| |
Main
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:32:07
From: Kenny
Subject: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
Quote:
"Hi,
As I'm not active on these forums I'm not sure exactly what has been
written on this issue but all comments and help for me would be most
grateful.
I ride a SCOTT CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month. I'm a
keen road cyclist for fun/exercise but am not competetive. I should
add that I have had the bike from new and it has never been subject to
any crash, nor impact.
Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. The
front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on the road and
the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the bike split
into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all to react.
Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable severity.
I had to attend my local hospital where I received 11 stitches to my
face. I also required an Xray which showed there was no fracture to my
jaw. I sustained further grazes/lacerations to both knees, both
shoulder, both elbows and hands. I have also shattered 2 of my teeth,
for which I'm seeing a dentist today.
Whilst I accept that road cycling involves a degree of (controlled)
risk, this is absolutely not something I anticipated.
As a doctor, I of course have an interest in health and safety issues
and thought I would raise this on here. I'm actually glad I'm alive,
because a 12inch portion of the downtube shattered off entirely. This
could easily have embededded itself into me.
I have pictures on my phone that I can include if you feel that this
would be useful.
My question is really.....is this to be expected? I am strongly of the
opinion that I will raise this issue with Scott, but would value all
your opinions greatly.
Thanks in advance,
Steve
P.S. Pictures have been added here: http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z284/Steebler/
P.P.S. I am 9 1/2 stone and 5'8 tall, so hardly a heavyweight. "
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 01:23:56
From: damyth
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 19, 9:25 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com >
wrote:
> > Assuming your story is for real, I would immediately talk to 3 good
> > civil plaintiff's attornies in your area and go with one. I would also be
> > sure
> > the bike remains safe and untouched. Take much better pictures to
> > document and take images of where the accident occured.
>
> > That's a horrendous amount of damage and a defect in that frame or the
> > manufacturing process cannot be ruled out. I would imagine Scott would
> > want to make this go away.
>
> After he's already plastered photos on the 'net? HUGE disincentive to make
> it just "go away" since it's already out there doing damage. People, whether
> they're warranty folk or a company's legal team, are, well... people. If you
> do something that causes them to want to dig their heels in and fight, they
> just might do so. I would strongly suggest that the OP has done exactly
> that. Basically boxed the company in such that, if there's fault to be found
> with the rider, they will go out of their way to find it. If it's truly a
> defective product, that will eventually be determined and the OP will
> prevail. But anything the company might have done out of expediency may have
> gone out the window.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
I don't see why companies get to keep stuff like this under wraps and
get first dibs to make a problem like this "go away," especially when
safety is involved. Sure there can be some degree of sensationalism,
but I think in this case this might actually be justified. If I owned
a Scott CF bike I'd want to know if my bike is safe to ride, and I'd
want to be informed ASAP regarding failures (whether it's
manufacturing defects or user negligence) instead waiting for some
recall process in the case of manufacturing defect, or so I don't
repeat the user mistakes (in case of user negligence).
The more I reflect on this the more I'm convinced that this is a
manufacturing defect. Two breaks on the down tube is more than just
some mere "coincidence." Other people have suggested overzealous
clamping on roof rack, and assuming that theory is true, it doesn't
explain why the down tube would fail at the head tube joint since any
stress on the down tube would have be "relieved" by that break closest
to the water bottle boss.
Put yourself in the manufacturer's shoes. As far as legal theory
goes, if anything, plastering pictures like this over the net will
make Scott settle more quickly, just in case another incident like
this happens to another bicyclist who owns a similar Scott frame. No
manufacturer can afford to have a case like this drag on while the
clock is ticking if they have a QC or process issue that renders their
frames unsafe. Keep in mind that the OP did not own the bike for very
long (assuming what he said was true).
Another way of saying this is safety trumps economics.
If I were more cynical, I'd just accuse you of being afraid of any
spillover effects of bad PR, since you are a large dealer of carbon
fiber bikes (albeit by another manufacturer).
|
| |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 03:01:24
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
a small stone? how small?
reading occasional testimonials to carbon tubing, occasional carbon
craving, and very occasional bike waving roadside carbon riders, ya
gotta wonder what a survey would reveal on "if I buy it will I crash."
I haven't gone to the New River fest yet but always stop to chat with
the occasional 2 stroke hangglider-parafoil set, always carrying a
stick just in case.
I guess the incidence for sudden carbon tube failure is fairly low.
any guesses on what it is?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 22:22:25
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> ...
> reading occasional testimonials to carbon tubing, occasional carbon
> craving...
I only eat carbon based food.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 12:32:54
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 16, 12:08 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <Qt-dnSyYVaEt3FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgn...@comcast.com>,
> Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > > The important point for raam is that my "no case" quip was a joke. I
> > > am a defense guy -- I am pathologically predisposed to saying there is
> > > no case. But like you say, it all depends on the failure. In the true
> > > JRA failure, the manufacturer settles -- 'cause bikes are not supposed
> > > to fall apart. I have defended those kinds of cases, although they
> > > are rare, and like I say, they usually result from someone in
> > > production getting sleepy after lunch . . . or they involve a Chinese
> > > OEM dabbling in cutting edge componentry (hey, topical and
> > > inflammatory -- but true, sorry). Most of my other failure cases (and
> > > I have done a lot of them) involve: (1) people beating the sh** out of
> > > their bikes, or (2) new designs that fail to account for some weird
> > > stress -- like when shock forks were first introduced and they were
> > > ripping the front-ends off Al frames (thus, gussets). Notwithstanding
> > > all the complaining in this group about the lack of engineering in the
> > > bike field, I have worked with in-house engineers at some big
> > > manufacuters who were well credentialed, one of whom was in the nuke-
> > > bomb industry before moving to the bike business. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> > The thing that concerns me about CF is that it's an inherently
> > labor-intensive process. That, combined with the fact that the only real
> > reason to use it is to shave weight means that parts won't be
> > over-designed and manufacturers will constantly try to squeeze costs.
> > Cheap CF seems like a recipe for disaster. I think it's much easier for
> > a piece of sloppy work to slip through CF production than the
> > highly-automated metal frame production.
>
> How is carbon fiber frame building more labor critical
> than steel frame building? Overheating that steel head
> tube joint is a serious risk.
At least with older steels, overheating resulted in cracking at the
lug or filet and not a catestrophic failure. I think that with CF lay-
up problems, you probably get the same kind of slower failure, but
with fork blades and other glued-together joints, they can just come
apart. I would like to hear from the experts about what happens if
there are inclusions or air pockets or other lay-up problems and
whether those can cause catestrophic failures.
Also, you can have steel forks just fall apart too if there is nothing
more than a tack braze holding in the blades. That happened to a
friend of mine on a custom tandem. He and his fiancee were seriously
hurt. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 11:39:12
From: Scott Gordo
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 16, 12:58 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> Jay Beattie:
> >>>>>>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> >>>>>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> >>>>>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> >>>>>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
> >>>>>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
> >>>>>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
> >>>>>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
> >>>>>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> >>>>>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
> >>>>>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> >>>>>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
> >>>> -snip format issues-
> >>>>> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
> >>>>>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
> >>>>>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
> >>>>>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
> >>>>>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
> >>>>>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
> >>>>> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> >>>>> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
> >>>>> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
> >>>>> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
> >>>>> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
> >>>>> enough information.
> >>>>> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> >>>>> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
> >>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
> >> damyth wrote:
> >>> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
> >>> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
> >>> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
> >>> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
> >>> standards been so diluted?
> >>> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
> >>> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
> >>> tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
> >>> TWO places.
> >>> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
> >>> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
> >>> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
> > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
> >> experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
> >> If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd comment.
> damyth wrote:
> > By supporting "it's more than (a case of) JRA" you are making
> > commentary. At the very minimum you are implying that it is unlikely
> > to be a manufacturing defect. There is way too little evidence
> > presented so far to make a judgment either way (manufacturing defect
> > or user negligence).
>
> > At any rate there is no way this kind of spectacular failure would be
> > in any way acceptable. I'd say the manufacturer bears some
> > responsibility, even *if* the owner had been negligent. At the very
> > minimum the owner would get some jury sympathy if this went all the
> > way to court. This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
> > don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
> > metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
>
> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
> I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
> Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whew! At least the cranks are still good!
/s
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 10:41:39
From: damyth
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 16, 9:58 am, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> Jay Beattie:
> >>>>>>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> >>>>>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> >>>>>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> >>>>>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
> >>>>>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
> >>>>>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
> >>>>>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
> >>>>>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> >>>>>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
> >>>>>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> >>>>>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
> >>>> -snip format issues-
> >>>>> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
> >>>>>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
> >>>>>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
> >>>>>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
> >>>>>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
> >>>>>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
> >>>>> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> >>>>> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
> >>>>> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
> >>>>> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
> >>>>> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
> >>>>> enough information.
> >>>>> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> >>>>> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
> >>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
> >> damyth wrote:
> >>> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
> >>> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
> >>> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
> >>> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
> >>> standards been so diluted?
> >>> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
> >>> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
> >>> tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
> >>> TWO places.
> >>> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
> >>> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
> >>> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
> > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
> >> experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
> >> If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd comment.
> damyth wrote:
> > By supporting "it's more than (a case of) JRA" you are making
> > commentary. At the very minimum you are implying that it is unlikely
> > to be a manufacturing defect. There is way too little evidence
> > presented so far to make a judgment either way (manufacturing defect
> > or user negligence).
>
> > At any rate there is no way this kind of spectacular failure would be
> > in any way acceptable. I'd say the manufacturer bears some
> > responsibility, even *if* the owner had been negligent. At the very
> > minimum the owner would get some jury sympathy if this went all the
> > way to court. This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
> > don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
> > metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
>
> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
> I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
> Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Yeah, you're a real Einstein. The point here is not just post any
random picture of a mangled random frame. Show me a mangled frame
with 2 (virtually) perfect wheels, drivetrain, forks, & stays, etc.,
and then we can start the discussion of whether it constitutes a case
of JRA or not.
In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break in
two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the same
place twice. What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
manufacturing defect? If you stuck a well-constructed CF tube in a
hydraulic bending mandrel, do you think it's going to section off in
two virtually perfect pieces like that? If you had paused to think
about this for more than a millisecond, this question ought to have to
occurred to you.
And in the case of the busted Bianchi you posted, even without knowing
anything regarding context, you don't think it's rather telling the
the seat tube broke right where the seatpost ends? All the other
"damage" you see in that picture can be easily explained if you regard
the seat tube as the origin of failure.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 22:46:27
From: Antti Salonen
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
damyth <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote:
> In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break in
> two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the same
> place twice. What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
> manufacturing defect?
I wouldn't put that much emphasis on the downtube breaking in two
places. From the photograph it looks like the downtube separated from
the head tube. Following this the top tube snapped in its weakest point
where the rear brake cable is routed inside the tube. I would guess that
the downtube snapped in the middle (probably where the bottle cage
thread is) only after the rider went down hard and the downtube hit the
ground or curb of whatever.
Antti
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 17:14:15
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <1187286099.301494.222020@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
damyth <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote:
> Yeah, you're a real Einstein.
And the need to be gratuitously nasty comes from...?
> The point here is not just post any random picture of a mangled
> random frame. Show me a mangled frame with 2 (virtually) perfect
> wheels, drivetrain, forks, & stays, etc., and then we can start the
> discussion of whether it constitutes a case of JRA or not.
>
> In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break in
> two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the same
> place twice.
We don't know that this is what happened. You're making an unfounded
assumption. The two breaks in the down tube could have happened
sequentially rather than simultaneously and from two different causes.
For example, the front end snaps off and as the bike falls to the
pavement, the down tube end strikes something and breaks a second time.
The break at the middle of "Scott" looks like the downtube was forced
upwards, peeling off a "flap" of CF like the strings in a stick of
celery. That, to me, suggests that it was the second break in the
downtube.
But it's all pretty baseless speculation, since all we have are three
photos and a vague description of the crash.
> What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
> manufacturing defect? If you stuck a well-constructed CF tube in a
> hydraulic bending mandrel, do you think it's going to section off in
> two virtually perfect pieces like that? If you had paused to think
> about this for more than a millisecond, this question ought to have
> to occurred to you.
That was one question. The other question that ought to have occurred
to you was what might have happened to the bike *before* the accident.
Was the downtube already damaged, perhaps by clamping it into a roof
rack with a down tube grabber?
Could it be a manufacturing defect? Sure. Could be be something else?
Sure. We have almost no data from which to work, however.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 13:01:56
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>>>> Jay Beattie:
>>>>>>>>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
>>>>>>>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
>>>>>>>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
>>>>>>>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
>>>>>>>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
>>>>>>>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
>>>>>>>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
>>>>>>>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
>>>>>>>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>>>>>>>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
>>>>>>>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
>>>>>> -snip format issues-
>>>>>>> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
>>>>>>>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
>>>>>>>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
>>>>>>>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
>>>>>>>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
>>>>>>>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
>>>>>>> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
>>>>>>> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
>>>>>>> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
>>>>>>> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
>>>>>>> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
>>>>>>> enough information.
>>>>>>> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
>>>>>>> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
>>>>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>>> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
>>>> damyth wrote:
>>>>> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
>>>>> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
>>>>> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
>>>>> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
>>>>> standards been so diluted?
>>>>> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
>>>>> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
>>>>> tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
>>>>> TWO places.
>>>>> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
>>>>> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
>>>>> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
>>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
>>>> experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
>>>> If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd comment.
>> damyth wrote:
>>> By supporting "it's more than (a case of) JRA" you are making
>>> commentary. At the very minimum you are implying that it is unlikely
>>> to be a manufacturing defect. There is way too little evidence
>>> presented so far to make a judgment either way (manufacturing defect
>>> or user negligence).
>>> At any rate there is no way this kind of spectacular failure would be
>>> in any way acceptable. I'd say the manufacturer bears some
>>> responsibility, even *if* the owner had been negligent. At the very
>>> minimum the owner would get some jury sympathy if this went all the
>>> way to court. This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
>>> don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
>>> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
an admitted red herring from > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>:
>> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
>> I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
>> Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
damyth wrote:
> Yeah, you're a real Einstein. The point here is not just post any
> random picture of a mangled random frame. Show me a mangled frame
> with 2 (virtually) perfect wheels, drivetrain, forks, & stays, etc.,
> and then we can start the discussion of whether it constitutes a case
> of JRA or not.
>
> In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break in
> two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the same
> place twice. What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
> manufacturing defect? If you stuck a well-constructed CF tube in a
> hydraulic bending mandrel, do you think it's going to section off in
> two virtually perfect pieces like that? If you had paused to think
> about this for more than a millisecond, this question ought to have to
> occurred to you.
>
> And in the case of the busted Bianchi you posted, even without knowing
> anything regarding context, you don't think it's rather telling the
> the seat tube broke right where the seatpost ends? All the other
> "damage" you see in that picture can be easily explained if you regard
> the seat tube as the origin of failure.
Geez, lighten up. That was supposed to inject some humor.( crushed on an
expressway in traffic)
I certainly did not say anything either way about cause, blame, course
of events, physics, materials, justice or mercy.
This is a puzzling thing with potentially large ramifications and I, for
one, am not qualified to judge.
(p.s. impact, multiple impacts, beam loading and torsion are quite
different. Which may or may not be relevant)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 10:34:43
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 16, 10:07 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> Jay Beattie:
> >>>>>>>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> >>>>>>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> >>>>>>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> >>>>>>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
> >>>>>>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
> >>>>>>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
> >>>>>>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
> >>>>>>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> >>>>>>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
> >>>>>>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> >>>>>>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
>
> >>>>> -snip format issues-
> >>>>>> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
> >>>>>>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
> >>>>>>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a
> >>>>>>> right
> >>>>>>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
> >>>>>>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
> >>>>>>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
>
> >>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>>>>> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
> >>>>>> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> >>>>>> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
> >>>>>> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
> >>>>>> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
> >>>>>> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't
> >>>>>> have
> >>>>>> enough information.
> >>>>>> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> >>>>>> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than
> >>>>>> JRA.
>
> >>>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>>>> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
>
> >>> damyth wrote:
> >>>> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
> >>>> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
> >>>> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
> >>>> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
> >>>> standards been so diluted?
> >>>> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
> >>>> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
> >>>> tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
> >>>> TWO places.
> >>>> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
> >>>> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
> >>>> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
>
> >> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>> Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
> >>> experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
> >>> If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd
> >>> comment.
>
> > damyth wrote:
> >> By supporting "it's more than (a case of) JRA" you are making
> >> commentary. At the very minimum you are implying that it is unlikely
> >> to be a manufacturing defect. There is way too little evidence
> >> presented so far to make a judgment either way (manufacturing defect
> >> or user negligence).
>
> >> At any rate there is no way this kind of spectacular failure would be
> >> in any way acceptable. I'd say the manufacturer bears some
> >> responsibility, even *if* the owner had been negligent. At the very
> >> minimum the owner would get some jury sympathy if this went all the
> >> way to court. This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
> >> don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
> >> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
>
> > Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
> >http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
> > I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
> > Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
>
> nice one! "jra"?- Hide quoted text -
JRA in a trash compactor! -- Jay Beattie.
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:29:56
From: Scott Gordo
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 1:23 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> >>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> >>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
> >> amakyonin wrote:
> >>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> >>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> >>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> >>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
> >>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
> >>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
> >> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
> >> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Sure, but what do you make of-
> > "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> > stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
> > Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
> > exactly is he saying?
> > As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
> > is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
> > rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
> > don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
> > about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
> > at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
> > environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
> > street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
>
> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> there's more to this story.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think it's safe to say that your suspicions are quite plausible,
especially when the rider is being vague about stuff like heading
'slightly towards a curb'? Natch, most customers develop a selective
memory when they're trying to get a refund. But take something touted
as super light (thin tubed) and super stiff (which, when we're talking
thin tubes) usually adds up to brittle. Whatever caused one bond
separation or crack compromised the whole structure and could have
near-simultaneously led to the others. The photos don't really tell
enough of a story.
One thought. Say the owner hit a curb with some speed. There's a tire,
a tube, a rim and wheel, and a fork to f#ck up before we reach the
frame, all of which look fine from the photos. So, the energy was
transmitted to the head tube, which would either catapult the rider or
deform the top and down tube past the breaking point. Does this make
the frame the weakest link? Is this a pretty common finding among shop
owners amont all brands?
With all that said, for all we know the owner is gnat light, rides
gently on smooth surfaces, and puts the down tube in a bench vice to
lube the chain. With all due sympathy to the rider, the bicycle
industry is one tough business.
I'm going to hug all my steel frames tonight.
/s
/s
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 08:09:18
From: damyth
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 10:30 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> Jay Beattie:
>
>
>
> >>>>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> >>>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> >>>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> >>>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
> >>>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
> >>>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
> >>>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
> >>>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> >>>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
> >>>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> >>>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
> >> -snip format issues-
> >>> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
> >>>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
> >>>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
> >>>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
> >>>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
> >>>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
> >>> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> >>> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
> >>> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
> >>> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
> >>> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
> >>> enough information.
> >>> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> >>> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
> > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
> damyth wrote:
> > Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
> > more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
> > Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
> > somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
> > standards been so diluted?
> > I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
> > The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
> > tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
> > TWO places.
> > I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
> > garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
> > plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
>
> Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
> experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
> If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd comment.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
By supporting "it's more than (a case of) JRA" you are making
commentary. At the very minimum you are implying that it is unlikely
to be a manufacturing defect. There is way too little evidence
presented so far to make a judgment either way (manufacturing defect
or user negligence).
At any rate there is no way this kind of spectacular failure would be
in any way acceptable. I'd say the manufacturer bears some
responsibility, even *if* the owner had been negligent. At the very
minimum the owner would get some jury sympathy if this went all the
way to court. This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 11:58:35
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>> Jay Beattie:
>>>>>>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
>>>>>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
>>>>>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
>>>>>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
>>>>>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
>>>>>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
>>>>>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
>>>>>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
>>>>>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>>>>>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
>>>>>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
>>>> -snip format issues-
>>>>> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
>>>>>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
>>>>>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
>>>>>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
>>>>>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
>>>>>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
>>>>> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
>>>>> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
>>>>> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
>>>>> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
>>>>> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
>>>>> enough information.
>>>>> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
>>>>> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
>>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
>> damyth wrote:
>>> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
>>> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
>>> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
>>> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
>>> standards been so diluted?
>>> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
>>> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
>>> tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
>>> TWO places.
>>> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
>>> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
>>> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
>> experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
>> If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd comment.
damyth wrote:
> By supporting "it's more than (a case of) JRA" you are making
> commentary. At the very minimum you are implying that it is unlikely
> to be a manufacturing defect. There is way too little evidence
> presented so far to make a judgment either way (manufacturing defect
> or user negligence).
>
> At any rate there is no way this kind of spectacular failure would be
> in any way acceptable. I'd say the manufacturer bears some
> responsibility, even *if* the owner had been negligent. At the very
> minimum the owner would get some jury sympathy if this went all the
> way to court. This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
> don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 23:55:06
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <13c90gtko1q2qe5@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
Ummm... We can weld it right back. Good as new!
--
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 18:10:45
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:58:35 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
A lot of those scratches will buff right out.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:55:02
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:58:35 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
> wrote:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
>
> A lot of those scratches will buff right out.
Good opportunity for a repaint in a better color than "Waste Water
Treatment Plant Green". ;)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 17:00:10
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <13c90gtko1q2qe5@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
Good grief! Was that bike run over by a dump truck? The only other
bike I have seen mangled like that- and not even as badly- was my wife's
XO-1 which was locked to a street sign at her workplace and run over by
a lady who got the gas and brake pedal confused while parking. She
bounced over the curb, across the parkway, over the sign and bike,
nearly into the front window of a beauty parlor and then down the
sidewalk until she hit a tree. She laid a streak of rubber the whole
way and you could see where she continued to burn rubber against the
tree until the engine died. Every tube on the XO-1 was bent, but that
Bianchi was crumpled into a ball! Yikes! I certainly hope no one was
riding it at the time of impact.
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 10:07:10
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
A Muzi wrote:
>>> Jay Beattie:
>>>>>>>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
>>>>>>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
>>>>>>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
>>>>>>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
>>>>>>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
>>>>>>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
>>>>>>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
>>>>>>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
>>>>>>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>>>>>>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
>>>>>>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
>
>>>>> -snip format issues-
>>>>>> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
>>>>>>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
>>>>>>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a
>>>>>>> right
>>>>>>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
>>>>>>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
>>>>>>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
>
>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
>>>>>> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
>>>>>> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
>>>>>> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
>>>>>> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
>>>>>> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> enough information.
>>>>>> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
>>>>>> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than
>>>>>> JRA.
>
>>>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>>> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
>
>>> damyth wrote:
>>>> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
>>>> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
>>>> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
>>>> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
>>>> standards been so diluted?
>>>> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
>>>> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
>>>> tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
>>>> TWO places.
>>>> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
>>>> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
>>>> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
>
>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
>>> experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
>>> If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd
>>> comment.
>
> damyth wrote:
>> By supporting "it's more than (a case of) JRA" you are making
>> commentary. At the very minimum you are implying that it is unlikely
>> to be a manufacturing defect. There is way too little evidence
>> presented so far to make a judgment either way (manufacturing defect
>> or user negligence).
>>
>> At any rate there is no way this kind of spectacular failure would be
>> in any way acceptable. I'd say the manufacturer bears some
>> responsibility, even *if* the owner had been negligent. At the very
>> minimum the owner would get some jury sympathy if this went all the
>> way to court. This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
>> don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
>> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
>
> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
> I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
> Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
nice one! "jra"?
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 12:50:35
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
-snip-
>>> This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
>>> don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
>>> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
> A Muzi wrote:
>> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
>> I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
>> Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
jim beam wrote:
> nice one! "jra"?
Middle of Lake Shore Drive, Chicago. Fell from a bus rack into traffic
in a center lane. CTA said "Bicycle? Sure, it was our error, just buy
one and we'll reimburse you". Their position changed when they got the
replacement estimate for a clean 1982 Bianchi Super Corsa. . .
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:51:41
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Andrew Muzi wrote:
> -snip-
>>>> This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
>>>> don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames. Certainly no
>>>> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Steel bike: this downtube actually _isn't_ cracked in 2 places:
>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/BIACTA.JPG
>>> I happen to prefer steel bikes but does that prove something?
>>> Crash reconstruction isn't a trivial thing.
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> nice one! "jra"?
>
> Middle of Lake Shore Drive, Chicago. Fell from a bus rack into traffic
> in a center lane....
See - LSD and cycling do not mix.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 08:18:34
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
damyth wrote:
> On Aug 15, 10:30 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> Jay Beattie:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
>>>>>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
>>>>>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
>>>>>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
>>>>>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
>>>>>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
>>>>>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
>>>>>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
>>>>>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>>>>>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
>>>>>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
>>>> -snip format issues-
>>>>> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
>>>>>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
>>>>>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
>>>>>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
>>>>>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
>>>>>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
>>>>> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
>>>>> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
>>>>> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
>>>>> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
>>>>> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
>>>>> enough information.
