"since when is anonymity a bad thing?"

because it shields you (or you think it does) from saying really the really outrageous stuff that's irresponsible at best and defamatory at worst.

i have another question for you: since when is transparency a bad thing? you guys scream to high heaven when you think anybody or any company is holding anything back from you that you want to know. i find that rich coming from somebody who won't come out from behind his pseudonym. sauce for the goose...

i've got no quarrel with the rest of what you wrote.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I do not watch ANY more football, of any team, because of kaepernick. Sport is supposed to be entertainment, not political. I also do not watch the NBA, etc for the
same reasons.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

Dan, as I have said to you many times. Easy to solve. If I person wants to make a post like this, great, either a real name is used, or you delete the thread.

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

It's these things that concern me most.

Very few of us here are sufficiently competent to express opinions on the fallibility of laminated carbon exposed to repetitive shocks and strains, especially without knowing about the proprietary layups used. So we have to draw on proxies such as frame-flex and past failures and responses to those failures from the companies in question.

On that basis, I would *absolutely* trust Cervelo.

A new small company doing new things will always be a risk. Hopefully only a risk to your wallet in the case of products that don't perform as well as advertised, but in some cases a minor risk to safety. A dead powermeter or leaky goggle is a mere annoyance. But for critical components - and bars and frames are absolutely critical at any kind of speed - any safety risk is not acceptable. This is true whether or not that person will later win a liability suit.

I liked Beal's response upthread. A company doing something new should demonstrate the highest degree of integrity in their products, even if it comes at the cost of weight or aerodynamics (I still haven't seen anything from their rider tests). Over-engineer, under-promise.

---

'It never gets easier, you just get crazier.'

"On that basis, I would *absolutely* trust Cervelo."

since you bring cervelo up, i have spent good, hard, flat, uphill, downhill, calm, windy hours on the P5X. that bike is a solid rock. that and the diamondback andean both. so, non-traditional does not mean flexible.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Buddy of mine has a Dimond and I can tell you if he could return it he would in a heart beat.
Seriously overpriced piece of junk! List of issues gets longer and longer the more he rides it.

Eh. Yeah, thats because we're paying customers. We're willfully giving them money for products they create and manufacturer. The onus is on them to explain why we should give them said money. Seems pretty simple really.

---

"One Line Robert"

This semi sums up the crux of these crusades.

If your product fails in a way that doesn't risk consumers safety - fine, no harm no foul. UNLESS your customer service is so deplorable that it becomes a challenge getting a response - much less a reimbursement or acknowledgement.

Though, its quite another problem when companies manufacture products that when/if they fail can cause bodily harm - great customer service or not. But they all better be prepared to stand behind their products when/if that happens.

I trust larger manufacturers will do this to a fault. We've seen it play out many times here on ST that some smaller players simply do not.

Ingenuity is great. Innovators are needed. Dan and I can agree on that. But Dan refuses to acknowledge that some of these manufacturers are not honorable. Are not respectable. We don't need innovators that screw their paying customers.

---

"One Line Robert"

Have you talked to any of the bike testers at RIDE magazine? Their bike tests are the best I know of (but my knowledge certainly isn't complete)

I wonder for example, how much flex is OK and how much becomes too much. A cycling buddy of mine is a bit of a Luddite. He still rides a 59cm round tube steel bike most of the time. Following him into a headwind brings about visuals much like over-cooked pasta. If that's your benchmark, I reckon modern beam bikes probably fair pretty well. If you benchmark is the latest high end carbon road bike, maybe the dream tri bikes don't fare so well.

lately there has been a real drive to low spoke count wheels. Even I as a very low power old man cyclist feels noticeable wheel flex when I ride. Recently I had need to get some new general purpose wheels for my road bike. I had great difficulty finding 28/28, 28/24, or even 24/24 spoke wheels. I'm not saying I want bombproof 36 hole triple cross wheels, but 28's wouldn't be a bad idea (especially with bladed spokes), but that option doesn't seem to exist anymore.

With frame (chainstay) clearances getting tighter and the move to 25 & 28mm tires, interference is going to happen way more often, regardless of frame flex.

If you're worried about delamination of carbon or shear between layup layers, PM me and I can put you in contact with a friend/acquaintance that is manufacturing nano fibres sheets for interlayer carbon products, that just might fix a lot of the issues you're talking about.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Sounds like you're referring to the second coming of Jesus (the Specialized Transition). A buddy of mine had a Specialized Transition back in about 1994-5? long before the P3C or second Jesus, were even a wet dream. It was a steep seat tube 700C tri bike (when most tri bikes were 650C). It was an ali bike, and was orange with yellow "Specialized" lettering. I was riding my much cooler QR Special Edition at that time. :-)

The Specialized Transition you're talking about I think, came out much later.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Now I'm left wondering why Cervelo would remove such a good article series from their site... :-/


Intellectual property owned by people no longer at Cervelo?

