An unexpected end to my ride today

[GoLefty!!]

indeed sh*t happens, but use imodium to control when it happens 

[Johan Bornman]

oh my google bannanna flavoured cakesisters.

How serious is this "nicking" of the seat post???


I marked my seat post for the DD with a nick as I did not trust the tape since I knew the tape might move. How serious is this ? Do I need to replace the seat post ?

 

Nick cannot be defined so consider it more serious than benign. However, these things have a way of revealing themselves if you regularly wash your bike and inspect it closely. Cracks develop over time and will give the keen eye some warning.

 

Take your seat post out from time to time and see if it is still straight against a straight-edge. Eye your handlebars from the front and see if both sides line up. Check for cracks around all frame shock pivots, at the seat post clamp etc. Make sure your stem has four bolts at the face plate and not just four.

Where should you aim your fine tooth comb? Well, anywhere that will make you squirm if I you think of a break there; handlebars, seatposts, fork crowns (poeping myself just thinking of this one), stems (and their bolts), etc.

 

Lots of rough, tough MTBers say only poofters wash their bikes. We'll, washing a bike is a great way of getting a good inspection in.

 

The alternative to all this paranoia and checking is of course to ride a heavier bike but that won't happen.

 

 

[Lotus]

 

 

 

 

The only big deal you can make of this is to cricitise people for buying the lightest stuff on the market. This culture of asking how much something weighs instead of how strong it is' date=' is Darwinian.[/quote']

Indeed, I think it may have been Gary Fisher (or Keith Bontrager) who said to choose the perfect bike "Cheap, Strong, Lightweight - Pick

two".

 

The truth is, however, that the manufacturers are between a rock and a hard place. The rock is a market demanding lighter and cheaper components, driven by "weight weenies" and feature seekers. The hard place is the legal system, where even obesity and tobacco addiction are never the fault of the simple-minded consumer. "Component failure - not my fault. I was just riding along when this ultra light XC bar on my pro downhill bike came off in my hand. Now I can't enjoy conjugal rights with my PS3 anymore - gimme $10million!"

How does a manufacturer find a balance? I suppose the only way they can protect themselves is with fine print and disclaimers.

Lotus2010-01-13 00:01:28

[Capricorn]

 

 

 

?

The only big deal you can make of this is to cricitise people for buying the lightest stuff on the market. This culture of asking how much something weighs instead of how strong it is' date=' is Darwinian.[/quote']

Indeed, I think it may have been Gary Fisher (or Keith Bontrager) who said to choose the perfect bike "Cheap, Strong, Lightweight - Pick

two".

The truth is, however, that the manufacturers are between a rock and a hard place. The rock is a market demanding lighter and cheaper components, driven by "weight weenies" and feature seekers. The hard place is the legal system, where even obesity and tobacco addiction are never the fault of the simple-minded consumer. "Component failure - not my fault. I was just riding along when this ultra light XC bar on my pro downhill bike came off in my hand. Now I can't enjoy conjugal rights with my PS3 anymore - gimme $10million!"
How does a manufacturer find a balance? I suppose the only way they can protect themselves is with fine print and disclaimers.

or you do what e.Thirteen did and simply not compete in that sector. e.Thirteen's story involves the balance between satisfying customer needs vs being responsible. They had designed a 2piece prototype DH steam that used 7075 aluminum. They were the front runner at the time. Later on, other's jumped on the bandwagon, but produced similarly configured 2 piece stems using 6065 aluminum. It was lighter, but weaker, and e.Thirteen refused to compromise on the safety first aspect of their material choice. Granted, them relating their side of the story might be self-serving in many ways, but I do agree with their approach about safety first when it comes to certain components. For DH'ers, almost everything is critical, but all bicycles have a few critical safety related components in common, and this i think is where industry should have a standard for every to do or die at. Weight weenies need to go shed kilos where it matters, not whinge and whine to compromise safety for everyone. Manufactures need to man up and the law needs to hold them accountable.

