Carbon frame intregrity after accident

Carl- American Insurance Group? Any Insurance Group? All Insurance
Groups? BRBR

AIG, don't know what it stands for(Ain't It Great?, taking all that
money??)-the name of the company that is insuring the woman that ran me over
from behind while I was riding my bike.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

(Carl Fogel) wrote: The emotional costs, the time, and
the money
involved in a lawsuit to recover the value of
an 8-year-old bike may mean that the best thing
to do is to walk away from it all--whatever it
takes to make Jurgen happy.

It's probably at best a $500.00 bike so it'd be silly for them to fight over
it.
The possible personal injury or loss of work could be a far greater sum
however.

Tim

(Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote in message ...
Carl- American Insurance Group? Any Insurance Group? All Insurance
Groups? BRBR

AIG, don't know what it stands for(Ain't It Great?, taking all that
money??)-the name of the company that is insuring the woman that ran me over
from behind while I was riding my bike.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Dear Peter,

Glad that you survived. Since this was presumably up
in Boulder, possibly she mistook you for a cow and
avenged the litigious jogger that you mentioned and
that I saw later in the Denver Boast?

Down south, here in Pueblo, she might have eaten you.

Ambrose Bierce also took a dim view of insurance.

Carl Fogel

INSURANCE, n. An ingenious modern game of chance in which the player
is permitted to enjoy the comfortable conviction that he is beating
the man who keeps the table.

INSURANCE AGENT: My dear sir, that is a fine house -- pray let me
insure it.
HOUSE OWNER: With pleasure. Please make the annual premium so
low that by the time when, according to the tables of your
actuary, it will probably be destroyed by fire I will have
paid you considerably less than the face of the policy.
INSURANCE AGENT: O dear, no -- we could not afford to do that.
We must fix the premium so that you will have paid more.
HOUSE OWNER: How, then, can _I_ afford _that_?
INSURANCE AGENT: Why, your house may burn down at any time.
There was Smith's house, for example, which --
HOUSE OWNER: Spare me -- there were Brown's house, on the
contrary, and Jones's house, and Robinson's house, which --
INSURANCE AGENT: Spare _me_!
HOUSE OWNER: Let us understand each other. You want me to pay
you money on the supposition that something will occur
previously to the time set by yourself for its occurrence. In
other words, you expect me to bet that my house will not last
so long as you say that it will probably last.
INSURANCE AGENT: But if your house burns without insurance it
will be a total loss.
HOUSE OWNER: Beg your pardon -- by your own actuary's tables I
shall probably have saved, when it burns, all the premiums I
would otherwise have paid to you -- amounting to more than the
face of the policy they would have bought. But suppose it to
burn, uninsured, before the time upon which your figures are
based. If I could not afford that, how could you if it were
insured?
INSURANCE AGENT: O, we should make ourselves whole from our
luckier ventures with other clients. Virtually, they pay your
loss.
HOUSE OWNER: And virtually, then, don't I help to pay their
losses? Are not their houses as likely as mine to burn before
they have paid you as much as you must pay them? The case
stands this way: you expect to take more money from your
clients than you pay to them, do you not?
INSURANCE AGENT: Certainly; if we did not --
HOUSE OWNER: I would not trust you with my money. Very well
then. If it is _certain_, with reference to the whole body of
your clients, that they lose money on you it is _probable_,
with reference to any one of them, that _he_ will. It is
these individual probabilities that make the aggregate
certainty.
INSURANCE AGENT: I will not deny it -- but look at the figures in
this pamph --
HOUSE OWNER: Heaven forbid!
INSURANCE AGENT: You spoke of saving the premiums which you would
otherwise pay to me. Will you not be more likely to squander
them? We offer you an incentive to thrift.
HOUSE OWNER: The willingness of A to take care of B's money is
not peculiar to insurance, but as a charitable institution you
command esteem. Deign to accept its expression from a
Deserving Object.

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 00:14:03 GMT,
(Paul Southworth) wrote:
In my experience insurance companies do not want to hear a long
detailed explanation of what is wrong with your bike. They usually

Agreed. My bike was on the trunk rack when I was rear-ended, and my
experience was the same.

will probably reach the price of a new bike. With a questionable
frame, trashed fork, trashed wheel, probably some other damaged

BTW, consider getting the bike shop to quote re-building the wheel,
which may be more expensive than replacing it.

--Paul
--
Rick Onanian

J?rgen Hartwig writes:

I had an accident in which a car pulled across my path. I struck
the passenger rear quarter panel and flew over the car, taking the
bike halfway across the trunk. The fork was slightly bent (can be
straightened), and front wheel was badly warped. The frame is a
~1995 Trek 2300 with carbon main tubes bonded to aluminum lugs. The
carbon tubes look physically fine. One bike shop states there is
the risk of internal damage, and I should consider replacing the
frame. Another shop states the frame is fine, straighten the fork,
and replace the front wheel.

Should I be concerned?

I think it's about time to consider why you are riding a composite
material frame. As you seem to be aware, there have been many
instances of sudden frame or fork failures on undamaged bicycles, or
you probably wouldn't ask. You weren't in a record attempt ride at
the time of the incident and the so called benefit of such frames is
primarily weight savings for hill climbs, where a few ounces of less
weight can be argued although not convincingly.

Consider the benefits of riding a well built custom steel frame that
you can use or dent without concern and ride downhill on a mountainous
course without visualizing a crash over the side as the front wheel
breaks away. I often think about riders I see when descending a
series of hairpins high over an abyss in the alps.

http:?tinyurl.com/len5

Jobst Brandt

Consider the benefits of riding a well built custom steel frame that
you can use or dent without concern and ride downhill on a mountainous
course without visualizing a crash over the side as the front wheel
breaks away. I often think about riders I see when descending a
series of hairpins high over an abyss in the alps.

