You can try to fund a down payment with a GoFundMe but chances are it isn't going to succeed. That's the beauty of crowdfunding, people have to deem it a worthy cause... or not.

---

-------------------
Madison photographer Timothy Hughes | Instagram

I wish Jordan luck finding a career in this sport when he retired from racing. He's burned a lot of bridges. And asking for his legal bills to be paid is a good reminder of the need for personal responsibility.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

I think a lot of people who spend that much on a bike are going to speak well of it to others and hype it up as part of the image of having the latest and greatest. A Dimond, or any new "superbike" is well outside the amount I would feel comfortable spending on a bicycle. I understand people want/need the status symbol though and the Dimond in particular is about as good looking a Tri bike as I've seen. P5X on the other hand is probably the most hideous looking bike to come out in many years. My own opinion of course.

All that said..... I really don't know where I was going with it actually. Basically it's hard to trust anything without personal experience with it. Most opinions we read about are influenced or swayed in one way or another and always will be.

"Jordan is saying in the public domain that the bike is unsafe."

as well as i can tell, jordan said that his bikes did not meet his standards, such standards he felt were reasonable for him. i understand that conclusions might be drawn from such statements. nevertheless, what i'm writing above is my read of what he said. perhaps subsequent statements he made in this thread go further (if so, i didn't catch or see them). in any case, i'd like if we could stop ascribing to anybody (whether jordan or to dimond) acts or statements that are not true, are not proven, were not made, and so forth.

"I think in slowman's article it would be great if he can come up with any evidence or examples of the area of the bike failing."

should i write something today or tomorrow on the front page i don't anticipate any analysis of the product itself.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"No customer who has purchased a production bicycle has advised Dimond of any failure in a bicycle that has resulted in any safety incident."


I wonder whether JR was provided a prototype or pre-production frame, making his issues with the bike(s) different from a normal customer?

My understanding is that the $150,000 demand was before JR's original post on this thread and was based primarily on a breach of contract claim. If JR's post is accurate when he discusses an "exit interview," then it may be difficult for Dimond to claim some kind of continuing breach. If they wanted to pursue his claims in his post, it most likely would have to be some form of defamation claim.

The question is would they want to litigate a defamation claim, as that could harm them just as much as if not more than Rapp's original post. But then again, pursuing a breach of contract claim against a relative insignificant sponsorship (no offense intended) where nobody knew about the breach before the filing of the complaint also seems to be a pretty dumb PR move.

In other words, Jordan may or may not have breached his contract. But assuming he did, it seems he had been relatively quite about the reasons for it up until Dimond filed a lawsuit. Maybe Dimond's damages were a bit more than what Jordan had offered, but it's hard to see that they were much more, and definitely not in the $150k range. Dimond could have easily settled, with a confidentiality clause, and moved on with a different athlete to sponsor. Nobody except a few and the know would have thought anything about it. Instead, Dimond prompted bad publicity by filing the lawsuit. They should have known that the defense would have been that the breach was justified and that that kind of defense invites bad publicity.

No it doesn't. It says:

"Sponsor shall compensate athlete with a quarterly stipend of $500 paid on or by March 31, June 30, September 30, December 31 for the first calendar year of the contract (2015). Sponsor shall compensate athlete with an annual stipend, paid quarterly, equal to 0.5% of gross sales from the previous calendar year for the second through the fifth calendar years of the contract (2016-2019)."

The first year, he got $2,000 divided into four payments. In 2016 (and the start of 2017), he got a cut of Dimond's revenues. (Which, math says, was $1.36 million in 2016 based on his first quarterly payment in 2017.)

+1

My take away is that anybody who sues a former friend for $150000 (on a 10k a year contract) because the friend didn't want to continue to endorse a bike he didn't like, is a jerk.

I don't know either party, but the Dimond brand is likely permantly sullied for me, not because of what JR said, but because Dimond filed the suit in question.

My other take away is that JR could have destroyed Dimond in the public eye without putting himself at risk of further litigation by choosing his words more carefully. I really wonder how that statement got "approved" by him and/his team.

dev, this is not correct.

There are two failure modes. One is the seat post slipping, which would be generally non-catastrophic.
The other failure is with the pivot on the beam. The difference between the Dimond design and the original Zipp is that the Zipp had both the pivot, AND an m5 bolt. Normally that bolt is not under much load, unless the pivot were to fail. Then it would be under an enormous load and would probably fail. Steel bolt into a steel cam/pivot system into a threaded steel shaft into aluminum epoxied into the frame.

If the Dimond pivot fails, the beam comes off. You will crash. If the carbon AT the pivot fails, the beam will come off, and you will crash.

