Haakon
has an accommodating arse
http://www.theage.com.au/business/c...e-life-for-bicycle-parts-20161117-gss41s.html
Just a case of bad luck I suspect...
Just a case of bad luck I suspect...
No bike had been laid down a couple of times, and more importantly the forks in question had a known issue with de-bonding (carbon/ alloy).http://www.theage.com.au/business/c...e-life-for-bicycle-parts-20161117-gss41s.html
Just a case of bad luck I suspect...
So did the head tube fail or the steerer...?No bike had been laid down a couple of times, and more importantly the forks in question had a known issue with de-bonding (carbon/ alloy).
Spoke with the owner of one of the two shops today that serviced the bike prior to the accident and was involved with the post investigation with Trek Australia.
The reporting on this isn't 100% correct.
It was the bonding in the fork.So did the head tube fail or the steerer...?
But plenty of people eat pavement with fork/bar failures, bad luck for it to be fatal...
I hear you, but unless you log your riding comprehensively that would be a meaningless reference point, as is stated in the article somewhere. The majority of bikes owned by non-enthusiasts spend 99.999% of their life shoved in a garage so they would not get enough use to fatigue any parts. A failure like this guy, could happen the day it rolls brand new out of the shop - just a random unfortunate failure.I don't think putting a fatigue life on roadie stuff would be a bad idea at all, particularly in an environment involving proximity to fast moving 2 ton lumps of metal.
I gave my dad a 1996 Specialized roadie and to be honest the bonded aluminium/carbon Kinesis fork frightens me a bit.
Is the process involved in making quality carbon components dramatically more expensive than the cheaper stuff?This is a tragedy for this family that in hindsight could have been avoided.
One of the interests within the cycling industry right now is quality control and non destructive inspection of parts, particularly carbon composite. I am actually presenting at a conference sponsored by the UCI on this topic in a couple of weeks in the US.
Flaws in the manufacturing process can significantly reduce the mechanical properties of a part and increase the likelihood of failure. As parts become lighter the margin for error reduces and being able to predict how the part behaves at load becomes more critical. Flaws make this unpredictable.
People claim that testing and inspection is too expensive, however the cost of failure can be significantly more. Maybe the advertising budgets can take a back seat for a while and they can invest further in quality control.
I have scrapped many many road forks that I have found serious manufacturing flaws in using ultrasound scans, these flaws are not visible on the surface. I have cut up some of these as displays and post them on my website and Instagram.
Riding your bike is fun, why take risks that can be easily avoided.
My condolences to the family.
I love what you do, and have really enjoyed watching the videos where you're explaining and showing everything about carbon manufacture, but I've got to disagree that this risk can be 'easily avoided'.This is a tragedy for this family that in hindsight could have been avoided.
One of the interests within the cycling industry right now is quality control and non destructive inspection of parts, particularly carbon composite. I am actually presenting at a conference sponsored by the UCI on this topic in a couple of weeks in the US.
Flaws in the manufacturing process can significantly reduce the mechanical properties of a part and increase the likelihood of failure. As parts become lighter the margin for error reduces and being able to predict how the part behaves at load becomes more critical. Flaws make this unpredictable.
People claim that testing and inspection is too expensive, however the cost of failure can be significantly more. Maybe the advertising budgets can take a back seat for a while and they can invest further in quality control.
I have scrapped many many road forks that I have found serious manufacturing flaws in using ultrasound scans, these flaws are not visible on the surface. I have cut up some of these as displays and post them on my website and Instagram.
Riding your bike is fun, why take risks that can be easily avoided.
My condolences to the family.
You should watch some of the YouTube vids on whodesigns' channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY9JUMYI54lLOHpb_zbIedQIs the process involved in making quality carbon components dramatically more expensive than the cheaper stuff?
I mean, aerospace and motorsport manufacturers make all sorts of stuff out of carbon that withstands huge forces, stresses and temperatures without failure.
Have seen them. Wanted an answer from the horses mouth.You should watch some of the YouTube vids on whodesigns' channel - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY9JUMYI54lLOHpb_zbIedQ
Paraphrasing what I learned watching them, basically aerospace scan everything and if it's not perfect it doesn't fly. I'm sure that F1 is the same. So yeah, I'd say the process is hugely more expensive. I'm sure the expense of making carbon that's 99.99% perfect compared to 95% perfect is immense.
I read it as Raoul's pointing the finger squarely at The Industry in that comment, not us, the riders, i.e it's easily avoided if they put due care and effort into ensuring their products are properly and safely built in the first place.I love what you do, and have really enjoyed watching the videos where you're explaining and showing everything about carbon manufacture, but I've got to disagree that this risk can be 'easily avoided'.
The type of service you provide is very much specialised, and simply isn't available in most parts of the country. Is there anyone else who provides a similar type of testing and scanning service? Is it realistic to ship off your brand new, $3k Giant Defy for a full inspection before you ride it?
Ok fair enough if that's the way it was meant, and I hope that Raoul can help to drive improvements in this area.I read it as Raoul's pointing the finger squarely at The Industry in that comment, not us, the riders, i.e it's easily avoided if they put due care and effort into ensuring their products are properly and safely built in the first place.
My favorite quote of the year!Maybe the advertising budgets can take a back seat for a while and they can invest further in quality control.
You'll probably be horrified that I road a Chinarello frame and fork for a couple of years around Sydney roads. Perfectly safe for me - even though I know the probable level of quality checking was approximately Zero.This is a tragedy for this family that in hindsight could have been avoided.
One of the interests within the cycling industry right now is quality control and non destructive inspection of parts, particularly carbon composite. I am actually presenting at a conference sponsored by the UCI on this topic in a couple of weeks in the US.
Flaws in the manufacturing process can significantly reduce the mechanical properties of a part and increase the likelihood of failure. As parts become lighter the margin for error reduces and being able to predict how the part behaves at load becomes more critical. Flaws make this unpredictable.
People claim that testing and inspection is too expensive, however the cost of failure can be significantly more. Maybe the advertising budgets can take a back seat for a while and they can invest further in quality control.
I have scrapped many many road forks that I have found serious manufacturing flaws in using ultrasound scans, these flaws are not visible on the surface. I have cut up some of these as displays and post them on my website and Instagram.
Riding your bike is fun, why take risks that can be easily avoided.
My condolences to the family.
Thanks, yes I obviously misinterpreted your original post, and I agree with you completely.When I say easily avoided, I mean that the knowledge and technology exists and has existed for a long time to non destructively inspect these type of parts, it is not new, I was doing it 25 years ago and it was well established then.
<snip>
I am not saying that each rider needs to pay to get their bike inspected by someone with my skillset before they ride, they should not have to, however if you are unsure about things it is clearly prudent to get things checked, especially on a failure critical part like a fork.
Ride safe.
Sure,but it would only need to be an advisory, and it could be based on an extreme duty estimate so at worst might result in viable parts being trashed rather than life expired parts failing.I hear you, but unless you log your riding comprehensively that would be a meaningless reference point, as is stated in the article somewhere. The majority of bikes owned by non-enthusiasts spend 99.999% of their life shoved in a garage so they would not get enough use to fatigue any parts. A failure like this guy, could happen the day it rolls brand new out of the shop - just a random unfortunate failure.