel compelled to drop a lot of money on a bike frame
but don't race or are a weekend warrior, the bikes
that really make the most sense are available from
people like Sacha White, Rivendell, Waterford,
and many others, or get in line for a Richard Sachs.

The thing is, if these makers' names come up in rbr
or worse yet rbt, someone will (rightly) point out that a
custom frame does the "same job" for most people as
a $200 off-the-rack Taiwanese aluminum frame, costs
a lot more, and is quite possibly heavier. ("Same job"
discounting issues about tire clearance and riding
position that might be better for non-racers.)

There's a faction in rbt that will bitch and moan about how
Peterson is selling bikes that are functionally like the 1980s
Panasonic touring bike they trashpicked, but cost a lot
more. This ignores the point you identify, which is that
there are quite a few people that want a bike and also
want it to look nice, or even have cachet, and don't
want to trashpick a Panasonic or spend their leisure
time hunting down 7-speed parts for it.

Successful custom framebuilders have figured out how to
appeal to people who really do want custom features (like
unusual body shape, need for special braze-ons, whatever)
and to people who want the allure of a nicely designed,
artisanally made or bespoke object. (Some bike frames are
one of the few things you can still buy that's actually made
by a single person, apart from art and craft works.) I don't
immediately see how this would generalize to components,
though, apart from the occasional custom stem, and
small-business production of nice panniers, messenger bags
etc. Wheels, in general, are either boring, or flashy and likely
of reduced durability.

Ben
Of course, then there are people who own artisanally
made purple and yellow bikes.

Ben: you make some great points, but why do you hate Dave Moulton?
Repaint the Fuso: he's ready to forgive.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Jun 11, 8:51*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,





*KG wrote:
On Jun 11, 2:00*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,

*KGring wrote:
On Jun 10, 7:00*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.

Dumbass -

The negligance of the operator?

I guess.

The issue I have with it is people have this incorrect idea that steel
is more resistant to catostrophic failure when it really isn't.

As a material it really is. It absorbs energy while failing.
Technical terms: ductile, tough. Steel is high in both.
Now do not flip-flop on me and reply by talking
about designing the whole system.

The resistance to failure of any part is determined by the material
properties, design and intended use.

Crikey, you done it.


Dumbass -

The design is mentioned because it's as important as material
properties.

I used to be a tireless advocate of titanium, but after just a few
years of working with all these materials, I realized the error of my
ways.

Failing to account for design and purpose would be just as negligent
as failing to account for material properties.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

On Jun 11, 11:26*pm, KG wrote:
On Jun 11, 8:51*pm, Michael Press wrote:

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.

Dumbass -

The negligance of the operator?

I guess.

The issue I have with it is people have this incorrect idea that steel
is more resistant to catostrophic failure when it really isn't.

As a material it really is. It absorbs energy while failing.
Technical terms: ductile, tough. Steel is high in both.
Now do not flip-flop on me and reply by talking
about designing the whole system.

The resistance to failure of any part is determined by the material
properties, design and intended use.

Crikey, you done it.

Dumbass -

The design is mentioned because it's as important as material
properties.

I used to be a tireless advocate of titanium, but after just a few
years of working with all these materials, I realized the error of my
ways.

Failing to account for design and purpose would be just as negligent
as failing to account for material properties.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

Dumbasses,

Kurgan is right. You can't argue about materials
without also considering the design application.
Steel is a great material. But would you ride a
2.5 lb steel bike frame? Fly in a steel-skinned
modern jetliner? Both of these things could
theoretically be made, but would be better done
in aluminum (the steel frame would just break soon,
the jetliner would probably be a deathtrap if light
enough to fly). They're in the titanium-bottom-bracket
category - inappropriate use of material for the
design purpose. And no material will save people
who crash into dogs, get sticks or frame pumps
in their front wheel, or generally do foolish things
like assume a material will protect them from having
to do maintenance or inspection.

Ben

Rick wrote:
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.

Ryan has a plot to sell R-Sys and those old breakable Spinergy wheels to
triathletes.

In article
,
KG wrote:

On Jun 11, 8:51Â*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,





Â*KG wrote:
On Jun 11, 2:00Â*pm, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,

Â*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.

Dumbass -

The negligance of the operator?

I guess.

The issue I have with it is people have this incorrect idea that steel
is more resistant to catostrophic failure when it really isn't.

As a material it really is. It absorbs energy while failing.
Technical terms: ductile, tough. Steel is high in both.
Now do not flip-flop on me and reply by talking
about designing the whole system.

The resistance to failure of any part is determined by the material
properties, design and intended use.

Crikey, you done it.


Dumbass -

The design is mentioned because it's as important as material
properties.

I used to be a tireless advocate of titanium, but after just a few
years of working with all these materials, I realized the error of my
ways.

Failing to account for design and purpose would be just as negligent
as failing to account for material properties.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

Why did you bother to say
The issue I have with it is people have this incorrect idea that steel
is more resistant to catostrophic failure when it really isn't.

???

Steel _is_ more resistant to catastrophic failure when we are talking
about _materials_. If you do not want to talk about materials then do
not; but don't pull a bait and switch.

--
Michael Press