Birthday build: Filament road disc, clincher, 7kg goal

Who are you (no off-topic talk please)

Moderator: Moderator Team

AZR3
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:00 pm
Location: Az USA

by AZR3

Beautiful bike but if BB is out of spec I would not have accepted that! Why offer it if you can't do it correctly?

Seedster
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2015 11:05 pm

by Seedster

Agreed. I would have trouble tolerating an out of spec bottom bracket. Getting it right is imperative to a lengthy ownership. The builder should compensate you or build another the right way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

by Weenie


jever98
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:02 pm

by jever98

Thanks all.

The BB point is something that I went back and forth on. Yes, it seems about 0.1mm bigger in diameter. I would probably not have noticed if I hadn't chosen a 1-piece BB design, which relies on good tolerance matches.

In the end it wasn't worth the hassle and aggravation to insist on it being fixed. The frame works very well and it's not super clear where tolerances begin and end.
----
No longer in the industry

User avatar
Wingnut
Posts: 1883
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:41 am

by Wingnut

I'm curious as to what the response was with regards to informing the manufacturer of the bottom bracket issue with the frame?
"It's not the destination...it's the ride!"

hambini
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:13 am

by hambini

Wingnut wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:51 am
I'm curious as to what the response was with regards to informing the manufacturer of the bottom bracket issue with the frame?
I'm not the customer in this but I am the bottom bracket supplier. So here's the comments from my end. I am in the process of uploading a video about Richard Craddock's engineering practices because he is grade A clown. Read a few posts previously about his suggestion of blu tack?!? Crazy.

So here we go

Customer orders bike frame and one of my bottom brackets, the bottom bracket had to be a custom fit to accommodate the customer's specific crankset.

I made everything up and checked it and sent it off to Switzerland.

After one ride the customer emailed both me (Hambini) and Filament with a picture showing the bottom bracket had come out of the shell. I absolutely hate it when my engineering is not up to scratch and being dyslexic I always worry that I have made a mistake so I emailed everybody and stated the sizes I made the bottom bracket to. Richard emailed the customer (didn't bother copying me) with a picture of an arbitary piece of carbon tubing that he measured with an el cheapo vernier caliper and said it was 45.97mm and therefore within specification.

That was basically the end of his involvement for now and blamed my bottom bracket for being too slack.

I had to make sure that I didn't have any errors so I machined up a checking gauge to assess how big the bottom bracket on this bike was and mailed to the customer. He checked it in his living room and it went clean through the shell (ie 46.1mm). I checked my checking gauge on a CMM machine that is calibrated monthly and does the checks on F35 and Typhoon engines. Filament were challenged on this and his come back was the most diabolical thing I have ever heard

"It's cold in Switzerland and the checking gauge might have shrunk"

I machined an oversized bottom bracket and the customer's problem went away. Whilst it is probably not my responsibility to sort the customer's problem out, I did so anyway.

As far as filament goes. I then rang Richard Craddock up to have a chat with him. His basic engineering is frankly a joke. I don't know how he is in business, if he has engineering qualifications it will be form a mickey mouse college. Anyone who is in professional business and uses a vernier to measure to 0.01mm needs their head looking at and furthermore he has a "checking gauge" that he bought from some back alley machine shop that is allegedly 45.97mm that has never been checked. He doesn't understand the concept of ISO fits or GO/No Go gauges. It doesn't surprise me that his bike frame has a slack bottom bracket with his poor engineering practices.

I am on the training committee for some of the Aerospace companies in the Bristol (UK) area (Airbus, Rolls-Royce, MBDA Missile Systems) and we now use his bike frame as a case study of poor engineering practices and how to spot a bull**** engineer trying to pull a fast one.

Hambini

User avatar
ms6073
Posts: 2538
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 8:24 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

by ms6073

Seems to me that Filament not only owes the OP an apology, but maybe some euros as well!
Michael - The Anaerobic Threshold is neither...

AZR3
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 9:00 pm
Location: Az USA

by AZR3

hambini wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:40 pm

I am on the training committee for some of the Aerospace companies in the Bristol (UK) area (Airbus, Rolls-Royce, MBDA Missile Systems) and we now use his bike frame as a case study of poor engineering practices and how to spot a bull**** engineer trying to pull a fast one.

