Post-recall R-Sys wheel failure

Tom Kunich wrote:

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...

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...

According to the Mavic analysis, which has only been done by referring
to photographs so far, the real magic words are that the FORK is OK
and the frame was broken. If the wheel failed first the forks would
have been wiped out.


Unless the fork crown came down on the rim and the rim kept the fork from
touching the ground. That would explain why the rim was ovalized and there
was no damage to the hub.

--
Bill Asher

Many of us think we know how to match a bicycle to our
physique. Some actually do know. A custom frame builder
_will_ build a bicycle to fit his client perfectly, and
this is worth something. I imagine that half the people
who deride custom frames would learn something if they
had a custom frame built for them.

--
Michael Press

I don't think so. For most, a "custom" frame is more a vanity piece than
necessity. The human body is not so finely tuned that it can't readily
adapt to its environment. 95% of people will "fit" a stock bike very
easily. 5% may not, especially where you have situations where someone's
going to be hanging way over the front end of a bike (too short a top
tube because someone has very short legs and a long torso, requiring a
small "size" in a stock bike to accomodate the legs but that small frame
has a very short top tube etc etc).

Most of us have small differences in leg or arm length or are otherwise
somehow not-quite-symmetrical, and yet somehow we do just fine in
day-to-day life.

This reminds me of my customers who will sometimes pay $300 for a fit
from a "professional" fitter. This usually comes after they've done all
manner of experimentation with their bike setup. I usually keep the
original setup measurements, and 9 times out of 10, they end up almost
precisely how they were initially set up. Amazing, that. Most of fitting
someone isn't complicated science and witchcraft. It's getting things in
the ballpark and then checking out the results, watching them actually
ride the bike, paying attention to what they say, and remembering that
not everybody rides the same way you do.

There are exceptions, of course. But seriously, most professional bike
racers, at all levels, are now riding completely-stock frames and doing
quite well with them. Modern carbon frame technologies don't lend
themselves to one-off custom fit.

I imagine that half the people
who deride custom frames would learn something if they
had a custom frame built for them.

OK, thinking about this some more, I have no issues with that statement.
They will learn that it's cool to have something that's unique and
appeals to their sense that they are special and require something
different from others. And, in fact, they do. It really doesn't matter
whether it's physical or psychological, the effect (on enjoyment) is
likely the same.

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

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...
Many of us think we know how to match a bicycle to our
physique. Some actually do know. A custom frame builder
_will_ build a bicycle to fit his client perfectly, and
this is worth something. I imagine that half the people
who deride custom frames would learn something if they
had a custom frame built for them.

I don't think so. For most, a "custom" frame is more a vanity piece than
necessity. The human body is not so finely tuned that it can't readily
adapt to its environment. 95% of people will "fit" a stock bike very
easily. 5% may not, especially where you have situations where someone's
going to be hanging way over the front end of a bike (too short a top tube
because someone has very short legs and a long torso, requiring a small
"size" in a stock bike to accomodate the legs but that small frame has a
very short top tube etc etc).

I agree completely. I'm fairly far out on the curve since I'm 76" tall and
have a 34" inseam. Yet there were four other guy in my club that had the
same measurements. And we all found that a standard size bike with very
slight adjustments to saddle height and stem length got a nearly perfect
fit.

This reminds me of my customers who will sometimes pay $300 for a fit from
a "professional" fitter.

We had a lot of experienced people in the club that bought such a fitting.
Within a year they had all gone back to the way they had originally set the
bike up. Turns out that those fittings include all of the extremes so it
might advise stem lengths from 80 mm to 120 mm and then of course the guy
giving the tests asks you what size you're presently using and suggests the
opposite extreme.

In article
,
"Paul B. Anders" wrote:

On Jun 12, 9:52*am, William Asher wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Triathletes don't need a wheel to fall apart to find a reason to
splatter.

Brad Anders

True enough, but that doesn't make it ignoble to accelerate the process.

Sadly, however, real triathletes are now so aero-obsessed (albeit with
strange detours) that I don't think a round-spoke wheel would make it
very far among the tri-set. We need a shatter-prone imitator of the 808.

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

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Paul B. Anders" wrote in message
...
On Jun 12, 9:41 am, "Robert Chung"
wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote:
http://www.velonews.com/article/9324...-wheel-collaps...

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

Ouch. Everything but chimeric twins.

I just read the guy's description of what happened and Mavic's
explanation again. I wasn't there so that's all I have to go on. IMO,
the wheel collapsed first and all other damage was caused by the
resulting crash.

IF the wheel collapsed first the bike would have come down on its fork -
breaking it. In my opinion, while there are ways in which the wheel could
fail first and cause the noted damage they are a great deal more unlikely
than the top tube breaking and causing the rest of the problems. Let's
remember that I've been noting that as these carbon bike grow lighter and
lighter that they will begin failing in just this manner when the line is
passed. So - how much did the frame weigh?

As Mavic themselves note, instant failure of the spokes (which are the
busted bits of the wheel) would cause the hub to hit the ground, not the
fork.

I think what happened was a more-or-less sequential failure of the
spokes, which would have led to a relatively gentle (but exceedingly
bizarre) let-down of the bike.

