Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 115 total)
  • Pinder v Fox
  • Stoner
    Free Member

    if you consider the caliper becomes the pivot when the brake is applied, the further the caliper is away from the dropout the more rearward the resultant force. Assumign the caliper is mounted close to the leg, but further away from the drop out for larger rotors, the closer the calpier to the drop out, the more the resultant force is directed in a vertical direction, i.e. in the direction of the drop out opening.

    mrfrosty
    Free Member

    Sad world we live in if someone cant do a qr up correctly. even thou there are some really stite qr’s out there. I say use shimano,mavic or salsa no probs even if opperated with half a brain.

    Stoner
    Free Member

    I see you’ve followed the evidence closely then mr frosty.

    mrfrosty
    Free Member

    Indeed sounded something like bla bla bla

    sharki
    Free Member

    So what happened here? the case is not one i cba in following.

    But am i right in saying the forks failed in some way, causing the rider to crash and hurt himself, was it a user error, was the wheel incorrectly fitted, ie, qr too tight/loose os was it a product failure.

    I’m just wondering if the same happened to another product, where it failed in some manner, potentially causing a major incident, i’ve heard stories of things like brakes pads failing and the manufactor’s have nothing to do with it, it’s down to the supplier to just say “Ahhhhh! it’s one of the bad batch, here have another foc” and the comsumer is happy to accept that…

    Stoner
    Free Member

    The theory is here
    http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/index.html

    court evidence reports here
    http://spoomplim.blogspot.com/

    Not a case of manufacturing defect but brought under the consumer protection act.

    hora
    Free Member

    I’d have been interested to see this case go to its natural conclusion as would Fox I bet. Its probably the Insurers as stated above. Out of court settlement sends out the message that there might be something to fear from this design though so stop people using the old fork design or at the very least people will check theirs more now.
    Still on the bright side Fox are raking it in with their 2009 range weighing in at a thousand dollars for a 36 or a similar silly amount here. Along with their silly servicing schedule as a safety net I can’t see them being short of a few pennies anytime soon.
    Everyone knows mtb kit fails, how does one rider define XC or AM to another? Some riders can land drops and think its just to a stepdown/drop off smoothly whereas others will see it as extreme/technical downhill on the same forks.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Its an unproven design flaw. If a series of things stack up against you when you use QRs and disc then despite the QR being done up properly it can loosen off and then eject the wheel.

    If your QR clamping force exceeds the precessional forces produced by braking over bumps then it will never happen. If the QR and dropout do not have a good interface then the QR can loosen, if you have downward facing dropouts then the wheel can be ejected very forcefully. Lawyer lips help reduce this as well.

    The basis of the case is (IIRC) that Fox knew of this possible flaw and indeed their own design teams were working on ways to stop this happening but no recall was issued on existing forks nor was any warnings given. So Pinders case is that he was injured due to a design flaw that was known about and preventable by design changes.

    Ben @ Kinetics did some experiments on this and replicated the effect. others have as well.

    nickc
    Full Member

    Lifted from Stoner/spoowpliM’s blog, this, for me sums up the case:

    As to why Russ could have ridden many miles (and indeed the very trail of the accident at least 10 times) without the wheel coming out, the witness said that whilst the theoretical sequence could be defined it was only in a combination of many complex factors (many of which he believed were either not able to be identified yet, or if they are not adequately explained) acting in exactly the right manner that the very unfortunate sequence could occur in real life.

    Russ was very very unlucky. I remember when James Annan first raised this question, and the “robust discussions” that took place at the time. Whilst I would be happy, like Brant to ride with a decent QR and Discs, it’s equaly true, I’m even more happy my bike has a 20mm front axle…

    jimthesaint
    Full Member

    I’m dissapointed that this wasn’t seen through to the end. If I remember right there had been posts on here stating that Russ’s main motivation for bringing this case to court was not finacial remuneration but to attain a ruling so as to prevent this happening to anybody else.

    If Russ had proved his case in court it would probably have resulted in a recall of all forks with horizontal drop-outs and disc mounts. Yet by settling out of court and signing a confidentiality agreement if this was to happen to anybody else (which if Russ’s claim is correct then it’s only a matter of time) then is he now partially responsible?

