"Actually you are the first person to bring up this issue"

Mark Hickey wrote:

Call them up. See what you can get them to say. You have nothing to lose
but a few minutes of your time.

What are you scared of?


At the risk of sounding trite, "duh".

That doesn't sound trite, that sounds stupid and cowardly.


So please explain.. why ARE you against gathering real-word
data?

I'm not. I'm happy to see lots more real world data. Why are you too
scared to consider what might constitute a "significant" problem?

James

Mark Hickey wrote:

The rest of us might like to have an idea how often a
properly adjusted QR skewer might loosen. Since that would be a
necessary bit of information to get any CPSC action started

$100 says you are wrong. Go on, make the phone call and make some easy
money. DeMarco's address is on my web page, I have his phone number if
you prefer. Rather than trying to second-guess him, why not just ask?

James

Russ wrote:

I'm living (if not completely) proof it can happen, AFAICT my wheel was
ripped out one side at a time as I was braking very hard but in an on / off
fashion. I was trying to pick the good grip sections to brake harder on, the
disc is apparently bent indicating this one side at a time release mechanism
which is AFAICT how the lawyer lips were overcome.


I've stayed out of this debate as James knows my views but have not heard this
detail before and have a couple of questions about it:

- I'm trying to visualise how the disc could get bent, presumably it would
come from being held by the caliper while the hub twisted hence your
comments about one sided release. Without having a set of forks and a wheel
to hand to play with that would seem to indicate it was ejected first from the
right hand dropout which is the opposite of what one would expect. The
direction of the bend should give a clue - an outward bend would be a right
side release, an inward bend a left side release.

- Have you been able to rule out failure of one or both fork legs - my
recollection was they were broken or separated from the crown but that could
have happened as a cause or a consequence of the crash.

Your forks and wheel probably contain within them some of the best clues to
the sequence of events. Has anyone done any "forensic" analysis of them?

Tony

Tony Raven wrote:

- I'm trying to visualise how the disc could get bent, presumably it would
come from being held by the caliper while the hub twisted hence your
comments about one sided release. Without having a set of forks and a wheel
to hand to play with that would seem to indicate it was ejected first from the
right hand dropout which is the opposite of what one would expect. The
direction of the bend should give a clue - an outward bend would be a right
side release, an inward bend a left side release.

I suspect that is an altogether too optimistic attempt at detailed
analysis. My disk was also bent, being held firmly by the calliper as
the wheel was ejected and twisted somewhat sideways as I went over it.
It's hard to see how a disk could avoid being bent in these
circumstances. Which way do you think it should have been bent?

Of course I agree that a detailed examination of the remains would be
interesting. I confidently predict it will show all the classic signs of
"operator error" that Trek's lawyer proudly boasted he can always find
in all such cases. Except that he's never seen one, of course.

James

"Tony Raven" wrote in message
...
Russ wrote:

I'm living (if not completely) proof it can happen, AFAICT my wheel was
ripped out one side at a time as I was braking very hard but in an on /
off
fashion. I was trying to pick the good grip sections to brake harder on,
the
disc is apparently bent indicating this one side at a time release
mechanism
which is AFAICT how the lawyer lips were overcome.


I've stayed out of this debate as James knows my views but have not heard
this
detail before and have a couple of questions about it:

- I'm trying to visualise how the disc could get bent, presumably it would
come from being held by the caliper while the hub twisted hence your
comments about one sided release. Without having a set of forks and a
wheel
to hand to play with that would seem to indicate it was ejected first from
the
right hand dropout which is the opposite of what one would expect. The
direction of the bend should give a clue - an outward bend would be a
right
side release, an inward bend a left side release.

Does it really matter?

The bike is in a friend loft where it's been since the day of the crash and
I've not seen it, just had it described. Apparently there's paint rubbed off
on one of the fork legs too - again I don't know which one or exactly where
but I do remember a tyre rubbing sort of noise immediately
(seconds/fractions of seconds) prior to the crash. May indicate a one sided
ejection or may just indicate a lose wheel - who knows. The bend may of
course just be as a result of the accident.

- Have you been able to rule out failure of one or both fork legs - my
recollection was they were broken or separated from the crown but that
could
have happened as a cause or a consequence of the crash.

I'm pretty sure the crown broke when the forks hit the ground but that's
really just supposition and the fact they weren't attached to the wheel when
the guys picked up the bits.


