Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Galleries NEW FAQ Contact About Impressum
It is currently Sun Dec 11, 2016 9:01 am
Recently the board software has been updated and there are some known bugs/failures:
- Avatars are currently not being displayed ✔ FIXED
- Tapatalk connection is currently broken ✔ FIXED
- Avatars cannot be uploaded ✔ FIXED

Please note that we will soon do some changes in WW board template design in case to get a fully mobile/desktop responsiveness board!
If you find more errors please post it here: http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=139062


All times are UTC+01:00





Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 1:56 am
Posts: 566
hi
found this article today in sydney paper.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/consumer ... ss41s.html

refers to weight weenie parts and the ability of these to hold up to use over time. raises the idea that expiry dates might be put on specific parts. part in question was aluminium. do we have fatigue issues with carbon? or is aluminium particulary prone to this?

_________________
Bobo S&S Steel Bike - 7.5 kg
Oltre XR2- 6.6 kg
Look 585 - 6.8 kg


Top
   
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:24 am 


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:34 am 
Online

Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:13 pm
Posts: 302
Location: The land of Oz
yes an interesting read and a tragedy as well.... Don't know what the answer to this one is

_________________
Ahhh, coffee & carbon


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:31 am
Posts: 542
"The coroner determined the crack... and deemed it an "inclusion flaw" from the manufacturing process."

I took this from the article. Inclusion flaw from the manufacturing process would indicate the part was built with an inherent flaw. So the fork could have broken in the first mile or the 10,000th mile, as happened here more or less. But after 10-20-30 thousand miles of use, it would be awfully hard to argue the part was built with a flaw built in when manufactured. The fork broke. Almost everything will break sometime, somehow. I'm sure we could find a broken anvil if we looked hard enough. Unfortunately in this case the guy died.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 3:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Posts: 770
Location: Loveland, CO
RussellS wrote:
"The coroner determined the crack... and deemed it an "inclusion flaw" from the manufacturing process."

I took this from the article. Inclusion flaw from the manufacturing process would indicate the part was built with an inherent flaw. So the fork could have broken in the first mile or the 10,000th mile, as happened here more or less. But after 10-20-30 thousand miles of use, it would be awfully hard to argue the part was built with a flaw built in when manufactured. The fork broke. Almost everything will break sometime, somehow. I'm sure we could find a broken anvil if we looked hard enough. Unfortunately in this case the guy died.


+1. Metal fatigue probably played a small part but the main reason the part failed is the manufacturing defect. To me adding an expiration date to parts doesn't make sense. Bike parts aren't stressed enough to cause metal fatigue. I'm pretty sure most fatigue related bike part failures (like a cracked frame) are probably caused by manufacturing defect that escaped inspection.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm
Posts: 561
Who drew the conclusion that the root cause was the fatigue of fork and/or steerer tube? Did manufacturer invest time and money to study this particular case? I have a good reason to believe that it was human error (mechanic in this case) that didn't use a torque wrench. Next thing you know, steerer tube cracked.

I don't throw my leg over until I fully inspect my bike after it's back from LBS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

_________________
Racing is a three-dimensional high-speed chess game, involving hundreds of pieces on the board.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm
Posts: 752
This is a sad tragedy but we all take these risks every time we ride our bikes. Any sort of freak accident or component failure could cause you to go down. 9,999 times out of 10,000 you walk away or have injuries that will heal. And then every now and then, one of us dies....

I'm surprised that it's the coroner's job to be a bike expert and metallurgist.

_________________
Colnago C59


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 1:31 am
Posts: 542
pdlpsher1 wrote:
but the main reason the part failed is the manufacturing defect.


The guy owned the bike for 10 years and I assume he rode it quite a few miles each year. Is that a manufacturing defect? After that much use how can you claim the defect was manufactured into the part? I assume, maybe incorrectly, that a defect manufactured into the bike would cause it to break in the first few miles of use. Not 30,000(?) miles and 10 years later. If your definition of manufacturing defect is correct, then a car that breaks down after 20 years and 250,000 miles of use is defective when it was manufactured. And the manufacturer should be held liable. Nothing can ever wear out or break again.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 4:30 pm
Posts: 1955
RussellS wrote:
"Inclusion flaw from the manufacturing process would indicate the part was built with an inherent flaw.