>>>>> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
>>>>> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
>>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
>> damyth wrote:
>>> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
>>> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
>>> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
>>> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
>>> standards been so diluted?
>>> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
>>> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
>>> tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
>>> TWO places.
>>> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
>>> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
>>> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
>> Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
>> experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
>> If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd comment.
>> --
>> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
> By supporting "it's more than (a case of) JRA" you are making
> commentary. At the very minimum you are implying that it is unlikely
> to be a manufacturing defect. There is way too little evidence
> presented so far to make a judgment either way (manufacturing defect
> or user negligence).
>
> At any rate there is no way this kind of spectacular failure would be
> in any way acceptable. I'd say the manufacturer bears some
> responsibility, even *if* the owner had been negligent. At the very
> minimum the owner would get some jury sympathy if this went all the
> way to court. This is the ultimate CF "nightmare scenario." You
> don't see this kind of crap happening on metal frames.
you can't really say that. we don't know for sure what the reason for
this failure was. if it wasn't jra, and the 3-piece down tube indicates
that, then you can't say a metal frame wouldn't fail in an identical
situation.
> Certainly no
> metal down tube would have broken in two places at the same time.
>
and nor would carbon typically. that's why there has more to be this
than simple jra imo.
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 12:24:53
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 11:23 am, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> >>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> >>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
> >> amakyonin wrote:
> >>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> >>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> >>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> >>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
> >>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
> >>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
> >> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
> >> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Sure, but what do you make of-
> > "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> > stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
> > Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
> > exactly is he saying?
> > As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
> > is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
> > rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
> > don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
> > about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
> > at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
> > environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
> > street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
>
> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> there's more to this story.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
But honest, Mr Scott, I was just riding along and then............
|
| |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 05:01:57
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> The OP said he hit
> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> divot," whatever the heck that is.
The OP meant a pothole.
The term "divot" traditionally refers to a small chunk knocked out of
the turf by someone playing golf or polo.
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 21:25:55
From: damyth
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 3:44 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> >>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> >>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> >>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
> >>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
> >>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
> >>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
> >>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> >>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
> >>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> >>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
>
> -snip format issues-
>
>
>
> > raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
> >> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
> >> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
> >> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
> >> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
> >> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
> > something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> > divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
> > don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
> > story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
> > caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
> > enough information.
>
> > This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> > business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
>
> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
standards been so diluted?
I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
TWO places.
I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:13:06
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <1187238355.957420.43610@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com >,
damyth <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 3:44 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he
> > > hit something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit
> > > a "road divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike
> > > exploded. We just don't have enough information and it seems
> > > like there is more to the story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and
> > > Peter et al are right in their caution about assuming that the
> > > bike failed because we just don't have enough information.
> >
> > > This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my
> > > own business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more
> > > than JRA.
> >
> > bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
>
> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
> standards been so diluted?
I don't find catastrophic frame failure acceptable, period. This is
exactly why I believe that carbon fiber is an unsuitable material for
bicycle frames, forks and any other critical component- when it fails it
fails catastrophically. However, we have not seen a spate of reports of
such failures which suggests that the material may be "good enough."
> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest
> diameter tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it
> fractured in TWO places.
>
> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with
> a plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
We'd need to know more about exactly what happened, what the maintenance
history of the bike was, whether there may have been previous damage
from some source (e.g., overly zealous clamping of the down tube on a
roof rack), etc.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 08:24:48
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
damyth wrote:
> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
>
Yes, that bothers me too.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 07:29:00
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:25:55 -0700, damyth
<mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote:
>Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
>more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
>Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
>somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
>standards been so diluted?
>I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
>The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
>tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
>TWO places.
>
>I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
>garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
>plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
If the bike is a high-end racing bike and has a serious crash and
fails, I don't care whether it's unrideable because it failed "a
little" or "a lot." It's still unrideable and the rider was still in
a serious crash.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 00:30:50
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Jay Beattie:
>>>>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
>>>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
>>>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
>>>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
>>>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
>>>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
>>>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
>>>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
>>>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>>>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
>>>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
>> -snip format issues-
>>> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
>>>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
>>>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
>>>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
>>>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
>>>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
>>> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
>>> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
>>> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
>>> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
>>> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
>>> enough information.
>>> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
>>> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
damyth wrote:
> Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that there is considerably
> more to this than the OP let on, and the full story is more than JRA.
> Short of the OP taking a hacksaw/file to the frame, do you find it
> somehow "acceptable" a bike frame broke in this fashion?? Have our
> standards been so diluted?
> I've never seen frames made from metal with such spectacular failure.
> The down tube on the Scott bike, it ostensibly is the largest diameter
> tube on the bike, and most likely the strongest. Yet it fractured in
> TWO places.
> I've seen bikes that on roof racks that had violent meetings with
> garage doors fare better. At a very minimum you should come up with a
> plausible explanation of how the down tube broke in two places.
Since this is, we all agree, dramatic and unclear, consultation with
experts, legal and technical, is a good start.
If it were something with which anyone here was experienced, we'd comment.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 19:14:53
From:
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 8:31 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2:54 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1187214071.014172.286...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> > > > case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> > > > apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> > > > for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
> > > > to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
> > > > hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
> > > > In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
> > > > the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> > > > there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>
> > > > The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> > > > Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.- Hide
> > > > quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > <OT rant>Good grief I wish people would just get a darned newsreader and
> > stop using that Google crap. </OT rant>
>
> > > no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
> > > is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
> > > for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
> > > to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
> > > product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
> > > and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
>
> > We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
> > something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> > divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
> > don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
> > story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
> > caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
> > enough information.
>
> > This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> > business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.- Hide quoted text -
>
> The important point for raam is that my "no case" quip was a joke. I
> am a defense guy -- I am pathologically predisposed to saying there is
> no case. But like you say, it all depends on the failure. In the true
> JRA failure, the manufacturer settles -- 'cause bikes are not supposed
> to fall apart. I have defended those kinds of cases, although they
> are rare, and like I say, they usually result from someone in
> production getting sleepy after lunch . . . or they involve a Chinese
> OEM dabbling in cutting edge componentry (hey, topical and
> inflammatory -- but true, sorry). Most of my other failure cases (and
> I have done a lot of them) involve: (1) people beating the sh** out of
> their bikes, or (2) new designs that fail to account for some weird
> stress -- like when shock forks were first introduced and they were
> ripping the front-ends off Al frames (thus, gussets). Notwithstanding
> all the complaining in this group about the lack of engineering in the
> bike field, I have worked with in-house engineers at some big
> manufacuters who were well credentialed, one of whom was in the nuke-
> bomb industry before moving to the bike business. -- Jay Beattie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Thank you for the clarification.
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:31:07
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 2:54 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1187214071.014172.286...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> > He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> > > case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> > > apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> > > for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
> > > to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
> > > hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
> > > In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
> > > the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> > > there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>
> > > The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> > > Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.- Hide
> > > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> <OT rant>Good grief I wish people would just get a darned newsreader and
> stop using that Google crap. </OT rant>
>
> > no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
> > is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
> > for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
> > to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
> > product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
> > and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
>
> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
> enough information.
>
> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.- Hide quoted text -
>
The important point for raam is that my "no case" quip was a joke. I
am a defense guy -- I am pathologically predisposed to saying there is
no case. But like you say, it all depends on the failure. In the true
JRA failure, the manufacturer settles -- 'cause bikes are not supposed
to fall apart. I have defended those kinds of cases, although they
are rare, and like I say, they usually result from someone in
production getting sleepy after lunch . . . or they involve a Chinese
OEM dabbling in cutting edge componentry (hey, topical and
inflammatory -- but true, sorry). Most of my other failure cases (and
I have done a lot of them) involve: (1) people beating the sh** out of
their bikes, or (2) new designs that fail to account for some weird
stress -- like when shock forks were first introduced and they were
ripping the front-ends off Al frames (thus, gussets). Notwithstanding
all the complaining in this group about the lack of engineering in the
bike field, I have worked with in-house engineers at some big
manufacuters who were well credentialed, one of whom was in the nuke-
bomb industry before moving to the bike business. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 08:23:11
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Jay Beattie wrote:
> The important point for raam is that my "no case" quip was a joke. I
> am a defense guy -- I am pathologically predisposed to saying there is
> no case. But like you say, it all depends on the failure. In the true
> JRA failure, the manufacturer settles -- 'cause bikes are not supposed
> to fall apart. I have defended those kinds of cases, although they
> are rare, and like I say, they usually result from someone in
> production getting sleepy after lunch . . . or they involve a Chinese
> OEM dabbling in cutting edge componentry (hey, topical and
> inflammatory -- but true, sorry). Most of my other failure cases (and
> I have done a lot of them) involve: (1) people beating the sh** out of
> their bikes, or (2) new designs that fail to account for some weird
> stress -- like when shock forks were first introduced and they were
> ripping the front-ends off Al frames (thus, gussets). Notwithstanding
> all the complaining in this group about the lack of engineering in the
> bike field, I have worked with in-house engineers at some big
> manufacuters who were well credentialed, one of whom was in the nuke-
> bomb industry before moving to the bike business. -- Jay Beattie.
The thing that concerns me about CF is that it's an inherently
labor-intensive process. That, combined with the fact that the only real
reason to use it is to shave weight means that parts won't be
over-designed and manufacturers will constantly try to squeeze costs.
Cheap CF seems like a recipe for disaster. I think it's much easier for
a piece of sloppy work to slip through CF production than the
highly-automated metal frame production.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 12:08:01
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article
<Qt-dnSyYVaEt3FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > The important point for raam is that my "no case" quip was a joke. I
> > am a defense guy -- I am pathologically predisposed to saying there is
> > no case. But like you say, it all depends on the failure. In the true
> > JRA failure, the manufacturer settles -- 'cause bikes are not supposed
> > to fall apart. I have defended those kinds of cases, although they
> > are rare, and like I say, they usually result from someone in
> > production getting sleepy after lunch . . . or they involve a Chinese
> > OEM dabbling in cutting edge componentry (hey, topical and
> > inflammatory -- but true, sorry). Most of my other failure cases (and
> > I have done a lot of them) involve: (1) people beating the sh** out of
> > their bikes, or (2) new designs that fail to account for some weird
> > stress -- like when shock forks were first introduced and they were
> > ripping the front-ends off Al frames (thus, gussets). Notwithstanding
> > all the complaining in this group about the lack of engineering in the
> > bike field, I have worked with in-house engineers at some big
> > manufacuters who were well credentialed, one of whom was in the nuke-
> > bomb industry before moving to the bike business. -- Jay Beattie.
>
> The thing that concerns me about CF is that it's an inherently
> labor-intensive process. That, combined with the fact that the only real
> reason to use it is to shave weight means that parts won't be
> over-designed and manufacturers will constantly try to squeeze costs.
> Cheap CF seems like a recipe for disaster. I think it's much easier for
> a piece of sloppy work to slip through CF production than the
> highly-automated metal frame production.
How is carbon fiber frame building more labor critical
than steel frame building? Overheating that steel head
tube joint is a serious risk.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 09:06:45
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <Qt-dnSyYVaEt3FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> The thing that concerns me about CF is that it's an inherently
>> labor-intensive process. That, combined with the fact that the only real
>> reason to use it is to shave weight means that parts won't be
>> over-designed and manufacturers will constantly try to squeeze costs.
>> Cheap CF seems like a recipe for disaster. I think it's much easier for
>> a piece of sloppy work to slip through CF production than the
>> highly-automated metal frame production.
>
> How is carbon fiber frame building more labor critical
> than steel frame building? Overheating that steel head
> tube joint is a serious risk.
>
I said labor-intensive, not labor critical. It's labor-intensive simply
because more manual operations are involved, more man-hours in the
process. Other than small operations, most metal frames these days are
fabricated by machine in highly automated processes. Tube cutting,
shaping, welding and painting are often done with robots.
Hand-made metal frames can suffer the same imperfections if
manufacturers push the cost cutting too far, by rushing the work or
using inadequately skilled workers. Since automated processes are so
repeatable, quality is more uniform.
Cheap CF is still constrained by the first law of bicycle design:
"cheap, light, reliable -- pick any two". Unreliable CF is a bit scarier
than unreliable metal due to the "sudden catastrophic failure" phenomenon.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 07:53:16
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <Qt-dnSyYVaEt3FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The thing that concerns me about CF is that it's an inherently
>>> labor-intensive process. That, combined with the fact that the only
>>> real reason to use it is to shave weight means that parts won't be
>>> over-designed and manufacturers will constantly try to squeeze costs.
>>> Cheap CF seems like a recipe for disaster. I think it's much easier
>>> for a piece of sloppy work to slip through CF production than the
>>> highly-automated metal frame production.
>>
>> How is carbon fiber frame building more labor critical than steel
>> frame building? Overheating that steel head tube joint is a serious risk.
>>
>
> I said labor-intensive, not labor critical. It's labor-intensive simply
> because more manual operations are involved, more man-hours in the
> process. Other than small operations, most metal frames these days are
> fabricated by machine in highly automated processes. Tube cutting,
> shaping, welding and painting are often done with robots.
>
> Hand-made metal frames can suffer the same imperfections if
> manufacturers push the cost cutting too far, by rushing the work or
> using inadequately skilled workers. Since automated processes are so
> repeatable, quality is more uniform.
>
> Cheap CF is still constrained by the first law of bicycle design:
> "cheap, light, reliable -- pick any two". Unreliable CF is a bit scarier
> than unreliable metal due to the "sudden catastrophic failure" phenomenon.
a suddenly failed weld is just as scary.
what you would have said if you'd bothered to learn enough is that
what's scary about carbon is relying on manufacturers who cut corners,
then certify testing compliance. the material itself rarely, if ever,
just suddenly fails. as you'd know if you had experience.
|
| | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 22:01:44
From: Pikachu
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <rubrum-A7F5F7.12080116082007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <Qt-dnSyYVaEt3FnbnZ2dnUVZ_uSgnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Jay Beattie wrote:
> >
> > > The important point for raam is that my "no case" quip was a joke. I
> > > am a defense guy -- I am pathologically predisposed to saying there is
> > > no case. But like you say, it all depends on the failure. In the true
> > > JRA failure, the manufacturer settles -- 'cause bikes are not supposed
> > > to fall apart. I have defended those kinds of cases, although they
> > > are rare, and like I say, they usually result from someone in
> > > production getting sleepy after lunch . . . or they involve a Chinese
> > > OEM dabbling in cutting edge componentry (hey, topical and
> > > inflammatory -- but true, sorry). Most of my other failure cases (and
> > > I have done a lot of them) involve: (1) people beating the sh** out of
> > > their bikes, or (2) new designs that fail to account for some weird
> > > stress -- like when shock forks were first introduced and they were
> > > ripping the front-ends off Al frames (thus, gussets). Notwithstanding
> > > all the complaining in this group about the lack of engineering in the
> > > bike field, I have worked with in-house engineers at some big
> > > manufacuters who were well credentialed, one of whom was in the nuke-
> > > bomb industry before moving to the bike business. -- Jay Beattie.
> >
> > The thing that concerns me about CF is that it's an inherently
> > labor-intensive process. That, combined with the fact that the only real
> > reason to use it is to shave weight means that parts won't be
> > over-designed and manufacturers will constantly try to squeeze costs.
> > Cheap CF seems like a recipe for disaster. I think it's much easier for
> > a piece of sloppy work to slip through CF production than the
> > highly-automated metal frame production.
>
> How is carbon fiber frame building more labor critical
> than steel frame building? Overheating that steel head
> tube joint is a serious risk.
How about aluminium, which probably is the most popular material for
low-mid range bicycles nowadays? At a Taipei bike show many years ago,
they exhibited a machine that accepted raw aluminium tubing and produced
completed frames (sans paint). I am assuming that the welding performed
by this type of machine is of consistent, acceptable quality, as there
does not seem to be any reports of frames with defective welds.
Pikachu
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 16:41:26
From:
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 5:54 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1187214071.014172.286...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> > He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> > > case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> > > apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> > > for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
> > > to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
> > > hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
> > > In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
> > > the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> > > there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>
> > > The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> > > Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.- Hide
> > > quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> <OT rant>Good grief I wish people would just get a darned newsreader and
> stop using that Google crap. </OT rant>
>
> > no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
> > is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
> > for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
> > to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
> > product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
> > and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
>
> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
> enough information.
>
> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is correct; however it certainly does not go so far to say he has
no case. Talking to a good lawyer will do far more than anyone here
ever could. As I indicated a consumer has a right to a reasonable
expectation...everyone here could agree to that I think. Something
like that could happen to you or me or our kids and it is important
that the manufacturer be held accountable where they are at fault for
all our sakes.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:17:20
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <1187221286.566759.162940@a39g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >,
raamman@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 15, 5:54 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <1187214071.014172.286...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > raam...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on
> > > a
> > > > case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was
> > > > very apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss
> > > > of death for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch
> > > > and forgot to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded
> > > > when the rider hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck,
> > > > that's another matter.
> > > > In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible,
> > > > and
> > > > the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> > > > there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
> >
> > > > The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> > > > Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.-
> > > > Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > <OT rant>Good grief I wish people would just get a darned
> > newsreader and stop using that Google crap. </OT rant>
> >
> > > no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and
> > > there is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive
> > > car recalls for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a
> > > consumer has a right to expect a reasonable amount of use from a
> > > product- where the product fails during normal use the consumer
> > > has a right to redress and further pursue damages caused by the
> > > failure. No ?
> >
> > We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he
> > hit something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a
> > "road divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded.
> > We just don't have enough information and it seems like there is
> > more to the story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are
> > right in their caution about assuming that the bike failed because
> > we just don't have enough information.
> >
> > This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> > business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than
> > JRA.
>
> That is correct; however it certainly does not go so far to say he
> has no case.
In the legal system there is always a case to be made, with reasonable
grounds or not, it just has to pass through litmus tests in order to
come to trial.
> Talking to a good lawyer will do far more than anyone here ever
> could.
Hence the recommendations to the OP that he do exactly that.
> As I indicated a consumer has a right to a reasonable
> expectation...everyone here could agree to that I think. Something
> like that could happen to you or me or our kids and it is important
> that the manufacturer be held accountable where they are at fault for
> all our sakes.
At this point there is no clear evidence that the manufacturer was at
fault because we don't know what happened how it happened or why it
happened.
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 14:41:11
From:
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 4:20 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 1:02 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > >>>>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> > >>>>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> > >>>>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
> > >>>> amakyonin wrote:
> > >>>>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> > >>>>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> > >>>>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> > >>>>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
> > >>>>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
> > >>>>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
> > >>>> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
> > >>>> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
> > >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > >>> Sure, but what do you make of-
> > >>> "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> > >>> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
> > >>> Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
> > >>> exactly is he saying?
> > >>> As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
> > >>> is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
> > >>> rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
> > >>> don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
> > >>> about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
> > >>> at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
> > >>> environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
> > >>> street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
> > > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > >> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> > >> there's more to this story.
> > DanK...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Is it really all that common for people to be destroying MTB frames on
> > > curbs? I'm honestly surprised to hear this from people who work in
> > > shops. I'd expect that type of failure from the BST's, but not from a
> > > real mountain bike. My hardtail has been being thrashed & crashed
> > > since the mid 90's, and my FS since '01 or '02. Stuff breaks, but the
> > > frames have held up nicely (knock on wood).
> > > Are we talking super-lightweight bikes, super-heavy riders or am I
> > > just under a misimpression that (real) MTB frames are made to
> > > withstand some abuse? I run into plenty of solid stuff both on and
> > > off road, rock ledges and concrete stairs or ledges being toward the
> > > top of the list. Not that long ago I slammed a wooden bridge approach
> > > out in the woods, and the only thing that gave was me.
>
> > I surely have no idea. Nor have I speculated.
> > My _first_ suggestion was to consult attorneys practiced in the area for
> > consultation. You'll get counsel and expertise from their established
> > network.
> > I still think that's a good idea.
>
> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot to
> smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider hit a
> hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter. In
> those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and the
> rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since there are
> no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>
> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there is
no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls for
possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right to
expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the product
fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress and
further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 16:54:21
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <1187214071.014172.286710@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com >,
raamman@gmail.com wrote:
> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> > case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> > apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> > for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
> > to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
> > hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
> > In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
> > the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
> > there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
> >
> > The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> > Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.- Hide
> > quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
<OT rant >Good grief I wish people would just get a darned newsreader and
stop using that Google crap. </OT rant >
> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
enough information.
This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:44:48
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>>> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
>>> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
>>> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
>>> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot
>>> to smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider
>>> hit a hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter.
>>> In those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and
>>> the rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since
>>> there are no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>>> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
>>> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
-snip format issues-
> raamman@gmail.com wrote:
>> no case ? you buy a car and it falls apart on the highway and there
>> is no case ? where would that be ? why all these massive car recalls
>> for possible faulty problems on a small part ? a consumer has a right
>> to expect a reasonable amount of use from a product- where the
>> product fails during normal use the consumer has a right to redress
>> and further pursue damages caused by the failure. No ?
Tim McNamara wrote:
> We don't know if the bike failed in "normal" use. The OP said he hit
> something which shunted him towards the curb and then he hit a "road
> divot," whatever the heck that is. Then his bike exploded. We just
> don't have enough information and it seems like there is more to the
> story. Jay and Andrew and Mike and Peter et al are right in their
> caution about assuming that the bike failed because we just don't have
> enough information.
>
> This is a JRA story, as in "I was Just Riding Along, minding my own
> business, when..." Once it's dug into, there is always more than JRA.
bing bing bing! Gold Star for Tim.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 14:05:08
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 14, 10:53 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> Kenny wrote:
> > After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> > doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> > catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>
> Yes. There is likely a lot more going on here which is why I suggested
> he consult an attorney expert in the area. That person will have the
> resources to sort out what really happened. We don't.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
I agree with Andrew. Most of us have been riding alone and in groups
for many years. We have ridden over nasty roads, and have seen
accidents. In fact we probably have seen pretty serious accidents with
damage to bikes and components of all kinds. However, in my years
riding with people that ride everything from light to heavy and from
hydrogen to plutonium frames. I have never seen a bike suddenly
snapping in half as in the pictures. So, Kenny should get a lawyer to
help him sort this out, as Andrew suggested.
Andres
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 20:44:31
From: DanKMTB@gmail.com
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 4:02 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >>>>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> >>>>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> >>>>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
> >>>> amakyonin wrote:
> >>>>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> >>>>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> >>>>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> >>>>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
> >>>>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
> >>>>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
> >>>> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
> >>>> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> Sure, but what do you make of-
> >>> "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> >>> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
> >>> Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
> >>> exactly is he saying?
> >>> As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
> >>> is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
> >>> rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
> >>> don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
> >>> about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
> >>> at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
> >>> environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
> >>> street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
> > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> >> there's more to this story.
> DanK...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Is it really all that common for people to be destroying MTB frames on
> > curbs? I'm honestly surprised to hear this from people who work in
> > shops. I'd expect that type of failure from the BST's, but not from a
> > real mountain bike. My hardtail has been being thrashed & crashed
> > since the mid 90's, and my FS since '01 or '02. Stuff breaks, but the
> > frames have held up nicely (knock on wood).
> > Are we talking super-lightweight bikes, super-heavy riders or am I
> > just under a misimpression that (real) MTB frames are made to
> > withstand some abuse? I run into plenty of solid stuff both on and
> > off road, rock ledges and concrete stairs or ledges being toward the
> > top of the list. Not that long ago I slammed a wooden bridge approach
> > out in the woods, and the only thing that gave was me.
>
> I surely have no idea. Nor have I speculated.
> My _first_ suggestion was to consult attorneys practiced in the area for
> consultation. You'll get counsel and expertise from their established
> network.
> I still think that's a good idea.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think something slipped between the lines here. I have no reason to
contact anyone, all my bikes are reasonably intact. I am an
uninvolved third party responding to the statement Mike made that you
seemed to agree with, regarding mountain bike frames being destroyed
by customers hitting curbs. I find this surprising, so I asked how
often you & Mike, being in the biz, see such a thing takes place
(regarding mountain bikes and curbs) and if it was mostly extra-light
bikes or extra-heavy riders.
BTW, I agree with your suggestion for the OP to contact an attorney.
To the OP, be careful which attorney you see. I was rear-ended on my
motorcycle a couple years back, and the attorney I went with was worse
than useless. In retrospect I should have contacted a motorcycle
advocacy group or something of the like for help finding the right
attorney for my case.
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 13:20:54
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 1:02 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >>>>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> >>>>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> >>>>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
> >>>> amakyonin wrote:
> >>>>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> >>>>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> >>>>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> >>>>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
> >>>>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
> >>>>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
> >>>> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
> >>>> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> Sure, but what do you make of-
> >>> "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> >>> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
> >>> Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
> >>> exactly is he saying?
> >>> As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
> >>> is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
> >>> rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
> >>> don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
> >>> about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
> >>> at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
> >>> environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
> >>> street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
> > A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> >> there's more to this story.
> DanK...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Is it really all that common for people to be destroying MTB frames on
> > curbs? I'm honestly surprised to hear this from people who work in
> > shops. I'd expect that type of failure from the BST's, but not from a
> > real mountain bike. My hardtail has been being thrashed & crashed
> > since the mid 90's, and my FS since '01 or '02. Stuff breaks, but the
> > frames have held up nicely (knock on wood).
> > Are we talking super-lightweight bikes, super-heavy riders or am I
> > just under a misimpression that (real) MTB frames are made to
> > withstand some abuse? I run into plenty of solid stuff both on and
> > off road, rock ledges and concrete stairs or ledges being toward the
> > top of the list. Not that long ago I slammed a wooden bridge approach
> > out in the woods, and the only thing that gave was me.
>
> I surely have no idea. Nor have I speculated.
> My _first_ suggestion was to consult attorneys practiced in the area for
> consultation. You'll get counsel and expertise from their established
> network.
> I still think that's a good idea.
>
He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot to
smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider hit a
hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter. In
those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and the
rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since there are
no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 22:34:34
From: still me
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 13:20:54 -0700, Jay Beattie
<jbeattie@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
>
>The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
>Scott. This is an easily settleable case. -- Jay Beattie.
Disagree. The last thing he should do is start talking to the
opposition. His attorney should do that. Perhaps he could send them a
picture of the bike, a medical report, and a one line letter: "care to
settle". That much will come out in discovery anyway. Talking directly
to the proposed defendant is a very bad idea.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 16:19:10
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>>>>>>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
>>>>>>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>>>>>>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>>>>>> amakyonin wrote:
>>>>>>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
>>>>>>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
>>>>>>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
>>>>>>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
>>>>>>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
>>>>>>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
>>>>>> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
>>>>>> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
>>>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>>>> Sure, but what do you make of-
>>>>> "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
>>>>> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
>>>>> Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
>>>>> exactly is he saying?
>>>>> As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
>>>>> is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
>>>>> rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
>>>>> don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
>>>>> about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
>>>>> at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
>>>>> environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
>>>>> street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
>>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
>>>> there's more to this story.
>> DanK...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Is it really all that common for people to be destroying MTB frames on
>>> curbs? I'm honestly surprised to hear this from people who work in
>>> shops. I'd expect that type of failure from the BST's, but not from a
>>> real mountain bike. My hardtail has been being thrashed & crashed
>>> since the mid 90's, and my FS since '01 or '02. Stuff breaks, but the
>>> frames have held up nicely (knock on wood).
>>> Are we talking super-lightweight bikes, super-heavy riders or am I
>>> just under a misimpression that (real) MTB frames are made to
>>> withstand some abuse? I run into plenty of solid stuff both on and
>>> off road, rock ledges and concrete stairs or ledges being toward the
>>> top of the list. Not that long ago I slammed a wooden bridge approach
>>> out in the woods, and the only thing that gave was me.
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> I surely have no idea. Nor have I speculated.
>> My _first_ suggestion was to consult attorneys practiced in the area for
>> consultation. You'll get counsel and expertise from their established
>> network.
>> I still think that's a good idea.
Jay Beattie wrote:
> He has no case! (remember, I do defense). I paid good money on a
> case like this a few years ago, although the bond failure was very
> apparent. If you have a clean separation, that's the kiss of death
> for the manufacturer. Somebody got sleepy after lunch and forgot to
> smear on enough crazy glue. If the thing exploded when the rider hit a
> hole or a wall or the side of a truck, that's another matter. In
> those cases, frames aren't expected to be indestructible, and the
> rider goes OTB regardless of whether the frame breaks since there are
> no passenger restraints on bikes (yet).
>
> The OP should tell the selling LBS and call the risk manager at
> Scott. This is an easily settleable case.
Well, that _is_ expert counsel in my book.
He can always get a second opinion form an attorney experienced in the
area but there's no point in the others of us speculating or pontificating.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:35:59
From: DanKMTB@gmail.com
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 1:23 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> >>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> >>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
> >> amakyonin wrote:
> >>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> >>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> >>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> >>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
> >>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
> >>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
> >> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
> >> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > Sure, but what do you make of-
> > "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> > stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
> > Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
> > exactly is he saying?
> > As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
> > is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
> > rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
> > don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
> > about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
> > at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
> > environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
> > street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
>
> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> there's more to this story.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Is it really all that common for people to be destroying MTB frames on
curbs? I'm honestly surprised to hear this from people who work in
shops. I'd expect that type of failure from the BST's, but not from a
real mountain bike. My hardtail has been being thrashed & crashed
since the mid 90's, and my FS since '01 or '02. Stuff breaks, but the
frames have held up nicely (knock on wood).
Are we talking super-lightweight bikes, super-heavy riders or am I
just under a misimpression that (real) MTB frames are made to
withstand some abuse? I run into plenty of solid stuff both on and
off road, rock ledges and concrete stairs or ledges being toward the
top of the list. Not that long ago I slammed a wooden bridge approach
out in the woods, and the only thing that gave was me.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 15:02:19
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>>>>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
>>>>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>>>>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>>>> amakyonin wrote:
>>>>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
>>>>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
>>>>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
>>>>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
>>>>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
>>>>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
>>>> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
>>>> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> Sure, but what do you make of-
>>> "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
>>> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
>>> Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
>>> exactly is he saying?
>>> As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
>>> is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
>>> rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
>>> don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
>>> about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
>>> at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
>>> environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
>>> street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
>> there's more to this story.
DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it really all that common for people to be destroying MTB frames on
> curbs? I'm honestly surprised to hear this from people who work in
> shops. I'd expect that type of failure from the BST's, but not from a
> real mountain bike. My hardtail has been being thrashed & crashed
> since the mid 90's, and my FS since '01 or '02. Stuff breaks, but the
> frames have held up nicely (knock on wood).
> Are we talking super-lightweight bikes, super-heavy riders or am I
> just under a misimpression that (real) MTB frames are made to
> withstand some abuse? I run into plenty of solid stuff both on and
> off road, rock ledges and concrete stairs or ledges being toward the
> top of the list. Not that long ago I slammed a wooden bridge approach
> out in the woods, and the only thing that gave was me.
I surely have no idea. Nor have I speculated.
My _first_ suggestion was to consult attorneys practiced in the area for
consultation. You'll get counsel and expertise from their established
network.
I still think that's a good idea.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 06:57:08
From: D'ohBoy
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 8:52 am, D'ohBoy <peteng...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 7:55 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > DougC wrote:
> > > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:32:07 -0700, Kenny <Postoas...@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> [JRA story snipped]
> > >>> My question is really.....is this to be expected?
>
> > >> Do you actually think that it's expected that bikes regularly shatter
> > >> on tiny impacts?
> > >> Really, do you?
>
> > > What I'm wondering here is.... why no kevlar layer?
> > > Yea I know cyclists are pissy about their ounces, but really.
>
> > > Wouldn't guarantee you'd always land safely, but it does greatly help
> > > with the effects of a composite component failure.
> > > ~
>
> > if the correct materials are used in the first place, it wouldn't be
> > adding any safety at all.
>
> > regardless, something was seriously wrong here. where are these frames
> > made btw?
>
> Germany.
>
> >From cyclingnews.com:
>
> "Denk Engineering GmbH and Scott USA to cease relationship
>
> Denk Engineering GmbH and Scott USA have announced the end of their
> working relationship effective the end of October 2007. The German
> engineering firm was responsible for many of Scott's frame and
> suspension hallmarks over the past twelve years, including the Spark
> cross country bike, the Genius trail bike frames, the full-carbon
> Ransom all-mountain platform, and their associated proprietary shocks.
> Road innovations include the revolutionary CR1, Addict, and Plasma
> framesets as well as their CR1 tube-to-tube and IMP carbon
> construction processes.
>
> Denk Engineering has stated that it still has three collaborative
> projects pending, each of which are to be completed by the end of
> October and presented through the 2008 trade shows."
>
> D'ohBoy
Although they may not do the actual construction, they are responsible
for the design.
D'ohBoy
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 06:52:49
From: D'ohBoy
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 7:55 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> DougC wrote:
> > John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:32:07 -0700, Kenny <Postoas...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> [JRA story snipped]
> >>> My question is really.....is this to be expected?
>
> >> Do you actually think that it's expected that bikes regularly shatter
> >> on tiny impacts?
> >> Really, do you?
>
> > What I'm wondering here is.... why no kevlar layer?
> > Yea I know cyclists are pissy about their ounces, but really.
>
> > Wouldn't guarantee you'd always land safely, but it does greatly help
> > with the effects of a composite component failure.
> > ~
>
> if the correct materials are used in the first place, it wouldn't be
> adding any safety at all.
>
> regardless, something was seriously wrong here. where are these frames
> made btw?
Germany.
>From cyclingnews.com:
"Denk Engineering GmbH and Scott USA to cease relationship
Denk Engineering GmbH and Scott USA have announced the end of their
working relationship effective the end of October 2007. The German
engineering firm was responsible for many of Scott's frame and
suspension hallmarks over the past twelve years, including the Spark
cross country bike, the Genius trail bike frames, the full-carbon
Ransom all-mountain platform, and their associated proprietary shocks.
Road innovations include the revolutionary CR1, Addict, and Plasma
framesets as well as their CR1 tube-to-tube and IMP carbon
construction processes.
Denk Engineering has stated that it still has three collaborative
projects pending, each of which are to be completed by the end of
October and presented through the 2008 trade shows."
D'ohBoy
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 05:51:02
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:32:07 -0700, Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com >
wrote:
[JRA story snipped]
>My question is really.....is this to be expected?
Do you actually think that it's expected that bikes regularly shatter
on tiny impacts?
Really, do you?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 05:15:31
From: DougC
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:32:07 -0700, Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> [JRA story snipped]
>> My question is really.....is this to be expected?
>
> Do you actually think that it's expected that bikes regularly shatter
> on tiny impacts?
>
> Really, do you?
>
>
What I'm wondering here is.... why no kevlar layer?
Yea I know cyclists are pissy about their ounces, but really.
Wouldn't guarantee you'd always land safely, but it does greatly help
with the effects of a composite component failure.
~
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 05:55:02
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
DougC wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:32:07 -0700, Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> [JRA story snipped]
>>> My question is really.....is this to be expected?
>>
>> Do you actually think that it's expected that bikes regularly shatter
>> on tiny impacts?
>> Really, do you?
>>
>>
>
> What I'm wondering here is.... why no kevlar layer?
> Yea I know cyclists are pissy about their ounces, but really.
>
> Wouldn't guarantee you'd always land safely, but it does greatly help
> with the effects of a composite component failure.
> ~
if the correct materials are used in the first place, it wouldn't be
adding any safety at all.
regardless, something was seriously wrong here. where are these frames
made btw?
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 04:44:44
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
j
>> Wouldn't guarantee you'd always land safely, but it does greatly help
>> with the effects of a composite component failure.
>> ~
---------------
Body armor may stop a round fired from
an AK-47, which it has been tested for,
but I seriously doubt they have been
tested for spearing from a sharpened CF
tube. Without testing, how can you be sure?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 11:20:51
From: DougC
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
> j
>>> Wouldn't guarantee you'd always land safely, but it does greatly help
>>> with the effects of a composite component failure.
>>> ~
> ---------------
> Body armor may stop a round fired from an AK-47, which it has been
> tested for, but I seriously doubt they have been tested for spearing
> from a sharpened CF tube. Without testing, how can you be sure?
Kevlar doesn't stretch (much) or shatter, it stays tough and flexible.
The difference here being, the frame would have likely stayed in one
piece, and the rider may well not have crashed. Is that important?
From http://www.modelaircraft.org/insider/06_03/04.html -
"...The aramid composites resist shattering upon impact, and the
presence of the fiber inhibits propagation of cracks...."
?:
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 23:30:26
From: RS
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
Assuming your story is for real, I would immediately talk to 3 good
civil plaintiff's attornies in your area and go with one. I would also be sure
the bike remains safe and untouched. Take much better pictures to
document and take images of where the accident occured.
That's a horrendous amount of damage and a defect in that frame or the
manufacturing process cannot be ruled out. I would imagine Scott would
want to make this go away.
In article <1187148727.744321.97960@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com >,
Postoasted@gmail.com says...
>
>
>Quote:
>
>"Hi,
>
>As I'm not active on these forums I'm not sure exactly what has been
>written on this issue but all comments and help for me would be most
>grateful.
>
>I ride a SCOTT CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month. I'm a
>keen road cyclist for fun/exercise but am not competetive. I should
>add that I have had the bike from new and it has never been subject to
>any crash, nor impact.
>
>Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
>stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. The
>front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on the road and
>the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the bike split
>into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all to react.
>Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable severity.
>
>I had to attend my local hospital where I received 11 stitches to my
>face. I also required an Xray which showed there was no fracture to my
>jaw. I sustained further grazes/lacerations to both knees, both
>shoulder, both elbows and hands. I have also shattered 2 of my teeth,
>for which I'm seeing a dentist today.
>
>Whilst I accept that road cycling involves a degree of (controlled)
>risk, this is absolutely not something I anticipated.
>
>As a doctor, I of course have an interest in health and safety issues
>and thought I would raise this on here. I'm actually glad I'm alive,
>because a 12inch portion of the downtube shattered off entirely. This
>could easily have embededded itself into me.
>
>I have pictures on my phone that I can include if you feel that this
>would be useful.
>
>My question is really.....is this to be expected? I am strongly of the
>opinion that I will raise this issue with Scott, but would value all
>your opinions greatly.
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>Steve
>
>P.S. Pictures have been added here:
http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z284/Steebler/
>P.P.S. I am 9 1/2 stone and 5'8 tall, so hardly a heavyweight. "
>
|
| | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 21:25:34
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
> Assuming your story is for real, I would immediately talk to 3 good
> civil plaintiff's attornies in your area and go with one. I would also be
> sure
> the bike remains safe and untouched. Take much better pictures to
> document and take images of where the accident occured.
>
> That's a horrendous amount of damage and a defect in that frame or the
> manufacturing process cannot be ruled out. I would imagine Scott would
> want to make this go away.
After he's already plastered photos on the 'net? HUGE disincentive to make
it just "go away" since it's already out there doing damage. People, whether
they're warranty folk or a company's legal team, are, well... people. If you
do something that causes them to want to dig their heels in and fight, they
just might do so. I would strongly suggest that the OP has done exactly
that. Basically boxed the company in such that, if there's fault to be found
with the rider, they will go out of their way to find it. If it's truly a
defective product, that will eventually be determined and the OP will
prevail. But anything the company might have done out of expediency may have
gone out the window.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 05:16:58
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 12:57 pm, amakyonin <amakyonin...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 12:31 am, Kenny <Postoas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> cleanly from the headtube.
No, what I see from the pictures is the head tube is 180 degrees
turned around and the break points are all jagged.
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 04:57:47
From: amakyonin
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 15, 12:31 am, Kenny <Postoas...@gmail.com > wrote:
> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
(curb?) to cause the third break.
It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 00:49:13
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <1187153867.504108.90240@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com >,
amakyonin <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Aug 15, 12:31 am, Kenny <Postoas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> > doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> > catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>
> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> (curb?) to cause the third break.
Nope, the headtube has been turned 180 degrees in the photo. The break
is in the top tube and down tube themselves.
--
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:17:59
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <1187153867.504108.90240@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.com >,
amakyonin <amakyonin-u1@yahoo.com > wrote:
> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
Read the first post again. The rider's height and weight are given at
the end of the post.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 00:05:05
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
> Kenny <Postoas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
amakyonin wrote:
> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
> (curb?) to cause the third break.
> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About
0.4 Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 23:24:50
From: Mike Jacoubowsky
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>
> amakyonin wrote:
>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
>
> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
Sure, but what do you make of-
"Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
exactly is he saying?
As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 12:23:34
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
>>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>> amakyonin wrote:
>>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
>>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
>>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
>>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
>>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
>>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
>> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
>> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> Sure, but what do you make of-
> "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
> Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
> exactly is he saying?
> As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
> is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
> rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
> don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
> about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
> at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
> environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
> street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
there's more to this story.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 18:00:49
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 18, 7:15 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> I remain convinced that CF is an
> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so usually
> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle dragging mouth
> breather who should go back to the trees.
An interjection: I would be curious as to what your opinion of the use
of CF in the building of aircraft?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 07:27:58
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <1187398849.181332.216880@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com >,
Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com > wrote:
> An interjection: I would be curious as to what your opinion of the use
> of CF in the building of aircraft?
An A300-600 series aircraft fell out of the sky because it lost its
vertical fin...
--
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 07:14:37
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Artoi wrote:
> In article <1187398849.181332.216880@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> An interjection: I would be curious as to what your opinion of the use
>> of CF in the building of aircraft?
>
> An A300-600 series aircraft fell out of the sky because it lost its
> vertical fin...
> --
a MD-83 fell out of the sky once too. does that mean planes are bad?
if you're trying to make the point that composites are different and
require different inspection and testing*, you're correct. if you're
trying to say that composites are somehow bad, you're wrong. they offer
better strength and fatigue properties than traditional materials.
really can't see why anyone would complain about that unless they're
underinformed.
* these days, what are in effect microphones are embedded in composite
componentry and connected to flight computers to detect early signs of
problems. creaking, cracking and groaning, remember?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 07:09:55
From: Artoi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <ZcidnQHOdZhSY1vbnZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@speakeasy.net >,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Artoi wrote:
> > In article <1187398849.181332.216880@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> > Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> An interjection: I would be curious as to what your opinion of the use
> >> of CF in the building of aircraft?
> >
> > An A300-600 series aircraft fell out of the sky because it lost its
> > vertical fin...
> > --
>
> a MD-83 fell out of the sky once too. does that mean planes are bad?
>
> if you're trying to make the point that composites are different and
> require different inspection and testing*, you're correct. if you're
> trying to say that composites are somehow bad, you're wrong. they offer
> better strength and fatigue properties than traditional materials.
> really can't see why anyone would complain about that unless they're
> underinformed.
>
> * these days, what are in effect microphones are embedded in composite
> componentry and connected to flight computers to detect early signs of
> problems. creaking, cracking and groaning, remember?
Relax. It was just a piece of factual data. Pointing out that CF even at
aerospace standard of QC can have unplanned failures.
--
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 11:08:45
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Artoi wrote:
> In article <ZcidnQHOdZhSY1vbnZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Artoi wrote:
>>> In article <1187398849.181332.216880@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> An interjection: I would be curious as to what your opinion of the use
>>>> of CF in the building of aircraft?
>>> An A300-600 series aircraft fell out of the sky because it lost its
>>> vertical fin...
>>> --
>> a MD-83 fell out of the sky once too. does that mean planes are bad?
>>
>> if you're trying to make the point that composites are different and
>> require different inspection and testing*, you're correct. if you're
>> trying to say that composites are somehow bad, you're wrong. they offer
>> better strength and fatigue properties than traditional materials.
>> really can't see why anyone would complain about that unless they're
>> underinformed.
>>
>> * these days, what are in effect microphones are embedded in composite
>> componentry and connected to flight computers to detect early signs of
>> problems. creaking, cracking and groaning, remember?
>
> Relax. It was just a piece of factual data. Pointing out that CF even at
> aerospace standard of QC can have unplanned failures.
> --
According to the NTSB findings, the failure was due to an overload well
past design maximum. The scary thing is that the overload was caused by
pilot steering input. Apparently it is accepted that a pilot can steer
the craft violently enough to make the tail fall off. What's scarier is
that it seems many pilots didn't know this.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 10:30:47
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> Artoi wrote:
>> In article <ZcidnQHOdZhSY1vbnZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Artoi wrote:
>>>> In article <1187398849.181332.216880@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> An interjection: I would be curious as to what your opinion of the use
>>>>> of CF in the building of aircraft?
>>>> An A300-600 series aircraft fell out of the sky because it lost its
>>>> vertical fin...
>>>> --
>>> a MD-83 fell out of the sky once too. does that mean planes are bad?
>>>
>>> if you're trying to make the point that composites are different and
>>> require different inspection and testing*, you're correct. if you're
>>> trying to say that composites are somehow bad, you're wrong. they
>>> offer better strength and fatigue properties than traditional
>>> materials. really can't see why anyone would complain about that
>>> unless they're underinformed.
>>>
>>> * these days, what are in effect microphones are embedded in
>>> composite componentry and connected to flight computers to detect
>>> early signs of problems. creaking, cracking and groaning, remember?
>>
>> Relax. It was just a piece of factual data. Pointing out that CF even
>> at aerospace standard of QC can have unplanned failures.
>> --
>
> According to the NTSB findings, the failure was due to an overload well
> past design maximum. The scary thing is that the overload was caused by
> pilot steering input. Apparently it is accepted that a pilot can steer
> the craft violently enough to make the tail fall off. What's scarier is
> that it seems many pilots didn't know this.
Aircraft have a speed set as part of the certification process, below
which control inputs should not be able to over-stress the structure.
Designing an aircraft that can not be overstressed by control inputs at
any attainable speed would be unreasonable, as capacity would be
severely compromised.
Any competent pilot knows what the limits of the aircraft are.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 18:44:49
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Artoi wrote:
>>> In article <ZcidnQHOdZhSY1vbnZ2dnUVZ_sGvnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Artoi wrote:
>>>>> In article <1187398849.181332.216880@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> An interjection: I would be curious as to what your opinion of the
>>>>>> use
>>>>>> of CF in the building of aircraft?
>>>>> An A300-600 series aircraft fell out of the sky because it lost its
>>>>> vertical fin...
>>>>> --
>>>> a MD-83 fell out of the sky once too. does that mean planes are bad?
>>>>
>>>> if you're trying to make the point that composites are different and
>>>> require different inspection and testing*, you're correct. if
>>>> you're trying to say that composites are somehow bad, you're wrong.
>>>> they offer better strength and fatigue properties than traditional
>>>> materials. really can't see why anyone would complain about that
>>>> unless they're underinformed.
>>>>
>>>> * these days, what are in effect microphones are embedded in
>>>> composite componentry and connected to flight computers to detect
>>>> early signs of problems. creaking, cracking and groaning, remember?
>>>
>>> Relax. It was just a piece of factual data. Pointing out that CF even
>>> at aerospace standard of QC can have unplanned failures.
>>> --
>>
>> According to the NTSB findings, the failure was due to an overload
>> well past design maximum. The scary thing is that the overload was
>> caused by pilot steering input. Apparently it is accepted that a pilot
>> can steer the craft violently enough to make the tail fall off. What's
>> scarier is that it seems many pilots didn't know this.
>
> Aircraft have a speed set as part of the certification process, below
> which control inputs should not be able to over-stress the structure.
> Designing an aircraft that can not be overstressed by control inputs at
> any attainable speed would be unreasonable, as capacity would be
> severely compromised.
>
> Any competent pilot knows what the limits of the aircraft are.
From
<http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_4_19/ai_n9476425/pg_1 >
Within months of the accident and long before its cause was formally
determined, NTSB recognized an industry-wide deficiency in pilot
training. In a letter dated Feb. 8, 2002, NTSB alerted the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) that training on transport-category
airplanes often omitted information about the structural certification
requirements for the vertical stabilizer and did not warn pilots that
sequential opposite rudder inputs (colloquially called "rudder
reversals") cause structural loads that can exceed design strength -
even at speeds below specified maneuvering speed.
Many pilots wrongly thought that systems installed to limit rudder
travel as airspeed increases, and thus prevent excessive tail loads,
would also prevent damage from sequential opposite rudder deflections.
In fact, structural certification requirements take no account of such
maneuvers. So even when there is a rudder limiter, sequential inputs may
produce loads higher than those prescribed for certification and exceed
the strength of the aircraft.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 20:40:36
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
-snip lots of CF fibers-
> From
> <http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_4_19/ai_n9476425/pg_1>
>
> Within months of the accident and long before its cause was formally
> determined, NTSB recognized an industry-wide deficiency in pilot
> training. In a letter dated Feb. 8, 2002, NTSB alerted the Federal
> Aviation Administration (FAA) that training on transport-category
> airplanes often omitted information about the structural certification
> requirements for the vertical stabilizer and did not warn pilots that
> sequential opposite rudder inputs (colloquially called "rudder
> reversals") cause structural loads that can exceed design strength -
> even at speeds below specified maneuvering speed.
>
> Many pilots wrongly thought that systems installed to limit rudder
> travel as airspeed increases, and thus prevent excessive tail loads,
> would also prevent damage from sequential opposite rudder deflections.
> In fact, structural certification requirements take no account of such
> maneuvers. So even when there is a rudder limiter, sequential inputs may
> produce loads higher than those prescribed for certification and exceed
> the strength of the aircraft.