Or just yesterdays news, no longer relevant to the latest and greatest they're selling?

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Excellent point. the OP claims there are a raft of failures of the bikes he mentions. The P5X has been out such a short time, I don't think it could possibly had many fail. I certainly haven't hear of any. As for the other, if there were rampant failures, there'd be a firestorm here on ST and probably recalls, but I'm not aware of it.

IF I'm simply out of touch, I wish the OP would provide some evidence of these failures. Hell, as a starting point, I'd even accept that "two of my buddies had their P5X's break at point X". Instead, all we really have is rant that I'd be proud to call my own (except I prefer my rants to be factual and evidence based)

Facts! we want FACTS!

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

"But Dan refuses to acknowledge that some of these manufacturers are not honorable."

that's simply not true. manufacturers, small and large, as well as some number of individuals, are not honorable. when we see it, we report it.

i also acknowledge that your standard of proof and mine are not the same.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Real Name
Kiley
Occupation
Real Estate Professional

There it is. Right there. :o)

Seriously though, it's all a bit inflammatory isn't it? Suggesting that the tests shown on Youtube are of "evidence to show how structurally flawed, flimsy, and dangerous your frameset is"...?

I know a bit about evidence, and structural failure, as I am a forensic engineer working in the field of earthquake damaged buildings amongst other things. I also know a bit about carbon as we use it to strengthen stuff. The videos are clearly not evidence of a structural flaw, or how dangerous they are. (I won't comment on flimsy because that's really subjective). They just show frame flex of a single example of one frame, in one situation, which does not reflect real riding conditions. I would therefore submit that (as the OP asked) this cannot be substantiated with such "evidence".

It bothers me that the OP would cast unsubstantiated doubts on the integrity of a number of products, with no evidence. Describing such as "craptraps" seems like the opinion has been formed before the "evidence" requested has been collected. In such a widely popular forum, it bothers me that this may negatively impact on those manufacturers who dare to try to move the technology on.


I hope the OP was therefore made in jest as the end of the very last sentence appears to suggest?

Are there many triathlons in HK? Or do you just do the 70.3s that are in China?

I know a teammate won a Dimond at Kona a year or two back. I know it's in another buddy's shop with a cracked frame. I believe it was down around the bottom bracket but can't be sure as I've had too many concussions to rely on my memory. I know for a fact that the frame is cracked, just not 100% sure where. Dimond did a great job of getting a replacement frame though, in case that helps.

I know a teammate won a Dimond at Kona a year or two back. I know it's in another buddy's shop with a cracked frame. I believe it was down around the bottom bracket but can't be sure as I've had too many concussions to rely on my memory. I know for a fact that the frame is cracked, just not 100% sure where. Dimond did a great job of getting a replacement frame though, in case that helps.

I had an steel Quintana Roo, back in the day. I went to have it repainted after a number of years (the paint was getting tired). The painter found two cracks, in different tubes. The bike is now recycled steel in China. (I wish I'd actually kept it as a "wall hanger". I loved that bike)

Anything man made will fail. Deciding what is an acceptable (non crash related) rate of failure is the trick.

The OP suggested that large numbers of the bikes he mentioned, are experiencing high rates of failure. I don't believe that is actually happening.

I suspect the OP has a bone to pick possibly based on a small sample size, and is little more than a troll. Dimond for example aren't a big market player. If the OP knows of say two failed frame, he may consider that to be a major issue. He certainly had a good rant about it.

---

TriDork

"Happiness is a myth. All you can hope for is to get laid once in a while, drunk once in a while and to eat chocolate every day"

Naah...that's Cervelo's.





It wasn't anything splashed on the front page or anything, but under their "Ask the Engineers" section. It doesn't take much effort to keep that sort of reference material "alive", especially since it speaks to their engineering efforts, which arguably is their main strength as a bike supplier.

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

 
nick is the (and i'm only talking about the play on the field here, not the national anthem stuff) colin kaepernick of bike makers: really talented, really fun to watch, makes you facepalm. i am very glad kaepernick is in the NFL. i am very glad nick is in the bike biz.


Yikes!!! If I were Nick, i wouldn't be too happy with this analogy... and, if valid, then I think that Pubes' prediction about Tririg's bankruptcy--like Kapernick's lack of football relevancy--is coming sooner than later.