[Woofie]

Ok, I have been following these comments and each one I read makes me feel nervous about touching my bikes now.

I hope that you are ok and recovering well.

I read somewhere that it was ritchey bars?

Was it standard or oversize bars - it is hard to see in the pic.

What would be stronger - oversize or standard?

 

I am running very light oversize ritchey wcs 4axis stem and wcs logic II bars.

 

Do I have reason to start worrying? 

 

 

 

[Johan Bornman]

Ok' date=' I have been following these comments and each one I read makes me feel nervous about touching my bikes now.
I hope that you are ok and recovering well.
I read somewhere that it was ritchey bars?
Was it standard or oversize bars - it is hard to see in the pic.
What would be stronger - oversize or standard?

I am running very light oversize ritchey wcs 4axis stem and wcs logic II bars.

Do I have reason to start worrying? 


[/quote']

 

The oversize will provide more stiffness (bending strength, if you like)  than the standard size but will be equally prone from failure from a crack or fatigue. For all intends and purposes they are thus equally vulnerable.

 

The fact that they were Richey is neither here nor there. They all have the same issues to deal with.

 

Should you be worried? No, just safe. Regularly inspect them. Tell your wife to stop washing your bike and do it yourself. Wash carefully, take your time and look for flaws.

 

In the old days, before a race at the start line, the race commissaire used to walk between the riders and randomly test handlebars. He gripped the front wheel between his knees and strongly flexed the bars left right up and down, looking for fatigued bars and loose stems. He often found one or two to the great amusement of the riders who would cheer, leer and clap hands. The offender would blush but thank him under his breath.

 

Nowadays....

 

 

[Johan Bornman]

The truth is' date=' however, that the manufacturers are between a rock and a hard place. The rock is a market demanding lighter and cheaper components, driven by "weight weenies" and feature seekers. The hard place is the legal system, where even obesity and tobacco addiction are never the fault of the simple-minded consumer. "Component fail....cut cut cut cut

[/quote']

 

Yeah, but I'm not between a rock and hard place. I can choose to ride light bars or sensible bars. My road bike weighs 9.8 kilos. I feel safe on it. Peer pressure se moer.

 

 

[GoLefty!!]

 

The only big deal you can make of this is to cricitise people for buying the lightest stuff on the market. This culture of asking how much something weighs instead of how strong it is' date=' is Darwinian.[/quote']

Indeed, I think it may have been Gary Fisher (or Keith Bontrager) who said to choose the perfect bike "Cheap, Strong, Lightweight - Pick two".

The truth is, however, that the manufacturers are between a rock and a hard place. The rock is a market demanding lighter and cheaper components, driven by "weight weenies" and feature seekers. The hard place is the legal system, where even obesity and tobacco addiction are never the fault of the simple-minded consumer. "Component failure - not my fault. I was just riding along when this ultra light XC bar on my pro downhill bike came off in my hand. Now I can't enjoy conjugal rights with my PS3 anymore - gimme $10million!"
How does a manufacturer find a balance? I suppose the only way they can protect themselves is with fine print and disclaimers.

or you do what e.Thirteen did and simply not compete in that sector. e.Thirteen's story involves the balance between satisfying customer needs vs being responsible. They had designed a 2piece prototype DH steam that used 7075 aluminum. They were the front runner at the time. Later on, other's jumped on the bandwagon, but produced similarly configured 2 piece stems using 6065 aluminum. It was lighter, but weaker, and e.Thirteen refused to compromise on the safety first aspect of their material choice. Granted, them relating their side of the story might be self-serving in many ways, but I do agree with their approach about safety first when it comes to certain components. For DH'ers, almost everything is critical, but all bicycles have a few critical safety related components in common, and this i think is where industry should have a standard for every to do or die at. Weight weenies need to go shed kilos where it matters, not whinge and whine to compromise safety for everyone. Manufactures need to man up and the law needs to hold them accountable.

 

100% with you on this one.

