Re: "brittle" vs. non-ductile: the score - continued

[Jambo]

"Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote in message news:...
>
> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
> news:46e721e2$0$14069$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> someone with neither name or email address writes:
>> The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the rude
>> style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I hope that
>> those who have something to offer omit self righteous name calling and
>> four letter words. Such posts generally cancel opinions expressed and
>> degrade the level of discourse to trash.
>>
>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
>> opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty your own space.
>
> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive enough to
> do so. I suspect many others have the same perception
>
> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups through
> insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more significantly,
> allow people like beamboy to continue polluting discussion groups with
> impunity. There's

something to be said for fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only
one language a protagonsit can understand.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
>> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
>> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
>> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
>> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
>> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
>> justifiable risk?
>
> It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what
> the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment
> recommendations between CF and metal frames.

I don't refuse to answer the question; rather, I don't know of a generic
answer to that question. My experience in that regard is with what I sell.
Trek has gone to great lengths to educate people about the differences
between carbon fiber and "metal" frames, explaining in the owner's manual,
as well as on their website, that it may be difficult to tell if a carbon
fiber component has been damaged in a crash. They list ways to try and find
the damage, while for "metal" frames, they don't bother giving such
instructions (they just say to inspect it for damage). I find that,
personally, unfortunate... because I come across quite a few damaged steel &
aluminum frames that are in danger of failure, and some after they have
already failed. As you would so strongly insist, at least some of these
frames probably provided warning prior to failure, but nobody bothered to
look them over (after a crash or impact).

It must be stressed that I am not a manufacturer, and that I am somewhat at
odds with what some manufacturers would suggest. I am basically the final
link in the chain. I'm the person who sees, directly, what happens to the
product in the real world. I'm not an engineer, I'm an observer. I observe
and, when I have questions, have access to intelligent people involved with
the design and manufacture of the product. As an observer, I also get to see
& hear many stories about JRAs (mysterious "just riding along" failures),
and, by being patient, get to hear such stories sometimes change & evolve.
Gets back to that thing I mentioned previously- that question- "What do you
think *really* happened?" Sometimes it's exactly as presented, and sometimes
not. Sometimes I go out to the scene and try to piece things together. It's
interesting what you can find that way.

But I've gotten away from your specific question. On a macro level, I,
personally, see no difference in the need to inspect a carbon fiber bike
after impact vs any other bike. On a micro level, you're looking for
different things on a carbon fiber bike than steel or aluminum or titanium.
But I'm not a manufacturer. Those are my recommendations. Common sense.

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


"Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote in message
news:46e8b0ec$0$18910$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>> On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
>> wrote:
>>> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real
>>> world,
>>> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
>>> *should* be, I guess.
>>
>> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
>> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
>> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
>> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
>> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
>> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
>> justifiable risk?
>
> It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what
> the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment
> recommendations between CF and metal frames.
>
>> While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
>> the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
>> face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
>> this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
>> descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
>> *still* think the risk is justifiable?
>
> Therein also lies the justifications for the black and white mentality
> that people go into in their emotional perpsectives. Either CF will break
> like glass, or CF is indestructible. Either there is an epidemic of
> people getting killed in CF frames, or there are no CF frame breakages
> ever. Very few actually understand that in terms of carbon fiber
> components, we can all look to the aerospace industry for experience. The
> fact that there are a lot more rigorous testing and inspection for CFRPs
> compared to metals is a recognition of CF characteristics. In fact,
> aircraft manufacturers do want to use CF on their planes, BUT they
> recognise its testing, handling and inspection requirements AND the
> consequences of failing to do so.
>
> Now we have bicycle shop owners who obviously want to flog what they can
> sell for higher profit (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that),
> but only rely on the manufacturers' word as far as the characteristics of
> their products go. Not many bike shop owners have scientific nor
> technical backgrounds, yet they sell high technology products and only
> have their own, somewhat limited experience (and that's not a put-down,
> just fact) to either support or repudiate manufacturer claims.
>
>> For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
>> elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
>> don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
>> Spin that one for me.
>
> It would be good if he can just answer the question, what the difference
> is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment recommendations
> between CF and metal frames.
>
>

[Doug Taylor]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:03:27 -0400, "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote:

>Er, dude, the thread is a case of "good guys" and "bad guys"? And if those
>two are the good guys, does it make you and beam the bad guys?

Follow along: Mike and Tim are the good guys, hence...

That's right, chowderhead, everybody else, including YOU, is on the
dark side. I freely admit it. Your turn.

>> To quote Dylan: " Most likely you go your way, and I'll go mine."
>
>Well, I'll definitely never go your way, if that helps.

Good call, because you definitely aren't invited. Not that you could
keep up if you tried.

P.S. I forgot to slam you for being a chicken**** by posting venom
and insults anonymously, so add that to the list.

[jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org]

Jambo who? writes:

>>> someone with neither name or email address writes:

>>> The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the
>>> rude style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I
>>> hope that those who have something to offer omit self righteous
>>> name calling and four letter words. Such posts generally cancel
>>> opinions expressed and degrade the level of discourse to trash.

>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
>>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the
>>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty
>>> your own space.

>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive
>> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception

>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
>> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more
>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
>> discussion groups with impunity. There's something to be said for
>> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a
>> protagonist can understand.

I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those
who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his
education. It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of
one presentation over another.

Jobst Brandt

[A Muzi]

>>> someone with neither name or email address writes:

>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote
>>> The balanced tone of this response is in strong contrast to the rude
>>> style and language the same writer has used elsewhere. I hope that
>>> those who have something to offer omit self righteous name calling and
>>> four letter words. Such posts generally cancel opinions expressed and
>>> degrade the level of discourse to trash.
>>>
>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
>>> opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty your own space.

> Jambo "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote
>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive enough to
>> do so. I suspect many others have the same perception
>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups through
>> insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more significantly,
>> allow people like beamboy to continue polluting discussion groups with
>> impunity. There's

Jambo "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote
> something to be said for fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only
> one language a protagonsit can understand.

Yet despite those words the target's opinion hardens rather than changes.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Peter Cole]

> "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote in message news:...
>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message

>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
>>> opponent.

>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups through
>> insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more significantly,
>> allow people like beamboy to continue polluting discussion groups with
>> impunity.

There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.

I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully
get pushed back every once in a while.

[Ben C]

On 2007-09-12, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
> Jambo who? writes:
[...]
>>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
>>>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the
>>>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty
>>>> your own space.
>
>>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
>>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive
>>> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception
>
>>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
>>> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more
>>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
>>> discussion groups with impunity.
>>>
>>> There's something to be said for
>>> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a
>>> protagonist can understand.
>
> I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those
> who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his
> education.

I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.

I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All
they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might
have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be
browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their
derailleurs.

> It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of one
> presentation over another.

If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just
address the technical points. That's what we all want to read.

Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do
beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your
case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I
would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you.

Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam
with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I
charitably thought he was just a troll.

[Jambo]

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:13eglg8cqq8j2f9@corp.supernews.com...
> Yet despite those words the target's opinion hardens rather than changes.

What can I say, it's not the "technical" arguments that are the point, it's
the delivery system example - and sometimes showing someone a mirror is all
one can do.

[_]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:22:01 -0500, Ben C wrote:

> On 2007-09-12, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>> Jambo who? writes:
> [...]
>>>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
>>>>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the
>>>>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty
>>>>> your own space.
>>
>>>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
>>>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive
>>>> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception
>>
>>>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
>>>> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more
>>>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
>>>> discussion groups with impunity.
>>>>
>>>> There's something to be said for
>>>> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a
>>>> protagonist can understand.
>>
>> I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those
>> who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his
>> education.
>
> I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
> accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.
>
> I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them.

True. Pig-wrestling; you both get muddy, but the pig enjoys it.

[Peter Cole]

Ben C wrote:
> On 2007-09-12, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>> Jambo who? writes:
> [...]
>>>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
>>>>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the
>>>>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty
>>>>> your own space.
>>>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
>>>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive
>>>> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception
>>>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
>>>> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more
>>>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
>>>> discussion groups with impunity.
>>>>
>>>> There's something to be said for
>>>> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a
>>>> protagonist can understand.
>> I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those
>> who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his
>> education.
>
> I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
> accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.
>
> I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All
> they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might
> have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be
> browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their
> derailleurs.
>
>> It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of one
>> presentation over another.
>
> If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just
> address the technical points. That's what we all want to read.
>
> Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do
> beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your
> case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I
> would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you.
>
> Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam
> with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I
> charitably thought he was just a troll.

You should give him much more credit than that. His posts have been
largely informative and polite. If you want to see how the whole
brouhaha started, check out the beginning of the "brittle vs non-ductile
thread".

"jim beam" has been over-the-top abusive to several on this NG,
including his "stalking" of Jobst. The only dis I've seen from Jambo is
towards jimbo -- who really asked for it. I think your view is (way)
lopsided. If there's a troll here it's you-know-who.

[Jambo]

"Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote in message
news:slrnfegm3c.5ge.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
> I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
> accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.

"Growing accustomed to see"? Funny, you may have noticed beamboy's bluster
decreasing since his bluffs have been called. Accordingly, his reap
followed suit.

> I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All
> they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might
> have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be
> browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their
> derailleurs.

I don't see how pushing back on a fraudster bully that is beamboy can deter
other people from posting, unless they in fact support the former. Wouldn't
it make more sense that this fraudster bully who try to suppress real
knowledge contradictory to his, is the real annoyance?

> If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just
> address the technical points. That's what we all want to read.

If only the fraudster bully would read this and learn....

> Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do
> beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your
> case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I
> would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you.

Not if there is a point to be made, that fraudulent claims to qualifications
and the bleating of poor understanding of basic science and scientific
methodologies cannot be disguised with bluster, technomumble, and personal
insults. Is this not a technical newsgroup?

> Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam
> with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I
> charitably thought he was just a troll.

Your interpretations are your own....

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
> religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
> that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
> realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.


You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when
somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited
about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a
single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical
usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly
what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week
coming up with ways to defend that initial position.

And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet another
thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python "witch"
sketch.

All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
*should* be, I guess.

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


"Peter Cole" <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:B9WdnafJ5eML_HXbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> "Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote in message news:...
>>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
>
>>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
>>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
>>>> opponent.
>
>>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
>>> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more
>>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
>>> discussion groups with impunity.
>
> There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
> religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
> that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
> realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.
>
> I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully
> get pushed back every once in a while.

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Ben C wrote:
>> On 2007-09-12, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
>> <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
>>> Jambo who? writes:
>> [...]
>>>>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
>>>>>> replying in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the
>>>>>> level of the opponent. Leave pigs in their sty lest you dirty
>>>>>> your own space.
>>>>> The point that has been made is this - you clearly have seen the
>>>>> difference between the two types of response, and are perceptive
>>>>> enough to do so. I suspect many others have the same perception
>>>>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
>>>>> through insults do get past the BS filters of some people, and more
>>>>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
>>>>> discussion groups with impunity.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's something to be said for
>>>>> fighting fire with fire - sometimes there is only one language a
>>>>> protagonist can understand.
>>> I hope that responses in such exchanges are for the benefit of those
>>> who might possibly be misguided by the protagonist rather than for his
>>> education.
>>
>> I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
>> accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.
>>
>> I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All
>> they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might
>> have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be
>> browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their
>> derailleurs.
>>
>>> It is those readers who ultimately judge the validity of one
>>> presentation over another.
>>
>> If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just
>> address the technical points. That's what we all want to read.
>>
>> Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do
>> beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your
>> case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I
>> would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you.
>>
>> Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam
>> with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I
>> charitably thought he was just a troll.
>
> You should give him much more credit than that. His posts have been
> largely informative and polite. If you want to see how the whole
> brouhaha started, check out the beginning of the "brittle vs non-ductile
> thread".
>
> "jim beam" has been over-the-top abusive to several on this NG,
> including his "stalking" of Jobst. The only dis I've seen from Jambo is
> towards jimbo -- who really asked for it. I think your view is (way)
> lopsided. If there's a troll here it's you-know-who.

says the guy that's sore because he gets called on his bull****...

[Tim McNamara]

In article <Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27474@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:

> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on
> when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone
> gets excited about it... despite a lack of any real information. We
> see a picture of a single broken frame and build an entire world
> around it. And, in typical usenet fashion, some want to rush in and
> exclaim that they know exactly what's wrong before somebody else can,
> and then have to spend the next week coming up with ways to defend
> that initial position.

The initial position taken by most of us was that we couldn't conclude
what happened with the Scott frame that broke in a crash. Most of us
took that position except for a very few people who wanted to blame
Scott. Most of us felt that we simply didn't have enough information
about the crash, the frame and its history. It is the conservative
approach and really the only one open to us given the dearth of data
about the specifics of the incident.

The conversation has long since moved on from that, with I suspect the
OP not getting the support he wanted and disappearing. The conversation
has basically been about the impact resistance of CF composites, pulled
adrift occasionally by jim beam's pseudoscience spew and Doug Taylor's
"retrogrouch" name-calling and a few people (myself included) rising to
the bait, and about the consequences of impact damage on longevity and
the risk of catastrophic failures in CF as compared to other materials.
This has required some discussion of the nature of CF composites.

While wood can be described as a composite, it is generally a poor
analogy for CF composites. CF is designed, wood just grows. There are
enough broken trees after any storm to show that spontaneous organic
growth does not necessarily result in optimal strength.

As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF
frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough
failures to make me very concerned.

[Jambo]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
news:Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27474@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net...

> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet
> another thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python
> "witch" sketch.

I guess analogies escape you, and you take these to be the real things.

> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
> *should* be, I guess.

How much of that is attributed to the different inspection/damage assessment
for carbon frames, Mike? How does that go anyway, what IS the difference
between manufacturers' recommendations on inspection/damage assessment for
carbon components, and for metal components?

How much have you invested in carbon frame in your stock? Can you honestly,
with your hand in your heart, tell us that you don't have a vested interest
in pushing high-margin boutique bikes?

[damyth]

On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
wrote:
> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.
>
> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when
> somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited
> about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a
> single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical
> usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly
> what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week
> coming up with ways to defend that initial position.
>
> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet another
> thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python "witch"
> sketch.
>
> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
> *should* be, I guess.
>
> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:B9WdnafJ5eML_HXbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> >> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message news:...
> >>> <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
>
> >>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate replying
> >>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
> >>>> opponent.
>
> >>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
> >>> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more
> >>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
> >>> discussion groups with impunity.
>
> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.
>
> > I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully
> > get pushed back every once in a while.

I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed
technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that
manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured
Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A.
Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA,"
offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory
proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is
"manufacturing defect."

