Rappstar wrote:
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.
Jordan, you raise some good points.
I would also put far more stock in testing/standards than my own anecdotal experience with the bike, which is why I mentioned that after the facts. I wouldn't for a second suggest that my own N=1 "torture test" of the Ventum is proof that the bike is safe and reliable. That's why they test. For the record, I don't go out of my way to abuse my Ventum, but simply riding and traveling so much subjects any bike to a lot of abuse.
Ideally there'd be a standard set of tests providing a rating for safety/reliability/durability adopted by all manufacturers. I was under the impression that ISO
4210-1:2014 and
4210-2:2015 represented the gold standard in this case as the most complete and rigorous set of tests. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chime in and highlight any issues or shortcomings of those tests.
I can think of a few reasons why companies wouldn't meet ISO standards. First and foremost, customers don't demand it. If a bike's safety standard, or even better a simple safety rating (e.g., like Energy Star ratings on appliances), were listed next to the price tag, that would probably get people's attention. Some companies probably know their bike wouldn't meet the standards, based on internal testing. I've heard that it's next to impossible for beam bikes to pass one of the tests by virtue of their design. Is that fair? Does the test reasonably reflect real world riding conditions? No idea. External testing is also expensive. On top of the fees, quite a few frames/forks have to sacrificed in destructive tests. That's prohibitive for smaller companies. Finally, meeting the highest standards is not law. Different jurisdictions have their own patchwork of standards (CPSC/EN/EU) that companies must satisfy to sell there.
I disagree that traveling with an unpadded bike case is foolish or reckless. I transport my bike in a custom made heavy duty canvas bag, basically just an envelope with one zipper, no pockets and no padding. So do some family members and friends who helped design and create the case, who have also never had problems so far. A carefully packed and partially disassembled bike fits snugly in the case, nestled between the two wheels in padded wheel bags, which protect the frame. I put supports between the dropouts, remove the RD, wrap everything in foam, and strap the bars to the frame. The key thing is that the case is far smaller and lighter than a typical bike case. This makes it much easier to handle, and I think it's less abused by baggage handlers as a result. It's scarcely even oversized and doesn't have any markings indicating it's a bike, just a FRAGILE sign.
In fact, I think more substantial cases may offer a false sense of security. People don't tend to pack their bikes as carefully, trusting in their cases. In my experience, having previously owned other cases, how you pack the bike is the main determinant of how well it holds up, not the design of the case. Large, heavy cases (often crammed with other gear) are quite cumbersome and I think they get thrown around, dropped, etc. more often as a result.
Though, if I'm honest, my main interest in this case is that I can avoid bike/oversized baggage fees 95% of the time. With many airlines charging an exorbitant US$150-200 fee for bikes per flight, my budget is too tight to add thousands of dollars in fees per year.
CodyBeals.com | Instagram | TikTok
ASICS | Ventum | Martin's | HED | VARLO | Shimano | 4iiii | Keystone Communications