Since I was fixing a defect in the seat post area of my beam, I also added 3 layers of UD carbon to the pivot area on each side of my beam. It's not a terrible design, but Jordan is right that the tolerances must be extremely tight, and that Dimond's QC is not good enough in that respect.

Yeah, I think this is how the young kids these days would summarize it so far.

Rapp: "Shoot, I don't want to ride this thing anymore. What could be worse than this?"
Dimond: "Hold my beer."
Diamondback: "Wait, WTF is this all about?"
Rapp: "Hold my bath salts."
Spicer "NOT EVEN HITLER'S SEATPOST SLIPPED!"

I will speak to this. I have asked for HELP with my legal bills. I expect to pay the majority of the bill here. GoFundMe has refund options - both bulk and individual. Should it become clear that I do not require this assistance, I will more than happily reverse the GoFundMe.

As far as asking for help, I was reticent to do it. I still am. However, by that same token, I believe I have offered help - and not just "advice" - repeatedly throughout my tenure in this sport. One significant source of income for pros is selling old equipment. Certainly I've sold my fair share. And yet I've given away a great deal. If I'd sold the Shivs I gave away, if I'd sold the 808s I gave away, if I sold the parts I gave away, I'd have more money to defend myself from a lawsuit. I gave those items away gladly. I was happy and proud to be able to support someone else, because I was able to pay my bills with the money I earned. While everyone always "needs more money," I didn't need more money, and I was happier giving that stuff away than I was selling it. Maybe I should have thought, "hey, I should sell these because someday I might get sued and will need to pay a lawyer to defend me." But I never wanted to think that way. And, in spite of this, I still don't.

Now I am asking for that kind of help. Is it the result of my own actions? To a certain extent, but I did not choose to get sued. But I am asking for help as someone who has contributed to the ability of others in the sport to do it. If I did not have a track record of that support, I would not be asking for help in this way. But I do. And so, with great hesitation, I am.

Further, as to finding a career after sport, one of the great lessons for me here is to be extremely careful about who you do business with. If my actions here result in someone not wanting to hire me, that's not someone I wished to work for.

Ultimately, once I signed a contract and discovered the bikes were defective, I had three bad options:
1) I continue to ride bikes that I know are defective and do not trust.
2) I resolve the separation "amicably" and keep quiet about a problem that I know exists
3) I go public.

As I look back over the past two years, once I entered into this agreement, there was no way that this was going to end in a way that I was happy.

The only good solution I see now is that Dimond acknowledges the issues that I - and many others - have seen and works to correct them. So far, they do not seem to be interested in doing that.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

If I give a good enough sob story, maybe people will find it a worthy cause.

So it would depend on the assumption if one or 2 check were cut. Looking at what Rapp originally said about the payment, it looks like the rest of us assumed it was one check, not 2, since they are both paid quarterly.

so it is either 900k or 1.25mil ish. Either way, not that much money when you figure all of the other expenses that they would have.

That make sense. I always wondered why the most important documents always looked like that. The deed restriction on my land was created in 2001 and it is barely legible. The document that was given to me was as you say, a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy.

---

"If it costs you 30 minutes at Maryland so what" -dwreal

Correct. This is my exact assertion. And one that I expressed to Dimond on multiple occasions well in advance in of making my statement here. And I have records of that.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

So in regards to your "options" are you suggesting that coming to a private agreement with Dimond to release you from your contract that might have required you to remain silent on your perceived product quality issue was an actual option but you found that distasteful and decided going public was the better choice?

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

I think I agree on all your points.

In emails, this has been the biggest sticking point that I've heard. And, it's difficult for me to criticize because this impulse to go to the public for funding, well, I think it's an issue of motive-driven values that are incongruent with many other people's values. But then those specific many-other-people's values are shaped by not having parental support, not having guidance and support in the pursuit of a college education, not having the support of returning home during the summers or after college to live at home, not having parents assist them financially while they go train with a triathlon team with pro ambitions.

I'm not saying these resource-deficient people are better, I'm saying that their life history has created a different set of values guided by support-system-related variables that would lead them to never imagine going public and asking for the public to subsidize their life. Having subsidies in the form of parental support, which led to the opportunity to attend an elite college, live at home, train with an elite team, leads to a value system consisting of goal-related motives that make accepting subsidies OK for the sake of seeking goal attainment. I'm not saying it's not OK, it's just a set of values that isn't congruent with a lot of other people's values, but then a life history that doesn't include parental-support-inspired values probably won't lead to the same type of success in life than if those non-support individuals had a professor-father and parental emotional and financial support - this support deficiency will also rob those hypothetical people of the delusion that they're primarily responsible for their self-efficacy and outcome in life.