I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
justifiable risk?

While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
*still* think the risk is justifiable?

For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
Spin that one for me.

[Peter Cole]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
>> religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
>> that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
>> realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.
>
>
> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when
> somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited
> about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a
> single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical
> usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly
> what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week
> coming up with ways to defend that initial position.

I might be wrong, but I think that's an exaggeration of these threads.

I recall 2 incidents. The first was the JRA frame failure. Maybe it
wasn't JRA, maybe it was. If it was JRA, then it must have been a QC
problem, which is one of my concerns for cheap CF -- corners get cut.
Sure corners get cut with other materials, but it seems CF if more
problematic in that way for a number of reasons. If it wasn't JRA, then
it was like the second incident, where the steerer blew out the head
tube in a crash. In neither case would anyone know the forces involved,
so nothing quantitative could be said. All the 2 descriptions reveal is
the different failure mode of CF from metals.

Perhaps these incidents just served as a starting point for a general
discussion of the pros/cons of CF. The CF fans seem to be very extreme
in their support of the material without qualifications. If others point
out real world issues like QC on cheap CF, the difficulties of detecting
damage, the propensity of end users to inadvertently damage CF
components and the lack of suitability of CF for some bike components --
all valid issues -- they're subjected to abusive tirades.

As a seller of CF, I'd expect you to rise to its defense. I don't have a
similar stake in it. The fact that I don't own any doesn't give me a
negative stake -- as others have opined. I don't have any Ti either, and
don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. I'd put CF in
the same category -- good for some apps, not so good for others, pricey,
larger potential for QC problems, etc. The issues about damage --
detection and user misuse -- I think are legit and I'm a bit skeptical
that they can be "educated away". I don't think that's an extreme position.


> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet another
> thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python "witch"
> sketch.

The bits about wood are relevant, as examples of anisotropy. Wood isn't
strong in all directions. It can be made so via laminations (plywood),
if the laminations are staggered in fiber angle. A tree can exploit
anisotropy by growing fibers in the optimal direction. This can be
efficient where anisotropy is the way to go. Both principles are used in
composite component design.

> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
> *should* be, I guess.

Statements like that aren't helpful.

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:35:03 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF
>frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough
>failures to make me very concerned.

Sure. This so reminds me of the supposed disc brake ejected wheels
which dominated thread after thread in rbt and amb 2 years ago. Which
just disappeared into the ether, because, as people like beam and
myself pointed out then, and are now vindicated, it was nothing less
than fictitious usenet urban legend championed by my favorite people,
the retrogrouches and the chicken little's of the world. Who have the
temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because I like state
of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy?

[damyth]

On Sep 12, 6:35 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on
> > when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone
> > gets excited about it... despite a lack of any real information. We
> > see a picture of a single broken frame and build an entire world
> > around it. And, in typical usenet fashion, some want to rush in and
> > exclaim that they know exactly what's wrong before somebody else can,
> > and then have to spend the next week coming up with ways to defend
> > that initial position.
>
> The initial position taken by most of us was that we couldn't conclude
> what happened with the Scott frame that broke in a crash. Most of us
> took that position except for a very few people who wanted to blame
> Scott. Most of us felt that we simply didn't have enough information
> about the crash, the frame and its history. It is the conservative
> approach and really the only one open to us given the dearth of data
> about the specifics of the incident.
>
> The conversation has long since moved on from that, with I suspect the
> OP not getting the support he wanted and disappearing. The conversation
> has basically been about the impact resistance of CF composites, pulled
> adrift occasionally by jim beam's pseudoscience spew and Doug Taylor's
> "retrogrouch" name-calling and a few people (myself included) rising to
> the bait, and about the consequences of impact damage on longevity and
> the risk of catastrophic failures in CF as compared to other materials.
> This has required some discussion of the nature of CF composites.
>
> While wood can be described as a composite, it is generally a poor
> analogy for CF composites. CF is designed, wood just grows. There are
> enough broken trees after any storm to show that spontaneous organic
> growth does not necessarily result in optimal strength.
>
> As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF
> frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough
> failures to make me very concerned.

The "OP" didn't disappear. He was never "here" to begin with. The
person who started of the "CF shatters" thread (on usenet) was quoting
a post originally made on another internet forum. Read the original
post to refresh your memory.

[jim beam]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27474@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on
>> when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone
>> gets excited about it... despite a lack of any real information. We
>> see a picture of a single broken frame and build an entire world
>> around it. And, in typical usenet fashion, some want to rush in and
>> exclaim that they know exactly what's wrong before somebody else can,
>> and then have to spend the next week coming up with ways to defend
>> that initial position.
>
> The initial position taken by most of us was that we couldn't conclude
> what happened with the Scott frame that broke in a crash. Most of us
> took that position except for a very few people who wanted to blame
> Scott. Most of us felt that we simply didn't have enough information
> about the crash, the frame and its history. It is the conservative
> approach and really the only one open to us given the dearth of data
> about the specifics of the incident.
>
> The conversation has long since moved on from that, with I suspect the
> OP not getting the support he wanted and disappearing. The conversation
> has basically been about the impact resistance of CF composites, pulled
> adrift occasionally by jim beam's pseudoscience spew and Doug Taylor's
> "retrogrouch" name-calling and a few people (myself included) rising to
> the bait, and about the consequences of impact damage on longevity and
> the risk of catastrophic failures in CF as compared to other materials.
> This has required some discussion of the nature of CF composites.
>
> While wood can be described as a composite, it is generally a poor
> analogy for CF composites.

no its not - you'd understand why if you'd bothered to study the subject
and weren't just mouthing uninformed opinion.


> CF is designed, wood just grows. There are
> enough broken trees after any storm to show that spontaneous organic
> growth does not necessarily result in optimal strength.

now /that/ is real retardation talking. man-made composites are based
on years of study of natural composites. the fact that one happens to
shed leaves into your gutter is entirely irrelevant.

>
> As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF
> frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough
> failures to make me very concerned.

that's retarded - it's totally out of proportion to the same or worse
failure rates in metallic systems.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> How much have you invested in carbon frame in your stock? Can you
> honestly, with your hand in your heart, tell us that you don't have a
> vested interest in pushing high-margin boutique bikes?

Is that a question that concerns you, because you think I've somehow hidden
what I do for a living from everyone here? As if people don't know that I've
got a business that puts my kids through school selling the product you
apparently loathe?

YES!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I'M AN EVIL GREEDY BUSINESSMAN WHO MAKES A LIVING
SELLING PEOPLE BIKES & ACCESSORIES!!! I PUSH BICYCLES!

There. I feel so much better now that my secret's out. :>)

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


"Jambo" <-@-.-> wrote in message
news:46e8a2a7$0$32552$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <MikeJ@ChainReaction.com> wrote in message
> news:Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27474@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net...
>
>> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet
>> another thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty
>> Python "witch" sketch.
>
> I guess analogies escape you, and you take these to be the real things.
>
>> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
>> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
>> *should* be, I guess.
>
> How much of that is attributed to the different inspection/damage
> assessment for carbon frames, Mike? How does that go anyway, what IS the
> difference between manufacturers' recommendations on inspection/damage
> assessment for carbon components, and for metal components?
>
> How much have you invested in carbon frame in your stock? Can you
> honestly, with your hand in your heart, tell us that you don't have a
> vested interest in pushing high-margin boutique bikes?
>

[A Muzi]

-snip carbon downtube. in two-
damyth wrote:
> I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
> original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed
> technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that
> manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured
> Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A.
> Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA,"
> offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory
> proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is
> "manufacturing defect."
>
> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
> justifiable risk?
>
> While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
> the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
> face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
> this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
> descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
> *still* think the risk is justifiable?
>
> For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
> elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
> don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
> Spin that one for me.