This gentle let-down would end at the moment the wheel had broken enough
spokes for the tire to hit the fork crown, and then the downtube. Which
would be very bad for the downtube and the tire.

I explain the rest of the damage with my boring-but-true catch-all:
weird damage happens in violent crashes. Sometimes very strange parts of
the bike are damaged as a result of the dramatic out-of-envelope shocks
bikes get in these circumstances.

I once got hit by a car (right hook) in such a way that the impact was
exclusively to my body, plus falling down. The frame was fine, but the
rear wheel was taco'd.

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

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...

As Mavic themselves note, instant failure of the spokes (which are the
busted bits of the wheel) would cause the hub to hit the ground, not the
fork.

Actually it would have caused the hub to hit the rim. And strangely enough
there didn't seem to be a spot on the rim crushed from such an occurence. At
least in the picture I saw.

I think what happened was a more-or-less sequential failure of the
spokes, which would have led to a relatively gentle (but exceedingly
bizarre) let-down of the bike.

Of course this could have caused the bike to washout before the hub hit the
rim. Though I doubt it.

All I'm saying is that we can't tell what happened until Mavic looks it
over. I still think that experimental grade components shouldn't be used by
anyone but professional racers.

Unfortunately it appears that anyone with money can now buy stuff that
professional riders wouldn't even want to try.

"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote in message
...
"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...
Many of us think we know how to match a bicycle to our
physique. Some actually do know. A custom frame builder
_will_ build a bicycle to fit his client perfectly, and
this is worth something. I imagine that half the people
who deride custom frames would learn something if they
had a custom frame built for them.

I don't think so. For most, a "custom" frame is more a vanity piece
than necessity. The human body is not so finely tuned that it can't
readily adapt to its environment. 95% of people will "fit" a stock
bike very easily. 5% may not, especially where you have situations
where someone's going to be hanging way over the front end of a bike
(too short a top tube because someone has very short legs and a long
torso, requiring a small "size" in a stock bike to accomodate the
legs but that small frame has a very short top tube etc etc).

I agree completely. I'm fairly far out on the curve since I'm 76" tall
and have a 34" inseam. Yet there were four other guy in my club that
had the same measurements. And we all found that a standard size bike
with very slight adjustments to saddle height and stem length got a
nearly perfect fit.

This reminds me of my customers who will sometimes pay $300 for a fit
from a "professional" fitter.

We had a lot of experienced people in the club that bought such a
fitting. Within a year they had all gone back to the way they had
originally set the bike up. Turns out that those fittings include all
of the extremes so it might advise stem lengths from 80 mm to 120 mm
and then of course the guy giving the tests asks you what size you're
presently using and suggests the opposite extreme.

Not always. Some of the guys are very good! It's just that some
customers don't believe they've been properly fit until they spend all
that money. And for all that money it's often recommended that they have
things set up exactly the way I had them way-back-when, before they
started making all sorts of changes on it.

One person I know bought a whole new bike because she thought she
couldn't properly fit the Trek she had. She'd gone through all manner of
contortions on the Trek and then went to a "fitter" she paid the $300 to
and he recommended she buy a Colnago and, well... let's just say that
everything lays out exactly the same as the Trek 5200 she had. And she
still had some of the same physical pain issues with it too, but that's
ok, because she was getting used to it. She does not know, because I did
not tell her, that her setup is virtually identical to before. She
believes it to be very different. Fine with me. :-)

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

I agree I used to work in a shop and the prices have become
ridiculously with little gain for the money. It's almost as if the
manufacturers are in a race to come out with new stuff to see how much
they can charge.

On Jun 11, 4:05*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:
"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 Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

In article ,
"Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...

As Mavic themselves note, instant failure of the spokes (which are the
busted bits of the wheel) would cause the hub to hit the ground, not the
fork.

Actually it would have caused the hub to hit the rim. And strangely enough
there didn't seem to be a spot on the rim crushed from such an occurence. At
least in the picture I saw.

It does not follow. You're assuming that the spoke failure was
sufficiently smooth that it kept the rim directly underneath the hub as
it landed. In my opnion, it's quite likely the rim would managed to
wander off to one side.

I think what happened was a more-or-less sequential failure of the
spokes, which would have led to a relatively gentle (but exceedingly
bizarre) let-down of the bike.

Of course this could have caused the bike to washout before the hub hit the
rim. Though I doubt it.

All I'm saying is that we can't tell what happened until Mavic looks it
over. I still think that experimental grade components shouldn't be used by
anyone but professional racers.

Do you mean the putative "experimental" frame he was riding? He doesn't
mention what the frame is, but the photos show a Specialized bike and
fork. It's fairly unlikely he'd be riding a prototype in these
circumstances, simply because most of a bike rag's schtick is testing
production (or at worst, early-production) parts. There is some testing
or riding of prototype gear, but not much.

Unfortunately it appears that anyone with money can now buy stuff that
professional riders wouldn't even want to try.

Caveat emptor, but if Mavic is selling a wheel that comes apart so fast
with what looks like little provocation, then I want to know about that.

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

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
Sadly, however, real triathletes are now so aero-obsessed (albeit with
strange detours) that I don't think a round-spoke wheel would make it very
far among the tri-set. We need a shatter-prone imitator of the 808.

The Spinergy Rev X's were supposed to be quite aero....