Except that the claim would be seriously weakened as none of this noise would have happened if they had not sued in the first place. Their lawsuit has brought this onto them, without it, there would be no brand damage.

---

---

"Only those who risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." T.S. Elliot | Cycle2Tri.com
Sponsors: SciCon | | Every Man Jack

Sure. I'm not upset (at all, don't really care) that he didn't say "Dimond bikes suck" while they were paying his bills, hell I'm not even upset he basically lied point blank to people who asked his opinion on the bike at the time. But if it's a moral crusade he's taken on, which is what I got from "why he's not going to let this be settled" then that ship sailed when you told people it was a fine product. You are free to disagree, I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I hope it works out for all parties.

---

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com

Does all this mean people will stop bashing the Chinese no name frames? Can't be worse than a Dimond, right?
</onlysortofpinksadly>

---

--Chris

Dev,
No the beam can't bottom out. The beam and frame connect via a simple male (frame)/female (beam) type connection. So there's maybe a three inch piece of the frame that the beam slides onto and the beam pretty much can't go below where it meets the frame.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

can you imagine a chinese knock off dimond? oh the huge-manatee!!!

Yes, fair points. Respect. Perhaps this is beating a dead horse, but wouldnt he be contractually obligated to promote the brand and be an ambassador of sorts? To say positive things publicly? Or at least he couldn't insinuate it was an unsafe bike with QC issues?

So he may not have been voluntarily "lying"...he was saying internally "shit if I don't endorse this product they're gunna sue/fire me, and they're working on the problems I've raised with them"? Just a thought. Even if someone asked him what he thought and he said something vague or noncommital, wouldn't that basically be the same as saying this bike is horrible? Dimond wouldn't like that.

What is the difference between a Diamond and a Diamondback?

---

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

A back?

---

--Chris

A back is the correct answer.

Back would have been incorrect.

Well played.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One

This thread has certainly been a good read. Here are some of my thoughts:

• Jordan was a paid endorser of Dimond bikes and was contractually obligated to promote their brand. Even responding with a "It's OK.", or being noncommittal, when asked what he thought of the bike could be considered a breach of contract. I know we all seek advice on this forum, but we need to gather data and consider all aspects and make our own decisions.
• It seems to me that Dimond is potentially exposing themselves to a lawsuit of their own. If they received multiple complaints and knew that the bike was "unsafe" and did nothing, or little, to fix the problem they could be in a bit of trouble.
• I didn't think of the possibility that competitors could donate to the gofundme campaign in an attempt to damage, or eliminate, the Dimond brand.

I really hope that both sides can resolve this quickly.

This is a F-ing mess all around and I agree only the lawyers will win.

Seven pages of comments and everyone has an opinion, I've not had a single issue with my Dimond anyone else?

Jordan, shame on you for starting this public fight

---

Giddy up, there's no reason to look behind you, you're not heading that way.

EDIT: I do currently have counsel, and my counsel has reviewed this statement. END EDIT

I am a lawyer. Because of my particular job, I can't give you legal advice, but here's the best personal advice I could possibly give you:

I don't know anything about your lawyer and didn't even see his name until after I posted this but based upon the above I would say...Get new legal counsel. Immediately. Seriously.

Right, this is what I thought.

so the "fail safe" feature of the design is that if the beam were to sink, you just end up sitting on your saddle in a lower point in space, but clearly above the rear wheel. The reason I ask this is because I have an ancient softride sitting in my basement and if the contraption that holds the beam at its "height" fails, I just end up sitting on a lower beam, not beam on rear wheel.

In a race or training ride, you just end up with a lower saddle height and either have to stand all the way home (I don't know how many people have done that due to a broken saddle rail, I know I have), or you end up squatting in a really low seat position. How is this a life and death safety issue. In my post above, I mentioned when I was an engineer in the aerospace world we had "safety critical" and "mission critical". Safety critical failure means the aircrew does not come home and the plane might crash. Mission critical, you abort the mission but no one is endangered. This seems to be in the mission critical failure group.

Is it a stretch to label Dimond as unsafe? We have seen countless bikes in the market whose seats sink. I have seen none labeled as unsafe though. Its a forum, so I am not seeing the full picture. I'd personally roll the dice on the 1/10000 chance that my beam sinks (I don't know what the odds are, just picking it out of the air).

I'm with you, seems weird.

These are all good thoughts. Especially number 2. Class action potential, but the Dimond Mafia will jump all over that one in a heartbeat.

I don't want to speak for the OP but I myself trust the market. One can call me a sheep or a follower if they like but I put my trust into the brands that have an established following, reputation and market share. I'll let someone else pave the trail on untested prototypes and new technologies. I spend my hard earned dollars on stuff that I know works. Cervelo, Specialized, Trek, Felt, Saucony, Brooks, New Balance etc, etc.