Yikes! That's truly scary!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 15:22:14
From: still me
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:08:45 -0400, Peter Cole
<peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
>
>According to the NTSB findings, the failure was due to an overload well
>past design maximum. The scary thing is that the overload was caused by
>pilot steering input. Apparently it is accepted that a pilot can steer
>the craft violently enough to make the tail fall off. What's scarier is
>that it seems many pilots didn't know this.
Hmmmm. You'd think that would be on the overview of the plane
features: "Well that concludes the cockpit review including
programming and re-programming the automated landing system... oh and,
by the way, I almost forgot, don't turn the plane to fast or the tail
falls off.".
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 09:32:40
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <artoi-9E1B78.17094619082007@news-server.bigpond.net.au >,
Artoi <artoi@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Relax. It was just a piece of factual data.
Hey! None of that, now. This is Usenet. Hyperbole is the standard,
not facts. ;-)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 08:05:08
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <artoi-9E1B78.17094619082007@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Artoi <artoi@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Relax. It was just a piece of factual data.
>
> Hey! None of that, now. This is Usenet. Hyperbole is the standard,
> not facts. ;-)
no, retardation and the irresistible urge to add noise to the signal is
r.b.t. pity. especially since the article in question was made of
g.l.a.r.e., not carbon fiber. but don't let little facts get in the way
of bleating the hysteria du jour.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 14:35:41
From: still me
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:14:37 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>if you're trying to make the point that composites are different and
>require different inspection and testing*, you're correct. if you're
>trying to say that composites are somehow bad, you're wrong. they offer
>better strength and fatigue properties than traditional materials.
>really can't see why anyone would complain about that unless they're
>underinformed.
My steel frame plane is 30 years old and it never fell out of the sky!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 07:59:56
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
still me wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:14:37 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> if you're trying to make the point that composites are different and
>> require different inspection and testing*, you're correct. if you're
>> trying to say that composites are somehow bad, you're wrong. they offer
>> better strength and fatigue properties than traditional materials.
>> really can't see why anyone would complain about that unless they're
>> underinformed.
>
> My steel frame plane is 30 years old and it never fell out of the sky!
>
how many flying hours?
what you really mean is that it hasn't fallen out of the sky /yet/.
high strength steels don't have a fatigue endurance limit - just in case
you thought fatigue didn't apply to you.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 15:16:19
From: still me
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:59:56 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>still me wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Aug 2007 07:14:37 -0700, jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>> if you're trying to make the point that composites are different and
>>> require different inspection and testing*, you're correct. if you're
>>> trying to say that composites are somehow bad, you're wrong. they offer
>>> better strength and fatigue properties than traditional materials.
>>> really can't see why anyone would complain about that unless they're
>>> underinformed.
>>
>> My steel frame plane is 30 years old and it never fell out of the sky!
>>
>
>how many flying hours?
>
>what you really mean is that it hasn't fallen out of the sky /yet/.
>high strength steels don't have a fatigue endurance limit - just in case
>you thought fatigue didn't apply to you.
Ah... I was only joking, doing a light parody on the steel frame vs.
carbon threads. You may have taken me too seriously.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 15:26:28
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> if you're trying to make the point that composites are different and
>>>> require different inspection and testing*, you're correct. if you're
>>>> trying to say that composites are somehow bad, you're wrong. they offer
>>>> better strength and fatigue properties than traditional materials.
>>>> really can't see why anyone would complain about that unless they're
>>>> underinformed.
>> still me wrote:
>>> My steel frame plane is 30 years old and it never fell out of the sky!
> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> how many flying hours?
>> what you really mean is that it hasn't fallen out of the sky /yet/.
>> high strength steels don't have a fatigue endurance limit - just in case
>> you thought fatigue didn't apply to you.
still me wrote:
> Ah... I was only joking, doing a light parody on the steel frame vs.
> carbon threads. You may have taken me too seriously.
Some homebuilt aircraft use nice seamless CrMo steel with brazed joints.
(their suppliers carry suitable materials for special-project bicycle
frames such as replacement mixte stays)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 09:24:46
From: Derk
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> I remain convinced that CF is an
> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so usually
> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle dragging mouth
> breather who should go back to the trees.
I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
Derk
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 11:35:22
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Derk wrote:
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so usually
>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle dragging mouth
>> breather who should go back to the trees.
> I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
>
> Derk
Composite failure modes is a very complicated subject which has been
researched heavily in recent years due to the importance of composites
in aircraft and, perhaps more importantly, the growing interest in the
automotive market.
Composites can provide extremely high levels of "specific energy
absorption" (the amount of energy absorbed per unit weight), in best
case scenarios higher than typical metals.
Metal structures absorb energy through deformation, while composite
absorption is much more complicated, involving interaction between the
reinforcing fiber and the matrix (epoxy typically). Much of the
composite absorption comes from friction as the (broken) fibers are
pulled from the matrix and/or the matrix deforms around/between the plies.
In worst case scenarios, when the fiber/matrix interaction is
compromised, the bulk material can exhibit the characteristics of the
underlying fiber, which is very brittle. This can cause "catastrophic"
as opposed to "progressive" failure. The amount of energy absorbed is
proportional to the area under the stress-strain curve. Plain fibers
(carbon) don't elongate much, so the area under the curve is small.
The actual performance of composite structures under failure loads is
subject to a number of parameters, such as part geometry, fabric weave
and layup angles, load axis, strain rate, layup order and fiber to
matrix ratios. From a geometric perspective, long thin walled tubes are
among the most likely shapes to have catastrophic failure tendencies.
While carbon fiber composites are still gaining experience in new
applications, a great deal is known about similar fiberglass composites
which have been used for many decades in consumer level products (boat
hulls, surfboards, snow skis, etc.). Historically, in those products,
structural problems (particularly from delamination) have been long
recognized.
While fiberglass is a much less attractive material for performance
applications (planes & bikes) than CF, it's a bit safer from a
catastrophic failure for at least a couple of reasons. First, the fiber
is less brittle (will elongate more), and second, it is often used
isotropically, with things like chopped fiber mats providing similar
strength (and stiffness) in all directions. To get the high performance
you want (strength to weight) out of CF you really want to exploit it in
anisotropic modes. This, unfortunately, increases the tendency to
catastrophic failure (lowers toughness).
I remember a group canoe trip years ago with several fiberglass, one
kevlar and one aluminum canoes used in white water. All the fiberglass
canoes were destroyed (smashed), the aluminum was badly dented, while
the kevlar showed hardly a mark. CF can have excellent toughness, but it
has to be designed for it.
On the whole, I think CF has been around long enough in bike frames to
make it reasonably trustworthy, although I'd still avoid cheap CF. I'd
rather crash a steel fork than a CF one, too.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 09:33:47
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> Derk wrote:
>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so usually
>>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle dragging mouth
>>> breather who should go back to the trees.
>> I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
>>
>> Derk
>
> Composite failure modes is a very complicated subject which has been
> researched heavily in recent years due to the importance of composites
> in aircraft and, perhaps more importantly, the growing interest in the
> automotive market.
>
> Composites can provide extremely high levels of "specific energy
> absorption" (the amount of energy absorbed per unit weight), in best
> case scenarios higher than typical metals.
>
> Metal structures absorb energy through deformation, while composite
> absorption is much more complicated, involving interaction between the
> reinforcing fiber and the matrix (epoxy typically). Much of the
> composite absorption comes from friction as the (broken) fibers are
> pulled from the matrix and/or the matrix deforms around/between the plies.
>
> In worst case scenarios, when the fiber/matrix interaction is
> compromised, the bulk material can exhibit the characteristics of the
> underlying fiber, which is very brittle. This can cause "catastrophic"
> as opposed to "progressive" failure. The amount of energy absorbed is
> proportional to the area under the stress-strain curve. Plain fibers
> (carbon) don't elongate much, so the area under the curve is small.
careful peter - you're presuming anybody would actually /use/ "brittle".
and carbon fibers don't elongate in any mode other than elastic. they
have no ductile deformation mechanism like metal.
>
> The actual performance of composite structures under failure loads is
> subject to a number of parameters, such as part geometry, fabric weave
> and layup angles, load axis, strain rate, layup order and fiber to
> matrix ratios. From a geometric perspective, long thin walled tubes are
> among the most likely shapes to have catastrophic failure tendencies.
>
> While carbon fiber composites are still gaining experience in new
> applications, a great deal is known about similar fiberglass composites
> which have been used for many decades in consumer level products (boat
> hulls, surfboards, snow skis, etc.). Historically, in those products,
> structural problems (particularly from delamination) have been long
> recognized.
>
> While fiberglass is a much less attractive material for performance
> applications (planes & bikes) than CF, it's a bit safer from a
> catastrophic failure for at least a couple of reasons. First, the fiber
> is less brittle (will elongate more),
absolutely not. neither glass not carbon fibers are ductile. the only
"elongation" you'll ever get out of them is elasticity.
> and second, it is often used
> isotropically, with things like chopped fiber mats providing similar
> strength (and stiffness) in all directions.
like campy carbon. like trek carbon.
> To get the high performance
> you want (strength to weight) out of CF you really want to exploit it in
> anisotropic modes. This, unfortunately, increases the tendency to
> catastrophic failure (lowers toughness).
massive over-generalization. any anisotropic material has different
properties in different directions. lower strength perpendicular to the
load axis is seldom a problem.
>
> I remember a group canoe trip years ago with several fiberglass, one
> kevlar and one aluminum canoes used in white water. All the fiberglass
> canoes were destroyed (smashed), the aluminum was badly dented, while
> the kevlar showed hardly a mark. CF can have excellent toughness, but it
> has to be designed for it.
but that wasn't a function of the carbon - that was s function of the
composition.
>
> On the whole, I think CF has been around long enough in bike frames to
> make it reasonably trustworthy, although I'd still avoid cheap CF. I'd
> rather crash a steel fork than a CF one, too.
then use the product of a manufacturer that worries about their
reputation and manufactures in a country where people know what they're
doing and aren't cutting corners. i've had a wheel-smashing impact on
my look carbon fork and it hasn't blinked.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 19:11:22
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Derk wrote:
>>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>>>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so usually
>>>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle dragging mouth
>>>> breather who should go back to the trees.
>>> I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
>>>
>>> Derk
>>
>> Composite failure modes is a very complicated subject which has been
>> researched heavily in recent years due to the importance of composites
>> in aircraft and, perhaps more importantly, the growing interest in the
>> automotive market.
>>
>> Composites can provide extremely high levels of "specific energy
>> absorption" (the amount of energy absorbed per unit weight), in best
>> case scenarios higher than typical metals.
>>
>> Metal structures absorb energy through deformation, while composite
>> absorption is much more complicated, involving interaction between the
>> reinforcing fiber and the matrix (epoxy typically). Much of the
>> composite absorption comes from friction as the (broken) fibers are
>> pulled from the matrix and/or the matrix deforms around/between the
>> plies.
>>
>> In worst case scenarios, when the fiber/matrix interaction is
>> compromised, the bulk material can exhibit the characteristics of the
>> underlying fiber, which is very brittle. This can cause "catastrophic"
>> as opposed to "progressive" failure. The amount of energy absorbed is
>> proportional to the area under the stress-strain curve. Plain fibers
>> (carbon) don't elongate much, so the area under the curve is small.
>
> careful peter - you're presuming anybody would actually /use/ "brittle".
>
> and carbon fibers don't elongate in any mode other than elastic. they
> have no ductile deformation mechanism like metal.
>
>>
>> The actual performance of composite structures under failure loads is
>> subject to a number of parameters, such as part geometry, fabric weave
>> and layup angles, load axis, strain rate, layup order and fiber to
>> matrix ratios. From a geometric perspective, long thin walled tubes
>> are among the most likely shapes to have catastrophic failure tendencies.
>>
>> While carbon fiber composites are still gaining experience in new
>> applications, a great deal is known about similar fiberglass
>> composites which have been used for many decades in consumer level
>> products (boat hulls, surfboards, snow skis, etc.). Historically, in
>> those products, structural problems (particularly from delamination)
>> have been long recognized.
>>
>> While fiberglass is a much less attractive material for performance
>> applications (planes & bikes) than CF, it's a bit safer from a
>> catastrophic failure for at least a couple of reasons. First, the
>> fiber is less brittle (will elongate more),
>
> absolutely not. neither glass not carbon fibers are ductile. the only
> "elongation" you'll ever get out of them is elasticity.
Who said anything about ductility? That's your red herring.
Glass fiber typically has 3x the elongation at failure vs CF.
>
>
>> and second, it is often used isotropically, with things like chopped
>> fiber mats providing similar strength (and stiffness) in all directions.
>
> like campy carbon. like trek carbon.
I think you misunderstand.
>
>> To get the high performance you want (strength to weight) out of CF
>> you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure (lowers
>> toughness).
>
> massive over-generalization. any anisotropic material has different
> properties in different directions. lower strength perpendicular to the
> load axis is seldom a problem.
That's the opposite/inverse of what I said.
>>
>> I remember a group canoe trip years ago with several fiberglass, one
>> kevlar and one aluminum canoes used in white water. All the fiberglass
>> canoes were destroyed (smashed), the aluminum was badly dented, while
>> the kevlar showed hardly a mark. CF can have excellent toughness, but
>> it has to be designed for it.
>
> but that wasn't a function of the carbon - that was s function of the
> composition.
Just an illustration of toughness.
>>
>> On the whole, I think CF has been around long enough in bike frames to
>> make it reasonably trustworthy, although I'd still avoid cheap CF. I'd
>> rather crash a steel fork than a CF one, too.
>
>
> then use the product of a manufacturer that worries about their
> reputation and manufactures in a country where people know what they're
> doing and aren't cutting corners. i've had a wheel-smashing impact on
> my look carbon fork and it hasn't blinked.
I think this is just a windy restatement.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 16:53:45
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Derk wrote:
>>>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>>>>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so usually
>>>>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle dragging
>>>>> mouth
>>>>> breather who should go back to the trees.
>>>> I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
>>>>
>>>> Derk
>>>
>>> Composite failure modes is a very complicated subject which has been
>>> researched heavily in recent years due to the importance of
>>> composites in aircraft and, perhaps more importantly, the growing
>>> interest in the automotive market.
>>>
>>> Composites can provide extremely high levels of "specific energy
>>> absorption" (the amount of energy absorbed per unit weight), in best
>>> case scenarios higher than typical metals.
>>>
>>> Metal structures absorb energy through deformation, while composite
>>> absorption is much more complicated, involving interaction between
>>> the reinforcing fiber and the matrix (epoxy typically). Much of the
>>> composite absorption comes from friction as the (broken) fibers are
>>> pulled from the matrix and/or the matrix deforms around/between the
>>> plies.
>>>
>>> In worst case scenarios, when the fiber/matrix interaction is
>>> compromised, the bulk material can exhibit the characteristics of the
>>> underlying fiber, which is very brittle. This can cause
>>> "catastrophic" as opposed to "progressive" failure. The amount of
>>> energy absorbed is proportional to the area under the stress-strain
>>> curve. Plain fibers (carbon) don't elongate much, so the area under
>>> the curve is small.
>>
>> careful peter - you're presuming anybody would actually /use/ "brittle".
>>
>> and carbon fibers don't elongate in any mode other than elastic. they
>> have no ductile deformation mechanism like metal.
>>
>>>
>>> The actual performance of composite structures under failure loads is
>>> subject to a number of parameters, such as part geometry, fabric
>>> weave and layup angles, load axis, strain rate, layup order and fiber
>>> to matrix ratios. From a geometric perspective, long thin walled
>>> tubes are among the most likely shapes to have catastrophic failure
>>> tendencies.
>>>
>>> While carbon fiber composites are still gaining experience in new
>>> applications, a great deal is known about similar fiberglass
>>> composites which have been used for many decades in consumer level
>>> products (boat hulls, surfboards, snow skis, etc.). Historically, in
>>> those products, structural problems (particularly from delamination)
>>> have been long recognized.
>>>
>>> While fiberglass is a much less attractive material for performance
>>> applications (planes & bikes) than CF, it's a bit safer from a
>>> catastrophic failure for at least a couple of reasons. First, the
>>> fiber is less brittle (will elongate more),
>>
>> absolutely not. neither glass not carbon fibers are ductile. the
>> only "elongation" you'll ever get out of them is elasticity.
>
> Who said anything about ductility? That's your red herring.
>
> Glass fiber typically has 3x the elongation at failure vs CF.
no red herring. the /composite/ will elongate. you said "fiber".
fibers don't. and carbon composites can do that too.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> and second, it is often used isotropically, with things like chopped
>>> fiber mats providing similar strength (and stiffness) in all directions.
>>
>> like campy carbon. like trek carbon.
>
> I think you misunderstand.
what? campy /don't/ use randomly oriented fiber like glass fiber
commonly is? what abut trek? i think you need to check your facts.
>
>
>>
>>> To get the high performance you want (strength to weight) out of CF
>>> you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure (lowers
>>> toughness).
>>
>> massive over-generalization. any anisotropic material has different
>> properties in different directions. lower strength perpendicular to
>> the load axis is seldom a problem.
>
> That's the opposite/inverse of what I said.
you said: "you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure".
so, are you or are you not saying that anisotropy leads to failure? you
may have /meant/ something different, but that's what you said.
>
>>>
>>> I remember a group canoe trip years ago with several fiberglass, one
>>> kevlar and one aluminum canoes used in white water. All the
>>> fiberglass canoes were destroyed (smashed), the aluminum was badly
>>> dented, while the kevlar showed hardly a mark. CF can have excellent
>>> toughness, but it has to be designed for it.
>>
>> but that wasn't a function of the carbon - that was s function of the
>> composition.
>
> Just an illustration of toughness.
no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not brittle.
>
>
>>>
>>> On the whole, I think CF has been around long enough in bike frames
>>> to make it reasonably trustworthy, although I'd still avoid cheap CF.
>>> I'd rather crash a steel fork than a CF one, too.
>>
>>
>> then use the product of a manufacturer that worries about their
>> reputation and manufactures in a country where people know what
>> they're doing and aren't cutting corners. i've had a wheel-smashing
>> impact on my look carbon fork and it hasn't blinked.
>
> I think this is just a windy restatement.
yeah. like a bunch of windy generalizations about composites that end
up being misleading and unhelpful.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 07:17:38
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Derk wrote:
>>>>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>>>>>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so usually
>>>>>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle dragging
>>>>>> mouth
>>>>>> breather who should go back to the trees.
>>>>> I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Derk
>>>>
>>>> Composite failure modes is a very complicated subject which has been
>>>> researched heavily in recent years due to the importance of
>>>> composites in aircraft and, perhaps more importantly, the growing
>>>> interest in the automotive market.
>>>>
>>>> Composites can provide extremely high levels of "specific energy
>>>> absorption" (the amount of energy absorbed per unit weight), in best
>>>> case scenarios higher than typical metals.
>>>>
>>>> Metal structures absorb energy through deformation, while composite
>>>> absorption is much more complicated, involving interaction between
>>>> the reinforcing fiber and the matrix (epoxy typically). Much of the
>>>> composite absorption comes from friction as the (broken) fibers are
>>>> pulled from the matrix and/or the matrix deforms around/between the
>>>> plies.
>>>>
>>>> In worst case scenarios, when the fiber/matrix interaction is
>>>> compromised, the bulk material can exhibit the characteristics of
>>>> the underlying fiber, which is very brittle. This can cause
>>>> "catastrophic" as opposed to "progressive" failure. The amount of
>>>> energy absorbed is proportional to the area under the stress-strain
>>>> curve. Plain fibers (carbon) don't elongate much, so the area under
>>>> the curve is small.
>>>
>>> careful peter - you're presuming anybody would actually /use/ "brittle".
>>>
>>> and carbon fibers don't elongate in any mode other than elastic.
>>> they have no ductile deformation mechanism like metal.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The actual performance of composite structures under failure loads
>>>> is subject to a number of parameters, such as part geometry, fabric
>>>> weave and layup angles, load axis, strain rate, layup order and
>>>> fiber to matrix ratios. From a geometric perspective, long thin
>>>> walled tubes are among the most likely shapes to have catastrophic
>>>> failure tendencies.
>>>>
>>>> While carbon fiber composites are still gaining experience in new
>>>> applications, a great deal is known about similar fiberglass
>>>> composites which have been used for many decades in consumer level
>>>> products (boat hulls, surfboards, snow skis, etc.). Historically, in
>>>> those products, structural problems (particularly from delamination)
>>>> have been long recognized.
>>>>
>>>> While fiberglass is a much less attractive material for performance
>>>> applications (planes & bikes) than CF, it's a bit safer from a
>>>> catastrophic failure for at least a couple of reasons. First, the
>>>> fiber is less brittle (will elongate more),
>>>
>>> absolutely not. neither glass not carbon fibers are ductile. the
>>> only "elongation" you'll ever get out of them is elasticity.
>>
>> Who said anything about ductility? That's your red herring.
>>
>> Glass fiber typically has 3x the elongation at failure vs CF.
>
> no red herring. the /composite/ will elongate. you said "fiber".
> fibers don't. and carbon composites can do that too.
Yes, I did say "fiber". I was relating the properties of the fiber to
the properties of the composite. Is that so difficult to understand? Let
me repeat -- glass fibers typically have 3x the elongation at failure
than carbon fiber. This has implications for the composite
characteristics. This is basic stuff.
>>>> and second, it is often used isotropically, with things like chopped
>>>> fiber mats providing similar strength (and stiffness) in all
>>>> directions.
>>>
>>> like campy carbon. like trek carbon.
>>
>> I think you misunderstand.
>
> what? campy /don't/ use randomly oriented fiber like glass fiber
> commonly is? what abut trek? i think you need to check your facts.
More red herrings -- we're talking about frame tube failures here.
>>>> To get the high performance you want (strength to weight) out of CF
>>>> you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>>>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure
>>>> (lowers toughness).
>>>
>>> massive over-generalization. any anisotropic material has different
>>> properties in different directions. lower strength perpendicular to
>>> the load axis is seldom a problem.
>>
>> That's the opposite/inverse of what I said.
>
> you said: "you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure".
>
> so, are you or are you not saying that anisotropy leads to failure? you
> may have /meant/ something different, but that's what you said.
Read it again. You don't seem to understand the *engineering* of
anisotropic materials.
>>>> I remember a group canoe trip years ago with several fiberglass, one
>>>> kevlar and one aluminum canoes used in white water. All the
>>>> fiberglass canoes were destroyed (smashed), the aluminum was badly
>>>> dented, while the kevlar showed hardly a mark. CF can have excellent
>>>> toughness, but it has to be designed for it.
>>>
>>> but that wasn't a function of the carbon - that was s function of the
>>> composition.
>>
>> Just an illustration of toughness.
>
> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not brittle.
You seem to be the only one on the planet who thinks so.
>>>> On the whole, I think CF has been around long enough in bike frames
>>>> to make it reasonably trustworthy, although I'd still avoid cheap
>>>> CF. I'd rather crash a steel fork than a CF one, too.
>>>
>>>
>>> then use the product of a manufacturer that worries about their
>>> reputation and manufactures in a country where people know what
>>> they're doing and aren't cutting corners. i've had a wheel-smashing
>>> impact on my look carbon fork and it hasn't blinked.
>>
>> I think this is just a windy restatement.
>
> yeah. like a bunch of windy generalizations about composites that end
> up being misleading and unhelpful.
I don't think you have a grasp of even the basic material science or
engineering principles of composites. You should do some reading.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 15:48:48
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article
<rPudndOf14NJu1XbnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
[...]
>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not brittle.
Once again you demonstrate your comprehension.
Brittle fibers in an amorphous matrix is what
_makes_ a two phase structural material such as
bamboo, bone, fiberglass+resin, and carbonfiber+resin.
That the carbon fibers are extremely brittle is what
makes carbonfiber+resin such a strong material for its weight.
Everything you know is wrong.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 16:55:55
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <rPudndOf14NJu1XbnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not brittle.
>
> Once again you demonstrate your comprehension.
> Brittle fibers in an amorphous matrix is what
> _makes_ a two phase structural material such as
> bamboo, bone, fiberglass+resin, and carbonfiber+resin.
>
> That the carbon fibers are extremely brittle is what
> makes carbonfiber+resin such a strong material for its weight.
eh? brittleness has nothing to do with strength. cfrp is strong
because the extremely high tensile strength and high modulus of carbon
reinforces the relatively low strength resin matrix. ever studied wood?
>
> Everything you know is wrong.
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 18:16:02
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
jim beam wrote:
> ever studied wood?
family newsgroup buddy
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 18:13:32
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <rPudndOf14NJu1XbnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not brittle.
>
> Once again you demonstrate your comprehension.
> Brittle fibers in an amorphous matrix is what
> _makes_ a two phase structural material such as
> bamboo, bone, fiberglass+resin, and carbonfiber+resin.
>
> That the carbon fibers are extremely brittle is what
> makes carbonfiber+resin such a strong material for its weight....
Huh? Is not the high UTS of the carbon fibers what provides the strength
to the composite, not the brittle fracture of the fibers after UTS is
exceeded?
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 09:16:21
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <rPudndOf14NJu1XbnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not
>>>> brittle.