I was among the first to reply to the OP and, based on my experience,
advised him to seek competent counsel. That's all.

I maintained, and still do, that given a couple of photos and a
paragraph, versus the stakes involved, I certainly was not competent to
advise. Nor do I think any of us here could advise with certainty.
Speculation is fine when recognized as such and I found some of the
discussion elucidating. (it's easy to overlook the pissy
attention-seeking 8 year olds and their provocative/ vile comments)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
> original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed
> technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that
> manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured
> Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A.
> Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA,"
> offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory
> proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is
> "manufacturing defect."

I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what
theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell,
there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the
original photo and description that started this thread even happened in the
first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else to
say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an
extraordinarily low standard of proof.

> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
> justifiable risk?

There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame material
that has ever been brought to cycling. Carbon fiber is little different from
any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrible
frame. You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or
inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after the
fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, sometimes
intentionally.

And why are you bringing China into this? As if the fact that they poison
our kids with lead paint has anything to do with high tech and not
everything to do with simple greed? We could get into a lengthy discussion
about the pitfalls of offshoring manufacturing to a culture with different
standards and ways of dealing with things than our own, but I don't think
that's really rec.bicycles.tech material. But I'll contribute something
anyway. Trek learned ages ago, as has most every manufacturer (probably
including Scott), that if you want something done right (by our standards)
in China, you have to have one of your own people there supervising. That's
just the way it is. This might be more practical for a bicycle company than
a toy company, since manufacturing is more centralized (factories aren't
spread throughout the country, due to the need for relatively high-tech
tooling and skills), and the cost of each individual piece is higher.

> While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
> the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
> face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
> this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
> descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
> *still* think the risk is justifiable?

My apologies if I said that "nobody died" riding a carbon fiber bike. I
doubt that's the case; there are enough of them out there that it's a near
certainty that people have died riding carbon fiber bikes, and it's even
likely, given the numbers, that somebody might have died due to something
defective. That's certainly been the case with aluminum, steel & titanium
bikes, and I have no reason to believe there's something so magical about
carbon fiber that it can't be screwed up in a fashion that couldn't
seriously injure or kill someone. Manufacturing itself is a flawed process,
because perfection is not sustainable in the long run. Too many variables.
Aluminum frames have had their front ends literally fall off at the welds.
Steel forks have collapsed because they weren't brazed properly, or somebody
screwed up and thought long welded tangs on the inside of the blades were a
good idea. Titanium frames have failed at welds.

All of which proves nothing whatsoever in terms of suitability of a material
to build a bicycle.

And again, as I pointed out previously, I've had multiple stem failures.
Both failed at times I'd rather they hadn't (during sprints). Both were just
as capable of putting me down on the ground as any frame failure imaginable,
although it's difficult to imagine a frame failure that would give
absolutely zero warning, as the stems did. So, do I think about that when
descending Old La Honda (why would you do that, by the way? 84 is much
safer) or Kings Mtn? No. Because I've put a zillion miles on bicycles over
the years, and such failures are exceptionally rare.

So what is a justifiable risk to you? Is any risk whatsoever justifiable? I
take a risk every time I ride my bike, especially descending. But I'm not
concerned about the sort of failure we've dealt with in this thread. I'm
concerned there could be a piece of glass with my name on it, causing a
blowout in a corner through which I cannot recover, and possibly sending me
into the path of an oncoming car. I think the risk of high-quality equipment
failing is insignificant in comparison.

> For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
> elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
> don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
> Spin that one for me.

Why?

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



"damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> wrote:
>> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
>> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
>> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
>> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.
>>
>> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when
>> somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited
>> about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a
>> single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical
>> usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly
>> what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next
>> week
>> coming up with ways to defend that initial position.
>>
>> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet
>> another
>> thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python
>> "witch"
>> sketch.
>>
>> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
>> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
>> *should* be, I guess.
>>
>> --Mike Jacoubowsky
>> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
>> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>>
>> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:B9WdnafJ5eML_HXbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>> >> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message news:...
>> >>> <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
>>
>> >>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
>> >>>> replying
>> >>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
>> >>>> opponent.
>>
>> >>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
>> >>> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more
>> >>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
>> >>> discussion groups with impunity.
>>
>> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
>> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
>> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
>> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.
>>
>> > I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully
>> > get pushed back every once in a while.
>
> I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
> original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed
> technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that
> manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured
> Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A.
> Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA,"
> offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory
> proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is
> "manufacturing defect."
>
> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
> justifiable risk?
>
> While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
> the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
> face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
> this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
> descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
> *still* think the risk is justifiable?
>
> For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
> elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
> don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
> Spin that one for me.
>

[Jambo]

"Doug Taylor" <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote in message
news:9c8he3lnd5chlb5dg330qooedsl88jr4b9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:35:03 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing CF
>>frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been enough
>>failures to make me very concerned.
>
> Sure. This so reminds me of the supposed disc brake ejected wheels
> which dominated thread after thread in rbt and amb 2 years ago.

Sigh. Disc brakes have nothing to do with carbon fiber frames. Hence, why
do you think your arguments in disc brakes will apply to carbon fiber
frames?

>Which
> just disappeared into the ether, because, as people like beam and
> myself pointed out then, and are now vindicated, it was nothing less
> than fictitious usenet urban legend championed by my favorite people,
> the retrogrouches and the chicken little's of the world.

Wow, congratulations to yourself and beamboy. I suppose James' experience
of disc brakes, his compilation of stories from people with similar
experiences, and the fact that the big fork makers like Magura, Fox,
Marzocchi, (and other custom companies like Thick Bikes and Wily Cycles) all
now orient their disc tabbed fork dropouts forward, are all just retrogrouch
sulkings. And no, please don't resuscitate this issue, it's been beaten to
death.

> Who have the
> temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because I like state
> of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy?

You just keep going on with your issues, it's as if you really need to
convince yourself or be vindicated in your beliefs by others! You don't
need to say anymore, we got your number....

[Tim McNamara]

In article <9c8he3lnd5chlb5dg330qooedsl88jr4b9@4ax.com>,
Doug Taylor <dtaylor@dreamscape.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:35:03 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing
> >CF frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been
> >enough failures to make me very concerned.
>
> Sure. This so reminds me of the supposed disc brake ejected wheels
> which dominated thread after thread in rbt and amb 2 years ago.
> Which just disappeared into the ether, because, as people like beam
> and myself pointed out then, and are now vindicated, it was nothing
> less than fictitious usenet urban legend championed by my favorite
> people, the retrogrouches and the chicken little's of the world.

Vindicated? Bull****. The ejection force was conclusively demonstrated
in direction and magnitude. The design flaw was made crystal clear.
That discussion was over a long time ago. beam was wrong then as he so
often is.

> Who have the temerity of accusing me of jumping on bandwagons because
> I like state of the art equipment. Can you say hypocrisy?