Your forks and wheel probably contain within them some of the best clues
to
the sequence of events. Has anyone done any "forensic" analysis of them?

Not yet - and no-one will until I get advice from my legal team as to who
and how to do this. I suspect that any agreement as a result of legal action
will preclude any information on the analysis making it into the public
domain. This is also the reason I've not allowed any photos out yet.

Russ

James Annan wrote:

Only if they will do something about it, such as tell the manufacturers.
There are 4 categories:

This is sounding now more than ever like a religious crusade and an
article of Faith:

1 People who do not believe it and have not seen it

Atheists

2 People who do believe it and have not seen it

Converts

3 People who have seen it for themselves and do nothing about it

Agnostics

4 People who have seen it for themselves and do something about it.

Born Again Evangelists.




--dt

Super Slinky wrote:
is perfectly intact. You also shut up and left the thread when I pointed
out to you that going downhill off-road is the last place we can use the
maximum braking force because the angle of descent produces two effects:
a) friction with the trail surface is lower going downhill, and b) less
work is required to produce and endo going downhill.

Only one of these effects can be the limiting factor. If you can endo at
all, there was enough friction.

order, and it just isn't happening. It looks self-evident to me that
your QR was perfectly tight and if you had retention lips on that fork,
you almost certainly would have kept your wheel.

Tell that to Russ Pinder.

Your little vector diagrams are sophomoric, the truth is complex.

This is an absurd criticism. The vector diagram suffices to demonstrate
the ejection force, which is all it's intended to do.
--
David Damerell Distortion Field!

James Annan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Call them up. See what you can get them to say. You have nothing to lose
but a few minutes of your time.

What are you scared of?


At the risk of sounding trite, "duh".

That doesn't sound trite, that sounds stupid and cowardly.

So please explain.. why ARE you against gathering real-word
data?

I'm not. I'm happy to see lots more real world data. Why are you too
scared to consider what might constitute a "significant" problem?

Why in the WORLD do you suggest I'm "scared" to consider what might
constitute a "significant" problem? I want to know if there IS a
problem (or not). The issue is, you've been shot down by the
manufacturers and CPSC already. They've both heard the same stories
many times in the pre-disc days and you haven't convinced them.

OTOH, the testing I suggest would clearly indicate that there IS a
"significant" problem, if indeed there is one. A number of riders
starting with their QR skewers in a known condition, and after riding
exhibiting the precursor to a loosening skewer WOULD be the kind of
data that could HELP you make your case.

The only reason I can fathom why you would resist such an effort is
that you personally don't believe the test will indicate there IS a
problem. What other reason could there be for your resistance?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

(gwhite) wrote:

James Annan wrote:

... but the manufacturers need
real life stories and these people cannot help on that point.

Instead of a real-life story, how about a real-life lawsuit?

Believe it or not, a lawsuit doesn't really fix anything if the
manufacturer isn't convinced there is a problem. Like I've said many
times, the courts have seen many "skewers unscrewing" suits before,
but are biased by the fact that so many people neglect to properly
adjust their skewers. This is going to be viewed in the same way
unless someone can demonstrate the effect happening on forks where the
skewer is in a known condition.

The test I propose would do that. And FWIW, it would also give
ammunition to those who DO pursue a lawsuit (assuming of course the
testing demonstrates a problem exists).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

In ,
Mark Hickey typed:
James Annan wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Call them up. See what you can get them to say. You have nothing
to lose but a few minutes of your time.

What are you scared of?


At the risk of sounding trite, "duh".

That doesn't sound trite, that sounds stupid and cowardly.

So please explain.. why ARE you against gathering real-word
data?

I'm not. I'm happy to see lots more real world data. Why are you too
scared to consider what might constitute a "significant" problem?

Why in the WORLD do you suggest I'm "scared" to consider what might
constitute a "significant" problem? I want to know if there IS a
problem (or not). The issue is, you've been shot down by the
manufacturers and CPSC already. They've both heard the same stories
many times in the pre-disc days and you haven't convinced them.

I think James A's point is that he's not been shot down by the manufacturers
and CPSC, he's been stonewalled. They've not shown him anything to show that
they've considered the issue, and as the title of the thread shows, they're
pretending they've never heard of it to new people who report the issue.

He'd be happy if the data were being gathered, but it seems that it's being
thrown away.

Ambrose