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Jim – I think pragmatism rules. My guess Fox bought him off with enough money. It is not is Foxs or their insurers interests to have a precedent set.

    Stoner
    Free Member

    simply through getting as far as he did has raised the issue to a far higher profile than before regardless of whatever responsibility rests with the Fox design. Going to court, putting your own financial security on the line, is not done purely for philanthropic reasons. Even if Russ had been successful in this case the chances are Fox would have appealed adding another few years of cost and mental strain to an already long drawn out and expensive process.

    Christowkid
    Free Member

    Brant:
    I was following a similar thread on here a few days back.
    Someone else mentioned these ” DT QR spinny things….” and I thought it was a good compromise between qr’s and Maxles, then he said his came undone!!!!!
    I’m running Rev’s with a 180mm rotor up front and holding it all together with XT Qr’s.
    Do you consider the DT’s more substantial than XT qr’s?
    ta
    Q

    aracer
    Free Member

    Yet by settling out of court and signing a confidentiality agreement if this was to happen to anybody else (which if Russ’s claim is correct then it’s only a matter of time) then is he now partially responsible?

    Oh FFS! Yes, just about as responsible as you are for not donating lots of money to a fund to enable him to carry on fighting without risking it all.

    aracer
    Free Member

    I’d have been interested to see this case go to its natural conclusion as would Fox I bet.

    Somehow I doubt Fox were quite as keen as you seem to think, given how little they had to gain and how much they had to lose!

    BearBack
    Free Member

    So, had this gone all the way and Pinder had won his claim, there would be a precedence set. Would this then lead to a recall by Fox for all their downward facing dropout forks that are in existance? Effectively therefore a known and proven safety issue.
    If this was the case, would Marzocchi, DT, RockShox, Manipoo et al also be required to recall all their forks as essentially its an issue that affects every manufacturer of downward drop out forks.

    So, I guess by settling, Fox are essentially protecting the interests of the industry while ensuring that Mr Pinder can carry on with life?

    I appreciate going after the big fish, but I still don’t see why action wasn’t brought against the brake manufacturer and Syncros as ultimately it was a failure of that system that resulted in the terrible injuries. (syncros QR’s have a running theme of loosening – check MTBR)
    Lawers summary of the case:

    “It is Russell Pinder’s case that the design of the Fox forks when combined with certain disc brakes, and when using a front wheel secured by a quick release mechanism create loosening of the front wheel after repeated brake application, followed by subsequent ejection of the wheel out of the front forks.”

    I see the theory and accept that loosening can occur (I’ve had it on DT RWS and regular DT skewers on techy enduro races but unsure as to wether or not this was me being fairy fisted when putting my bike together. In both incidences, noticeable knocking and loosness was evident even when the skewer lever was still effectively tight and a long time before the QR nuts were anywhere close to forcing through the lawer tabs. Perhaps as I have a history of restoring/driving classic cars and self built kit cars, I’m somewhat more aware of feelings and noises that don’t sound right or normal.

    However, not being there, I cant say what the lead up to the ultimate failure was in his case nor indeed that he should have been able to stop and address the (apparently catostrophic) failure. Although the evidence that the QR must have worked loosed enough to pass the lawer tabs without scoring would suggest that significant knocking must have been evident. But sadly it happened, and the resulting injury is terrible.

    As a side note, Would reverse thread QR nuts have resulted in a tightening effect as opposed to a loosening one?

    Best of luck to Pinder though and I hope he can now look towards the future.

    Inspiration?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmjgzEFJhi0%5D
    http://www.sitski.com/stacyoff.htm

    brant
    Free Member

    Do you consider the DT’s more substantial than XT qr’s?

    If I say yes, and yours loosen, are you going to sue me?

    Stoner
    Free Member

    As a side note, Would reverse thread QR nuts have resulted in a tightening effect as opposed to a loosening one?

    no. The precession forces are not linked to wheel revolution so are indifferent to thread handedness.