I don't know Dan - sounds like you're saying "if you want to make an omelet you need to crack a few eggs". The problem here is that cracking those eggs in this instance means putting peoples life and health at risk. When dipshit Kaepernick does something stupid nobody get hurt. When a bike stem or aerobar snaps at speed someone goes to the hospital.

Seriously?!?!?!?!? What the HELL????

Um, I have had a Pearson Z1-9 since Graeme Pearson custom made it for me in February of 2009. I have put it through 16, YES 16 IRONMAN races (inlcuding Kona 2013) since it arrived to me in March 2009. Now, that's just the IM races I have done on it, not to mention at least 7 IM70.3 races on it since 2009. I have never, NEVER, had a problem with my beam bike since day 1. In fact, in 2012, I improved upon Graeme's design with his approval and came up with what I call the Z1-9GC (ie: Z1-9 Graeme Christian). I simply added more material to creating better aerodynamics on the beam, and at the FD juncture.

Now, I weigh in at 150 on race day, so I can't speak for the absolute stiffness of my Pearson beam bike. But, I will say that Graeme Pearson built me an awesome frame in 2009. As I understand it from Graeme, he only built 5 of theses frames that year from this mould. Not sure where the other 4 are, but I still have mine ready to go back in full service.

---

Team Zoot-Texas, and Pickle Juice

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

"When a bike stem or aerobar snaps at speed someone goes to the hospital."

you're right. i thought about that when i wrote it. now, tell me, because i might not be up with the times here, but i *think* we're through issues with stems and bars, right? we're in the clear on that? because i've seen it with control tech, 3t and cervelo, and a dozen other companies and jesus you should've been around in the 90s. shit was breaking left and right. BB spindles, crankarms, stems, steerers, jesus. nobody could make a goddam thing. (except me, of course.) i've been involved with the recalls and the failures. tririg wasn't the first and won't be the last. but we're through that, yes?

if so, i think we're on safe ground now from the steer column forward on tririg products. the hydration thing, i don't know, but the brakes, stem, bars, i'm with you, i think we dodged a bullet, and i'll retract what i wrote if i'm wrong, but if nobody got hurt badly (and many companies can't claim that kind of luck) then i'm just going to count it good and say in retrospect i'm glad we're where we are. i'm glad the products are here.

now we're talking about the frame. i feel pretty good about the frame, because of the factory in which it's built (nick didn't tell me but i think i know anyway), because of that second set of eyes, and because i'm much more concerned about stems, steer columns, aerobars, pursuit bars, than i am about frames.

so you might not like my calculus but there it is. you guys ask me for my opinion and i give to you honestly and you get all pissy with me. but that's my opinion. honestly? i don't like the hydration thingy. never did like it. but the rest of it, you bet i'd ride it. and if you don't like the brake don't by a premium tactical because the brakes are an almost dead knock-off of a tririg. but then again i'm a goddam flying wallenda, riding all this stuff before you guys do, a pedaling test pilot and i've been doing it for 17 years and then before that on all of my own bikes. i just grab what i got down there, throw them over my shoulder, tie them down so they don't get caught on the spokes, and ride off.

i think the shit is fine. i'm not saying you should ride it. i'm only talking about what i would ride.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Ooh, ooh - I've had too old QR's fail (sorry Dan) - first was my first "real" tri bike, a Kilo PR - one of the rivets holding on the front mech hanger came loose, temp fix with a zip tie. Because the bike was a private import into the UK (this was before you could get QR in the UK) I was a bit stuck - retailer R&A Cycles (bless 'em) didn't want to know. But Dan did. Sent frame back to the states, and rec'd a Redstone in return. Which has now sadly broken (head tube crack, but sits on my wind trainer, don't think it flexes much...).

Loved that Kilo, (Redstone not so much) so much so that I bought a NOS frame and built it up. Even did a couple of half irons on it last year.

I've also just rec'd my new Sigma X stem although haven't had time to fit it yet. Should I be worried that it's a new piece of kit from a small manufacturer? Maybe, but I'll still fit it and ride it. Unlikely to fail. And if it does it's likely to show signs of it first.

Yeah, I really have no idea. It just sounded like you were giving those types of failures from TriRig a pass because it's the "price of progress". As for moving on to the new crop of various frames, for now we don't have any evidence to suggest they are unsafe. Personally, that Omni frame wag doesn't look inspiring but that doesn't mean it's unsafe or even has any negative consequences in terms of ride quality. I was just surprised.