>>
>> Once again you demonstrate your comprehension. Brittle fibers in an
>> amorphous matrix is what
>> _makes_ a two phase structural material such as bamboo, bone,
>> fiberglass+resin, and carbonfiber+resin.
>> That the carbon fibers are extremely brittle is what
>> makes carbonfiber+resin such a strong material for its weight....
>
> Huh? Is not the high UTS of the carbon fibers what provides the strength
> to the composite, not the brittle fracture of the fibers after UTS is
> exceeded?
>
I think part of the confusion is over the distinction between force and
energy. Carbon fibers have high specific strength. Carbon fibers also
elongate very little before fracture (~0.8 - 1.4%). Energy/work is the
product of force and distance. If you look at the stress-strain curve
for carbon fibers, even though specific strength is high (force), the
strain (distance) is small, so the energy absorbed is small -- that's
what makes them brittle. They transmit force well but absorb energy poorly.
Composites can be made to have very different stress-strain curves than
the fibers. Parts can be designed to have different aggregate
stress-strain behavior than the (raw) composite. In both cases there are
the inevitable trade offs between on & off axis strength (anisotropy)
and strength vs brittleness.
It is possible to design carbon composite structures with high specific
energy absorption. In this approach the absorption comes principally
from the interaction of fiber and matrix (friction), not directly from
the fiber itself.
It's a complicated technology, but the bottom line is that the closer
you take the finished part to the high specific strength (and stiffness)
of the raw fiber, the more you suffer from brittleness and low impact
strength. As usual, there's no free lunch.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 09:08:19
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <rPudndOf14NJu1XbnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not
>>>>> brittle.
>>>
>>> Once again you demonstrate your comprehension. Brittle fibers in an
>>> amorphous matrix is what
>>> _makes_ a two phase structural material such as bamboo, bone,
>>> fiberglass+resin, and carbonfiber+resin.
>>> That the carbon fibers are extremely brittle is what
>>> makes carbonfiber+resin such a strong material for its weight....
>>
>> Huh? Is not the high UTS of the carbon fibers what provides the
>> strength to the composite, not the brittle fracture of the fibers
>> after UTS is exceeded?
>>
>
> I think part of the confusion is over the distinction between force and
> energy. Carbon fibers have high specific strength. Carbon fibers also
> elongate very little before fracture (~0.8 - 1.4%).
which compares with __%'s for a steel/ti/al alloys? you know, materials
that have dislocations and therefore yield well below their theoretical
strength?
> Energy/work is the
> product of force and distance. If you look at the stress-strain curve
> for carbon fibers, even though specific strength is high (force), the
> strain (distance) is small, so the energy absorbed is small -- that's
> what makes them brittle. They transmit force well but absorb energy poorly.
eh? no elastic material "absorbs" energy - it's all recoverable.
you're confusing elastic and plastic deformation behaviors. plastic
deformation of cfrp is indeed much smaller than a ductile metal, but
since the elastic limits are so much higher, modulus is so much higher
and weight is so much lower, you not only have plenty of headroom within
which to design, but you have the other benefits as well. after all,
we're not designing componentry /designed/ to yield as part of operations.
>
> Composites can be made to have very different stress-strain curves than
> the fibers. Parts can be designed to have different aggregate
> stress-strain behavior than the (raw) composite. In both cases there are
> the inevitable trade offs between on & off axis strength (anisotropy)
> and strength vs brittleness.
>
> It is possible to design carbon composite structures with high specific
> energy absorption. In this approach the absorption comes principally
> from the interaction of fiber and matrix (friction),
eh? friction? why not just call it "hysteresis" like everybody else???
> not directly from
> the fiber itself.
>
> It's a complicated technology, but the bottom line is that the closer
> you take the finished part to the high specific strength (and stiffness)
> of the raw fiber, the more you suffer from brittleness and low impact
> strength. As usual, there's no free lunch.
but that's the same of any composite, not just carbon. and the trade
off is much higher yield, lower weight and better stiffness. which is
great. the way you say it, it sounds like crap. but that of course is
your intent.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 14:09:17
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>> In article <rPudndOf14NJu1XbnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not
>>>>>> brittle.
>>>>
>>>> Once again you demonstrate your comprehension. Brittle fibers in an
>>>> amorphous matrix is what
>>>> _makes_ a two phase structural material such as bamboo, bone,
>>>> fiberglass+resin, and carbonfiber+resin.
>>>> That the carbon fibers are extremely brittle is what
>>>> makes carbonfiber+resin such a strong material for its weight....
>>>
>>> Huh? Is not the high UTS of the carbon fibers what provides the
>>> strength to the composite, not the brittle fracture of the fibers
>>> after UTS is exceeded?
>>>
>>
>> I think part of the confusion is over the distinction between force
>> and energy. Carbon fibers have high specific strength. Carbon fibers
>> also elongate very little before fracture (~0.8 - 1.4%).
>
> which compares with __%'s for a steel/ti/al alloys? you know, materials
> that have dislocations and therefore yield well below their theoretical
> strength?
25% for 6061. You can look up the others yourself. E-series glass is
4-5%, BTW ( >3x CF, as I said).
>
>
>> Energy/work is the product of force and distance. If you look at the
>> stress-strain curve for carbon fibers, even though specific strength
>> is high (force), the strain (distance) is small, so the energy
>> absorbed is small -- that's what makes them brittle. They transmit
>> force well but absorb energy poorly.
>
> eh? no elastic material "absorbs" energy - it's all recoverable. you're
> confusing elastic and plastic deformation behaviors.
I think the word you're struggling for is "dissipation".
> plastic
> deformation of cfrp is indeed much smaller than a ductile metal, but
> since the elastic limits are so much higher, modulus is so much higher
> and weight is so much lower, you not only have plenty of headroom within
> which to design, but you have the other benefits as well. after all,
> we're not designing componentry /designed/ to yield as part of operations.
Er, that's the problem.
>
>
>>
>> Composites can be made to have very different stress-strain curves
>> than the fibers. Parts can be designed to have different aggregate
>> stress-strain behavior than the (raw) composite. In both cases there
>> are the inevitable trade offs between on & off axis strength
>> (anisotropy) and strength vs brittleness.
>>
>> It is possible to design carbon composite structures with high
>> specific energy absorption. In this approach the absorption comes
>> principally from the interaction of fiber and matrix (friction),
>
> eh? friction? why not just call it "hysteresis" like everybody else???
Um, because it's not?
>
>> not directly from the fiber itself.
>>
>> It's a complicated technology, but the bottom line is that the closer
>> you take the finished part to the high specific strength (and
>> stiffness) of the raw fiber, the more you suffer from brittleness and
>> low impact strength. As usual, there's no free lunch.
>
> but that's the same of any composite, not just carbon. and the trade
> off is much higher yield, lower weight and better stiffness. which is
> great.
I guess that means you agree with me?
> the way you say it, it sounds like crap. but that of course is
> your intent.
In the eye of the beholder, I guess.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 20 Aug 2007 14:07:30
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>> In article <rPudndOf14NJu1XbnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not
>>>>>>> brittle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again you demonstrate your comprehension. Brittle fibers in an
>>>>> amorphous matrix is what
>>>>> _makes_ a two phase structural material such as bamboo, bone,
>>>>> fiberglass+resin, and carbonfiber+resin.
>>>>> That the carbon fibers are extremely brittle is what
>>>>> makes carbonfiber+resin such a strong material for its weight....
>>>>
>>>> Huh? Is not the high UTS of the carbon fibers what provides the
>>>> strength to the composite, not the brittle fracture of the fibers
>>>> after UTS is exceeded?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think part of the confusion is over the distinction between force
>>> and energy. Carbon fibers have high specific strength. Carbon fibers
>>> also elongate very little before fracture (~0.8 - 1.4%).
>>
>> which compares with __%'s for a steel/ti/al alloys? you know,
>> materials that have dislocations and therefore yield well below their
>> theoretical strength?
>
> 25% for 6061. You can look up the others yourself. E-series glass is
> 4-5%, BTW (>3x CF, as I said).
as i suspected - you're confusing plastic deformation with elastic.
6061 does /not/ accommodate 25% elongation in the elastic zone -
plastic, yes. elastic, no.
kinda stunning really.
>
>>
>>
>>> Energy/work is the product of force and distance. If you look at the
>>> stress-strain curve for carbon fibers, even though specific strength
>>> is high (force), the strain (distance) is small, so the energy
>>> absorbed is small -- that's what makes them brittle. They transmit
>>> force well but absorb energy poorly.
>>
>> eh? no elastic material "absorbs" energy - it's all recoverable.
>> you're confusing elastic and plastic deformation behaviors.
>
> I think the word you're struggling for is "dissipation".
see above.
>
>> plastic deformation of cfrp is indeed much smaller than a ductile
>> metal, but since the elastic limits are so much higher, modulus is so
>> much higher and weight is so much lower, you not only have plenty of
>> headroom within which to design, but you have the other benefits as
>> well. after all, we're not designing componentry /designed/ to yield
>> as part of operations.
>
> Er, that's the problem.
only in the mind of the, er, "confused".
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Composites can be made to have very different stress-strain curves
>>> than the fibers. Parts can be designed to have different aggregate
>>> stress-strain behavior than the (raw) composite. In both cases there
>>> are the inevitable trade offs between on & off axis strength
>>> (anisotropy) and strength vs brittleness.
>>>
>>> It is possible to design carbon composite structures with high
>>> specific energy absorption. In this approach the absorption comes
>>> principally from the interaction of fiber and matrix (friction),
>>
>> eh? friction? why not just call it "hysteresis" like everybody else???
>
> Um, because it's not?
eh? so where does "friction" come into a solid state elastic system???
i've gotta hear this one!!!
>
>
>>
>>> not directly from the fiber itself.
>>>
>>> It's a complicated technology, but the bottom line is that the closer
>>> you take the finished part to the high specific strength (and
>>> stiffness) of the raw fiber, the more you suffer from brittleness and
>>> low impact strength. As usual, there's no free lunch.
>>
>> but that's the same of any composite, not just carbon. and the trade
>> off is much higher yield, lower weight and better stiffness. which is
>> great.
>
> I guess that means you agree with me?
only in the mind of the "confused"!
>
>
>> the way you say it, it sounds like crap. but that of course is your
>> intent.
>
> In the eye of the beholder, I guess.
to quote your own words, go "read a book". thanks.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 07:18:34
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>> In article <rPudndOf14NJu1XbnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not
>>>>>>>> brittle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once again you demonstrate your comprehension. Brittle fibers in
>>>>>> an amorphous matrix is what
>>>>>> _makes_ a two phase structural material such as bamboo, bone,
>>>>>> fiberglass+resin, and carbonfiber+resin.
>>>>>> That the carbon fibers are extremely brittle is what
>>>>>> makes carbonfiber+resin such a strong material for its weight....
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? Is not the high UTS of the carbon fibers what provides the
>>>>> strength to the composite, not the brittle fracture of the fibers
>>>>> after UTS is exceeded?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think part of the confusion is over the distinction between force
>>>> and energy. Carbon fibers have high specific strength. Carbon fibers
>>>> also elongate very little before fracture (~0.8 - 1.4%).
>>>
>>> which compares with __%'s for a steel/ti/al alloys? you know,
>>> materials that have dislocations and therefore yield well below their
>>> theoretical strength?
>>
>> 25% for 6061. You can look up the others yourself. E-series glass is
>> 4-5%, BTW (>3x CF, as I said).
>
> as i suspected - you're confusing plastic deformation with elastic. 6061
> does /not/ accommodate 25% elongation in the elastic zone - plastic,
> yes. elastic, no.
>
> kinda stunning really.
We're talking about yield strain. Do try to keep up.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Energy/work is the product of force and distance. If you look at the
>>>> stress-strain curve for carbon fibers, even though specific strength
>>>> is high (force), the strain (distance) is small, so the energy
>>>> absorbed is small -- that's what makes them brittle. They transmit
>>>> force well but absorb energy poorly.
>>>
>>> eh? no elastic material "absorbs" energy - it's all recoverable.
>>> you're confusing elastic and plastic deformation behaviors.
>>
>> I think the word you're struggling for is "dissipation".
>
> see above.
>
>
>>
>>> plastic deformation of cfrp is indeed much smaller than a ductile
>>> metal, but since the elastic limits are so much higher, modulus is so
>>> much higher and weight is so much lower, you not only have plenty of
>>> headroom within which to design, but you have the other benefits as
>>> well. after all, we're not designing componentry /designed/ to yield
>>> as part of operations.
>>
>> Er, that's the problem.
>
> only in the mind of the, er, "confused".
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Composites can be made to have very different stress-strain curves
>>>> than the fibers. Parts can be designed to have different aggregate
>>>> stress-strain behavior than the (raw) composite. In both cases there
>>>> are the inevitable trade offs between on & off axis strength
>>>> (anisotropy) and strength vs brittleness.
>>>>
>>>> It is possible to design carbon composite structures with high
>>>> specific energy absorption. In this approach the absorption comes
>>>> principally from the interaction of fiber and matrix (friction),
>>>
>>> eh? friction? why not just call it "hysteresis" like everybody else???
>>
>> Um, because it's not?
>
> eh? so where does "friction" come into a solid state elastic system???
> i've gotta hear this one!!!
Energy at failure. That's the whole point of this thread. Try to follow.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> not directly from the fiber itself.
>>>>
>>>> It's a complicated technology, but the bottom line is that the
>>>> closer you take the finished part to the high specific strength (and
>>>> stiffness) of the raw fiber, the more you suffer from brittleness
>>>> and low impact strength. As usual, there's no free lunch.
>>>
>>> but that's the same of any composite, not just carbon. and the trade
>>> off is much higher yield, lower weight and better stiffness. which
>>> is great.
>>
>> I guess that means you agree with me?
>
> only in the mind of the "confused"!
>
>
>>
>>
>>> the way you say it, it sounds like crap. but that of course is your
>>> intent.
>>
>> In the eye of the beholder, I guess.
>
> to quote your own words, go "read a book". thanks.
Find one to support your claim that carbon fibers aren't brittle & I'll
read along.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 21 Aug 2007 05:49:36
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <rPudndOf14NJu1XbnZ2dnUVZ_oesnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>>>> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not
>>>>>>>>> brittle.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once again you demonstrate your comprehension. Brittle fibers in
>>>>>>> an amorphous matrix is what
>>>>>>> _makes_ a two phase structural material such as bamboo, bone,
>>>>>>> fiberglass+resin, and carbonfiber+resin.
>>>>>>> That the carbon fibers are extremely brittle is what
>>>>>>> makes carbonfiber+resin such a strong material for its weight....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Huh? Is not the high UTS of the carbon fibers what provides the
>>>>>> strength to the composite, not the brittle fracture of the fibers
>>>>>> after UTS is exceeded?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think part of the confusion is over the distinction between force
>>>>> and energy. Carbon fibers have high specific strength. Carbon
>>>>> fibers also elongate very little before fracture (~0.8 - 1.4%).
>>>>
>>>> which compares with __%'s for a steel/ti/al alloys? you know,
>>>> materials that have dislocations and therefore yield well below
>>>> their theoretical strength?
>>>
>>> 25% for 6061. You can look up the others yourself. E-series glass is
>>> 4-5%, BTW (>3x CF, as I said).
>>
>> as i suspected - you're confusing plastic deformation with elastic.
>> 6061 does /not/ accommodate 25% elongation in the elastic zone -
>> plastic, yes. elastic, no.
>>
>> kinda stunning really.
>
> We're talking about yield strain. Do try to keep up.
bullshit. start of yield, the end of the hooke's law region on 6061 is
not 25%. you're terribly terribly confused.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Energy/work is the product of force and distance. If you look at
>>>>> the stress-strain curve for carbon fibers, even though specific
>>>>> strength is high (force), the strain (distance) is small, so the
>>>>> energy absorbed is small -- that's what makes them brittle. They
>>>>> transmit force well but absorb energy poorly.
>>>>
>>>> eh? no elastic material "absorbs" energy - it's all recoverable.
>>>> you're confusing elastic and plastic deformation behaviors.
>>>
>>> I think the word you're struggling for is "dissipation".
>>
>> see above.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> plastic deformation of cfrp is indeed much smaller than a ductile
>>>> metal, but since the elastic limits are so much higher, modulus is
>>>> so much higher and weight is so much lower, you not only have plenty
>>>> of headroom within which to design, but you have the other benefits
>>>> as well. after all, we're not designing componentry /designed/ to
>>>> yield as part of operations.
>>>
>>> Er, that's the problem.
>>
>> only in the mind of the, er, "confused".
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Composites can be made to have very different stress-strain curves
>>>>> than the fibers. Parts can be designed to have different aggregate
>>>>> stress-strain behavior than the (raw) composite. In both cases
>>>>> there are the inevitable trade offs between on & off axis strength
>>>>> (anisotropy) and strength vs brittleness.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is possible to design carbon composite structures with high
>>>>> specific energy absorption. In this approach the absorption comes
>>>>> principally from the interaction of fiber and matrix (friction),
>>>>
>>>> eh? friction? why not just call it "hysteresis" like everybody
>>>> else???
>>>
>>> Um, because it's not?
>>
>> eh? so where does "friction" come into a solid state elastic
>> system??? i've gotta hear this one!!!
>
> Energy at failure. That's the whole point of this thread. Try to follow.
get your facts straight. if you don't understand deformation, you're
not in a position to talk energy absorption.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> not directly from the fiber itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a complicated technology, but the bottom line is that the
>>>>> closer you take the finished part to the high specific strength
>>>>> (and stiffness) of the raw fiber, the more you suffer from
>>>>> brittleness and low impact strength. As usual, there's no free lunch.
>>>>
>>>> but that's the same of any composite, not just carbon. and the
>>>> trade off is much higher yield, lower weight and better stiffness.
>>>> which is great.
>>>
>>> I guess that means you agree with me?
>>
>> only in the mind of the "confused"!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> the way you say it, it sounds like crap. but that of course is your
>>>> intent.
>>>
>>> In the eye of the beholder, I guess.
>>
>> to quote your own words, go "read a book". thanks.
>
> Find one to support your claim that carbon fibers aren't brittle & I'll
> read along.
learn about yield before you /dare/ to lecture on deformation, bullshitter.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 08:50:43
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Find one to support your claim that carbon fibers aren't brittle &
>> I'll read along.
>
> learn about yield before you /dare/ to lecture on deformation, bullshitter.
Oh please. Typical "jim beam" switcharoo. We're talking about fracture
(see thread title). Carbon fibers are brittle. They elongate only
between 0.8 - 1.4% before fracture in tension. E-glass is >3x that, 6061
is ~20x that. If you have a source (other than yourself) that says
otherwise, I'm all ears.
If you take the often cited 6x ultimate yield strength of CF, derate it
by the 4 plies (minimum, 0, 90 +-45) you need for isotropy, plus the
ratio of fiber to epoxy, you come out with nothing special wrt overall
strength. That's why there isn't much difference in CF vs Al handlebars
and seatposts (except price). It's only when you exploit anisotropy that
CF makes sense, but then you're stuck with lack of impact resistance and
brittle failure as a trade off. CF is great for some apps, marginal for
others and crappy for the rest. It's an engineering thing.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 18:56:30
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> ...CF is great for some apps, marginal for
> others and crappy for the rest....
You mean it is just like every other material?
butbutbut, I thought CFRP was MAGIC!
[end sarcasm]
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 09:17:01
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <_dCdnSja39m4rFHbnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
>
> >> Find one to support your claim that carbon fibers aren't brittle &
> >> I'll read along.
> >
> > learn about yield before you /dare/ to lecture on deformation,
> > bullshitter.
Thus saith the biggest pile of bullshit in the room.
> Oh please. Typical "jim beam" switcharoo. We're talking about
> fracture (see thread title). Carbon fibers are brittle. They elongate
> only between 0.8 - 1.4% before fracture in tension. E-glass is >3x
> that, 6061 is ~20x that. If you have a source (other than yourself)
> that says otherwise, I'm all ears.
>
> If you take the often cited 6x ultimate yield strength of CF, derate
> it by the 4 plies (minimum, 0, 90 +-45) you need for isotropy, plus
> the ratio of fiber to epoxy, you come out with nothing special wrt
> overall strength. That's why there isn't much difference in CF vs Al
> handlebars and seatposts (except price). It's only when you exploit
> anisotropy that CF makes sense, but then you're stuck with lack of
> impact resistance and brittle failure as a trade off. CF is great for
> some apps, marginal for others and crappy for the rest. It's an
> engineering thing.
Which means he won't get it.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 22 Aug 2007 07:29:44
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-FD2AD5.09170122082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <_dCdnSja39m4rFHbnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>> > Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> >> Find one to support your claim that carbon fibers aren't brittle &
>> >> I'll read along.
>> >
>> > learn about yield before you /dare/ to lecture on deformation,
>> > bullshitter.
>
> Thus saith the biggest pile of bullshit in the room.
>
>> Oh please. Typical "jim beam" switcharoo. We're talking about
>> fracture (see thread title). Carbon fibers are brittle. They elongate
>> only between 0.8 - 1.4% before fracture in tension. E-glass is >3x
>> that, 6061 is ~20x that. If you have a source (other than yourself)
>> that says otherwise, I'm all ears.
>>
>> If you take the often cited 6x ultimate yield strength of CF, derate
>> it by the 4 plies (minimum, 0, 90 +-45) you need for isotropy, plus
>> the ratio of fiber to epoxy, you come out with nothing special wrt
>> overall strength. That's why there isn't much difference in CF vs Al
>> handlebars and seatposts (except price). It's only when you exploit
>> anisotropy that CF makes sense, but then you're stuck with lack of
>> impact resistance and brittle failure as a trade off. CF is great for
>> some apps, marginal for others and crappy for the rest. It's an
>> engineering thing.
>
> Which means he won't get it.
I know of one person who could solve this discussion:
http://www.filteringcraig.com/images/vegas/gallagher.jpg
-tom
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 06:51:48
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> Derk wrote:
>>>>>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>>>>>>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so
>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle dragging
>>>>>>> mouth
>>>>>>> breather who should go back to the trees.
>>>>>> I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Derk
>>>>>
>>>>> Composite failure modes is a very complicated subject which has
>>>>> been researched heavily in recent years due to the importance of
>>>>> composites in aircraft and, perhaps more importantly, the growing
>>>>> interest in the automotive market.
>>>>>
>>>>> Composites can provide extremely high levels of "specific energy
>>>>> absorption" (the amount of energy absorbed per unit weight), in
>>>>> best case scenarios higher than typical metals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Metal structures absorb energy through deformation, while composite
>>>>> absorption is much more complicated, involving interaction between
>>>>> the reinforcing fiber and the matrix (epoxy typically). Much of the
>>>>> composite absorption comes from friction as the (broken) fibers are
>>>>> pulled from the matrix and/or the matrix deforms around/between the
>>>>> plies.
>>>>>
>>>>> In worst case scenarios, when the fiber/matrix interaction is
>>>>> compromised, the bulk material can exhibit the characteristics of
>>>>> the underlying fiber, which is very brittle. This can cause
>>>>> "catastrophic" as opposed to "progressive" failure. The amount of
>>>>> energy absorbed is proportional to the area under the stress-strain
>>>>> curve. Plain fibers (carbon) don't elongate much, so the area under
>>>>> the curve is small.
>>>>
>>>> careful peter - you're presuming anybody would actually /use/
>>>> "brittle".
>>>>
>>>> and carbon fibers don't elongate in any mode other than elastic.
>>>> they have no ductile deformation mechanism like metal.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The actual performance of composite structures under failure loads
>>>>> is subject to a number of parameters, such as part geometry, fabric
>>>>> weave and layup angles, load axis, strain rate, layup order and
>>>>> fiber to matrix ratios. From a geometric perspective, long thin
>>>>> walled tubes are among the most likely shapes to have catastrophic
>>>>> failure tendencies.
>>>>>
>>>>> While carbon fiber composites are still gaining experience in new
>>>>> applications, a great deal is known about similar fiberglass
>>>>> composites which have been used for many decades in consumer level
>>>>> products (boat hulls, surfboards, snow skis, etc.). Historically,
>>>>> in those products, structural problems (particularly from
>>>>> delamination) have been long recognized.
>>>>>
>>>>> While fiberglass is a much less attractive material for performance
>>>>> applications (planes & bikes) than CF, it's a bit safer from a
>>>>> catastrophic failure for at least a couple of reasons. First, the
>>>>> fiber is less brittle (will elongate more),
>>>>
>>>> absolutely not. neither glass not carbon fibers are ductile. the
>>>> only "elongation" you'll ever get out of them is elasticity.
>>>
>>> Who said anything about ductility? That's your red herring.
>>>
>>> Glass fiber typically has 3x the elongation at failure vs CF.
>>
>> no red herring. the /composite/ will elongate. you said "fiber".
>> fibers don't. and carbon composites can do that too.