Jobst- You need to get with the program here and recognize that frame
durability has much less to do with the material (whether it be steel,
aluminum, carbon, ti or bamboo) and much more to do with how it's built.
You hint at it when you talk about a "well built" frame, but then add
"custom steel" as if that somehow guarantees a better bike.

The numbers of failed lightweight steel frames are considerable, yet that
doesn't make it appropriate to indict steel as a frame material. But when
you build frames out of steel at 3.5 lbs and below (as many custom steel
frame builders, as well as production bikes, will do), it's no surprise that
they fail.

Similarly, you can build a near-indestructible bike out of aluminum, carbon
or ti... or you can build one that's on the bleeding-edge of what's possible
to do, and then wonder why it failed.

A more valid point would be that the endless pursuit of ever-lighter
bicycles often involves compromises in terms of durability and longevity.
But to imply that the use of a particular frame material may send somebody
hurtling into an abyss in the alps goes beyond the norm for hyperbole, even
here on rec.bicycles.tech.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


wrote in message
...
J?rgen Hartwig writes:

I had an accident in which a car pulled across my path. I struck
the passenger rear quarter panel and flew over the car, taking the
bike halfway across the trunk. The fork was slightly bent (can be
straightened), and front wheel was badly warped. The frame is a
~1995 Trek 2300 with carbon main tubes bonded to aluminum lugs. The
carbon tubes look physically fine. One bike shop states there is
the risk of internal damage, and I should consider replacing the
frame. Another shop states the frame is fine, straighten the fork,
and replace the front wheel.

Should I be concerned?

I think it's about time to consider why you are riding a composite
material frame. As you seem to be aware, there have been many
instances of sudden frame or fork failures on undamaged bicycles, or
you probably wouldn't ask. You weren't in a record attempt ride at
the time of the incident and the so called benefit of such frames is
primarily weight savings for hill climbs, where a few ounces of less
weight can be argued although not convincingly.

Consider the benefits of riding a well built custom steel frame that
you can use or dent without concern and ride downhill on a mountainous
course without visualizing a crash over the side as the front wheel
breaks away. I often think about riders I see when descending a
series of hairpins high over an abyss in the alps.

http:?tinyurl.com/len5

Jobst Brandt

I was at Sloughs Bike shop last year in San Jose, Ca.
George the owner showed me a brand new custom steel frame, where the builder
forgot to weld one of the stays to the seat tube. Bike was already painted
and could
have gone un-noticed, because only the dried paint was connecting the stay
to the frame.
We were both laughing, but probably not funny to the purchaser.

On the flip side,
John Slawta of Landshark Bicycles talked about carbon forks. I asked him
if he's ever seen failures. He told me he takes one hand and gingerly
squeezes the fork blades
together before he installs them or sends them to paint. He's had a few
actually crack.
Pretty scary,
-tom


"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
om...
The numbers of failed lightweight steel frames are considerable, yet that
doesn't make it appropriate to indict steel as a frame material. But when
you build frames out of steel at 3.5 lbs and below (as many custom steel
frame builders, as well as production bikes, will do), it's no surprise
that
they fail.

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message . com...
Consider the benefits of riding a well built custom steel frame that
you can use or dent without concern and ride downhill on a mountainous
course without visualizing a crash over the side as the front wheel
breaks away. I often think about riders I see when descending a
series of hairpins high over an abyss in the alps.

Jobst- You need to get with the program here and recognize that frame
durability has much less to do with the material (whether it be steel,
aluminum, carbon, ti or bamboo) and much more to do with how it's built.
You hint at it when you talk about a "well built" frame, but then add
"custom steel" as if that somehow guarantees a better bike.

The numbers of failed lightweight steel frames are considerable, yet that
doesn't make it appropriate to indict steel as a frame material. But when
you build frames out of steel at 3.5 lbs and below (as many custom steel
frame builders, as well as production bikes, will do), it's no surprise that
they fail.

Similarly, you can build a near-indestructible bike out of aluminum, carbon
or ti... or you can build one that's on the bleeding-edge of what's possible
to do, and then wonder why it failed.

A more valid point would be that the endless pursuit of ever-lighter
bicycles often involves compromises in terms of durability and longevity.
But to imply that the use of a particular frame material may send somebody
hurtling into an abyss in the alps goes beyond the norm for hyperbole, even
here on rec.bicycles.tech.

I'm not sure "stupid light" is the issue here. We're talking about a
bike that has been in a crash. One reason I'm leery of carbon fiber is
that I've never heard a convincing explanation of how you can detect
whether a crash has undermined the integrity of a frame. Isn't that a
problem with carbon fiber per se, and not dependent on how beefy the
bike is? How does Trek determine whether a crashed bike is still
road-worthy? Do they x-ray warranty returns?

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
Similarly, you can build a near-indestructible bike out of aluminum, carbon
or ti... or you can build one that's on the bleeding-edge of what's possible
to do, and then wonder why it failed.

JOOI, who is building near-indestructible carbon frames?
--
David Damerell Kill the tomato!

How does Trek determine whether a crashed bike is still
road-worthy? Do they x-ray warranty returns?

afaik, x-ray is not used for testing composites - ultrasound is used
instead. and it tends to be very expensive. for bike frames, it's
cheaper to just replace than go through a testing program as the
analysis can be quite complex and therefore costly.

jb