I haven't read the whole thread, but sending positive vibes your way.

---

maybe she's born with it, maybe it's chlorine
If you're injured and need some sympathy, PM me and I'm very happy to write back.
disclaimer: PhD not MD

First up, I would be pissed if I had Jordan's bike. Period.

Secondly, despite being loose there is no way the beam can go lower than the standard seated position unless the bolt came free and / or the carbon holding the bolt collapsed. It is unlikely there would have been much play whilst riding BUT, see my point above.

I wouldn't want it. I would happily ride Jordan's bike from a safety point of view but not forever. I wouldn't happily ride it due to the fact that who wants to ride a bike that has an issue that needs addressing. I think Jordan likely has elevated levels of worry due to his accident too (reasonably so). A man who worries about the perfect thickness of coffee grinds is never going to out up with anything let alone a beam that - in the video at least - absolutely looks like it needs sorting.

I had a Dimond. It was an amazing bike. I crashed it hard (t-bone at 25mph) and needed a new bike. I got another Dimond. I have heard stories, obviously, about quality issues but have always received exemplary customer service when required (I was one of the early adopters and the paint had some issues - this was fixed with A frame being sent after a pleasant one minute phone call) good communication and my bike has had nothing of the issues reported by Rapp - which I am not downplaying.

I can't imagine this is doing either party any good - although at this point in his career I imagine Rapp has less to lose, if I was Dimond I would not have gone this route. I am not a fan of paying for other people's legal obligations either though.

---

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

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......

The Dimond Mafia is probably collectively curled up a fetal position on the shower floor with a bottle of Jim Beam, and unfit for legal action at the moment. Someone should go check on them.

And there lies the rub - $6800 ($1700x4) per year and some free bikes was all it took for you to sell your integrity.

I've had no beef with you, but this really does rub me the wrong way. It's one thing to be an ambassador for a brand that you personally support. It is a whole different ball game to be an ambassador for a brand that you personally don't believe in. Why didn't you start fighting this sooner? Yes, I read your entire post and this whole thread, but if the situation was that bad, then it begs the question of why were you so complacent and okay with misleading everyone else--the same people you are now asking for help from?

IDK. I'm interested in hearing Dimond's sides of things and I wish you the best of luck regardless.

Also a lawyer and agree - get new counsel. This thread is only costing you.

Hey Dev - there is a big bolt holding the beam up front - so it cannot really sink unless the carbon breaks (either where the bolt is, or the beam itself). The design is such that the bolt and the "lower frame" support all the weight. The issue with the seat dropping happens when the seat clamp doesn't hold the seatpost, so the seatpost drops and bottoms out against the end of the beam. For most riders, that means that their seat drops a few mm, which although inconvenient, is not unsafe. They resolved those seat clamp issues quite a long time ago.

---

____________________________________

Are you ready to do an Ultraman? | How I calculate Ironman race fueling | Strength Training for Athletes |

Yep, this is basically what I thought about all of this. I've been reading along as if it's some kind of daytime tv but I find it hard to see anyone feeling that bad for Rapp on this one. The problem is he says one thing then says something to contradict it completely. You can't claim to be worried about your safety for the sake of your family whilst at the same time advising others to buy a bike that you feel is unsafe, as if they don't have families who would miss them should something happen. While he may have believed changes were being made he was still openly plugging the bike even though the model, at that point in time, 'unsafe'.

It seems to me that in this position the sensible solution would have been just to buy a new bike and have it de-stickered to ride whilst sorting issues out with dimond. By taking on a new sponsor you're just inviting a lawsuit, surely!?

I run a business with my wife and we're 'sponsored' by a few of the businesses whose products we use so I do totally appreciate that pros have to pimp the s@@@ out of anything they can but there's still room for ethics. If you only take on sponsors you believe in it's pretty easy to promote their products.

I think what I find most amusing about all of this is that just yesterday I was reading a thread where Rapp was telling someone - in an extremely condescending manner - that test rides were pointless.

Regardless of the bikes flaws (if proved) this has been handled in the worst way possible from start to end on Rapp's part. As a seasoned pro he should have known better! Asking for crowdfunding support and promoting a product you think is fundamentally dangerous are just too far for me.

Respect - gutter.

Once again, not taking sides but Dimond started this public fight. Ruster (Plaintiff) vs Rapp (Defendant). Some of you think Jordan filed the lawsuit. Not the case.

That's one very important fact and distinction.

---

Favorite Gear: Dimond | Cadex | Desoto Sport | Hoka One One