This set of subsidy-influenced values also leads to these privileged individuals feeling beholden to repay their support provisioners through preservation of resources attained - this can be a good thing, as it leads to a generational accumulation of wealth (but it can also contribute to depression and anxiety). On the other hand, when it appears that someone is prioritizing savings for their children's future, preserving assets such as a house and car(s), and not returning to their parents for financial support as they had in the past, but rather turning to the public for financial subsidies, it can come across as the person having a set of values that align with a sense of entitlement to make the preservation of their personal resources a priority over the resources they are requesting from others. Yes, there have been the WBR causes, but then a large number of affluent college grads go to Africa and/or give to charities, as those causes seem to be an acceptable use of resources which would otherwise be protected and preserved in this hypothesized value system.

In a business setting, when you ask others for money, you have to open your books and go under review and you open yourself to critique (such as this one). The gofundme portion of the post could have been put on hold (maybe indefinitely) and the emotions that seemed to take front seat in the original post could have been edited by others. It's obvious TJ's letter was edited by his attorney and loved ones, and it comes across more rational and clear-headed. TJ did write that he's open to resolve this privately, referencing the legal process separately. I hope Jordan goes that route and prior to making his next detailed response, lets his attorney and loved ones see that it goes through many revisions with the hope that his role as a product ambassador can be restored and people can trust his product choices and recommendations.

edit: I'll note that I'm turned off by Dimond and don't ever see myself purchasing or recommending their product.

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

Isn't the real issue here about who the fuck would build, much less ride, a beam bike? About as cool as helmet mirrors. Shame on Dimond. And shame on Rapp.

There's no way at this point to make this right. Jordan has claimed the bike is unsafe in public and he's asking all of you to pay for it because he's helped you in the past by supporting and recommending multiple bike brands... until a better deal comes along.

---

-Of course it's 'effing hard, it's IRONMAN!
Team ZOOT
ZOOT, QR, Garmin, HED Wheels, Zealios, FormSwim, Precision Hydration, Rudy Project

Bryan....curious....do you have sponsorship agreements with all of the following (signature line)?

ZOOT, GARMIN, Ceepo, Smith Optics, Boom Nutrition, SpeedFil, FuelBelt, SCYS, L3 Endurance Coaching

It was never an *actual* option. As I explained in my initial post, after my exit interview with Brad Bach, TJ's lawyer sent me a letter threatening me with a lawsuit. My lawyer responded outlining the defects in the frames I received - which I had enumerated to Dimond both after I discovered them and again, in summary, during my exit interview with Brad Bach. We made the following offer:
1) to return all frames to Dimond
2) to refund my Q4 2016 salary
3) to sign a mutual non-disparagement agreement

I was uncomfortable with #3, but I hoped that it could be crafted in such a way that I could speak frankly about my experiences with the frame if I was asked. I do not know if that was a reasonable desire or not. I wanted to be able to be honest. But I also, perhaps naively, still felt that Dimond could fix the issues I described and that they should be allowed to do so.

We never received any sort of reply. The next communication I received from Dimond was when a sheriff showed up at my door to hand me the lawsuit. As I said, my decision to go public was based on the clear perception that to TJ, filing a vindictive lawsuit is more of a priority than fixing the issues with his bikes.

So, no, I did not decide going public was the better option. What I felt was the reasonable option was rejected.

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

I am not clear on the date of these payments.

We're the checks issued after the date of the "exit interview"?

If the checks stopped rolling after the "exit interview", then isn't their some evidence that the relationship was terminated at that time?

Just picking up on an earlier post, not sure what Dimond thinks the end game is. They know Rapp likely doesn't have much in the way of collectible assets or that couldn't be protected. There's no attorneys fees clause (and even if there were, see prior sentence). A "win" for them is neither a $ win nor a PR win. Not that I was in the market for a beam bike or a bike box for that matter, but if I was the tactics have turned me off the brand.

Howard Jacobs is a highly respected and experienced attorney. So the choice to vet and approve this statement is either very strange or very smart (or maybe both. or neither)

Hi Paul,
Im not sure that the diamond would be the ticket; as the beam has very little vertical compliance. That is what I pointed out as the big miss when they were first introduced (and promptly ridiculed for on this forum). If they had gone the way of introducing some suspension (ala the zipp elastomers or similar) then the problem described may have not appeared, as the force on the lever arm of the beam would have been spread over a longer period, and thus had lower amplitude for each bump...but I digress. Anyway, I train on an old softride classic beam I bought off ebay for $154 shipped, and race on a titanflex. They have been great for my old back which seems to be feeling the crashes from my youth more now than 10 years ago.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2