You misunderstand once again.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <1189651606.164762.293360@o80g2000hse.googlegroups. com>,
damyth <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

> On Sep 12, 6:35 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <Ab%Fi.50004$Um6.27...@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>,
> > "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes
> > > on when somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and
> > > everyone gets excited about it... despite a lack of any real
> > > information. We see a picture of a single broken frame and build
> > > an entire world around it. And, in typical usenet fashion, some
> > > want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly what's wrong
> > > before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next week
> > > coming up with ways to defend that initial position.
> >
> > The initial position taken by most of us was that we couldn't
> > conclude what happened with the Scott frame that broke in a crash.
> > Most of us took that position except for a very few people who
> > wanted to blame Scott. Most of us felt that we simply didn't have
> > enough information about the crash, the frame and its history. It
> > is the conservative approach and really the only one open to us
> > given the dearth of data about the specifics of the incident.
> >
> > The conversation has long since moved on from that, with I suspect
> > the OP not getting the support he wanted and disappearing. The
> > conversation has basically been about the impact resistance of CF
> > composites, pulled adrift occasionally by jim beam's pseudoscience
> > spew and Doug Taylor's "retrogrouch" name-calling and a few people
> > (myself included) rising to the bait, and about the consequences of
> > impact damage on longevity and the risk of catastrophic failures in
> > CF as compared to other materials. This has required some
> > discussion of the nature of CF composites.
> >
> > While wood can be described as a composite, it is generally a poor
> > analogy for CF composites. CF is designed, wood just grows. There
> > are enough broken trees after any storm to show that spontaneous
> > organic growth does not necessarily result in optimal strength.
> >
> > As far as the dearth of people dying left and right due to failing
> > CF frames and forks, I say that's a good thing. But there's been
> > enough failures to make me very concerned.
>
> The "OP" didn't disappear. He was never "here" to begin with. The
> person who started of the "CF shatters" thread (on usenet) was
> quoting a post originally made on another internet forum. Read the
> original post to refresh your memory.

That is immaterial.

[jim beam]

Jambo wrote:
> "Ben C" <spamspam@spam.eggs> wrote in message
> news:slrnfegm3c.5ge.spamspam@bowser.marioworld...
>> I don't see how objectionable responses of the kind we are growing
>> accustomed to seeing from Jambo can possibly benefit or educate anyone.
>
> "Growing accustomed to see"? Funny, you may have noticed beamboy's bluster
> decreasing since his bluffs have been called. Accordingly, his reap
> followed suit.
>
>> I doubt jim beam, their intended target, is bothered much by them. All
>> they are likely to achieve is to annoy and drive away people who might
>> have interesting things to say, and to deter newcomers who might be
>> browsing around and wondering whether to ask how to adjust their
>> derailleurs.
>
> I don't see how pushing back on a fraudster bully that is beamboy can deter
> other people from posting, unless they in fact support the former. Wouldn't
> it make more sense that this fraudster bully who try to suppress real
> knowledge contradictory to his, is the real annoyance?
>
>> If you want to question the validity of someone's presentation then just
>> address the technical points. That's what we all want to read.
>
> If only the fraudster bully would read this and learn....
>
>> Equally acceptable is to ignore them completely, as you generally do
>> beam these days. This is a shame although I can understand it in your
>> case. Although personally I rate the majority of his contributions, I
>> would probably have killfiled him by now if I were you.
>
> Not if there is a point to be made, that fraudulent claims to qualifications
> and the bleating of poor understanding of basic science and scientific
> methodologies cannot be disguised with bluster, technomumble, and personal
> insults. Is this not a technical newsgroup?

yeah, correct definition of density, modulus and calling a bull****ter
who doesn't understand the difference between plasticity and elasticity
is real technomumble. ****ing moron.


>
>> Jambo's revelation, on the other hand, that his aim is to gag jim beam
>> with a deliberate campaign of abuse is quite astonishingly unpleasant. I
>> charitably thought he was just a troll.
>
> Your interpretations are your own....
>
>

[Michael Press]

In article <wv2Gi.2855$Sd4.436@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame material
> that has ever been brought to cycling.

I dispute your claim "failure in every technology and
frame material that has ever been brought to cycling."
Steel frames do not fail because of the material, they
fail because of manufacturing defects. CF fails as a
material because it is brittle, hides damage, and
because of its failure mode. By failure mode I mean
that when it fails it fails all the way, where metals
fail a little bit at a time, the little bits
perceptible to the bicycle rider.

> Carbon fiber is little different from
> any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrible
> frame.

I do not see how this is different from metal frames.

> You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or
> inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after the
> fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, sometimes
> intentionally.

I ride steel for various unimportant reasons. If I
wanted an ultra-high performance frame I would buy Al.

--
Michael Press

[damyth]

On Sep 12, 8:54 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
> > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed
> > technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that
> > manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured
> > Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A.
> > Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA,"
> > offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory
> > proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is
> > "manufacturing defect."
>
> I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what
> theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell,
> there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the
> original photo and description that started this thread even happened in the
> first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or anyone else to
> say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an indication of an
> extraordinarily low standard of proof.
>

Wow, now you're questioning whether the photos are doctored?? Later
on in your post you write "people aren't dying left and right due to
failing frames." Why are you trying so hard to SPIN this?

In the original "CF Shatters" thread various people advanced various
theories as to what might have happened:

1. prior crash
2. overzealous clamping of down tube with roof rack
3. head on hit to the curb/or some other cause for sudden stop
4. owner neglect
5. manufacturing defect

Basically theories 1-4 belong in the class "I've never seen stuff like
this happen before, therefore the owner MUST have done something
wrong, surely this is more than JRA." Mr. Muzi, despite all his "I
don't know, seek legal counsel" posts, was cheerleading this view
advanced in a post by Mr. McNamara:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/2cea1029cb04d897

You (Mr. Jacoubowsky) advanced theory number 3:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/a1dd8c407cf72fc5

I then explained in subsequent posts that a well-manufactured CF tube
was extremely unlike to shatter transversely in two places on the same
ride, none of the theories 1-4 accounts for the down tube shattering
in 2 places :
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/6e4a1cc03d7b1bd5
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/45d71a93f29108f7

If you've been technically trained, you'd understand the concept of
hypothesis testing, nothing can be proved to 100% certainty, in most
cases you advance various hypotheses, and essentially use a process of
elimination (proof by contradiction), by showing all hypotheses to be
false except one. Since none of theories account for the down tube
shattering in two places, they're "disproven," especially when the
rest of the bike is pristine, and presumably the owner didn't have the
bike more than two months. The OP's actual words were "I ride a SCOTT
CR1 team, which I have now had for over a month."

> > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
> > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
> > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
> > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
> > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
> > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
> > justifiable risk?
>
> There is ample evidence of failure in every technology and frame material
> that has ever been brought to cycling. Carbon fiber is little different from
> any other material. You can build a great frame out of it, or a terrible
> frame. You can build a frame appropriate for a given purpose, or
> inappropriate. And unfortunately, it's the user who often decides, after the
> fact, to subject it to inappropriate use. Sometimes by accident, sometimes
> intentionally.
>
> And why are you bringing China into this? As if the fact that they poison
> our kids with lead paint has anything to do with high tech and not
> everything to do with simple greed? We could get into a lengthy discussion
> about the pitfalls of offshoring manufacturing to a culture with different
> standards and ways of dealing with things than our own, but I don't think
> that's really rec.bicycles.tech material. But I'll contribute something
> anyway. Trek learned ages ago, as has most every manufacturer (probably
> including Scott), that if you want something done right (by our standards)
> in China, you have to have one of your own people there supervising. That's
> just the way it is. This might be more practical for a bicycle company than
> a toy company, since manufacturing is more centralized (factories aren't
> spread throughout the country, due to the need for relatively high-tech
> tooling and skills), and the cost of each individual piece is higher.
>
I bring China into this because I suspect the Scott frames are made
there. I don't know, this is something you as a bike dealer can
easily verify. In a country where there's not been a tradition or
internalization of QA, using CF manufactured there for bikes is indeed
Russian Roulette.

> > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
> > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
> > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
> > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
> > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
> > *still* think the risk is justifiable?
>
> My apologies if I said that "nobody died" riding a carbon fiber bike. I
> doubt that's the case; there are enough of them out there that it's a near
> certainty that people have died riding carbon fiber bikes, and it's even
> likely, given the numbers, that somebody might have died due to something
> defective. That's certainly been the case with aluminum, steel & titanium
> bikes, and I have no reason to believe there's something so magical about
> carbon fiber that it can't be screwed up in a fashion that couldn't
> seriously injure or kill someone. Manufacturing itself is a flawed process,
> because perfection is not sustainable in the long run. Too many variables.
> Aluminum frames have had their front ends literally fall off at the welds.
> Steel forks have collapsed because they weren't brazed properly, or somebody
> screwed up and thought long welded tangs on the inside of the blades were a
> good idea. Titanium frames have failed at welds.
>
> All of which proves nothing whatsoever in terms of suitability of a material
> to build a bicycle.
>
Right. And because CF manufacturing is so labor intensive, and has so
many additional variables compared to metals, why take the additional
risk? This is the flip side of the China question earlier.

> And again, as I pointed out previously, I've had multiple stem failures.
> Both failed at times I'd rather they hadn't (during sprints). Both were just
> as capable of putting me down on the ground as any frame failure imaginable,
> although it's difficult to imagine a frame failure that would give
> absolutely zero warning, as the stems did. So, do I think about that when
> descending Old La Honda (why would you do that, by the way? 84 is much
> safer) or Kings Mtn? No. Because I've put a zillion miles on bicycles over
> the years, and such failures are exceptionally rare.
>
> So what is a justifiable risk to you? Is any risk whatsoever justifiable? I
> take a risk every time I ride my bike, especially descending. But I'm not
> concerned about the sort of failure we've dealt with in this thread. I'm
> concerned there could be a piece of glass with my name on it, causing a
> blowout in a corner through which I cannot recover, and possibly sending me
> into the path of an oncoming car. I think the risk of high-quality equipment
> failing is insignificant in comparison.
>
The issue is not failure per se, the issue is catastrophic failure. I
don't know what happened in the case of your (presumably aluminum)
stems, but metal gives users plenty of warning before failing. The
issue with CF is that it doesn't.

> > For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
> > elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
> > don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
> > Spin that one for me.
>
> Why?
>
Because you're spinning (and I don't mean that in a good way). See
the first paragraph in my reply.

> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> "damyth" <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
> >> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
> >> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
> >> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
> >> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.
>
> >> You need to add one other issue- the wild extrapolation that goes on when
> >> somebody posts a photo and/or story on the 'net and everyone gets excited
> >> about it... despite a lack of any real information. We see a picture of a
> >> single broken frame and build an entire world around it. And, in typical
> >> usenet fashion, some want to rush in and exclaim that they know exactly
> >> what's wrong before somebody else can, and then have to spend the next
> >> week
> >> coming up with ways to defend that initial position.
>
> >> And now? Now we're learning all about pencils & trees. Which is yet
> >> another
> >> thing going on here... it's beginning to resemble the Monty Python
> >> "witch"
> >> sketch.
>
> >> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real world,
> >> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
> >> *should* be, I guess.
>
> >> --Mike Jacoubowsky
> >> Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReaction.com
> >> Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
>
> >> "Peter Cole" <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:B9WdnafJ5eML_HXbnZ2dnUVZ_rOpnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> >> >> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message news:...
> >> >>> <jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
>
> >> >>>> Because a subject receives a rude response does not validate
> >> >>>> replying
> >> >>>> in kind. Returning rudeness reduces a response to the level of the
> >> >>>> opponent.
>
> >> >>> However, the concern is that bluster, rude retorts, and cover ups
> >> >>> through insults do get past the bs filters of some people, and more
> >> >>> significantly, allow people like beamboy to continue polluting
> >> >>> discussion groups with impunity.
>
> >> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech vs
> >> > religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those who share
> >> > that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with any common sense
> >> > realize he gets nastier as the ice gets thinner.
>
> >> > I have to agree with Jobst, although I don't mind seeing a verbal bully
> >> > get pushed back every once in a while.
>
> > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
> > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the credentialed
> > technologists (myself included) came forward and stated that
> > manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case of the pictured
> > Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike shop owners, A.
> > Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more than JRA,"
> > offering theories that were easily disproven. The only theory
> > proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been disproven is
> > "manufacturing defect."
>
> > I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
> > that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
> > admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
> > compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
> > made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
> > that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
> > justifiable risk?
>
> > While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
> > the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
> > face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
> > this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
> > descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
> > *still* think the risk is justifiable?
>
> > For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
> > elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
> > don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
> > Spin that one for me.

[Tim McNamara]

In article <wv2Gi.2855$Sd4.436@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> "damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> > On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> > wrote:
> >> > There's more going on here than tech issues -- it's really tech
> >> > vs religion (anti-tech, here disguised as pseudo-tech). To those
> >> > who share that faith, he is preaching to the choir. Those with
> >> > any common sense realize he gets nastier as the ice gets
> >> > thinner.
> >>
> > I don't think there is anything "wild extrapolation" about the
> > original "CF shatters" thread at all. In fact, iirc, the
> > credentialed technologists (myself included) came forward and
> > stated that manufacturing defects cannot be ruled out in the case
> > of the pictured Scott frame, while the rest of you (especially bike
> > shop owners, A. Muzi, yourself come to mind) were speculating "more
> > than JRA," offering theories that were easily disproven. The only
> > theory proposed so far in that thread that has NOT yet been
> > disproven is "manufacturing defect."
>
> I think both Mr. Muzi and I would be very interested in knowing what
> theories we offered that were "easily disproven." Near as I can tell,
> there's been no proof of anything whatsoever. Not even proof that the
> original photo and description that started this thread even happened
> in the first place. I believe something did happen, but for you or
> anyone else to say there's proof of anything thus far can only be an
> indication of an extraordinarily low standard of proof.

Which is pretty much where the thread has been at. With a couple of
exceptions, everyone noted that there just wasn't enough information to
come to a reliable and/or valid conclusion. There were a couple of
people who wanted to jump on the "manufacturing defect" bandwagon but
that didn't really go anywhere because there's just not enough
information. We don't know the prior condition of the bike and we don;t
know the specifics of the crash.

For a "credentialed technologist" to take such a low standard of proof
is disturbing to me. The "credentialed technologist" also needs to
learn something about formal logic, proofs and disproofs, it would seem.

[Michael Warner]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:09:27 -0700, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> YES!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I'M AN EVIL GREEDY BUSINESSMAN WHO MAKES A LIVING
> SELLING PEOPLE BIKES & ACCESSORIES!!! I PUSH BICYCLES!

Jeez, I hope you've got X-No-Archive headers enabled :-)

[Doug Taylor]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:09:27 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> How much have you invested in carbon frame in your stock? Can you
>> honestly, with your hand in your heart, tell us that you don't have a
>> vested interest in pushing high-margin boutique bikes?
>
>Is that a question that concerns you, because you think I've somehow hidden
>what I do for a living from everyone here? As if people don't know that I've
>got a business that puts my kids through school selling the product you
>apparently loathe?
>
>YES!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I'M AN EVIL GREEDY BUSINESSMAN WHO MAKES A LIVING
>SELLING PEOPLE BIKES & ACCESSORIES!!! I PUSH BICYCLES!
>
>There. I feel so much better now that my secret's out. :>)

OK by me, Mike. As you know, I'm a gullible market manipulated baby
boomer poseur with a hole in my wallet who keeps you all in business
by actually buying bicycles and parts. Often. Road and Off-road.

The type who stops in the shop weekly to yuck it up with the owner,
salespeople and mechanics even if NOT buying anything.

And who actually puts in 150 miles or so a week, sometimes more,
sometimes less, as well.

What can I say? My name is Doug. I'm a bike-o-holic.

[Jambo]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:XJ2Gi.2856$Sd4.794@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> How much have you invested in carbon frame in your stock? Can you
>> honestly, with your hand in your heart, tell us that you don't have a
>> vested interest in pushing high-margin boutique bikes?
>
> Is that a question that concerns you, because you think I've somehow
> hidden what I do for a living from everyone here? As if people don't know
> that I've got a business that puts my kids through school selling the
> product you apparently loathe?
>
> YES!!! I ADMIT IT!!! I'M AN EVIL GREEDY BUSINESSMAN WHO MAKES A LIVING
> SELLING PEOPLE BIKES & ACCESSORIES!!! I PUSH BICYCLES!
>
> There. I feel so much better now that my secret's out. :>)

That's not the issue though Mike, and you know it, although you might not
know that dodging the question by ad absurdum comments don't generally
succeed.

The question is, do you or do you not have a vested interest in pushing CF
frame bikes? It's a simple question. Because your wholehearted belief in
CF and how you ignore the requirements for CF components, contrary to
decades of data experience in the aerospace industry, don't seem to be based
on any technical understanding of the material.

And your requirement of "people dying" to disprove your faith in CF is not
really logical.

[damyth]

On Sep 12, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
> >> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
> >> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
> >> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
> >> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
> >> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
> >> justifiable risk?
>
> > It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what
> > the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment
> > recommendations between CF and metal frames.
>
> I don't refuse to answer the question; rather, I don't know of a generic
> answer to that question. My experience in that regard is with what I sell.
> Trek has gone to great lengths to educate people about the differences
> between carbon fiber and "metal" frames, explaining in the owner's manual,
> as well as on their website, that it may be difficult to tell if a carbon
> fiber component has been damaged in a crash. They list ways to try and find
> the damage, while for "metal" frames, they don't bother giving such
> instructions (they just say to inspect it for damage). I find that,
> personally, unfortunate... because I come across quite a few damaged steel &
> aluminum frames that are in danger of failure, and some after they have
> already failed. As you would so strongly insist, at least some of these
> frames probably provided warning prior to failure, but nobody bothered to
> look them over (after a crash or impact).
>
> It must be stressed that I am not a manufacturer, and that I am somewhat at
> odds with what some manufacturers would suggest. I am basically the final
> link in the chain. I'm the person who sees, directly, what happens to the
> product in the real world. I'm not an engineer, I'm an observer. I observe
> and, when I have questions, have access to intelligent people involved with
> the design and manufacture of the product. As an observer, I also get to see
> & hear many stories about JRAs (mysterious "just riding along" failures),
> and, by being patient, get to hear such stories sometimes change & evolve.
> Gets back to that thing I mentioned previously- that question- "What do you
> think *really* happened?" Sometimes it's exactly as presented, and sometimes
> not. Sometimes I go out to the scene and try to piece things together. It's
> interesting what you can find that way.
>
> But I've gotten away from your specific question. On a macro level, I,
> personally, see no difference in the need to inspect a carbon fiber bike
> after impact vs any other bike. On a micro level, you're looking for
> different things on a carbon fiber bike than steel or aluminum or titanium.
> But I'm not a manufacturer. Those are my recommendations. Common sense.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message
>
> news:46e8b0ec$0$18910$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>
>
> > "damyth" <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> >news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
> >> On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real
> >>> world,
> >>> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
> >>> *should* be, I guess.
>
> >> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
> >> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
> >> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
> >> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
> >> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
> >> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
> >> justifiable risk?
>
> > It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what
> > the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment
> > recommendations between CF and metal frames.
>
> >> While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
> >> the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
> >> face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
> >> this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
> >> descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
> >> *still* think the risk is justifiable?
>
> > Therein also lies the justifications for the black and white mentality
> > that people go into in their emotional perpsectives. Either CF will break
> > like glass, or CF is indestructible. Either there is an epidemic of
> > people getting killed in CF frames, or there are no CF frame breakages
> > ever. Very few actually understand that in terms of carbon fiber
> > components, we can all look to the aerospace industry for experience. The
> > fact that there are a lot more rigorous testing and inspection for CFRPs
> > compared to metals is a recognition of CF characteristics. In fact,
> > aircraft manufacturers do want to use CF on their planes, BUT they
> > recognise its testing, handling and inspection requirements AND the
> > consequences of failing to do so.
>
> > Now we have bicycle shop owners who obviously want to flog what they can
> > sell for higher profit (and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that),
> > but only rely on the manufacturers' word as far as the characteristics of
> > their products go. Not many bike shop owners have scientific nor
> > technical backgrounds, yet they sell high technology products and only
> > have their own, somewhat limited experience (and that's not a put-down,
> > just fact) to either support or repudiate manufacturer claims.
>
> >> For people who race, crashing is almost a fact of life, and racers may
> >> elect to take this risk. For people who ride recreationally, why
> >> don't you tell me what exactly is the point of facial reconstruction?
> >> Spin that one for me.
>
> > It would be good if he can just answer the question, what the difference
> > is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment recommendations
> > between CF and metal frames.

While you are indeed in a better position than the rest of us to
observe "field failures" of bike components than the rest of the
general population, with all due respect & by your own admission,
you've got no technical training and rely almost exclusively on Trek's
explanations (in your case) for "anomalies." To anyone with solid
engineering experience with composites, two transverse breaks of CFRP
tube would have screamed "manufacturing defect." ( or hacksaw
blade :) ) Especially when juxtaposed with otherwise pristine &
damage-free components such as wheels, forks, stem, bars, etc., in the
case of the OP's Scott CF bike.

Even now in this post you bring up JRA. You're like a losing
compulsive gambler who thinks his run of bad luck MUST change, who
doesn't realize each incident of frame breakage must be treated as an
independent event. You _still_ don't understand two breaks in a down
tube on a single ride represent a singular event. In other words,
your experience (regarding frame failure) does not apply. Better take
Mr. Muzi's position and just say: "I don't know, seek legal counsel."

I don't mean this as a put down and I say this with all due respect,
but bike shop owners & mechanics are not qualified to evaluate high
technology. Heck, that might apply even to manufacturers. Jobst has
implied as much regarding Shimano and Octalink.

[Jambo]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:803Gi.2857$Sd4.2146@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of what
>> the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment
>> recommendations between CF and metal frames.
>
> I don't refuse to answer the question; rather, I don't know of a generic
> answer to that question.

It's a straightforward question with a simple answer, and the generic answer
you gave below is adequate.