>
> Yes, I did say "fiber". I was relating the properties of the fiber to
> the properties of the composite. Is that so difficult to understand? Let
> me repeat -- glass fibers typically have 3x the elongation at failure
> than carbon fiber. This has implications for the composite
> characteristics. This is basic stuff.
then you either don't understand or are weakly trying to cover your
mistake. the fibers do not elongate. period. the _composite_ can and
does, depending on a whole bunch of variables, but that is not what
you're saying. again.
>
>
>>>>> and second, it is often used isotropically, with things like
>>>>> chopped fiber mats providing similar strength (and stiffness) in
>>>>> all directions.
>>>>
>>>> like campy carbon. like trek carbon.
>>>
>>> I think you misunderstand.
>>
>> what? campy /don't/ use randomly oriented fiber like glass fiber
>> commonly is? what abut trek? i think you need to check your facts.
>
> More red herrings -- we're talking about frame tube failures here.
check the composition/fiber orientation of trek tubing peter.
>
>>>>> To get the high performance you want (strength to weight) out of CF
>>>>> you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>>>>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure
>>>>> (lowers toughness).
>>>>
>>>> massive over-generalization. any anisotropic material has different
>>>> properties in different directions. lower strength perpendicular to
>>>> the load axis is seldom a problem.
>>>
>>> That's the opposite/inverse of what I said.
>>
>> you said: "you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure".
>>
>> so, are you or are you not saying that anisotropy leads to failure?
>> you may have /meant/ something different, but that's what you said.
>
> Read it again. You don't seem to understand the *engineering* of
> anisotropic materials.
eh? did i make an imprecise and misleading statement? no. you did.
"engineering" is not an excuse.
>
>
>>>>> I remember a group canoe trip years ago with several fiberglass,
>>>>> one kevlar and one aluminum canoes used in white water. All the
>>>>> fiberglass canoes were destroyed (smashed), the aluminum was badly
>>>>> dented, while the kevlar showed hardly a mark. CF can have
>>>>> excellent toughness, but it has to be designed for it.
>>>>
>>>> but that wasn't a function of the carbon - that was s function of
>>>> the composition.
>>>
>>> Just an illustration of toughness.
>>
>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not brittle.
>
> You seem to be the only one on the planet who thinks so.
eh? have you ever handled the stuff? how about tested it? your favor
of glass is about 30 years out of date. it's used for simplicity and
price. beyond that, carbon, for the most part, is way superior.
>
>
>>>>> On the whole, I think CF has been around long enough in bike frames
>>>>> to make it reasonably trustworthy, although I'd still avoid cheap
>>>>> CF. I'd rather crash a steel fork than a CF one, too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> then use the product of a manufacturer that worries about their
>>>> reputation and manufactures in a country where people know what
>>>> they're doing and aren't cutting corners. i've had a wheel-smashing
>>>> impact on my look carbon fork and it hasn't blinked.
>>>
>>> I think this is just a windy restatement.
>>
>> yeah. like a bunch of windy generalizations about composites that end
>> up being misleading and unhelpful.
>
> I don't think you have a grasp of even the basic material science or
> engineering principles of composites. You should do some reading.
you got chutzpah boy.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 11:03:21
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>> Derk wrote:
>>>>>>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>>>>>>>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so
>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle
>>>>>>>> dragging mouth
>>>>>>>> breather who should go back to the trees.
>>>>>>> I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Derk
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Composite failure modes is a very complicated subject which has
>>>>>> been researched heavily in recent years due to the importance of
>>>>>> composites in aircraft and, perhaps more importantly, the growing
>>>>>> interest in the automotive market.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Composites can provide extremely high levels of "specific energy
>>>>>> absorption" (the amount of energy absorbed per unit weight), in
>>>>>> best case scenarios higher than typical metals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Metal structures absorb energy through deformation, while
>>>>>> composite absorption is much more complicated, involving
>>>>>> interaction between the reinforcing fiber and the matrix (epoxy
>>>>>> typically). Much of the composite absorption comes from friction
>>>>>> as the (broken) fibers are pulled from the matrix and/or the
>>>>>> matrix deforms around/between the plies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In worst case scenarios, when the fiber/matrix interaction is
>>>>>> compromised, the bulk material can exhibit the characteristics of
>>>>>> the underlying fiber, which is very brittle. This can cause
>>>>>> "catastrophic" as opposed to "progressive" failure. The amount of
>>>>>> energy absorbed is proportional to the area under the
>>>>>> stress-strain curve. Plain fibers (carbon) don't elongate much, so
>>>>>> the area under the curve is small.
>>>>>
>>>>> careful peter - you're presuming anybody would actually /use/
>>>>> "brittle".
>>>>>
>>>>> and carbon fibers don't elongate in any mode other than elastic.
>>>>> they have no ductile deformation mechanism like metal.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual performance of composite structures under failure loads
>>>>>> is subject to a number of parameters, such as part geometry,
>>>>>> fabric weave and layup angles, load axis, strain rate, layup order
>>>>>> and fiber to matrix ratios. From a geometric perspective, long
>>>>>> thin walled tubes are among the most likely shapes to have
>>>>>> catastrophic failure tendencies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While carbon fiber composites are still gaining experience in new
>>>>>> applications, a great deal is known about similar fiberglass
>>>>>> composites which have been used for many decades in consumer level
>>>>>> products (boat hulls, surfboards, snow skis, etc.). Historically,
>>>>>> in those products, structural problems (particularly from
>>>>>> delamination) have been long recognized.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While fiberglass is a much less attractive material for
>>>>>> performance applications (planes & bikes) than CF, it's a bit
>>>>>> safer from a catastrophic failure for at least a couple of
>>>>>> reasons. First, the fiber is less brittle (will elongate more),
>>>>>
>>>>> absolutely not. neither glass not carbon fibers are ductile. the
>>>>> only "elongation" you'll ever get out of them is elasticity.
>>>>
>>>> Who said anything about ductility? That's your red herring.
>>>>
>>>> Glass fiber typically has 3x the elongation at failure vs CF.
>>>
>>> no red herring. the /composite/ will elongate. you said "fiber".
>>> fibers don't. and carbon composites can do that too.
>>
>> Yes, I did say "fiber". I was relating the properties of the fiber to
>> the properties of the composite. Is that so difficult to understand?
>> Let me repeat -- glass fibers typically have 3x the elongation at
>> failure than carbon fiber. This has implications for the composite
>> characteristics. This is basic stuff.
>
> then you either don't understand or are weakly trying to cover your
> mistake. the fibers do not elongate. period.
Sure they do. Read a book.
>>
>>>>>> and second, it is often used isotropically, with things like
>>>>>> chopped fiber mats providing similar strength (and stiffness) in
>>>>>> all directions.
>>>>>
>>>>> like campy carbon. like trek carbon.
>>>>
>>>> I think you misunderstand.
>>>
>>> what? campy /don't/ use randomly oriented fiber like glass fiber
>>> commonly is? what abut trek? i think you need to check your facts.
>>
>> More red herrings -- we're talking about frame tube failures here.
>
> check the composition/fiber orientation of trek tubing peter.
If you know the layup schedules Trek uses, post them, otherwise stop
blathering.
>
>
>>
>>>>>> To get the high performance you want (strength to weight) out of
>>>>>> CF you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>>>>>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure
>>>>>> (lowers toughness).
>>>>>
>>>>> massive over-generalization. any anisotropic material has
>>>>> different properties in different directions. lower strength
>>>>> perpendicular to the load axis is seldom a problem.
>>>>
>>>> That's the opposite/inverse of what I said.
>>>
>>> you said: "you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure".
>>>
>>> so, are you or are you not saying that anisotropy leads to failure?
>>> you may have /meant/ something different, but that's what you said.
>>
>> Read it again. You don't seem to understand the *engineering* of
>> anisotropic materials.
>
> eh? did i make an imprecise and misleading statement? no. you did.
> "engineering" is not an excuse.
I made an accurate statement that you don't understand. Read a book.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> I remember a group canoe trip years ago with several fiberglass,
>>>>>> one kevlar and one aluminum canoes used in white water. All the
>>>>>> fiberglass canoes were destroyed (smashed), the aluminum was badly
>>>>>> dented, while the kevlar showed hardly a mark. CF can have
>>>>>> excellent toughness, but it has to be designed for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> but that wasn't a function of the carbon - that was s function of
>>>>> the composition.
>>>>
>>>> Just an illustration of toughness.
>>>
>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not brittle.
>>
>> You seem to be the only one on the planet who thinks so.
>
> eh? have you ever handled the stuff? how about tested it? your favor
> of glass is about 30 years out of date. it's used for simplicity and
> price. beyond that, carbon, for the most part, is way superior.
More red herrings. Carbon fibers are brittle. Ask someone (anyone) who
understands materials. Honestly, you seem to have zero understanding of
composites. Read a book.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> On the whole, I think CF has been around long enough in bike
>>>>>> frames to make it reasonably trustworthy, although I'd still avoid
>>>>>> cheap CF. I'd rather crash a steel fork than a CF one, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> then use the product of a manufacturer that worries about their
>>>>> reputation and manufactures in a country where people know what
>>>>> they're doing and aren't cutting corners. i've had a
>>>>> wheel-smashing impact on my look carbon fork and it hasn't blinked.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is just a windy restatement.
>>>
>>> yeah. like a bunch of windy generalizations about composites that
>>> end up being misleading and unhelpful.
>>
>> I don't think you have a grasp of even the basic material science or
>> engineering principles of composites. You should do some reading.
>
> you got chutzpah boy.
Why? To point out you (obvious) lack of understanding? If you want to
impress anyone cite a source other than yourself. I've yet to see that.
Read a book.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 08:11:37
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>> Derk wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>>>>>>>>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so
>>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle
>>>>>>>>> dragging mouth
>>>>>>>>> breather who should go back to the trees.
>>>>>>>> I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Derk
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Composite failure modes is a very complicated subject which has
>>>>>>> been researched heavily in recent years due to the importance of
>>>>>>> composites in aircraft and, perhaps more importantly, the growing
>>>>>>> interest in the automotive market.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Composites can provide extremely high levels of "specific energy
>>>>>>> absorption" (the amount of energy absorbed per unit weight), in
>>>>>>> best case scenarios higher than typical metals.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Metal structures absorb energy through deformation, while
>>>>>>> composite absorption is much more complicated, involving
>>>>>>> interaction between the reinforcing fiber and the matrix (epoxy
>>>>>>> typically). Much of the composite absorption comes from friction
>>>>>>> as the (broken) fibers are pulled from the matrix and/or the
>>>>>>> matrix deforms around/between the plies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In worst case scenarios, when the fiber/matrix interaction is
>>>>>>> compromised, the bulk material can exhibit the characteristics of
>>>>>>> the underlying fiber, which is very brittle. This can cause
>>>>>>> "catastrophic" as opposed to "progressive" failure. The amount of
>>>>>>> energy absorbed is proportional to the area under the
>>>>>>> stress-strain curve. Plain fibers (carbon) don't elongate much,
>>>>>>> so the area under the curve is small.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> careful peter - you're presuming anybody would actually /use/
>>>>>> "brittle".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and carbon fibers don't elongate in any mode other than elastic.
>>>>>> they have no ductile deformation mechanism like metal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The actual performance of composite structures under failure
>>>>>>> loads is subject to a number of parameters, such as part
>>>>>>> geometry, fabric weave and layup angles, load axis, strain rate,
>>>>>>> layup order and fiber to matrix ratios. From a geometric
>>>>>>> perspective, long thin walled tubes are among the most likely
>>>>>>> shapes to have catastrophic failure tendencies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While carbon fiber composites are still gaining experience in new
>>>>>>> applications, a great deal is known about similar fiberglass
>>>>>>> composites which have been used for many decades in consumer
>>>>>>> level products (boat hulls, surfboards, snow skis, etc.).
>>>>>>> Historically, in those products, structural problems
>>>>>>> (particularly from delamination) have been long recognized.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While fiberglass is a much less attractive material for
>>>>>>> performance applications (planes & bikes) than CF, it's a bit
>>>>>>> safer from a catastrophic failure for at least a couple of
>>>>>>> reasons. First, the fiber is less brittle (will elongate more),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> absolutely not. neither glass not carbon fibers are ductile. the
>>>>>> only "elongation" you'll ever get out of them is elasticity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Who said anything about ductility? That's your red herring.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glass fiber typically has 3x the elongation at failure vs CF.
>>>>
>>>> no red herring. the /composite/ will elongate. you said "fiber".
>>>> fibers don't. and carbon composites can do that too.
>>>
>>> Yes, I did say "fiber". I was relating the properties of the fiber to
>>> the properties of the composite. Is that so difficult to understand?
>>> Let me repeat -- glass fibers typically have 3x the elongation at
>>> failure than carbon fiber. This has implications for the composite
>>> characteristics. This is basic stuff.
>>
>> then you either don't understand or are weakly trying to cover your
>> mistake. the fibers do not elongate. period.
>
> Sure they do. Read a book.
there's elastic and ductile elongation. both of which i've covered.
what else are you trying to deny?
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>> and second, it is often used isotropically, with things like
>>>>>>> chopped fiber mats providing similar strength (and stiffness) in
>>>>>>> all directions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> like campy carbon. like trek carbon.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you misunderstand.
>>>>
>>>> what? campy /don't/ use randomly oriented fiber like glass fiber
>>>> commonly is? what abut trek? i think you need to check your facts.
>>>
>>> More red herrings -- we're talking about frame tube failures here.
>>
>> check the composition/fiber orientation of trek tubing peter.
>
> If you know the layup schedules Trek uses, post them, otherwise stop
> blathering.
they use the same randomly oriented pieces that campy do. just go to a
freakin' bike shop and see for yourself!!!
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>> To get the high performance you want (strength to weight) out of
>>>>>>> CF you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>>>>>>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure
>>>>>>> (lowers toughness).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> massive over-generalization. any anisotropic material has
>>>>>> different properties in different directions. lower strength
>>>>>> perpendicular to the load axis is seldom a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the opposite/inverse of what I said.
>>>>
>>>> you said: "you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>>>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure".
>>>>
>>>> so, are you or are you not saying that anisotropy leads to failure?
>>>> you may have /meant/ something different, but that's what you said.
>>>
>>> Read it again. You don't seem to understand the *engineering* of
>>> anisotropic materials.
>>
>> eh? did i make an imprecise and misleading statement? no. you did.
>> "engineering" is not an excuse.
>
> I made an accurate statement that you don't understand. Read a book.
"you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure" is not an
accurate statement. it is a melodramatic gross oversimplification. and
you continue to avoid addressing the point i made which is that "lower
strength perpendicular to the load axis is seldom a problem".
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> I remember a group canoe trip years ago with several fiberglass,
>>>>>>> one kevlar and one aluminum canoes used in white water. All the
>>>>>>> fiberglass canoes were destroyed (smashed), the aluminum was
>>>>>>> badly dented, while the kevlar showed hardly a mark. CF can have
>>>>>>> excellent toughness, but it has to be designed for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but that wasn't a function of the carbon - that was s function of
>>>>>> the composition.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just an illustration of toughness.
>>>>
>>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not
>>>> brittle.
>>>
>>> You seem to be the only one on the planet who thinks so.
>>
>> eh? have you ever handled the stuff? how about tested it? your
>> favor of glass is about 30 years out of date. it's used for
>> simplicity and price. beyond that, carbon, for the most part, is way
>> superior.
>
> More red herrings. Carbon fibers are brittle. Ask someone (anyone) who
> understands materials. Honestly, you seem to have zero understanding of
> composites. Read a book.
compared to glass? you're bullshitting.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> On the whole, I think CF has been around long enough in bike
>>>>>>> frames to make it reasonably trustworthy, although I'd still
>>>>>>> avoid cheap CF. I'd rather crash a steel fork than a CF one, too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> then use the product of a manufacturer that worries about their
>>>>>> reputation and manufactures in a country where people know what
>>>>>> they're doing and aren't cutting corners. i've had a
>>>>>> wheel-smashing impact on my look carbon fork and it hasn't blinked.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is just a windy restatement.
>>>>
>>>> yeah. like a bunch of windy generalizations about composites that
>>>> end up being misleading and unhelpful.
>>>
>>> I don't think you have a grasp of even the basic material science or
>>> engineering principles of composites. You should do some reading.
>>
>> you got chutzpah boy.
>
> Why? To point out you (obvious) lack of understanding? If you want to
> impress anyone cite a source other than yourself. I've yet to see that.
> Read a book.
you're just being a prick.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 16:23:21
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>>> Derk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>>>>>>>>>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so
>>>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>>>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle
>>>>>>>>>> dragging mouth
>>>>>>>>>> breather who should go back to the trees.
>>>>>>>>> I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Derk
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Composite failure modes is a very complicated subject which has
>>>>>>>> been researched heavily in recent years due to the importance of
>>>>>>>> composites in aircraft and, perhaps more importantly, the
>>>>>>>> growing interest in the automotive market.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Composites can provide extremely high levels of "specific energy
>>>>>>>> absorption" (the amount of energy absorbed per unit weight), in
>>>>>>>> best case scenarios higher than typical metals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Metal structures absorb energy through deformation, while
>>>>>>>> composite absorption is much more complicated, involving
>>>>>>>> interaction between the reinforcing fiber and the matrix (epoxy
>>>>>>>> typically). Much of the composite absorption comes from friction
>>>>>>>> as the (broken) fibers are pulled from the matrix and/or the
>>>>>>>> matrix deforms around/between the plies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In worst case scenarios, when the fiber/matrix interaction is
>>>>>>>> compromised, the bulk material can exhibit the characteristics
>>>>>>>> of the underlying fiber, which is very brittle. This can cause
>>>>>>>> "catastrophic" as opposed to "progressive" failure. The amount
>>>>>>>> of energy absorbed is proportional to the area under the
>>>>>>>> stress-strain curve. Plain fibers (carbon) don't elongate much,
>>>>>>>> so the area under the curve is small.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> careful peter - you're presuming anybody would actually /use/
>>>>>>> "brittle".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and carbon fibers don't elongate in any mode other than elastic.
>>>>>>> they have no ductile deformation mechanism like metal.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The actual performance of composite structures under failure
>>>>>>>> loads is subject to a number of parameters, such as part
>>>>>>>> geometry, fabric weave and layup angles, load axis, strain rate,
>>>>>>>> layup order and fiber to matrix ratios. From a geometric
>>>>>>>> perspective, long thin walled tubes are among the most likely
>>>>>>>> shapes to have catastrophic failure tendencies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While carbon fiber composites are still gaining experience in
>>>>>>>> new applications, a great deal is known about similar fiberglass
>>>>>>>> composites which have been used for many decades in consumer
>>>>>>>> level products (boat hulls, surfboards, snow skis, etc.).
>>>>>>>> Historically, in those products, structural problems
>>>>>>>> (particularly from delamination) have been long recognized.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While fiberglass is a much less attractive material for
>>>>>>>> performance applications (planes & bikes) than CF, it's a bit
>>>>>>>> safer from a catastrophic failure for at least a couple of
>>>>>>>> reasons. First, the fiber is less brittle (will elongate more),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> absolutely not. neither glass not carbon fibers are ductile.
>>>>>>> the only "elongation" you'll ever get out of them is elasticity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who said anything about ductility? That's your red herring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Glass fiber typically has 3x the elongation at failure vs CF.
>>>>>
>>>>> no red herring. the /composite/ will elongate. you said "fiber".
>>>>> fibers don't. and carbon composites can do that too.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I did say "fiber". I was relating the properties of the fiber
>>>> to the properties of the composite. Is that so difficult to
>>>> understand? Let me repeat -- glass fibers typically have 3x the
>>>> elongation at failure than carbon fiber. This has implications for
>>>> the composite characteristics. This is basic stuff.
>>>
>>> then you either don't understand or are weakly trying to cover your
>>> mistake. the fibers do not elongate. period.
>>
>> Sure they do. Read a book.
>
> there's elastic and ductile elongation. both of which i've covered.
> what else are you trying to deny?
I'll repeat myself:
"Glass fiber typically has 3x the elongation at failure vs CF. "
What's so hard to grasp?
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> and second, it is often used isotropically, with things like
>>>>>>>> chopped fiber mats providing similar strength (and stiffness) in
>>>>>>>> all directions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> like campy carbon. like trek carbon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you misunderstand.
>>>>>
>>>>> what? campy /don't/ use randomly oriented fiber like glass fiber
>>>>> commonly is? what abut trek? i think you need to check your facts.
>>>>
>>>> More red herrings -- we're talking about frame tube failures here.
>>>
>>> check the composition/fiber orientation of trek tubing peter.
>>
>> If you know the layup schedules Trek uses, post them, otherwise stop
>> blathering.
>
> they use the same randomly oriented pieces that campy do. just go to a
> freakin' bike shop and see for yourself!!!
I didn't think so. Put up or shut up.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> To get the high performance you want (strength to weight) out of
>>>>>>>> CF you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>>>>>>>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure
>>>>>>>> (lowers toughness).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> massive over-generalization. any anisotropic material has
>>>>>>> different properties in different directions. lower strength
>>>>>>> perpendicular to the load axis is seldom a problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's the opposite/inverse of what I said.
>>>>>
>>>>> you said: "you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes.
>>>>> This, unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure".
>>>>>
>>>>> so, are you or are you not saying that anisotropy leads to
>>>>> failure? you may have /meant/ something different, but that's what
>>>>> you said.
>>>>
>>>> Read it again. You don't seem to understand the *engineering* of
>>>> anisotropic materials.
>>>
>>> eh? did i make an imprecise and misleading statement? no. you did.
>>> "engineering" is not an excuse.
>>
>> I made an accurate statement that you don't understand. Read a book.
>
> "you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure" is not an
> accurate statement. it is a melodramatic gross oversimplification.
It's a fact. Read a book.
and
> you continue to avoid addressing the point i made which is that "lower
> strength perpendicular to the load axis is seldom a problem".
Red herring.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> I remember a group canoe trip years ago with several fiberglass,
>>>>>>>> one kevlar and one aluminum canoes used in white water. All the
>>>>>>>> fiberglass canoes were destroyed (smashed), the aluminum was
>>>>>>>> badly dented, while the kevlar showed hardly a mark. CF can have
>>>>>>>> excellent toughness, but it has to be designed for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but that wasn't a function of the carbon - that was s function of
>>>>>>> the composition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just an illustration of toughness.
>>>>>
>>>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not
>>>>> brittle.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be the only one on the planet who thinks so.
>>>
>>> eh? have you ever handled the stuff? how about tested it? your
>>> favor of glass is about 30 years out of date. it's used for
>>> simplicity and price. beyond that, carbon, for the most part, is way
>>> superior.
>>
>> More red herrings. Carbon fibers are brittle. Ask someone (anyone) who
>> understands materials. Honestly, you seem to have zero understanding
>> of composites. Read a book.
>
> compared to glass? you're bullshitting.
Dodge.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the whole, I think CF has been around long enough in bike
>>>>>>>> frames to make it reasonably trustworthy, although I'd still
>>>>>>>> avoid cheap CF. I'd rather crash a steel fork than a CF one, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> then use the product of a manufacturer that worries about their
>>>>>>> reputation and manufactures in a country where people know what
>>>>>>> they're doing and aren't cutting corners. i've had a
>>>>>>> wheel-smashing impact on my look carbon fork and it hasn't blinked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this is just a windy restatement.
>>>>>
>>>>> yeah. like a bunch of windy generalizations about composites that
>>>>> end up being misleading and unhelpful.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think you have a grasp of even the basic material science or
>>>> engineering principles of composites. You should do some reading.
>>>
>>> you got chutzpah boy.
>>
>> Why? To point out you (obvious) lack of understanding? If you want to
>> impress anyone cite a source other than yourself. I've yet to see
>> that. Read a book.
>
> you're just being a prick.
How convenient for you to think so.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 14:07:01
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Derk wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>>>>>>>>>>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so
>>>>>>>>>>> usually
>>>>>>>>>>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle
>>>>>>>>>>> dragging mouth
>>>>>>>>>>> breather who should go back to the trees.
>>>>>>>>>> I agree with Tim: it wouldn't be my first choice either.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Derk
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Composite failure modes is a very complicated subject which has
>>>>>>>>> been researched heavily in recent years due to the importance
>>>>>>>>> of composites in aircraft and, perhaps more importantly, the
>>>>>>>>> growing interest in the automotive market.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Composites can provide extremely high levels of "specific
>>>>>>>>> energy absorption" (the amount of energy absorbed per unit
>>>>>>>>> weight), in best case scenarios higher than typical metals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Metal structures absorb energy through deformation, while
>>>>>>>>> composite absorption is much more complicated, involving
>>>>>>>>> interaction between the reinforcing fiber and the matrix (epoxy
>>>>>>>>> typically). Much of the composite absorption comes from
>>>>>>>>> friction as the (broken) fibers are pulled from the matrix
>>>>>>>>> and/or the matrix deforms around/between the plies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In worst case scenarios, when the fiber/matrix interaction is
>>>>>>>>> compromised, the bulk material can exhibit the characteristics
>>>>>>>>> of the underlying fiber, which is very brittle. This can cause
>>>>>>>>> "catastrophic" as opposed to "progressive" failure. The amount
>>>>>>>>> of energy absorbed is proportional to the area under the
>>>>>>>>> stress-strain curve. Plain fibers (carbon) don't elongate much,
>>>>>>>>> so the area under the curve is small.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> careful peter - you're presuming anybody would actually /use/
>>>>>>>> "brittle".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and carbon fibers don't elongate in any mode other than
>>>>>>>> elastic. they have no ductile deformation mechanism like metal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The actual performance of composite structures under failure
>>>>>>>>> loads is subject to a number of parameters, such as part
>>>>>>>>> geometry, fabric weave and layup angles, load axis, strain
>>>>>>>>> rate, layup order and fiber to matrix ratios. From a geometric
>>>>>>>>> perspective, long thin walled tubes are among the most likely
>>>>>>>>> shapes to have catastrophic failure tendencies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While carbon fiber composites are still gaining experience in
>>>>>>>>> new applications, a great deal is known about similar
>>>>>>>>> fiberglass composites which have been used for many decades in
>>>>>>>>> consumer level products (boat hulls, surfboards, snow skis,
>>>>>>>>> etc.). Historically, in those products, structural problems
>>>>>>>>> (particularly from delamination) have been long recognized.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> While fiberglass is a much less attractive material for
>>>>>>>>> performance applications (planes & bikes) than CF, it's a bit
>>>>>>>>> safer from a catastrophic failure for at least a couple of
>>>>>>>>> reasons. First, the fiber is less brittle (will elongate more),
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> absolutely not. neither glass not carbon fibers are ductile.
>>>>>>>> the only "elongation" you'll ever get out of them is elasticity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who said anything about ductility? That's your red herring.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Glass fiber typically has 3x the elongation at failure vs CF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no red herring. the /composite/ will elongate. you said "fiber".
>>>>>> fibers don't. and carbon composites can do that too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I did say "fiber". I was relating the properties of the fiber
>>>>> to the properties of the composite. Is that so difficult to
>>>>> understand? Let me repeat -- glass fibers typically have 3x the
>>>>> elongation at failure than carbon fiber. This has implications for
>>>>> the composite characteristics. This is basic stuff.
>>>>
>>>> then you either don't understand or are weakly trying to cover your
>>>> mistake. the fibers do not elongate. period.
>>>
>>> Sure they do. Read a book.
>>
>> there's elastic and ductile elongation. both of which i've covered.
>> what else are you trying to deny?
>
> I'll repeat myself:
>
> "Glass fiber typically has 3x the elongation at failure vs CF. "
>
> What's so hard to grasp?
what is so freakin' difficult about the points i raised before? i'm
stubborn, but fuck dude, you're ridiculous.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> and second, it is often used isotropically, with things like
>>>>>>>>> chopped fiber mats providing similar strength (and stiffness)
>>>>>>>>> in all directions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> like campy carbon. like trek carbon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you misunderstand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> what? campy /don't/ use randomly oriented fiber like glass fiber
>>>>>> commonly is? what abut trek? i think you need to check your facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> More red herrings -- we're talking about frame tube failures here.
>>>>
>>>> check the composition/fiber orientation of trek tubing peter.
>>>
>>> If you know the layup schedules Trek uses, post them, otherwise stop
>>> blathering.
>>
>> they use the same randomly oriented pieces that campy do. just go to
>> a freakin' bike shop and see for yourself!!!
>
> I didn't think so. Put up or shut up.
don't "think so"??? of all the lame-ass shit. go to a freakin' bike
shop and /look/ dammit!
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To get the high performance you want (strength to weight) out
>>>>>>>>> of CF you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>>>>>>>>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure
>>>>>>>>> (lowers toughness).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> massive over-generalization. any anisotropic material has
>>>>>>>> different properties in different directions. lower strength
>>>>>>>> perpendicular to the load axis is seldom a problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's the opposite/inverse of what I said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you said: "you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes.
>>>>>> This, unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so, are you or are you not saying that anisotropy leads to
>>>>>> failure? you may have /meant/ something different, but that's
>>>>>> what you said.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read it again. You don't seem to understand the *engineering* of
>>>>> anisotropic materials.
>>>>
>>>> eh? did i make an imprecise and misleading statement? no. you
>>>> did. "engineering" is not an excuse.
>>>
>>> I made an accurate statement that you don't understand. Read a book.
>>
>> "you really want to exploit it in anisotropic modes. This,
>> unfortunately, increases the tendency to catastrophic failure" is not
>> an accurate statement. it is a melodramatic gross oversimplification.
>
> It's a fact. Read a book.
ok, now you're just fucking about.
>
>
> and
>> you continue to avoid addressing the point i made which is that "lower
>> strength perpendicular to the load axis is seldom a problem".
>
> Red herring.
no it's not! jeepers.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I remember a group canoe trip years ago with several
>>>>>>>>> fiberglass, one kevlar and one aluminum canoes used in white
>>>>>>>>> water. All the fiberglass canoes were destroyed (smashed), the
>>>>>>>>> aluminum was badly dented, while the kevlar showed hardly a
>>>>>>>>> mark. CF can have excellent toughness, but it has to be
>>>>>>>>> designed for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but that wasn't a function of the carbon - that was s function
>>>>>>>> of the composition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just an illustration of toughness.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> no, it's an illustration of composition. carbon fibers are not
>>>>>> brittle.
>>>>>
>>>>> You seem to be the only one on the planet who thinks so.
>>>>
>>>> eh? have you ever handled the stuff? how about tested it? your
>>>> favor of glass is about 30 years out of date. it's used for
>>>> simplicity and price. beyond that, carbon, for the most part, is
>>>> way superior.
>>>
>>> More red herrings. Carbon fibers are brittle. Ask someone (anyone)
>>> who understands materials. Honestly, you seem to have zero
>>> understanding of composites. Read a book.
>>
>> compared to glass? you're bullshitting.
>
> Dodge.
see above. carbon fibers are no more brittle than glass. in fact,
often the opposite since glass is so much more sensitive to surface
conditions. but you'd know that if you'd "read a book".
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the whole, I think CF has been around long enough in bike
>>>>>>>>> frames to make it reasonably trustworthy, although I'd still
>>>>>>>>> avoid cheap CF. I'd rather crash a steel fork than a CF one, too.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then use the product of a manufacturer that worries about their
>>>>>>>> reputation and manufactures in a country where people know what
>>>>>>>> they're doing and aren't cutting corners. i've had a
>>>>>>>> wheel-smashing impact on my look carbon fork and it hasn't blinked.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think this is just a windy restatement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yeah. like a bunch of windy generalizations about composites that
>>>>>> end up being misleading and unhelpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you have a grasp of even the basic material science
>>>>> or engineering principles of composites. You should do some reading.
>>>>
>>>> you got chutzpah boy.
>>>
>>> Why? To point out you (obvious) lack of understanding? If you want to
>>> impress anyone cite a source other than yourself. I've yet to see
>>> that. Read a book.
>>
>> you're just being a prick.
>
> How convenient for you to think so.
no, prick. go to a freakin' bike shop and check your trek oclv carbon
facts. go to a freakin' supermarket and buy a few cans made of steel.
this stupidity is just unbelievable.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 17:42:03
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
jim beam wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> you're just being a prick.
>>
>> How convenient for you to think so.
>
> no, prick. go to a freakin' bike shop and check your trek oclv carbon
> facts. go to a freakin' supermarket and buy a few cans made of steel.
> this stupidity is just unbelievable.
Right. I guess we're done now. You seem to have run out of names.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 19 Aug 2007 16:58:57
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>
>>>> you're just being a prick.
>>>
>>> How convenient for you to think so.
>>
>> no, prick. go to a freakin' bike shop and check your trek oclv carbon
>> facts. go to a freakin' supermarket and buy a few cans made of steel.
>> this stupidity is just unbelievable.
>
> Right. I guess we're done now. You seem to have run out of names.
translation: you don't know, you're not prepared to admit you don't
know, but you're prepared to call into question those that dare point
that out. this is not about names - this is about stupidity and
stubbornness. just admit it.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 21:20:43
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <1187398849.181332.216880@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com >,
Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Aug 18, 7:15 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > I remain convinced that CF is an inappropriate material for bike
> > frames, even though saying so usually nets me a few comments to the
> > effect that I am a knuckle dragging mouth breather who should go
> > back to the trees.
>
> An interjection: I would be curious as to what your opinion of the
> use of CF in the building of aircraft?
I don't know enough about aircraft or the applications of CF in aircraft
to be able to form an opinion.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 20:53:49
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Kenny ??? wrote:
> On Aug 18, 7:15 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>> I remain convinced that CF is an
>> inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so usually
>> nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle dragging mouth
>> breather who should go back to the trees.
> An interjection: I would be curious as to what your opinion of the use
> of CF in the building of aircraft?
Aircraft have mandatory certification and inspection programs that go
far beyond what is done for bicycles and bicycle components.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 09:26:53
From: Derk
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Aircraft have mandatory certification and inspection programs that go
> far beyond what is done for bicycles and bicycle components.
And in spite of that there's a series on National Geographic channel about
planes that crashed.
Derk
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Aug 2007 07:05:18
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Derk wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
>> Aircraft have mandatory certification and inspection programs that go
>> far beyond what is done for bicycles and bicycle components.
> And in spite of that there's a series on National Geographic channel about
> planes that crashed.
>
> Derk
how many crash because of mechanical problems?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 19:37:45
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 12:23:34 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
>>>>> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
>>>>> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>>>>> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
>
>>> amakyonin wrote:
>>>> It looks like the entire flared section of the downtube detached
>>>> cleanly from the headtube. I suspect a bad bond here is the culprit.
>>>> The top tube then snapped and the downtube must have hit something
>>>> (curb?) to cause the third break.
>>>> It would be interesting to know how much this rider weighs. If he's
>>>> Chalo sized he should have had more sense to buy a sturdier bike.
>
>>> Rider says '9.5 stone' which is, what, 133 pounds-ish? 61kg? ?? About 0.4
>>> Standard Chalos? Not usually considered bike-mangling mass.
>
>Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> Sure, but what do you make of-
>> "Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
>> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. "
>> Specifically, the part about "sent me slightly toward the curb." What
>> exactly is he saying?
>> As for bike-mangling mass, anything that brings an object to a sudden stop
>> is capable of inflicting GREAT damage, regardless of how light the bike &
>> rider are. This is something we have trouble explaining to customers who
>> don't feel that hitting a curb should have destroyed their frame. They talk
>> about how much a mountain bike is supposed to be able to handle because look
>> at what goes on off-road, and don't understand that, in the off-road
>> environment, there aren't nearly as many immovable objects as found on the
>> street, and thus not as many opportunities to destroy things.
>
>Mike's got a good point. Those of us who see many mangled bikes suspect
> there's more to this story.
I don't see many mangled bikes and also suspect there is more to this
story. The very fact that I see few mangled bikes makes me think
there is more to this story.
It's either an exceptionally badly built bike or one that was damaged
earlier or the story of the failure is not true.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:19:57
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <6g37c3p1bh9j3ar6l3gh8v7ojb69c9dasn@4ax.com >,
John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
> It's either an exceptionally badly built bike or one that was damaged
> earlier or the story of the failure is not true.
Or possibly some combination of two or even all three.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 15:25:59
From: still me
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:19:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>> It's either an exceptionally badly built bike or one that was damaged
>> earlier or the story of the failure is not true.
>
>Or possibly some combination of two or even all three.
And he either should have been aware of the damage and potential for
danger, or he was aware of the damage and not aware of the potential
for danger, or he was not aware of the damage and therefore there was
no potential for danger, or the damage was masked, or, or, or...
He still needs to talk to a competent (not an ambulance chaser)
attorney who will look at the case and figure out if it is legitimate
and worth pursuing and through what channel. There are so many
variables that we can't possibly know that affect this case.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 11:50:25
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <9tq8c31dgvma9e6qdbtpfggonba4uut7s5@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:19:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's either an exceptionally badly built bike or one that was
> >> damaged earlier or the story of the failure is not true.
> >
> >Or possibly some combination of two or even all three.
>
>
> And he either should have been aware of the damage and potential for
> danger, or he was aware of the damage and not aware of the potential
> for danger, or he was not aware of the damage and therefore there was
> no potential for danger, or the damage was masked, or, or, or...
>
> He still needs to talk to a competent (not an ambulance chaser)
> attorney who will look at the case and figure out if it is legitimate
> and worth pursuing and through what channel. There are so many
> variables that we can't possibly know that affect this case.
Precisely.
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 21:34:45
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
Source of original thread.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=320405
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 21:31:03
From: Kenny
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:44:47
From: damyth
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Aug 16, 3:14 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1187286099.301494.222...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > Yeah, you're a real Einstein.
>
> And the need to be gratuitously nasty comes from...?
>
> > The point here is not just post any random picture of a mangled
> > random frame. Show me a mangled frame with 2 (virtually) perfect
> > wheels, drivetrain, forks, & stays, etc., and then we can start the
> > discussion of whether it constitutes a case of JRA or not.
>
> > In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break in
> > two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the same
> > place twice.
>
> We don't know that this is what happened. You're making an unfounded
> assumption. The two breaks in the down tube could have happened
> sequentially rather than simultaneously and from two different causes.
> For example, the front end snaps off and as the bike falls to the
> pavement, the down tube end strikes something and breaks a second time.
>
> The break at the middle of "Scott" looks like the downtube was forced
> upwards, peeling off a "flap" of CF like the strings in a stick of
> celery. That, to me, suggests that it was the second break in the
> downtube.
>
> But it's all pretty baseless speculation, since all we have are three
> photos and a vague description of the crash.
>
> > What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
> > manufacturing defect? If you stuck a well-constructed CF tube in a
> > hydraulic bending mandrel, do you think it's going to section off in
> > two virtually perfect pieces like that? If you had paused to think
> > about this for more than a millisecond, this question ought to have
> > to occurred to you.
>
> That was one question. The other question that ought to have occurred
> to you was what might have happened to the bike *before* the accident.
> Was the downtube already damaged, perhaps by clamping it into a roof
> rack with a down tube grabber?
>
> Could it be a manufacturing defect? Sure. Could be be something else?
> Sure. We have almost no data from which to work, however.
It's obvious from your post that you've never handled carbon fiber
tubing, certainly not enough to be familiar with their properties.
Why don't you compare the typical breaking strength of carbon fiber
tubing with the yield strength of metal tubing used on bikes, and get
back to me whether you still think your theory of the second break of
the down tube by a "grounding crash" holds water. Quite frankly, your
theory is laughable to anyone with even the most rudimentary
understanding of the properties of (well-constructed) CF tubing.
When I said "at the same time," I didn't actually mean the same
instantaneous moment in time, more like "on the same ride." I could
have been clearing in my original post but all you ditto-heads who
clung to the obvious "more than JRA" theory (despite lack of evidence
for or against it) was just getting plain annoying, especially if
you've never batted around a CF tube to understand how unlikely it is
to break transversely as in the OP's pictures.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 09:04:27
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <1187325887.671687.77570@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
damyth <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com > wrote:
> On Aug 16, 3:14 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <1187286099.301494.222...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
> > > Yeah, you're a real Einstein.
> >
> > And the need to be gratuitously nasty comes from...?
> >
> > > The point here is not just post any random picture of a mangled
> > > random frame. Show me a mangled frame with 2 (virtually) perfect
> > > wheels, drivetrain, forks, & stays, etc., and then we can start
> > > the discussion of whether it constitutes a case of JRA or not.
> >
> > > In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break
> > > in two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the
> > > same place twice.
> >
> > We don't know that this is what happened. You're making an
> > unfounded assumption. The two breaks in the down tube could have
> > happened sequentially rather than simultaneously and from two
> > different causes. For example, the front end snaps off and as the
> > bike falls to the pavement, the down tube end strikes something and
> > breaks a second time.
> >
> > The break at the middle of "Scott" looks like the downtube was
> > forced upwards, peeling off a "flap" of CF like the strings in a
> > stick of celery. That, to me, suggests that it was the second
> > break in the downtube.
> >
> > But it's all pretty baseless speculation, since all we have are
> > three photos and a vague description of the crash.
> >
> > > What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
> > > manufacturing defect? If you stuck a well-constructed CF tube in
> > > a hydraulic bending mandrel, do you think it's going to section
> > > off in two virtually perfect pieces like that? If you had paused
> > > to think about this for more than a millisecond, this question
> > > ought to have to occurred to you.
> >
> > That was one question. The other question that ought to have
> > occurred to you was what might have happened to the bike *before*
> > the accident. Was the downtube already damaged, perhaps by clamping
> > it into a roof rack with a down tube grabber?
> >
> > Could it be a manufacturing defect? Sure. Could be be something
> > else? Sure. We have almost no data from which to work, however.
>
> It's obvious from your post that you've never handled carbon fiber
> tubing, certainly not enough to be familiar with their properties.
> Why don't you compare the typical breaking strength of carbon fiber
> tubing with the yield strength of metal tubing used on bikes, and get
> back to me whether you still think your theory of the second break of
> the down tube by a "grounding crash" holds water. Quite frankly,
> your theory is laughable to anyone with even the most rudimentary
> understanding of the properties of (well-constructed) CF tubing.
>
> When I said "at the same time," I didn't actually mean the same
> instantaneous moment in time, more like "on the same ride." I could
> have been clearing in my original post but all you ditto-heads who
> clung to the obvious "more than JRA" theory (despite lack of evidence
> for or against it) was just getting plain annoying, especially if
> you've never batted around a CF tube to understand how unlikely it is
> to break transversely as in the OP's pictures.
And yet you're illogical enough to claim that (1) a CF tube is so strong
that it's almost impossible to break and (2) it can spontaneously blow
apart when hitting a pothole. You must be partaking of the jim beam.
You're also missing my point and that of the others- we don't have
enough information to form an opinion as to what happened. Period. And
yet for some reason you continue to waste time trying to convince us
that there's a manufacturing defect. Unless you're clairvoyant or you
were there when the crash happened, you don't have enough information
either.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 07:48:22
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <1187325887.671687.77570@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> damyth <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 16, 3:14 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>> In article <1187286099.301494.222...@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>>>
>>> damyth <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
>>>> Yeah, you're a real Einstein.
>>> And the need to be gratuitously nasty comes from...?
>>>
>>>> The point here is not just post any random picture of a mangled
>>>> random frame. Show me a mangled frame with 2 (virtually) perfect
>>>> wheels, drivetrain, forks, & stays, etc., and then we can start
>>>> the discussion of whether it constitutes a case of JRA or not.
>>>> In the case of the OP's Scott CF bike, having the down tube break
>>>> in two places at the same time is akin to lightning striking the
>>>> same place twice.
>>> We don't know that this is what happened. You're making an
>>> unfounded assumption. The two breaks in the down tube could have
>>> happened sequentially rather than simultaneously and from two
>>> different causes. For example, the front end snaps off and as the
>>> bike falls to the pavement, the down tube end strikes something and
>>> breaks a second time.
>>>
>>> The break at the middle of "Scott" looks like the downtube was
>>> forced upwards, peeling off a "flap" of CF like the strings in a
>>> stick of celery. That, to me, suggests that it was the second
>>> break in the downtube.
>>>
>>> But it's all pretty baseless speculation, since all we have are
>>> three photos and a vague description of the crash.
>>>
>>>> What are the odds of that happening without some sort of
>>>> manufacturing defect? If you stuck a well-constructed CF tube in
>>>> a hydraulic bending mandrel, do you think it's going to section
>>>> off in two virtually perfect pieces like that? If you had paused
>>>> to think about this for more than a millisecond, this question
>>>> ought to have to occurred to you.
>>> That was one question. The other question that ought to have
>>> occurred to you was what might have happened to the bike *before*
>>> the accident. Was the downtube already damaged, perhaps by clamping
>>> it into a roof rack with a down tube grabber?
>>>
>>> Could it be a manufacturing defect? Sure. Could be be something
>>> else? Sure. We have almost no data from which to work, however.
>> It's obvious from your post that you've never handled carbon fiber
>> tubing, certainly not enough to be familiar with their properties.
>> Why don't you compare the typical breaking strength of carbon fiber
>> tubing with the yield strength of metal tubing used on bikes, and get
>> back to me whether you still think your theory of the second break of
>> the down tube by a "grounding crash" holds water. Quite frankly,
>> your theory is laughable to anyone with even the most rudimentary
>> understanding of the properties of (well-constructed) CF tubing.
>>
>> When I said "at the same time," I didn't actually mean the same
>> instantaneous moment in time, more like "on the same ride." I could
>> have been clearing in my original post but all you ditto-heads who
>> clung to the obvious "more than JRA" theory (despite lack of evidence
>> for or against it) was just getting plain annoying, especially if
>> you've never batted around a CF tube to understand how unlikely it is
>> to break transversely as in the OP's pictures.
>
> And yet you're illogical enough to claim that (1) a CF tube is so strong
> that it's almost impossible to break and (2) it can spontaneously blow
> apart when hitting a pothole. You must be partaking of the jim beam.
> You're also missing my point and that of the others- we don't have
> enough information to form an opinion as to what happened. Period. And
> yet for some reason you continue to waste time trying to convince us
> that there's a manufacturing defect. Unless you're clairvoyant or you
> were there when the crash happened, you don't have enough information
> either.
no, he means that carbon tube doesn't typically fail like that. your
non-comprehension is evidenced by the fact that you
1. don't understand that, even though it's been repeated here by several
posters.
2. clearly have no experience.
if you were smart enough, you'd have considered that he actually had
something to say rather than was just adding noise to the signal, unlike
you. retard.
|
| | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 07:24:20
From: Tom Nakashima
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-3AB5D8.09042717082007@news.iphouse.com...
>
> And yet you're illogical enough to claim that (1) a CF tube is so strong
> that it's almost impossible to break and (2) it can spontaneously blow
> apart when hitting a pothole. You must be partaking of the jim beam.
> You're also missing my point and that of the others- we don't have
> enough information to form an opinion as to what happened. Period. And
> yet for some reason you continue to waste time trying to convince us
> that there's a manufacturing defect. Unless you're clairvoyant or you
> were there when the crash happened, you don't have enough information
> either.
We have worked and experimented with prepreg carbon-fiber sheets here at the
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. While working with the material, we
noticed there are such things as "voids" in the epoxy as well as voids in
the layers. We also noticed how important temperature and time is when
layering the sheets together. So I can believe there could be manufacturing
defects that could get by the quality control department.
In a conversation with John Slawta of Landshark Bicycles, he told me about a
few NEW carbon-fiber forks he has broken by gently squeezing the ends before
he paints them. He would not mention the brand.
-tom
|
| | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 18:15:05
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <fa4b2i$oge$1@news.Stanford.EDU >,
"Tom Nakashima" <tom@slac.stanford.edu > wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-3AB5D8.09042717082007@news.iphouse.com...
> >
> > And yet you're illogical enough to claim that (1) a CF tube is so
> > strong that it's almost impossible to break and (2) it can
> > spontaneously blow apart when hitting a pothole. You must be
> > partaking of the jim beam. You're also missing my point and that of
> > the others- we don't have enough information to form an opinion as
> > to what happened. Period. And yet for some reason you continue to
> > waste time trying to convince us that there's a manufacturing
> > defect. Unless you're clairvoyant or you were there when the crash
> > happened, you don't have enough information either.
>
> We have worked and experimented with prepreg carbon-fiber sheets here
> at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. While working with the
> material, we noticed there are such things as "voids" in the epoxy as
> well as voids in the layers. We also noticed how important
> temperature and time is when layering the sheets together. So I can
> believe there could be manufacturing defects that could get by the
> quality control department.
I don't rule that out as a possibility, but I am not going to hang my
hat on that as the answer either. There is just not enough information
available to us.
> In a conversation with John Slawta of Landshark Bicycles, he told me
> about a few NEW carbon-fiber forks he has broken by gently squeezing
> the ends before he paints them. He would not mention the brand. -tom
Better to find them that way. I remain convinced that CF is an
inappropriate material for bike frames, even though saying so usually
nets me a few comments to the effect that I am a knuckle dragging mouth
breather who should go back to the trees.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 05:52:59
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 21:31:03 -0700, Kenny <Postoasted@gmail.com >
wrote:
>After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
>doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
>catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
It's hard to believe.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 23:53:17
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Kenny wrote:
> After reading the person's report I looked at his photos. Something
> doesn't jive. Like how does striking a road "divot" cause such
> catastrophic damage? I find this hard to believe, don't you?
Yes. There is likely a lot more going on here which is why I suggested
he consult an attorney expert in the area. That person will have the
resources to sort out what really happened. We don't.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 23:20:27
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Kenny wrote:
> As I'm not active on these forums I'm not sure exactly what has been
> written on this issue but all comments and help for me would be most
> grateful.