    As for going after brake and hub manufacturers etc, it’s fair point, but would pit Pinder against the IS standard of caliper mount location. However, the drop out orientation is not defined by the IS mount location. but is solely in Fox’s control, and so a forward facing dropout could have been developed compatible with the existing brake mount specifications.

    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    why should he get a payout – he should check his bike before use (and during if need be). Duty if care and all that is bollox, taking responsibility for yourself is where it should be at!

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Ralph – Have you not read the evidence / theory?

    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    TJ the whole blame culture bugs me – take responsibilty for yourself is what i was taught and live by. If something goes wrong, look at yourself first and don’t try to shift blame.

    Theory and conjecture (especially when presented by you tj) are not worth the forum space they take up

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Howabout loads of other folk who also believe this – have you read James annans work – if not do so. I can find no flaws in his calculations and there are many many examples of this happening – for sure its a tiny % but this is not the only time it has happened.
    How often during a ride do you check your QR – the whole point is that it was not user error – it is a design flaw. For sure your bike should be checked at the start of a ride but are you seriously saying that you should stop and check the Qr during a ride? How often? every downhil? every 100m?

    \Oh – and you are both ignorant and offensive in the way you refer to me

    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    How often during a ride do you check your QR

    don’t have em!

    brant
    Free Member

    I can find no flaws in his calculations

    Many have found several.

    Christowkid
    Free Member

    Brant:
    lol!!!
    :=)
    Q

    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    BUt tj hasn’t thats the difference!

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Go on then brant – I’d be interested to hear.

    Ralph – shut up yuou know nothing numpty. constant negative sniping.

    racing_ralph
    Free Member

    ha ha – biting

    Stoner
    Free Member

    Brant – Im not so good at the technical diagrams, but does that document specify a required range of orientation of the dropout to meet the IS specification?

    Stoner
    Free Member

    oh, and R-R, you’re an arse.

    HoratioHufnagel
    Free Member

    what about just using a left hand thread on the skewer?
    like on pedals – that stops the precession effect doesn’t it?

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    horatio – the issue is its a thru bolt unlike pedal which are a not thru bolts – use a left hand thread and all that would happen is the other end unscrews

    brant
    Free Member

    Brant – Im not so good at the technical diagrams, but does that document specify a required range of orientation of the dropout to meet the IS specification?

    No. not at all. It certainly suggests and attitude, but doesn’t give a slot to disc centre suggestion. I’m slightly annoyed as I’m sure I’ve seen one somewhere.

    brant
    Free Member

    Go on then brant – I’d be interested to hear.

    Fill yer boots lad, but I’ve drunk too much to google.

    It’s all out there though.

    Stoner
    Free Member

    aha.
    So for the time being Im still right? 🙂

    Im pist 2 so all arguments from now on are null and void… 🙂

    brant
    Free Member

    it is a design flaw.

    If I don’t put my car handbrake on, it will crash into my garage.

    Is this a design fault in my drive?

    Please let me know as I’m £750 out of pocket (at least).

    brant
    Free Member

    aha.
    So for the time being Im still right?

    I’m not really sure what “right” is Mark, and I’m almost a bit dissapointed you’ve taken sides. 🙁

    Stoner
    Free Member

    Ive been achingly equanimonmousnesoulsynous bipartisan I hope.

    I was only saying that the IS brake mount standard never required a fork manufacturer to put the dropout one way or another…

    aracer
    Free Member

    TJ the whole blame culture bugs me – take responsibilty for yourself is what i was taught and live by. If something goes wrong, look at yourself first and don’t try to shift blame.

    Interested in buying this handlebar I have for sale? Lighter than an Easton carbon bar but just a strong according to my testing*, and only £10 brand new. Genuine carbon effect finish. Fully warrantied to you for use mountain biking, since I feel safe in the knowledge that even if it breaks and you fall off you’ll only hold yourself responsible.

    *I tried bending it in my hands and it didn’t break in the same way an Easton carbon bar didn’t – impressive for cardboard.

Viewing 40 posts - 41 through 80 (of 115 total)

The topic ‘Pinder v Fox’ is closed to new replies.