Alpinist CLX sold as tubeless and a crash

[wheelsONfire]

Happened to me, but not with those rims / wheels. My rims were true tubeless and i didn't even get warranty rims.
I am in EU.

[C36]

I wonder under what circumstances this happened. I have both Alpinist and Rapide 1st get and run them tubeless. No issues whatsoever. I'm 72kg and ride at 55-60 psi 28mm Conti GP5000S TR.

Was it a blowout or wheel failure?

Nothing personal but this is not a responsible approach. “Nothing happened to me, then it must not be a problem” has zero statistical value and give a false sense of safety.
From a risk management standpoint the question has to be “when will it happen” and you have zero control on why it works today and how far you are from failure.

This lack of control on variables (rim/tire/pressure/temperature…) at your level is exactly why there are norms and brands guidelines so you don’t have to speculate.

Even if you knew how it happened, it won’t tell you anything cause one data point only shows that the risk is there, not what is “acceptable”.

[CasualRider]

I wonder under what circumstances this happened. I have both Alpinist and Rapide 1st get and run them tubeless. No issues whatsoever. I'm 72kg and ride at 55-60 psi 28mm Conti GP5000S TR.

Was it a blowout or wheel failure?

Nothing personal but this is not a responsible approach. “Nothing happened to me, then it must not be a problem” has zero statistical value and give a false sense of safety.
From a risk management standpoint the question has to be “when will it happen” and you have zero control on why it works today and how far you are from failure.

This lack of control on variables (rim/tire/pressure/temperature…) at your level is exactly why there are norms and brands guidelines so you don’t have to speculate.

Even if you knew how it happened, it won’t tell you anything cause one data point only shows that the risk is there, not what is “acceptable”.

This is my personal choice. I've seen wheels failures and blowouts, and to my surprise, in every instance, it was true tubeless wheels. I often see people put 80+ psi which may be contributing factor or when the total system weight is above the limit or both.

I've never heard of any issues with 1st get Rapides or Alpinis running tubeless. Hense I asked. It's not clear what exactly happened here and OP is trying to find someone to blame.

[pmprego]

You gotta love weightweenies forum. Even legal advice can be asked around here.

[Karvalo]

Sure sounds to me like the underbuilt rim bed compressed under high pressure, reducing the diameter of the rim.

I don't quite understand how it can sound to you like anything at all when there is literally no information at all in the post about the nature of the failure.

[TobinHatesYou]

I don't quite understand how it can sound to you like anything at all when there is literally no information at all in the post about the nature of the failure.

This is the 4th instance of a tubeless tire blowing off a first gen Alpinist/Rapide CLX while JRA I've heard about, though the first involving an Alpinist. The other three were mentioned to me by someone who works at a large former Specialized dealer.

I am definitely making a guess here, but the rim bed is where most material was removed (and subsequently added back) during the design of these wheels:

According to Roval, the greater (compression) force put on a rim by a tubeless tyre requires extra material, “and that extra mass would have outweighed the benefits of tubeless tires”. As a result, Roval’s decision equates to lighter wheelsets.

[RDY]

Just wondering if a bike shop can be held liable for selling a set of rovale clx (1st gen) wheels to someone that were built as tubeless and that person had a catastrophic blowout where tire unseated and caused a crash causing severe bodily injury. Bike shop owner recommended the wheels for his Athos build and never informed him that they were not tubeless ready wheels. Receipt even says tubeless build, Stan's notubes sealant, tubeless valve...etc. wheels were purchased June 2021. Any info would be helpful.

You must always be aware of the danger that a tire will blow-off the rim by a flat tire, so in my opinion you have no garantie in your case. Even tubeless tires on a tubeless ready rim can blow-off the rim when rim and tire are mounted not tight enough what always depends on the combinations of the two manufactures. That's why several pro-teams are using 'liners' into the tubeless tires to avoid they blow-off the rims.

Obviously the rim in question here isn't designed for tubeless in the first place. But it's a really bad idea to run road tubeless hookless without a foam inner, and a good idea to run it with hooked. Weight gain is minimal, rolling resistance change within the margin of error for the foams that compress under pressure (and don't touch the tire where it contacts the road). Why take the chance? Aside from protecting against burps and blowouts, and potentially making a flat rideable, you're protecting the rim from pothole damage (to some extent).

[OnTheRivet]

Someone spending that kind of $$$ should do their own research. It's widely know 1st gen is not tubeless. That being said they could probably win or settle out of court.

First gen shipped as Tubeless Ready, even had it written on the tape. They were changed to Tubes Only after some failures like the one described.