Hambini
:shock:

I’d be nice to hear from Richard about how he let that QC issue out of his shop but I don’t think that’s too likely

hambini
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 8:13 am

by hambini

In all honesty. Throughout my professional engineering career, I've made screw ups, my colleagues have made screw ups and suppliers have made screw ups. The vast majority of people openly admit they screwed up, apologize and we all move on. That doesn't happen with Filament, they screw up, do very little to correct it and then take the customers money.

Filament made no effort to check his bottom bracket was within specification.
He measures ridicoulously tight tolerances with a vernier caliper (and thinks it's acceptable)
Has a checking gauge that meausres a minimum (ie making sure the bottom bracket is at least 45.97mm), no maximum gauge
Has a checking gauge that he asked some third party engineering company to machine to a precise tolerance that he has never had checked, it could be 46.5mm, the fact is he doesn't know!

Then on the customer service front
When the prospect of his tolerances were brought up, he was totally stand offish, didn't reply to my emails
Doesn't offer any compensation

This guy makes my blood boil.

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 6969
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

Oblviously some carbon tubes and a cool 'artisanal' paintjob do not make for a good frame. I wonder how much Craddock charges for his frames...
Last edited by kgt on Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wingnut
Posts: 1883
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:41 am

by Wingnut

hambini wrote:
Tue Jul 31, 2018 10:40 pm
Wingnut wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 10:51 am
I'm curious as to what the response was with regards to informing the manufacturer of the bottom bracket issue with the frame?
I'm not the customer in this but I am the bottom bracket supplier. So here's the comments from my end. I am in the process of uploading a video about Richard Craddock's engineering practices because he is grade A clown. Read a few posts previously about his suggestion of blu tack?!? Crazy.

So here we go

Customer orders bike frame and one of my bottom brackets, the bottom bracket had to be a custom fit to accommodate the customer's specific crankset.

I made everything up and checked it and sent it off to Switzerland.

After one ride the customer emailed both me (Hambini) and Filament with a picture showing the bottom bracket had come out of the shell. I absolutely hate it when my engineering is not up to scratch and being dyslexic I always worry that I have made a mistake so I emailed everybody and stated the sizes I made the bottom bracket to. Richard emailed the customer (didn't bother copying me) with a picture of an arbitary piece of carbon tubing that he measured with an el cheapo vernier caliper and said it was 45.97mm and therefore within specification.

That was basically the end of his involvement for now and blamed my bottom bracket for being too slack.

I had to make sure that I didn't have any errors so I machined up a checking gauge to assess how big the bottom bracket on this bike was and mailed to the customer. He checked it in his living room and it went clean through the shell (ie 46.1mm). I checked my checking gauge on a CMM machine that is calibrated monthly and does the checks on F35 and Typhoon engines. Filament were challenged on this and his come back was the most diabolical thing I have ever heard

"It's cold in Switzerland and the checking gauge might have shrunk"

I machined an oversized bottom bracket and the customer's problem went away. Whilst it is probably not my responsibility to sort the customer's problem out, I did so anyway.

As far as filament goes. I then rang Richard Craddock up to have a chat with him. His basic engineering is frankly a joke. I don't know how he is in business, if he has engineering qualifications it will be form a mickey mouse college. Anyone who is in professional business and uses a vernier to measure to 0.01mm needs their head looking at and furthermore he has a "checking gauge" that he bought from some back alley machine shop that is allegedly 45.97mm that has never been checked. He doesn't understand the concept of ISO fits or GO/No Go gauges. It doesn't surprise me that his bike frame has a slack bottom bracket with his poor engineering practices.

I am on the training committee for some of the Aerospace companies in the Bristol (UK) area (Airbus, Rolls-Royce, MBDA Missile Systems) and we now use his bike frame as a case study of poor engineering practices and how to spot a bull**** engineer trying to pull a fast one.

Hambini
All I can say is WOW...I'm in shock at this!

Thanks for the update.
"It's not the destination...it's the ride!"

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post