> My experience in that regard is with what I sell. Trek has gone to great
> lengths to educate people about the differences between carbon fiber and
> "metal" frames, explaining in the owner's manual, as well as on their
> website, that it may be difficult to tell if a carbon fiber component has
> been damaged in a crash. They list ways to try and find the damage, while
> for "metal" frames, they don't bother giving such instructions (they just
> say to inspect it for damage).

And therein lies the validation of one of the critical points behind my
posts on CF. Nothing doomsday about it, people aren't melting or growing
extra arms because of CF frames, just that CF requires more attention, more
rigorous inspection than metal frames as acknowledged "to great lengths" by
at least one bike manufacturer. This doesn't mean that the material should
be banned: rather users and manufacturers need to be aware of the
requirements of using the material, and the consequences of not doing so.

However, it seems that somehow this difference in Trek's attitude to CF
compared to metal frames does not make an impression on you on how CF is
different from metals.

> I find that, personally, unfortunate... because I come across quite a few
> damaged steel & aluminum frames that are in danger of failure, and some
> after they have already failed. As you would so strongly insist, at least
> some of these frames probably provided warning prior to failure, but
> nobody bothered to look them over (after a crash or impact).

> But I've gotten away from your specific question. On a macro level, I,
> personally, see no difference in the need to inspect a carbon fiber bike
> after impact vs any other bike.

Agreed, but that's not the issue flagged. No one suggested bikes frames of
any other material don't need inspection after crashes.

> On a micro level, you're looking for different things on a carbon fiber
> bike than steel or aluminum or titanium. But I'm not a manufacturer. Those
> are my recommendations. Common sense.

Exactly. And all of the above agree with the underlying reasons and
intentions of my posts.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> Even now in this post you bring up JRA. You're like a losing
> compulsive gambler who thinks his run of bad luck MUST change, who
> doesn't realize each incident of frame breakage must be treated as an
> independent event. You _still_ don't understand two breaks in a down
> tube on a single ride represent a singular event. In other words,
> your experience (regarding frame failure) does not apply. Better take
> Mr. Muzi's position and just say: "I don't know, seek legal counsel."

Here's the ONLY source of information I've seen regarding the specifics of
the incident-

=======================
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.
=======================

If you've got some links with more information, please, post them. I missed
them if they're out there. Maybe there's something you've come across that
puts you in a better position than I to know what went on. All I've seen are
the photos and that description of the incident. It's not enough, in my
opinion, to jump to all the conclusions found here.

If that were my customer, I'd be out there at the scene of the accident
almost immediately. There's useful information there, for example, the size
of the "divot/small hole" which the rider assumes was there but, apparently,
hasn't gone back out to check for.

Seriously, this incident needs to be reconstructed before jumping to all
manner of conclusions. And if reconstruction requires a bunch of attorneys
to do so, fine. Few people here seem interested in what caused the incident
(which, admitted by the person involved, didn't happen by itself). But if we
start at the beginning, we can better learn of the forces involved. What if
the front wheel had fallen into a drainage grate? The end result to the
rider would have been the same, regardless of frame material or the manner
in which it had failed. What if a lot of things? We've seen a ton of
conclusions based upon nothing but a photo and that description I included
above.

If this happened anywhere on the SF Peninsula, I'd be willing to head out
and check it out. I'd even make it a public thing if people wanted, and we
could try to reconstruct things in-person. If not for the fact that a
serious injury had been involved, it would be fun to try to work through it.
This sort of thing is not new to me; thankfully, it doesn't involve
someone's death this time (reconstructing a bike/car collision on Kings Mtn
Road some years ago was both enlightening and horribly painful... and led to
some changes in the way the gutters were constructed, which might keep cars
in the future from going out of control).

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



"damyth" <mdk.10.damyth@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:1189660887.214449.138860@r34g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...
> On Sep 12, 9:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> >> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
>> >> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
>> >> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
>> >> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
>> >> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
>> >> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
>> >> justifiable risk?
>>
>> > It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of
>> > what
>> > the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment
>> > recommendations between CF and metal frames.
>>
>> I don't refuse to answer the question; rather, I don't know of a generic
>> answer to that question. My experience in that regard is with what I
>> sell.
>> Trek has gone to great lengths to educate people about the differences
>> between carbon fiber and "metal" frames, explaining in the owner's
>> manual,
>> as well as on their website, that it may be difficult to tell if a
>> carbon
>> fiber component has been damaged in a crash. They list ways to try and
>> find
>> the damage, while for "metal" frames, they don't bother giving such
>> instructions (they just say to inspect it for damage). I find that,
>> personally, unfortunate... because I come across quite a few damaged
>> steel &
>> aluminum frames that are in danger of failure, and some after they have
>> already failed. As you would so strongly insist, at least some of these
>> frames probably provided warning prior to failure, but nobody bothered to
>> look them over (after a crash or impact).
>>
>> It must be stressed that I am not a manufacturer, and that I am somewhat
>> at
>> odds with what some manufacturers would suggest. I am basically the final
>> link in the chain. I'm the person who sees, directly, what happens to the
>> product in the real world. I'm not an engineer, I'm an observer. I
>> observe
>> and, when I have questions, have access to intelligent people involved
>> with
>> the design and manufacture of the product. As an observer, I also get to
>> see
>> & hear many stories about JRAs (mysterious "just riding along" failures),
>> and, by being patient, get to hear such stories sometimes change &
>> evolve.
>> Gets back to that thing I mentioned previously- that question- "What do
>> you
>> think *really* happened?" Sometimes it's exactly as presented, and
>> sometimes
>> not. Sometimes I go out to the scene and try to piece things together.
>> It's
>> interesting what you can find that way.
>>
>> But I've gotten away from your specific question. On a macro level, I,
>> personally, see no difference in the need to inspect a carbon fiber bike
>> after impact vs any other bike. On a micro level, you're looking for
>> different things on a carbon fiber bike than steel or aluminum or
>> titanium.
>> But I'm not a manufacturer. Those are my recommendations. Common sense.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycleswww.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>> "Jambo" <-...@-.-> wrote in message
>>
>> news:46e8b0ec$0$18910$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "damyth" <mdk.10.dam...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
>> >news:1189651266.534081.305200@r29g2000hsg.googlegr oups.com...
>> >> On Sep 12, 5:08 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> All the while maintaining that it's not relevant that, in the real
>> >>> world,
>> >>> people aren't dying right & left due to failing frames. Because they
>> >>> *should* be, I guess.
>>
>> >> I believe you've been dealing long enough with CF bikes enough to know
>> >> that CF frames are subject to failure. Hell, even Trek themselves
>> >> admit this. Failures don't happen often, but occur frequently enough
>> >> compared to metal frames. I don't know where the Scott CF frames are
>> >> made (I assume China, but don't actually know), but given all the crap
>> >> that been happening to Chinese products, are you saying this is a
>> >> justifiable risk?
>>
>> > It's interesting that Mike J. refuses to respond to my question, of
>> > what
>> > the difference is on the manufacturers' inspection/damage assessment
>> > recommendations between CF and metal frames.
>>
>> >> While it's true "nobody died" while riding a CF bike, you'll note that
>> >> the owner of the broken frame stated he received 11 stitches to his
>> >> face, not to mention lacerations to other body parts. I wouldn't wish
>> >> this on anyone who rides a bike. Suppose the fellow had been
>> >> descending Old La Honda or Kings Mtn. Rd. when the frame broke, you
>> >> *still* think the risk is justifiable?
>>
>> > Therein also lies the justificatio