[sigma]

We obviously don't have a lot of details to ascribe causality. If the bike owner was in the US and has private medical insurance, the insurance company is likely to take this up to investigate who should cover the medical bills, so safe to say deep pockets on all sides though potentially deeper on the victim's side. So many potential variables along the lines of whether the tire would have blown off anyway so the negligence of selling them tubeless is not at fault etc...Wonder if the bike shop has been swallowed up by one of the big groups like Pon (Mike's bikes etc) now. As someone who runs his Rapide's tubeless, it's probably time we started a thread on the forum to see if anyone here has had this kind of experience....

[FIJIGabe]

Someone spending that kind of $$$ should do their own research. It's widely know 1st gen is not tubeless. That being said they could probably win or settle out of court.

First gen shipped as Tubeless Ready, even had it written on the tape. They were changed to Tubes Only after some failures like the one described.

Actually, it was the other way around. They were designed as "tubeless ready", but they had one massive blow out (according to CyclingTips, it was Peter Sagan: "In December 2019, not long before the wheels were set to launch...", https://cyclingtips.com/2022/05/roval-r ... -tubeless/), and quickly changed the wheels to "tubed only" before any were sold to consumers. If they'd sold them as tubeless and then discovered the problem, you would have had a large recall and "stop use" order, worldwide.

Personally, I've ridden "ghetto tubeless" setups, but recently I've shyed away from those arrangements and do not recommend it. This is not because I've had anything happen to me, but because of the difficulty in keeping the tires seated on the rims without daily/weekly attention. My tubeless-ready road wheels (Aeolus XXX 6) need minimum attention, so they'll stay tubeless.

[stevesbike]

It's not clear who actually installed the tires, tape etc. If the shop did, then I think there's a pretty clear case of negligence especially if the wheels have the no tubeless stickers etc. There's also strict liability in many civil cases depending on state etc. that make the bar pretty low. If the shop just sold them the parts and the user put them together, then I'd doubt there's a case for negligence.

[Mr.Gib]

This seems like one of those trickle-down accountability situations. At the bottom of the pile is the mechanic or salesguy who rung up the customer who will end up "liable."

Not sure how things play out in the US (or even if this is a US case) but liability is typically joint and severable, which simply means that anyone involved (mechanic, shop owner, insurance company, etc.) can be held liable for all or part of damages. In practical terms this allows the plaintiffs lawyer to go after the party with the most money only ( in this case the shop but it is really the shop insurance company that you battle). IOW, no one will go after a lowly mechanic (unless they are exceedingly wealthy).

The court can also find that the product user is partially liable depending on his/her actions, and divide the liability (and corresponding cost) between the user and shop's insurance company.

[Huskies91]

Hey thanks for the reply. My friend was riding his alpinist clx wheels that his bike shop suggested he purchase for his Athos. They were set up tubeless by the shop. He was riding with a group and was going 30+mph as they were going for a town line sprint. Everyone there heard what sounded like an explosion. His front tire blew off his wheel and he tumbled over the handlebars getting hit by the rider behind him. Wheel buckled and bike trashed as well as several broken ribs, separated shoulder and several other broken bones. Lots of road rash. He had no idea the wheels were not tubeless ready wheels since the shop recommended them, set them up tubeless and installed them on his bike. The wheels were purchased in mid 2021. He's in US. There was not a pothole or sketchy roads. Everyone that witnessed the accident said it was a failure. Thanks for everyone's input. He's just trying to come to grips with everything he's been through.

[TobinHatesYou]

This seems like one of those trickle-down accountability situations. At the bottom of the pile is the mechanic or salesguy who rung up the customer who will end up "liable."

Not sure how things play out in the US (or even if this is a US case) but liability is typically joint and severable, which simply means that anyone involved (mechanic, shop owner, insurance company, etc.) can be held liable for all or part of damages. In practical terms this allows the plaintiffs lawyer to go after the party with the most money only ( in this case the shop but it is really the shop insurance company that you battle). IOW, no one will go after a lowly mechanic (unless they are exceedingly wealthy).

The court can also find that the product user is partially liable depending on his/her actions, and divide the liability (and corresponding cost) between the user and shop's insurance company.

Yes, that's often the case with litigation. If you crash due to negligent road repairs on a state hwy in the US, you might end up filing against the state, the county, the transit authority and the contractors who carried out the repairs. It's complicated and everyone blames each other.

[spdntrxi]

so he never looked at his own wheels in mid 2021 or replaced tires since then ?

I mean the stock tape in effect says non-tubeless.