> I ride a SCOTT CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month. I'm a
> keen road cyclist for fun/exercise but am not competetive. I should
> add that I have had the bike from new and it has never been subject to
> any crash, nor impact.
> Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. The
> front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on the road and
> the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the bike split
> into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all to react.
> Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable severity.
> I had to attend my local hospital where I received 11 stitches to my
> face. I also required an Xray which showed there was no fracture to my
> jaw. I sustained further grazes/lacerations to both knees, both
> shoulder, both elbows and hands. I have also shattered 2 of my teeth,
> for which I'm seeing a dentist today.
> Whilst I accept that road cycling involves a degree of (controlled)
> risk, this is absolutely not something I anticipated.
> As a doctor, I of course have an interest in health and safety issues
> and thought I would raise this on here. I'm actually glad I'm alive,
> because a 12inch portion of the downtube shattered off entirely. This
> could easily have embededded itself into me.
> I have pictures on my phone that I can include if you feel that this
> would be useful.
> My question is really.....is this to be expected? I am strongly of the
> opinion that I will raise this issue with Scott, but would value all
> your opinions greatly.
> P.S. Pictures have been added here: http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z284/Steebler/
> P.P.S. I am 9 1/2 stone and 5'8 tall, so hardly a heavyweight. "
An horrible story and my deepest sympathy.
But, as we say here often, don't let attorneys work on your bike and
don't take legal advice from bicycle mechanics. That goes for the bulk
of r.b.t. denizens as well (practicing attorneys in this area excepted).
You need competent legal advice and promptly. Stop talking about the
incident and let your counsel find the appropriate experts to analyze
the bike, the situation and the ramifications. Then write back to tell
us later. If you are in USA (your writing style implies not) there are
several people who specialize in this area, write me. Otherwise call
your local bar association for a referral. You need an expert as the
'facts' are always voluminous and complicated and the way they are
discerned has huge import to you.
cheap shots about 'carbon' and 'scott' are unhelpful here.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:16:01
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <13c4vn9i56aoe4d@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> But, as we say here often, don't let attorneys work on your bike and
> don't take legal advice from bicycle mechanics.
Excellent advice.
But to talk about the bike itself seems within our purview. I have seen
a few photos of similar failures of CF bikes, where the front part of
the frame breaks off, but IIRC all those had occurred in professional
racing situations in sprint pile-ups. I can't recall with certainty if
we have had a report similar to this in this newsgroup but I am vaguely
recalling that we have. Does anyone else remember?
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 13:17:04
From: still me
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:20:27 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:
< >
>You need competent legal advice and promptly. Stop talking about the
>incident and let your counsel find the appropriate experts to analyze
>the bike, the situation and the ramifications. Then write back to tell
>us later. If you are in USA (your writing style implies not) there are
>several people who specialize in this area, write me. Otherwise call
>your local bar association for a referral. You need an expert as the
>'facts' are always voluminous and complicated and the way they are
>discerned has huge import to you.
"Stop talking" is the best advice. Everything you say, even the truth,
and even if you are 100% in the right, will be used against you in the
courtroom. The opposing attorney will twist your words in ways you
can't imagine. That will be used to try to get you to say something,
anything, in your pre-trial deposition that can be further twisted.
Then you'll get to court where they twist them again. Been there, done
that.
Try to find a local referral to an attorney from someone you trust
though. The bar can only give a generic list. Avoid the attorney's who
advertise for business. If you post what state you are in, someone
here might be able to refer you.
>cheap shots about 'carbon' and 'scott' are unhelpful here.
Ur taking all the fun out of it... now where's that thread about steel
frames gone?
|
| |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:50:53
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Kenny wrote:
> Quote:
>
> "Hi,
>
> As I'm not active on these forums I'm not sure exactly what has been
> written on this issue but all comments and help for me would be most
> grateful.
>
> I ride a SCOTT CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month. I'm a
> keen road cyclist for fun/exercise but am not competetive. I should
> add that I have had the bike from new and it has never been subject to
> any crash, nor impact.
>
> Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. The
> front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on the road and
> the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the bike split
> into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all to react.
> Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable severity.
>
> I had to attend my local hospital where I received 11 stitches to my
> face. I also required an Xray which showed there was no fracture to my
> jaw. I sustained further grazes/lacerations to both knees, both
> shoulder, both elbows and hands. I have also shattered 2 of my teeth,
> for which I'm seeing a dentist today.
>
> Whilst I accept that road cycling involves a degree of (controlled)
> risk, this is absolutely not something I anticipated.
>
> As a doctor, I of course have an interest in health and safety issues
> and thought I would raise this on here. I'm actually glad I'm alive,
> because a 12inch portion of the downtube shattered off entirely. This
> could easily have embededded itself into me.
>
> I have pictures on my phone that I can include if you feel that this
> would be useful.
>
> My question is really.....is this to be expected? I am strongly of the
> opinion that I will raise this issue with Scott, but would value all
> your opinions greatly.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Steve
>
> P.S. Pictures have been added here: http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z284/Steebler/
> P.P.S. I am 9 1/2 stone and 5'8 tall, so hardly a heavyweight. "
>
cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
bottom line, your frame should not have failed - probably a
manufacturing defect - but at the same time, you absolutely /have/ to
heed any pre-failure warning noises.
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:10:54
From: Derk
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
jim beam wrote:
> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
> fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
> probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
> within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or similar in
their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing else.
Derk
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 05:54:05
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Derk wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
>> fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
>> probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
>> within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or similar in
> their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing else.
>
> Derk
isn't it illegal?
but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you because
he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left", is asking
for a darwin award.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 21:52:03
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
"jim beam" wrote:
> Derk wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
>>> fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
>>> probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
>>> within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>> similar in
>> their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing else.
>>
>> Derk
>
> isn't it illegal?
>
> but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you because
> he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left", is asking
> for a darwin award.
Air Zound!
<http://www.deltacycle.com/product.php?g=1 >
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 19:33:27
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 05:54:05 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote:
>Derk wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
>>> fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
>>> probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
>>> within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or similar in
>> their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing else.
>>
>> Derk
>
>isn't it illegal?
>
>but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you because
>he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left", is asking
>for a darwin award.
Why would the doofus time a swerve to when you are going by?
The whole "on your left" thing is dopey anyway.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 14:14:29
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
>>> fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
>>> probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
>>> within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
> Derk wrote:
>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>> similar in
>> their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing else.
jim beam wrote:
> isn't it illegal?
> but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you because
> he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left", is asking
> for a darwin award.
I'm more concerned with the SUV pilots. Damned space cadets are
gesticulating and yelling into the phone more often now. Their lane
drift and left turn trajectories are an adrenalin buzz!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 21:49:35
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and
>>>> the
>>>> fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
>>>> probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a
>>>> period
>>>> within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
>
>> Derk wrote:
>>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>>> similar in
>>> their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing else.
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> isn't it illegal?
>> but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you
>> because he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left", is
>> asking for a darwin award.
>
> I'm more concerned with the SUV pilots. Damned space cadets are
> gesticulating and yelling into the phone more often now. Their lane
> drift and left turn trajectories are an adrenalin buzz!
Around here the school bus companies hire cretins. The drivers (and I
use that term loosely) change lanes without signaling and/or using their
mirrors.
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 16:58:04
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
A Muzi wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix
>>>> and the fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses.
>>>> and the probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail
>>>> without a period within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
>
>> Derk wrote:
>>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>>> similar in
>>> their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing else.
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> isn't it illegal?
>> but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you
>> because he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left",
>> is asking for a darwin award.
>
> I'm more concerned with the SUV pilots. Damned space cadets are
> gesticulating and yelling into the phone more often now. Their lane
> drift and left turn trajectories are an adrenalin buzz!
CA supposedly has a new cell phone use while driving law, but I swear I see
MORE people with 'em now than ever. Closest calls I've had while riding
have virtually all been due to distracted, yakking drivers.
Bill "ticket 'em!!!" S.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:01:52
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <13c6k3kd7sc0087@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix
> >>> and the fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture
> >>> progresses. and the probability of a fracture progressing from
> >>> zero to fail without a period within the audible warning zone is
> >>> slim to zero.
>
> > Derk wrote:
> >> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
> >> similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
> >> else.
>
> jim beam wrote:
> > isn't it illegal?
A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
law.
> > but i know what you mean. some doofus swerving in front of you
> > because he's plugged in and can't hear you announce "on your left",
> > is asking for a darwin award.
>
> I'm more concerned with the SUV pilots. Damned space cadets are
> gesticulating and yelling into the phone more often now. Their lane
> drift and left turn trajectories are an adrenalin buzz!
Unfortunately there are doofii everywhere, operating all kinds of
vehicles.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 02:04:25
From: !Jones
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:01:52 -0500, in rec.bicycles.tech Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
>earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
>Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
>law.
I have seen it proposed; however, to the best of my knowledge (which
is less than exhaustive), it has not beed codified very many places.
My favorite idiotic law was the time Austin, TX required helmets. A
week or so after passage, TX repealed the helmet law for motorcycles.
Thus, helmets were required for bicycles, but not motorcycles... it
didn't last long.
Samey-same driving while dialing. I see it proposed all of the time
to prohibit it, but it doesn't happen.
Not that a law against plugging both ears is "idiotic"; it'll never be
enforced, so why bother?
Jones
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:42:39
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:01:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
>earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
In the *USA*. But not everywhere.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 16:53:01
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <m3a9c31avnu24dfrl9fli2jjgbt831fqi4@4ax.com >,
Andrew Price <ajprice@free.fr > wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 17:01:52 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use
> >of earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a
> >bike.
>
> In the *USA*. But not everywhere.
Very true, although the use of term "states" in such a context has a
tendency to imply "within the United States of America" as relatively
few other countries are federated states. France, for example, has
departments rather than states, England/Ireland/Scotland have counties,
etc.
Had I been referring to sovereign nations, I would have been more likely
to use the words "nations" or "countries." It's an Americanism, to be
sure, but relatively consistent here. We generally only refer to other
nations as "states" in expressions such as "heads of state." We do it
this way to avoid confusion, as a result of the history of our nation's
beginnings as a federation of relatively sovereign states.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 22:18:14
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>>> Derk wrote:
>>>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>>>> similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
>>>> else.
>> jim beam wrote:
>>> isn't it illegal?
Tim McNamara wrote:
> A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
> earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
> Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
> law.
While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
oh well.
\\paul
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 19:32:01
From: Pikachu
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <fa0c56$mir$1@news-int2.gatech.edu >,
Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu > wrote:
> >>> Derk wrote:
> >>>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
> >>>> similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
> >>>> else.
>
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>> isn't it illegal?
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
> > earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
> > Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
> > law.
>
> While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
> meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
> can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
> enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
In addition to really loud music, how about the sound insulation of new
luxury cars? Inside any of the modern luxury cars such as a Lexus
LS460, it is actually insulated enough to be able to hold a quiet
conversation at highway speeds. Wouldn't that be akin to playing loud
music, since the net effect is the same in that you can't hear any
external (read: warning) sounds?
Pikachu
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 09:06:22
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
In article <fa0c56$mir$1@news-int2.gatech.edu >,
Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu > wrote:
> >>> Derk wrote:
> >>>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
> >>>> similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
> >>>> else.
>
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >>> isn't it illegal?
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the
> > use of earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or
> > riding a bike. Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists
> > violating that particular law.
>
> While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
> meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
> can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
> enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
Logical consistency across laws is not necessarily the case. Eventually
that tends to get corrected but not always. Locally there is a "loud
car stereo" ordinance but it is, as far as I can tell, never enforced.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:43:50
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <fa0c56$mir$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>,
> Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> Derk wrote:
>>>>>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>>>>>> similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
>>>>>> else.
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>> isn't it illegal?
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the
>>> use of earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or
>>> riding a bike. Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists
>>> violating that particular law.
>> While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
>> meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
>> can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
>> enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
>
> Logical consistency across laws is not necessarily the case. Eventually
> that tends to get corrected but not always. Locally there is a "loud
> car stereo" ordinance but it is, as far as I can tell, never enforced.
In Aurora Illinois, the police impound cars with excessively loud
stereo's, leaving the occupants to find alternate transportation home
from the police station. :)
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 17:17:22
From: futrino
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <fa0c56$mir$1@news-int2.gatech.edu>,
> Paul Myron Hobson <phobson@gatech.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>Derk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>>>>>>similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
>>>>>>else.
>>>>>
>>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>isn't it illegal?
>>>>
>>Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>>A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the
>>>use of earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or
>>>riding a bike. Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists
>>>violating that particular law.
>>
>>While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
>>meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
>>can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
>>enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
>
>
> Logical consistency across laws is not necessarily the case. Eventually
> that tends to get corrected but not always. Locally there is a "loud
> car stereo" ordinance but it is, as far as I can tell, never enforced.
I just noticed inmy local paper that it was enforced today, cedar
rapids iowa
the fine was $65 but with court costs it =$135.80
http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070816/NEWS/70815069/1006/NEWS
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 07:21:57
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 22:18:14 -0400, Paul Myron Hobson
<phobson@gatech.edu > wrote:
>>>> Derk wrote:
>>>>> Tell that to all the people who ride a bike with a MP3 player or
>>>>> similar in their ears. My experience is that they hear nothing
>>>>> else.
>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> isn't it illegal?
>
>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
>> earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
>> Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
>> law.
>
>While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
>meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
>can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
>enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
Good point.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 12:13:44
From: still me
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:21:57 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
<usenetremove@jt10000.com > wrote:
>>Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
>>> earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
>>> Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
>>> law.
>>
>>While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
>>meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
>>can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
>>enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
>
>Good point.
Despite my personal objection to those idiots with music playing way
too loud in their cars, you have to realize that can't legislate
everything. Even a factory car radio at somewhat reasonable volume can
mask many road sounds (horns, sirens, etc) unless they are very close.
We don't need the gov't telling us what volume settings are
permissible in our cars.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:42:05
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
"still me" wrote:
>
> We don't need the gov't telling us what volume settings are
> permissible in our cars.
Yes, volume level INSIDE your car should not be regulated by the
government. We do need the government to regulate the volume level
OUTSIDE the car, however (or to legalize the use of RPG's on "boom cars").
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Aug 2007 03:24:24
From: still me
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot
|
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:42:05 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote:
>> We don't need the gov't telling us what volume settings are
>> permissible in our cars.
>
>Yes, volume level INSIDE your car should not be regulated by the
>government. We do need the government to regulate the volume level
>OUTSIDE the car, however (or to legalize the use of RPG's on "boom cars").
I agree that it's annoying - but so is a jack hammer, or the loud
party next door, etc. Until it reaches "disturbing the peace" I don't
think it's a legislative issue (yes, I know some of them do).
More annoying to me are loud motorcycles. They're outrageous now, and
I don't see the Fed's regulating it out of the factory or the states
doing anything at their level. It's out of control.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 22:38:06
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
"still me" wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:42:05 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote:
>
>>> We don't need the gov't telling us what volume settings are
>>> permissible in our cars.
>> Yes, volume level INSIDE your car should not be regulated by the
>> government. We do need the government to regulate the volume level
>> OUTSIDE the car, however (or to legalize the use of RPG's on "boom cars").
>
> I agree that it's annoying - but so is a jack hammer, or the loud
> party next door, etc. Until it reaches "disturbing the peace" I don't
> think it's a legislative issue (yes, I know some of them do).
The jackhammer user is (almost always) performing a work task. Boom cars
and loud parties are in the same category.
> More annoying to me are loud motorcycles. They're outrageous now, and
> I don't see the Fed's regulating it out of the factory or the states
> doing anything at their level. It's out of control.
Quite a few cops ride loud motorcycles while off-duty, or wish that
their wife would allow them to ride a loud motorcycle while off-duty. :(
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
BEER IS FOOD
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 21:32:43
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
still me wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:21:57 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson
> <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
>>>> earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
>>>> Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
>>>> law.
>>> While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
>>> meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
>>> can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
>>> enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
>> Good point.
>
>
> Despite my personal objection to those idiots with music playing way
> too loud in their cars, you have to realize that can't legislate
> everything. Even a factory car radio at somewhat reasonable volume can
> mask many road sounds (horns, sirens, etc) unless they are very close.
>
> We don't need the gov't telling us what volume settings are
> permissible in our cars.
Agreed 100% My only point was that just because something is illegal
doesn't mean it's wrong and vise versa. But that's just life, eh?
\\paul
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 11:36:08
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> A quick Google suggests that most states if not all prohibit the use of
>>>> earphones in both ears while driving a motor vehicle or riding a bike.
>>>> Which means that I see a *lot* of bicyclists violating that particular
>>>> law.
>>> While it IS dangerous and not something I advocate, that's a pretty
>>> meaningless law, eh? I can't have headphones at any volume, but dude
>>> can through a 2 kW amp and some subwoofers in his trunk, play loud
>>> enough to rattle his trunk lose and that's kosher?
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>> Good point.
still me wrote:
> Despite my personal objection to those idiots with music playing way
> too loud in their cars, you have to realize that can't legislate
> everything. Even a factory car radio at somewhat reasonable volume can
> mask many road sounds (horns, sirens, etc) unless they are very close.
> We don't need the gov't telling us what volume settings are
> permissible in our cars.
Agreed. When I worked in Florida, it was legal to drink while driving
as long as you weren't drunk. Good policy IMHO. As with telephones it
isn't the technology so much as the pilot's inability to 'chew gum and
walk' as it were. Excessive regulation won't stop idiots and the cost
to everyone else is high (cel phones, alcohol, sound systems, etc).
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:52:44
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
jim beam wrote:
> Kenny wrote:
>> Quote:
>>
>> "Hi,
>>
>> As I'm not active on these forums I'm not sure exactly what has been
>> written on this issue but all comments and help for me would be most
>> grateful.
>>
>> I ride a SCOTT CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month. I'm a
>> keen road cyclist for fun/exercise but am not competetive. I should
>> add that I have had the bike from new and it has never been subject to
>> any crash, nor impact.
>>
>> Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
>> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. The
>> front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on the road and
>> the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the bike split
>> into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all to react.
>> Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable severity.
>>
>> I had to attend my local hospital where I received 11 stitches to my
>> face. I also required an Xray which showed there was no fracture to my
>> jaw. I sustained further grazes/lacerations to both knees, both
>> shoulder, both elbows and hands. I have also shattered 2 of my teeth,
>> for which I'm seeing a dentist today.
>>
>> Whilst I accept that road cycling involves a degree of (controlled)
>> risk, this is absolutely not something I anticipated.
>>
>> As a doctor, I of course have an interest in health and safety issues
>> and thought I would raise this on here. I'm actually glad I'm alive,
>> because a 12inch portion of the downtube shattered off entirely. This
>> could easily have embededded itself into me.
>>
>> I have pictures on my phone that I can include if you feel that this
>> would be useful.
>>
>> My question is really.....is this to be expected? I am strongly of the
>> opinion that I will raise this issue with Scott, but would value all
>> your opinions greatly.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> P.S. Pictures have been added here:
>> http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z284/Steebler/
>> P.P.S. I am 9 1/2 stone and 5'8 tall, so hardly a heavyweight. "
>>
>
> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and the
> fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and the
> probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a period
> within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
>
> bottom line, your frame should not have failed - probably a
> manufacturing defect - but at the same time, you absolutely /have/ to
> heed any pre-failure warning noises.
in fact, you posted "Stem Handlebar Interface Creak Noise" on 7/5 didn't
you?
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 19:39:48
From: Crescentius Vespasianus
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
jim beam wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Kenny wrote:
>>> Quote:
>>>
>>> "Hi,
>>>
>>> As I'm not active on these forums I'm not sure exactly what has been
>>> written on this issue but all comments and help for me would be most
>>> grateful.
>>>
>>> I ride a SCOTT CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month. I'm a
>>> keen road cyclist for fun/exercise but am not competetive. I should
>>> add that I have had the bike from new and it has never been subject to
>>> any crash, nor impact.
>>>
>>> Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
>>> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. The
>>> front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on the road and
>>> the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the bike split
>>> into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all to react.
>>> Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable severity.
>>>
>>> I had to attend my local hospital where I received 11 stitches to my
>>> face. I also required an Xray which showed there was no fracture to my
>>> jaw. I sustained further grazes/lacerations to both knees, both
>>> shoulder, both elbows and hands. I have also shattered 2 of my teeth,
>>> for which I'm seeing a dentist today.
>>>
>>> Whilst I accept that road cycling involves a degree of (controlled)
>>> risk, this is absolutely not something I anticipated.
>>>
>>> As a doctor, I of course have an interest in health and safety issues
>>> and thought I would raise this on here. I'm actually glad I'm alive,
>>> because a 12inch portion of the downtube shattered off entirely. This
>>> could easily have embededded itself into me.
>>>
>>> I have pictures on my phone that I can include if you feel that this
>>> would be useful.
>>>
>>> My question is really.....is this to be expected? I am strongly of the
>>> opinion that I will raise this issue with Scott, but would value all
>>> your opinions greatly.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>
>>> Steve
>>>
>>> P.S. Pictures have been added here:
>>> http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z284/Steebler/
>>> P.P.S. I am 9 1/2 stone and 5'8 tall, so hardly a heavyweight. "
>>>
>>
>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and
>> the fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and
>> the probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a
>> period within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
>>
>> bottom line, your frame should not have failed - probably a
>> manufacturing defect - but at the same time, you absolutely /have/ to
>> heed any pre-failure warning noises.
>
> in fact, you posted "Stem Handlebar Interface Creak Noise" on 7/5 didn't
> you?
-------------
So at first it's a creak, creak noise.
Then CREAK, then a giant zipping noise
like when they zip up a body bag, and
then you're on the ground.
Even a large diameter branch, on a tree,
first gives a creak, then a ripping
noise before it crashes to the ground.
Had some storms around here lately, it's
amazing how wind can break a 4 inch
diameter branch, like it's a toothpick.
I did see in the pics that the Scott
runs the cables inside the tubes, might
that have something to do this this.
Like some rubbing cable, cuts through
the tube.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 00:07:59
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road
|
>>> Kenny wrote:
>>>> As I'm not active on these forums I'm not sure exactly what has been
>>>> written on this issue but all comments and help for me would be most
>>>> grateful.
>>>> I ride a SCOTT CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month. I'm a
>>>> keen road cyclist for fun/exercise but am not competetive. I should
>>>> add that I have had the bike from new and it has never been subject to
>>>> any crash, nor impact.
>>>> Yesterday whilst riding (on the flat, in a mid gear), I struck a small
>>>> stone with the front wheel which sent me slightly toward the curb. The
>>>> front wheel presumably dipped into a divot/small hole on the road and
>>>> the bike literally crumbled beneath me. The frame of the bike split
>>>> into 3 pieces instantly, so fast that I had no time at all to react.
>>>> Needless to say I sustained injuries of a reasonable severity.
>>>> I had to attend my local hospital where I received 11 stitches to my
>>>> face. I also required an Xray which showed there was no fracture to my
>>>> jaw. I sustained further grazes/lacerations to both knees, both
>>>> shoulder, both elbows and hands. I have also shattered 2 of my teeth,
>>>> for which I'm seeing a dentist today.
>>>> Whilst I accept that road cycling involves a degree of (controlled)
>>>> risk, this is absolutely not something I anticipated.
>>>> As a doctor, I of course have an interest in health and safety issues
>>>> and thought I would raise this on here. I'm actually glad I'm alive,
>>>> because a 12inch portion of the downtube shattered off entirely. This
>>>> could easily have embededded itself into me.
>>>> I have pictures on my phone that I can include if you feel that this
>>>> would be useful.
>>>> My question is really.....is this to be expected? I am strongly of the
>>>> opinion that I will raise this issue with Scott, but would value all
>>>> your opinions greatly.
>>>> P.S. Pictures have been added here:
>>>> http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z284/Steebler/
>>>> P.P.S. I am 9 1/2 stone and 5'8 tall, so hardly a heavyweight. "
> jim beam wrote:
>>> cf almost always gives warning signs before failure. the matrix and
>>> the fibers both make cracking noises as a fracture progresses. and
>>> the probability of a fracture progressing from zero to fail without a
>>> period within the audible warning zone is slim to zero.
>>> bottom line, your frame should not have failed - probably a
>>> manufacturing defect - but at the same time, you absolutely /have/ to
>>> heed any pre-failure warning noises.
> jim beam also wrote:
>> in fact, you posted "Stem Handlebar Interface Creak Noise" on 7/5
>> didn't you?
Crescentius Vespasianus wrote:
> So at first it's a creak, creak noise. Then CREAK, then a giant zipping
> noise like when they zip up a body bag, and then you're on the ground.
> Even a large diameter branch, on a tree, first gives a creak, then a
> ripping noise before it crashes to the ground. Had some storms around
> here lately, it's amazing how wind can break a 4 inch diameter branch,
> like it's a toothpick.
> I did see in the pics that the Scott runs the cables inside the tubes,
> might that have something to do this this. Like some rubbing cable, cuts
> through the tube.
Cables chafed through a tube in just over 30 days?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
|
