The Julie Miller threads. Which got feedback from almost the entire triathlon world and a multi page spread in the New York Times.

Wrong question to ask.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

Dan, then perhaps you can clarify the statement above. It seems to be saying that we've been lucky so far and since nobody got hurt badly, there is not an issue. I'm not sure I agree and I see a huge liability for products that have a history of quality issue. I am not so eager to stop the discussion with a "we dodged a bullet... I'm just going to count it good."

If you never had a claim, recall, paid a dime etc then I would say that your engineering, design and manufacturing methods were very good. And it is precisely your industry expertise that got your company there. I'm guessing it wasn't just you with a whole lot of optimism that got you there. I don't know, perhaps you could shed some light from your experience on what you did from a product development, design, testing, quality control process. Clearly, Nick could benefit from your processes, and I think it would be beneficial for the discussion. I doubt you were just lucky.

(Edit: Yes, I've this article that you wrote... it talks about the testing process. I am looking for the system around the testing process)

So I guess I am surprised to see the contradiction that I see in your optimism- almost caviler attitude in the quote above- and success in the bike business vs a more traditional engineering rigor and how you got to a place where in your business history of never having a claim, recall, paid a dime etc.

So what do you chalk up your success to?

---

Suffer Well.

You're delusional if you think your obsessive witch hunt (an appropriate one) is as helpful to the industry as this thread has the potential to be.

It seems you might be a bit butthurt that people are shitting all over your bike in this thread. I can imagine that being frustrating.

---

"One Line Robert"

I totally agree that people with more substantial cases often pack their bikes less carefully. But at least how I read it (obviously room for interpretation in there), it came across a bit as, "I just throw it in a bag." I agree that careful packing in an unpadded bag is better than reckless packing in a heavy duty case. But combining your description of the bag with "torture testing" concerned me.

I haven't spent a lot of time digging into the ISO standards. At least one very qualified engineer in the bike business has indicated to me the same as what Damon said in here - that the tests are not actually all that strict or necessarily representative of what's necessary.

Jimmy brings up an interesting point with the "star" rating system. I wonder if people would accept that or not. In the car industry, I think people get that there is often tradeoff between price, size, fuel economy, etc and safety. The cycling industry has long pushed back against that idea. The cheapest CPSC helmet is as safe as the most expensive. In theory anyway. But, generally speaking, the cycling industry has (in general) not ostensibly been willing to embrace "safety" or "reliability" as an acceptable tradeoff. Weight, aerodynamics, etc. That's what you get. But the general storyline is that everything is equally safe/reliable.

Of course that's not actually true. But to the extent that it's true, the cycling industry doesn't seem inclined to talk about it. I've long maintained that one of the best aspects of Zipp's wheels is their reliability. Zipp made a huge pushback here against the UCI after Jens Voigt's crash which the UCI blamed on "low-spoke carbon rims." Zipp demonstrated that the wheels Jens was on had both higher vertical compliance (good) and higher lateral stiffness (good) than a 32-spoke aluminum hoop wheel. The Mark Cavendish incident where his wheel got crushed in a sprint but basically maintained structural integrity is one of Zipp's proudest (internally) engineering moments. But even on this forum, people seem (to me anyway) to chaff at the idea that Zipp's wheels are somehow "safer" and that's part of why they are expensive.

---

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

except for having to replace their hubs every few years since they tend to disintegrate(hyperbole)

I've never had a hub failure in eight years of riding the wheels near daily. Yes, I do change over my wheels more frequently than most people, but I also am using these as my every day wheels. In a typical year, I put at least 4,000mi on two sets of Zipps - a set of 404s on my road bike and a set of 808s on my TT bike. Since 2008, I've broken exactly two rims. One was a collapsed spoke hole that required a new rim but where I could still ride the wheel safely (and did so for many miles until I had a window where I could replace it). This was also on a PowerTap hub, which required a 2x lacing pattern on both DS and NDS - as opposed to Zipp's standard spec - which MIGHT have been a factor. That was in 2008. The other was 2009 when I ran into the side of a van at 30mph and the front wheel buckled slightly. That's the sum total of the extent of my "issues" with my Zipps aside from very occasionally needing to have a rear wheel trued.

I will say that hubs are the area where Zipp continues to drive forward the most. There have been more revisions to the hubs in the time that I've been with Zipp than revisions to the rim: http://www.zipp.com/...ify/hub_timeline.php

There's a lot in here on how the hubs have been redesigned to make them more reliable. With that said, I have never personally had reliability issues. And I've never had any of the people to whom I've sold old wheels - most of whom are close friends - report issues either down the road.

---

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

This is one of the problem with mandated minimum standards. They become the the established level of what is acceptable and without further incentive, companies don't typically push beyond that. In fact they commonly resist calls to improve products further. You raised the issue of helmets which is a great example. Basic helmet effectiveness (from a safety perspective) is not generally improving as companies seek to meet the standard rather than improve technology to show that the standards could be improved. Koroyd is an interesting case study in this. They've apparently dramatically improved impact protection with this material/structure and shown that better is possible, but the industry has responded with a resounding 'meh'.

So don't get me wrong, I'm not against these standards being in place, I'm just also for comparative testing/analysis that can reveal the merits of one product vs another.

neither have I, simply referring to the recall of the front hubs of a few versions. I know someone that had to send in 8 wheels for the recall. There was a reason for the recall. Seems they remedied it. But we are off topic, back to bikes.....

I see why my earlier post raised your eyebrows. Hastily written and somewhat unclear.

That's an interesting observation about how the cycling industry (and consumers) haven't really embraced the concept that safety is a design feature that differs among brands, models, price points, etc. It's ridiculous to pretend that all helmets, for example, are equally safe. The comparison to the automotive industry and its star rating system is a good one. I think that consumers deserve a quantitative rating system to better inform purchase decisions rather than the pass/fail system that exists with standards.

Weight seems to be the factor most often traded for safety/durability/reliability in bike products. My own weight weenie phase was very short-lived. Pretty much every lightweight part I bought during that time eventually failed during normal riding (Ti skewer, bottle cages, low spoke count wheels and more). Those experiences made me automatically skeptical of anything super light.

---

CodyBeals.com | Instagram | TikTok
ASICS | Ventum | Martin's | HED | VARLO | Shimano | 4iiii | Keystone Communications

I've had hockey sticks break in my hand like toothpicks dynamically (fast fracture), yet under slow static load I probably could've supported a small car. And for a few years there, the ice in any given NHL game was littered with broken sticks. These guys were working OT to figure that out because the engineered load tests obviously didn't cut it. Certain types of carbon layups seem to be prone to this - unidirectional pre-preg of a certain date range? IDK.

I had a water-ski that was made in the same place/autoclave as the Audi R8 Lemans racer parts. Hollow core, & carbon twill or weave. The thing was flexible (almost soft), ultra light and seemed unbreakable.

---

Training Tweets: https://twitter.com/Jagersport_com
FM Sports: http://fluidmotionsports.com

"perhaps you could shed some light from your experience on what you did from a product development, design, testing, quality control process."

when i started i had no idea what the hell i was doing. this would have been 1987 or so. i made 2 decisions:

1. i would analyze how i observed bikes were failing. not necessarily how they were stressed (that came next), but where they were failing. then i would construct tests that forced my bikes to fail at those points.

2. i didn't have any industry standards back then to rely on. no ISO standards. i created my own standards. what was the basis of my standards? i knew that i knew nothing. i assumed my competitors knew something. so i got their frames and i tested them to failure. how did i obtain the frames? when i sponsored an athlete i required as a condition of sponsorship that they send me the most recent frame they'd been given by the prior sponsor. a lot of frames came in. we broke them all.

3. i built testing fixtures and protocols that would measure stress and produce failures. every time i got a frame bike i would test it to failure. that became a data point. i simply built my bikes so that it took more to bring them to failure than any of the other bikes i tested.

there was one bike i could not beat. kestrel. the old kestrel 4000, you could ride it straight down the fall line of a mountain and that frame would not break. further, when it broke it broke a little tiny bit at a time. you could not get that bike to fail catastrophically.

finally, tie goes to the customer. you saw it higher up in the thread. we had a guy, somewhere oversees (he's on this thread) who popped a rivet on a front derailleur mount. we (apparently) simply sent him a new frame. we had a lady call us in a panic, her husband came home from a triathlon with a wet wetsuit, she put it in the dryer, out came a ball of plastic. we immediately sent her a new wetsuit, no charge. we had a guy going overseas to do a race, his wetsuit zipper broke, he was getting on an airplane, karen (stconcierge on this forum) drove 6hr roundtrip to meet him at LAX where he was changing planes to hand him his wetsuit.

in the movie my blue heaven, steve martin's character says, "It's not tipping I believe in. It's overtipping." it's not service i believe it. it's over-service.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I think triathletes are, however, somewhat unique with regards to weight, simply because no TT bike, disc, or set of aerobars is particularly light.. But cycling - as a whole consumer group - still focuses a lot on this. Pretty much every wheel manufacturer I've spoken to would prefer to build every wheel with brass spoke nipples. They are just better. But it adds about 30g per wheel. So we get aluminum nipples. And the thing is, if you explain the tradeoff to people, they will TELL you that they want brass nipples because they are better, but when they go to actually buy the wheels, they overwhelmingly CHOOSE aluminum nipples. So a big part of this is the disconnect between what people tell you they actually want and how they actually behave. And that is hardly unique to cycling.

So I can understand the reticence on the part of the cycling industry with regards to a lot of this stuff, because the track record of what people say they want and what they actually pay for is disparate enough that I can empathize with having a pretty jaded perspective.

---

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

Replying to both this post and your reply to Damon, I think starting to develop a rating system similar to crash standards is pertinent and necessary. Of course, we're not talking about crash ratings, but if every manufacturer could provide a chart of a few key attributes next to their geometry charts, we've got some potentially useful information.

From a consumer perspective, I think this enhances the purchase decision process, and getting to your points in this post, we can not only compare across brands, but we can quantify the claims - "Vertically compliant", "Laterally stiff", "it's so comfortable", and "our bikes are better than Walmart bikes" don't have to be marketing drivel. Let's measure those concepts, give 'em a number, and publish it. Consumers are better informed, especially in a world where Internet buying is more likely and having the opportunity to test ride various options is difficult.

As a bike fitter, I see a lot of bikes, and collect data on a lot of bikes with the intent of being able to recommend a bike to someone asking me. I often present customers with a list of bikes in the same price range that can fit a person reasonably well and are equipped with equivalent components. I almost always then get asked something to the effect of, "which one would you recommend?" That's where the science stops. This is usually where I get nervous, start talking in circles, and ask what their favorite color is. lol!

There's certainly an emotional aspect to the bike buying experience that a fitter or local bike shop person can't replace, but the more data we can provide to the buyer, the better.

For manufacturers such as yourself, this could be a double-edged sword. It's great to be able to step up and show the integrity of your product in a meaningful way, much like how minivan manufacturers will tout their 5-star crash rating. On the flip side, it could become an expensive development war. "Brand X got a 9? We can do better!"

---

Travis Rassat
Vector Cycle Works
Noblesville, IN
BikeFit Instructor | FMS | F.I.S.T. | IBFI
Toughman Triathlon Series Ambassador

Yes to all of this. A lot of win in everything detailed here.

---

"One Line Robert"

Thanks Dan. This is excellent and speaks to how you were successful with your products.

It seems that Dan the QR Owner and Dan the "flying wallenda" approach things differently.

---

Suffer Well.

Jordan, in your comments above I added some emphasis to questions which have already been answered, in DL triathlon.

It seems that as an industry, non-ITU triathlon almost prides itself on being free from traditional bicycle shapes—for aerodynamics, or whatever, etc. But traditional shapes have also passed traditional testing, and some kind of validation that products are as their manufacturers claim they are. And maybe there's something in that—some convention or method(s) for ensuring a minimum level of safety. This is not meant to open a debate of the merits of the UCI (they are not as progressive as many in the peloton would like), but I was merely pointing out that a standard exists.

And maybe, one day, NDL triathlon will adopt a standard for ensuring a minimum level of quality and safety. But until then... guesswork, I suppose.

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

It would be great if Josh Poertner could speak to this point. He was still at Zipp when both of these incidents happened, IIR.

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

Sorry to hear about your accident and injury. That kind of profiteering at the expense of people's safety really pisses me off. I'm glad to hear you are suing them, I hope they get slammed.

I totally support your actions when they might result in sticking it to small companies that put out unsafe products.

I just hope that you don't inadvertently help cause a small company that makes good engineering and safety their top priority to go under.

I don't think it is clear at this point which companies make safety a priority, and which do not.

"It seems that Dan the QR Owner and Dan the "flying wallenda" approach things differently."

the difference is that dan the QR owner is talking about how he dealt with his own approach to manufacturing, product design, customer service. dan the flying wallenda is just a guy who was asked how he felt about riding someone else's products.

i'm not endorsing a product's fitness for use by saying i'm comfortable riding it. if you're asking me whether i think this product or that is ride-worthy, there is nothing made that is written about in this thread that i'm unwilling to hike my leg over and take out for a ride. that's entirely separate from the question of my approach to good and services i stick my name on.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

"This is excellent and speaks to how you were successful with your products."

by the way, over-the-top service pays. years after one of the incidents i write about above, i'm signing a deal with an EVP of marketing worth $750,000 over 2 years, a race series sponsorship. i tell the guy, "we have a factory. it's behind this door. we make stuff. let me take you back and show you what we make."

he said, "i know what you make. about 8 years ago i came home from a triathlon. my wife, not knowing, threw my wetsuit in the dryer. she called you in a panic..."

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

That's what caught my eye. I thought the whole "let's get popcorn and watch this unfold" was about a grammar war. I couldn't have been more wronger.

He's in Vietnam right now. But I'll ask him...

---

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

Yes, terribly frustrating .... at least it would be if

a) I cared a great deal about what people like you thought
b) I agreed with what they were saying
c) I even currently owned one of the bikes mentioned

Seeing as you've now embarrassed yourself twice in succession I took the liberty of adding you to the list of people not worth replying too.

---

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com

Jimmy and Damon: thanks for chiming in here. It's always nice to hear from those in the industry "bring it on!" and it instills a lot of confidence. The silence from some of the other parties... whom I know are active on ST... is deafening.

P.S. Jimmy I still owe you CAD files, I haven't forgotten, this has just been a crazy year for me.