CF Bike Shatters Top Tube and Down Tube after hitting a Road Divot

[Kenny]

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. "

[jim beam]

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.

[A Muzi]

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

[RS]

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.c om>,
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. "
>

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

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
****************************

[jim beam]

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?

[Derk]

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

[Crescentius Vespasianus]

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.

[Kenny]

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?

[still me]

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?

[Tim McNamara]

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?

[Kenny]

Source of original thread.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=320405

[A Muzi]

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

[amakyonin]

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.

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

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
****************************

[andresmuro@aol.com]

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

[A Muzi]

> 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

[Kenny]

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.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <1187153867.504108.90240@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.c om>,
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.

[Artoi]

In article <1187153867.504108.90240@l22g2000prc.googlegroups.c om>,
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.
--

[A Muzi]

>>> 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

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>>> 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

[A Muzi]

>>>> 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

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> 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

[jim beam]

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.

[DougC]

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.
~

[jim beam]

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?

[A Muzi]

>> 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

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

"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

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

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
****************************

[D'ohBoy]

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

[Crescentius Vespasianus]

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?

[D'ohBoy]

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

[DougC]

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...."

?:|

[datakoll]

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?

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

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.

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

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............

[Scott Gordo]

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

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

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
****************************

[A Muzi]

>>>>>> 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

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

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

[Tim McNamara]

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.

[Bill Sornson]

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.

[Jay Beattie]

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.

[DanKMTB@gmail.com]

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.

[A Muzi]

>>>>>>>> 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

[raamman@gmail.com]

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 ?

[still me]

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.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <1187214071.014172.286710@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.c om>,
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.

[raamman@gmail.com]

On Aug 15, 5:54 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <1187214071.014172.286...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.c om>,
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.

[Chalo]

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.

[Jay Beattie]

On Aug 15, 2:54 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <1187214071.014172.286...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.c om>,
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.

[A Muzi]

>>> 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

[Paul Myron Hobson]

>>> 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

[Andrew Price]

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.

[!Jones]

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

[damyth]

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.

[Tim McNamara]

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.

[Tim McNamara]

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.c om>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.

[raamman@gmail.com]

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.c om>,
>
> > 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
> > en