That is not quite right. There is a certain statistically distributed number of "inclusion flaws" that are standard and expected in any bulk material. They are "inclusion flaws" but not necessarily "flawed material". Sort of like having a knot in a piece of wood. We all know they are there, and they are considered in the safe working loads for the material.
For really critical parts, they can be ultrasonically, or X-ray inspected to reduce ((eliminate) inclusion flaws. But I don't think any bike manufacturer goes to that expense. The objective evidence would be that, since it lasted for many years of riding, it was "fit for the purpose".


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Posts: 770
Location: Loveland, CO
RussellS wrote:
pdlpsher1 wrote:
but the main reason the part failed is the manufacturing defect.


The guy owned the bike for 10 years and I assume he rode it quite a few miles each year. Is that a manufacturing defect? After that much use how can you claim the defect was manufactured into the part? I assume, maybe incorrectly, that a defect manufactured into the bike would cause it to break in the first few miles of use. Not 30,000(?) miles and 10 years later. If your definition of manufacturing defect is correct, then a car that breaks down after 20 years and 250,000 miles of use is defective when it was manufactured. And the manufacturer should be held liable. Nothing can ever wear out or break again.


Do you expect your frame to last at least ten years? If so why shouldn't the fork last at least ten years?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Posts: 2886
pdlpsher1 wrote:
Bike parts aren't stressed enough to cause metal fatigue.
Erm, yes they are.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm
Posts: 752
pdlpsher1 wrote:
Do you expect your frame to last at least ten years? If so why shouldn't the fork last at least ten years?


We don't know if there was damage caused by installation or damage from a crash during those 10 years. Maybe the stem was over torqued?

We all hope a frame will last 10 years but it may not. That is the nature of mechanical equipment. One could ride an overbuilt 35 pound steel bike that is assured to last 10 years but then it wouldn't be a joy to ride.

_________________
Colnago C59


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:25 am
Posts: 1351
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Fatigue life of aluminium doesn't compare well to other materials. In the case of budget forks that are bonded together, perhaps better to use a steel steerer tube rather than an aluminium one. And a butted one at that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:09 pm
Posts: 770
Location: Loveland, CO
mattr wrote:
pdlpsher1 wrote:
Bike parts aren't stressed enough to cause metal fatigue.
Erm, yes they are.


So which part on your bike do you plan to throw out due to metal fatigue?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:45 am
Posts: 367
I remember when I was into MTB a good 10+ years ago and many handlebars were alu, the 'unwritten rule' that did the rounds was to change the bar every 5 years (even for carbon too).

The handlebar is one of the most stressed components on the bike, especially in MTB and undergoes repeated flexing. No aluminium part can withstand that forever, although exactly what the lifespan is is very hard to tell - depends on many things like, how your ride, how thick is the alu, etc. etc.

_________________
5 star and bespoke cycle tours in Majorca

Cycling related videos and reviews


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 6:43 pm
Posts: 2886
pdlpsher1 wrote:
So which part on your bike do you plan to throw out due to metal fatigue?
Personally speaking i've thrown out an aluminium frame, a pair of cranks, a stem and 4 or 5 sets of bars. Everything else i've either sold or binned due to incompatibility issues before it failed. Or crashed it.

Even most steel "race weight" frames are so lightly built that they are over the materials endurance limit in normal use, and will (eventually) fail.


Top
   
Posted: Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:39 pm 


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 49 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 4 Next

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Switching from Speedplay to SPD-SL: Extra Leg Fatigue

in Road

KS59

10

824

Wed May 04, 2016 8:31 pm

Rick View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Strava Fitness/Fatigue/Form numbers

in Road

Shrike

6

880

Mon Nov 21, 2016 10:09 am

maquisard View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Bar/stem combo for 1.25" steerer?

in Road

kkibbler

5

908

Sun Aug 07, 2016 7:17 am

A2ON View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Pinarello fork steerer compression plug

in Road

caballero

0

156

Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:37 pm

caballero View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Fuji SL 2017 fork steerer crown race??

in Road

Allen254

6

356

Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:47 am

Allen254 View the latest post


All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], rotisusu and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited