Cody Beals wrote:
I'm a Ventum sponsored athlete, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. That said, here are some facts:
1) The Ventum One is officially supported for trainer use, unlike some other brands on that list.
2) The Ventum One meets ISO standards which involve a far more stringent set of requirements and tests than the lesser CPSC/EN/EU standards. Again, this is unlike some other brands on that list.
3) Take a look at the tubes on a Ventum One. The cross-sections are ginormous, larger than almost any other conventionally designed tri bike I've seen. The design differs markedly from a regular tri bike with the downtube and seat stays lopped off. Given the amazing properties of carbon, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with z-frame or beam bikes, just some examples of poor execution so far.
FWIW, I've never experienced any noticeable stiffness or flex issues. I ride my Ventum on the trainer all the time, including workouts with max efforts sprints. I've also flown with my bike packed in an unpadded bag close to 20 times without any damage. In short, I've torture tested it. I've never even heard of a frame failure among the many other Ventum athletes I know, while I can't say the same about some of those other brands. The thing is built like a tank. By Ventum engineers' admission, it's significantly overbuilt with a huge safety factor, because they know that safety/QC issues could spell the end for a new company.
I'll work on getting a video of me cranking out some sprints on my Ventum on the trainer to show rear wheel deflection.
Cody, this is most definitely *not* intended as a criticism of the Ventum, more just an observation on your observation and - in particular - your travel methodology. The problem with this: "In short, I've torture tested it." is that the evidence of failure is often not present until it presents itself catastrophically. This is why the overwhelming majority of tests are to failure. Cycle counts are good, but forcing a product to fail typically teaches you more than "it survived X cycles."
I bring this up in particular to your "I've traveled in an unpadded case." This is just foolish. You should talk to Jimmy Seear about this, because he has some background in motorsports. A lot of the really in depth testing done in motorsports is x-ray or other advanced imaging to see *inside* of parts, because initial failures are very often invisible superficially.
That Ventum has not had a catastrophic failure in its first year is laudable and certainly is a testament to the hard work of Jimmy and his crew. But I always get nervous when I see someone talk about what I'd consider reckless behavior with the assertion that, "the bike is fine!" Having been a part of a motorsports team myself, I can promise you that nobody in the cycling industry maintains a similar level of thoroughness in terms comparable maintenance and ongoing testing. Largely because there is virtually nothing to reference against. Let's say you did track the number of hours or pedal strokes on a given frame. What would you compare that to? Likewise, motorsports is (marginally, IME) less thorough than the aviation world (though, having worked with people who came from aviation, they are pretty close).
But I think that your post really gets to the heart of the constructive part of this thread - what is the standard for reliability of frames? What should it be?
To me, your own personal experience of, "I treat my frame like shit and it's fine!" (paraphrasing here!) is not so different than, "I treated my frame like a baby and it broke."
To me, the real relevance is in talking about something like ISO testing. What do the ISO tests (plural) actually cover? Are they reasonable proxies for what happens in "the real world"? Which manufacturers use ISO testing for frames? Which do not? Are there any large manufacturers that use it? If so, why? Are there any large manufacturers who do not use it? If not, why not?
I think the merit in this thread is, "what reasonable steps should be taken to ensure a product is safe and reliable?" I think that's an important question. And this is not at all the first time in which I have engaged in discussions on this very topic.
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp