Post-recall R-Sys wheel failure

On Jun 11, 10:49*am, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"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 Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com

We have not carried nor sold them either but we don't sell wheels we
don't build. When a bike shop here in Boulder( and I know of at least
3) call Mavic and ask for a RA number, I wonder what Mavic will say.

My wheels, BTW are C-Record hubs laced to Campagnolo Omega XL box
section tubie rims. 14/15 rear, Revolutions front. Freewheel so w/o a
freewheel, they are pretty light, about 1500 grams.

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:51:57 -0700, Michael Press
wrote:

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.

You have to. When I was racing (long, long ago), they were into the
final stupid light phase of steel - everything drilled out to the
point that the bike mags had pictures all the time of 'cheese cloth'
bikes. At the bike shop in Pacific Grove where I worked part time, we
saw bikes that looked like anything that wouldn't leak oil or grease,
had a hole. And the walls were getting thinner and thinner, to the
point that our old standbies, the pipe clamp, resulted in a sign in
the work shop about 'no pipe clamps on 531, 753 or Columbus SL'
because people would use them to put racks on a racing frame and lose
their rear triangle on a single bounce. When soft metal pipe clamps
sheer your rear triangle, even the best stuff is being made stupid.

Funny thing, people look at the outside of a metal frame and see it as
solid. After you've seen a rear triangle pooped like that, you look at
a frame and wonder where it could fail. Ain't the 'grace of God' for
me - I'm just plain chicken **** about the matter. I try something new
after I can find ten or twenty friends that have already run it into a
tree a couple of times.

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

In article ,
Donald Munro wrote:

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.

It's not a plot when they call you begging for the things. Seriously,
why are we having this conversation about wheels that aren't very light,
aren't aero at all, cost the moon, and have already been recalled once?

Also, Mavic is very proud of how this wheel's spokes experience
compressive loads, and then when the spokes started shattering, they
added a kevlar string up the middle of the spoke.

Who here thinks this means the failure mode is that one spoke breaks at
the bottom of the wheel (because the design is inherently stupid) and
then there's a cascading failure that wipes out spokes as they get to
the bottom of the wheel? I don't think adding a tensile tether was the
right answer...

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

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.


dumbass,

i've seen 700g steel forks and lugged steel frames fail
catastrophically. many steel frames back in the day had defective
joints, so the design and build quality is critical.

Amit Ghosh wrote:
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.


dumbass,

i've seen 700g steel forks and lugged steel frames fail
catastrophically. many steel frames back in the day had defective
joints, so the design and build quality is critical.

Everything you've said here is true, but it is also possible to talk
about material properties in isolation. That's what Michael is doing.

Please, quit talking past each other and get back to arguing. Name
calling would also be entertaining.

Robert Chung wrote:
http://www.velonews.com/article/9305...-wheel-failure

http://www.velonews.com/article/9324...llapse-article

Shorter Mavic: We're in damage control mode here, and grasping at whatever
straws we can.

Bob Schwartz

Bob Schwartz wrote:

http://www.velonews.com/article/9324...llapse-article

Shorter Mavic: We're in damage control mode here, and grasping at
whatever straws we can.

Ouch. Everything but chimeric twins.

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

In article ,
Donald Munro wrote:

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.

It's not a plot when they call you begging for the things. Seriously,
why are we having this conversation about wheels that aren't very
light, aren't aero at all, cost the moon, and have already been
recalled once?


What makes you think that Mavic isn't marketing these specifically to rid
the world of triathletes?

--
Bill Asher

Robert Chung wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote:

http://www.velonews.com/article/9324...llapse-article

Shorter Mavic: We're in damage control mode here, and grasping at
whatever straws we can.

Ouch. Everything but chimeric twins.

He wasn't supposed to be riding them, the wheels were for
the dog.

Bob Schwartz

On Jun 12, 11:25*am, Fred Fredburger
wrote:
Amit Ghosh wrote:
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.

dumbass,

i've seen 700g steel forks and lugged steel frames fail
catastrophically. many steel frames back in the day had defective
joints, so the design and build quality is critical.

Everything you've said here is true, but it is also possible to talk
about material properties in isolation. That's what Michael is doing.

Please, quit talking past each other and get back to arguing. Name
calling would also be entertaining.

dumbass,

this whole thread is stupid and belongs on r.b.tech with all the
village idiots over there.