I guess the only way it could work IME is if Dimond stepped up to the plate and said something like "We do not believe our products are unsafe but in order to focus on the future we have agreed to work with JR on modifying the design of the bike to meet his safety standards."

I have made an offer very much along these lines to Dimond through numerous third parties - not only asking my lawyer to make such an offer but also other parties in contact with Dimond. I would unquestionably support such a resolution. I hope that this is the approach that we can take.

getbarreled wrote:

He's certainly giving them a bad Rapp...

amiright?

Hello?

Since we're conjecturing...

My analysis of the beam construction happened because I had to sand mine down to fix a manufacturing tolerance issue.
Technically, the beam was not the issue, but rather the tolerance on the seat post was such that when the seat collar pinched the carbon supporting the post, it exerted enough force on the carbon (and without the opposing strenth that would have been provided by a properly sized post) to cause a crack.

I don't know who the original owner of the frame was, or why the beam was not replaced under warranty. What I do know is that I *never* had *any* doubt about the quality and engineering of the rest of the frame. The lower end is a solid piece of manufacturing, and in my view is adequate to the task, and safe for use.

I do not believe the same is true for the beam. I have carefully sanded mine down to the bare carbon. I've had it in my hands for hours and hours and hours. After repairing the original crack at the seat post to my satisfaction, I decided to add additional layers of UD to the pivot area. I did not feel confident in that part of the frame before I added those layers. I do feel confident in it now.

You're 30 posts late ;)


http://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/?post=6292563#p6292563

Just an observation here - People chiming in about their Dimond's being great (which I'm sure they are. I love them)... Just because other people's bikes are fine doesn't mean Jordan's was. The clause doesn't read, "Supply bikes to most customers that are suitable..." It says Jordan's bike has to be fit for racing.

It's like a homebuilder. Just because the houses he built down your street are fine, yours could still have foundation cracking and roof leaking because of some issues. The others are not yours and yours are not the others. It helps your case if others have problems, but handmade carbon bikes can have a lot of variability, correct?

I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make.
Are you saying it's not lying if you have a contract that tells you to do it?
Or, are you saying it's lying, but he probably felt bad about it?

Incidentally, I don't think Jordan is claiming either of these. As I read his comments, he claims he was fooling himself into thinking the bikes were okay really and the issues were just temporary. Didn't really think he was lying at the time. I don't find that convincing, but......

Come on TJ, please work with Jordan on this and everyone move on. You should contact each other directly and start by apologizing to each other, regardless who is at most fault. Then move on to the details and get this resolved quickly. A joint statement at the end and closure outside of lawyers and court will make you both come out of this in the best possible way. It is not too late, the sooner the better.

Again, I agree. This will be my last post until I actually have something else of substance to report. Either resolution or escalation.

This is the proposal that I have made and have asked my lawyer and others to communicate to TJ/Dimond.

This was initially sent in response to a third party who offered to mediate.

//

I think I have a possible solution here for all parties. And it's possible that it can be resolved through mediation.

Here is my proposed solution.

I have, at this point, offered several recommendations as to how this design should be fixed. This is based not only on my own engineering skillset, but also on the skillset of other extremely qualified engineers within the bike industry with whom I have discussed this problem.

I believe that the design can be reasonably effectively fixed after the fact. I.e., I believe that existing frames can be modified in such a way that this problem is mostly - and perhaps entirely - mitigated.

I also believe that future bikes can be produced without the likelihood of failure. I think the fundamental flaws in the design as it exists can be fixed. It will not be easy. Or cheap. But I think it can be done.

I am willing to provide a public record of my proposed solution(s) and to solicit the help of other engineers in the industry to tackle the problems about how to both fix existing bikes and to fix the design itself such that future bikes do not have issues.

In exchange, Dimond agrees to make acknowledgement of these issues and to issue a voluntary recall and to offer to either fashion a satisfactory retrofit or to provide the customer with a new frame based around a corrected design.

From the very first, my goal has always been to help make Dimond make better bikes. That goal remains. If Dimond is willing to seriously engage in that process, I remain willing to support that. But those are my conditions for mediation.

Any mediation must result in a public acknowledgement of the current issues and an effective proposal for how to fix them, both current frames, and future ones.

Best,

Jordan

Dimond gets a bad Rapp?

That all sounds reasonable, but the timeline is a bit fuzzy to me. When exactly did you decide that you could no longer represent Diamond, when did you notify them of your desire to terminate the agreement, and when did you have your first discussions with Diamondback? Because at Kona 2016 you were still shilling for Dimond, and 90 days later you're announced as a new Diamondback contract rider. That's a pretty short period of time. Makes one think there might be overlap.

Yeah, while I question whether Dimond could prove $150k in damages (at least before this thread and the go fund me page were posted), it doesn't look good for Jordan to me in terms of whether or not he was in breach of contract. The only out he seems to have in the contract rests on the subjective word "suitable." And since he and Dimond seemed to be at odds about whether or not the bikes were suitable, the only path for Jordan to nullify the agreement was through litigation in Iowa. Why he chose to sign with Diamondback without doing that first, I don't know. I can speculate that, with the impending launch of the Andean, there was as window closing to get in on that sponsorship deal so he jumped, hoping Dimond would eventually release him.

I, too, wonder what Diamondback knew. And whether his contract with them is now somehow in jeopardy.

Again, I agree. This will be my last post until I actually have something else of substance to report. Either resolution or escalation.

This is the proposal that I have made and have asked my lawyer and others to communicate to TJ/Dimond.

This was initially sent in response to a third party who offered to mediate.

//

I think I have a possible solution here for all parties. And it's possible that it can be resolved through mediation.

Here is my proposed solution.

I have, at this point, offered several recommendations as to how this design should be fixed. This is based not only on my own engineering skillset, but also on the skillset of other extremely qualified engineers within the bike industry with whom I have discussed this problem.

I believe that the design can be reasonably effectively fixed after the fact. I.e., I believe that existing frames can be modified in such a way that this problem is mostly - and perhaps entirely - mitigated.

I also believe that future bikes can be produced without the likelihood of failure. I think the fundamental flaws in the design as it exists can be fixed. It will not be easy. Or cheap. But I think it can be done.

I am willing to provide a public record of my proposed solution(s) and to solicit the help of other engineers in the industry to tackle the problems about how to both fix existing bikes and to fix the design itself such that future bikes do not have issues.

In exchange, Dimond agrees to make acknowledgement of these issues and to issue a voluntary recall and to offer to either fashion a satisfactory retrofit or to provide the customer with a new frame based around a corrected design.

From the very first, my goal has always been to help make Dimond make better bikes. That goal remains. If Dimond is willing to seriously engage in that process, I remain willing to support that. But those are my conditions for mediation.

Any mediation must result in a public acknowledgement of the current issues and an effective proposal for how to fix them, both current frames, and future ones.

Best,

Jordan