Post-recall R-Sys wheel failure

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
...

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. :-)

But some people aren't happy unless they pay lots and lots of money to get
what they could have gotten for free.

"Ryan Cousineau" wrote in message
]...
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.

Maybe I stated that incorrectly - either the hub would hit the rim screwing
the rim up OR it would have hit the ground screwing the HUB up. What appears
to be the case is that neither hit HARD meaning that the bike was already
going over on its side. Or at least as far as I could make out in that
photo.

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.

I sort of assumed that as a magazine editor he had access to some of the
experimental stuff from all of the manufacturers. Also these guys tend to
have egos the size of the Astrodome and believe that they're capable of
anything.

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.

I agree. But just look what's out on the market. There are 1 2/3rd's pound
FRAMES that you can buy over the counter. What can any manufacturer be
thinking?

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

Also these guys tend to have egos the size of the Astrodome and believe
that they're capable of anything.

Blar. Har. Har. Consider the source here...

--
tanx,
Howard

Caught playing safe
It's a bored game

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On Jun 12, 9:04*pm, hizark21 wrote:
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.

I haven't ridden in over a decade at any level I'd call decent, and
I've been riding the bike I raced on in the mid-90's, a Litespeed with
8-speed Dura Ace, and a newer set of cheaper Shimano wheels. All my
friends were also geezers like me and were riding similar stuff.

Until recently. Suddenly, all my friends had $6000 sub-16 lb bikes.
While it didn't make much difference in performance from what I could
see, I figured it was time for me to catch up. Problem is that I'm
cheap as ****, I just couldn't see forking over $6K for a bike, so I
decided to update my Litespeed. I found a set of '09 Easton EA90 SLX
wheels at Performance for $520 after discounts. I bought an Ultegra SL
group from Eurobikeparts.com for $790. I bought a set of carbon bars
on sale at Performance ($80), got their Al stem ($26), and bought an
all carbon fork from them on sale for $100, along with a Cane Creek
headset ($50?). This enabled me to convert from my steel-steerer Look
CF fork to a threadless setup. From weighing stuff, this took over 1/2
lb off the bike alone.

A few other cheap updates and I was done. For about $1600 my bike was
reasonably close to my friends $6K death machines. It tipped the
scales at 17.52 lb with pedals and cages. I've still been debating
getting a new bike (still cheap - looking at the Colorado Cyclist
Douglas Matrix bike, $3K CF frame and all Dura-Ace, 16.5 lb), but
after having put a number of rides in on my updated Litespeed, I've
been pretty happy so far.

Brad Anders

On Jun 13, 11:29*am, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:
On Jun 12, 9:04*pm, hizark21 wrote:

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.

I haven't ridden in over a decade at any level I'd call decent, and
I've been riding the bike I raced on in the mid-90's, a Litespeed with
8-speed Dura Ace, and a newer set of cheaper Shimano wheels. All my
friends were also geezers like me and were riding similar stuff.

Until recently. Suddenly, all my friends had $6000 sub-16 lb bikes.
While it didn't make much difference in performance from what I could
see, I figured it was time for me to catch up. Problem is that I'm
cheap as ****, I just couldn't see forking over $6K for a bike, so I
decided to update my Litespeed. I found a set of '09 Easton EA90 SLX
wheels at Performance for $520 after discounts. I bought an Ultegra SL
group from Eurobikeparts.com for $790. I bought a set of carbon bars
on sale at Performance ($80), got their Al stem ($26), and bought an
all carbon fork from them on sale for $100, along with a Cane Creek
headset ($50?). This enabled me to convert from my steel-steerer Look
CF fork to a threadless setup. From weighing stuff, this took over 1/2
lb off the bike alone.

A few other cheap updates and I was done. For about $1600 my bike was
reasonably close to my friends $6K death machines. It tipped the
scales at 17.52 lb with pedals and cages. I've still been debating
getting a new bike (still cheap - looking at the Colorado Cyclist
Douglas Matrix bike, $3K CF frame and all Dura-Ace, 16.5 lb), but
after having put a number of rides in on my updated Litespeed, I've
been pretty happy so far.


Dumbass -

If you really want to improve the weight in your bike/rider system,
just go on a diet.

thanks,

Master. presented by Fattie.

On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:29:32 -0700 (PDT), "Paul B. Anders"
wrote:

I've still been debating
getting a new bike (still cheap - looking at the Colorado Cyclist
Douglas Matrix bike, $3K CF frame and all Dura-Ace, 16.5 lb),

That Lapierre they sell looks pretty sweet too.

On Jun 13, 12:09*pm, KGring wrote:
On Jun 13, 11:29*am, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:





On Jun 12, 9:04*pm, hizark21 wrote:

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.

I haven't ridden in over a decade at any level I'd call decent, and
I've been riding the bike I raced on in the mid-90's, a Litespeed with
8-speed Dura Ace, and a newer set of cheaper Shimano wheels. All my
friends were also geezers like me and were riding similar stuff.

Until recently. Suddenly, all my friends had $6000 sub-16 lb bikes.
While it didn't make much difference in performance from what I could
see, I figured it was time for me to catch up. Problem is that I'm
cheap as ****, I just couldn't see forking over $6K for a bike, so I
decided to update my Litespeed. I found a set of '09 Easton EA90 SLX
wheels at Performance for $520 after discounts. I bought an Ultegra SL
group from Eurobikeparts.com for $790. I bought a set of carbon bars
on sale at Performance ($80), got their Al stem ($26), and bought an
all carbon fork from them on sale for $100, along with a Cane Creek
headset ($50?). This enabled me to convert from my steel-steerer Look
CF fork to a threadless setup. From weighing stuff, this took over 1/2
lb off the bike alone.

A few other cheap updates and I was done. For about $1600 my bike was
reasonably close to my friends $6K death machines. It tipped the
scales at 17.52 lb with pedals and cages. I've still been debating
getting a new bike (still cheap - looking at the Colorado Cyclist
Douglas Matrix bike, $3K CF frame and all Dura-Ace, 16.5 lb), but
after having put a number of rides in on my updated Litespeed, I've
been pretty happy so far.

Dumbass -

If you really want to improve the weight in your bike/rider system,
just go on a diet.


So true. I'm about 12 lb over my old "optimal" weight. I need a 5 lb
bike.

Saw where LANCE said he's back under 160 and "It's time to make some
mofo's suffer!".

Brad Anders

On Jun 13, 12:56*pm, Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT
wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:29:32 -0700 (PDT), "Paul B. Anders"

wrote:
I've still been debating
getting a new bike (still cheap - looking at the Colorado Cyclist
Douglas Matrix bike, $3K CF frame and all Dura-Ace, 16.5 lb),

That Lapierre they sell looks pretty sweet too.

Yeah, I was thinking about that one, too. I like to do the build
myself, and that frame with Dura Ace and some decent wheels would make
an pretty nice bike at nearly the same price point as the Matrix.

Brad Anders

On Jun 13, 4:54*pm, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:
On Jun 13, 12:09*pm, KGring wrote:





On Jun 13, 11:29*am, "Paul B. Anders" wrote:

On Jun 12, 9:04*pm, hizark21 wrote:

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.

I haven't ridden in over a decade at any level I'd call decent, and
I've been riding the bike I raced on in the mid-90's, a Litespeed with
8-speed Dura Ace, and a newer set of cheaper Shimano wheels. All my
friends were also geezers like me and were riding similar stuff.

Until recently. Suddenly, all my friends had $6000 sub-16 lb bikes.
While it didn't make much difference in performance from what I could
see, I figured it was time for me to catch up. Problem is that I'm
cheap as ****, I just couldn't see forking over $6K for a bike, so I
decided to update my Litespeed. I found a set of '09 Easton EA90 SLX
wheels at Performance for $520 after discounts. I bought an Ultegra SL
group from Eurobikeparts.com for $790. I bought a set of carbon bars
on sale at Performance ($80), got their Al stem ($26), and bought an
all carbon fork from them on sale for $100, along with a Cane Creek
headset ($50?). This enabled me to convert from my steel-steerer Look
CF fork to a threadless setup. From weighing stuff, this took over 1/2
lb off the bike alone.

A few other cheap updates and I was done. For about $1600 my bike was
reasonably close to my friends $6K death machines. It tipped the
scales at 17.52 lb with pedals and cages. I've still been debating
getting a new bike (still cheap - looking at the Colorado Cyclist
Douglas Matrix bike, $3K CF frame and all Dura-Ace, 16.5 lb), but
after having put a number of rides in on my updated Litespeed, I've
been pretty happy so far.

Dumbass -

If you really want to improve the weight in your bike/rider system,
just go on a diet.

So true. I'm about 12 lb over my old "optimal" weight. I need a 5 lb
bike.

Saw where LANCE said he's back under 160 and "It's time to make some
mofo's suffer!".



Dumbass -

IMO, one pound off the body is worth more than one pound off the bike.

You don't need to use any oxygen molecules/blood flow to keep the
extra pound on your bike alive. Bigger fat cells consume valuable
resources that could be used to make watts.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

In article
,
KG wrote:

On Jun 12, 2:54Â*am, Michael Press wrote:
In article
,





Â*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.



Dumbass -

You're missing the point.

I addressed your point directly,
the point you wanted to make
that steel has an undeserved
reputation. As a material
steel is tougher than Al,
and CFRP has zero toughness.
That is all.

--
Michael Press