 

Manufacturers are locked intoa war of lightness the lighter they make stuff, the stiffer the stuff has to be to prevent fatigue (Limiting deflection).

The stiffer some aprts the more uncomfortable it becomes.

 

I have solved the issue for myself and its pretty simple. Don;t buy top of the range finishing kit ; Bars, stems, seat posts. Lately I have started to add frames to that list as well. I'd rather have the best fork I can afford and a slightly heavier frame from the mid range because often it is going to be stronger more comfortable and lighter in my insurance bill.

 

Often top of the range components are really bad value for money.

 

the only way this madness stops is if we vote with our wallets.

 

Are carbon bars a good idea? Maybe, until we have an accident

Is a Carbon Seat post a good idea? Perhaps for comfort maybe for fatigue life too.

 

But safety is up the end user. You know that the lightest parts are marginal on safety. If you consider safety then perhaps top of the range is not where you want to spend your money.

 

I also like ot buy parts, bikes from companies that have good reputations.

 

Things like, no weight limit, lifetime or at least 5yr warranty, component replacement policy in the manual or documentation. these are responsible companies.

Why would anyone want to buy a bike that has a weight limit? that should immediately tell us that there is a problem.

 

 

[TNT1]

 

 

In the old days' date=' before a race at the start line, the race commissaire used to walk between the riders and randomly test handlebars. He gripped the front wheel between his knees and strongly flexed the bars left right up and down, looking for fatigued bars and loose stems. He often found one or two to the great amusement of the riders who would cheer, leer and clap hands. The offender would blush but thank him under his breath.

 

Nowadays....

 

 

[/quote']

 

Aaah, yes, the pre-swimming pool days

 

[Capricorn]

woofie: in the OP's case, it may simply have been a case of a manufacturing flaw, that OVER A VERY LONG TIME, and two owners, finally presented itself resulting in an accident, that fortunately, wasnt too bad to Lotus.

 

Just because it's thin doesnt mean it will break. As was mentioned before, if Richey would surely by now know if their design was intrinsically flawed due to feedback from the riding community. So I reckon you are ok.

But, this thread does raise some interesting discussion points concerning the need to go light versus safety, for at some point, there will be a tradeoff where the risk of sudden failure increases. IMHO, the thinner the tube wall, the more at risk it will be of sudden failure due to general wear and tear.

Prevention is way better than cure, so I say take care when mounting handlebars, seat posts etc, and inspect them on a regular basis.

It's like in F1 (prior to the new rules), where they would endeavour to build the strongest, but lightest engine they can, where the ideal would be the engine fails just as it crosses the finishing line. But they plaster the car and engine full of telemetry so they can get a heads up if something is about to fail.

Why did the FIA require engines to last more than one race? cos they knew of the fatigue strength versus weight penalty it would incur, to presumably slow the cars ,whilst saving teams a truckload of money in terms of engine weight vs strength optimisation studies.

The point I was trying to make with the F1 analogy is that if gonna take it down to the wire, then you need to monitor more closely.

So in a nutshell:?
take care when mounting
inspect every so often.
and respect manufacturers usage guidance. They probably have a pretty good clue as to when they are about to be liable for injury/damage than you do, hence the time limit on usage for some components.

[ZakAttak]

In industry, tests are performed as these companies are bound by country laws and international standards as well. Your more well reputable companies would need to abide by these laws otherwise they will fail to sell goods to the international community. With these laws comes very important and very strict testing especially in R&D. This will ultimately prove what works and what doesn't, my earlier comment to bring it to the manufacturers attention is for them to tighten on testing of completed equipment, not only for there safety when it comes to laws which control them but also for the international community at large. Once a reputable company is badmouthed (which they surely do not want) it is difficult to regain the confidence of the community out there. The only way they will improve is if the consumer reports issues that they might have missed.... My opinion....

[Trapper]

This is a scary thread. this is the best thread in a long time.  Lots to learn and know.  Thanks all!