Glad you came out unscathed bud!
Hope you get the frame sorted, but wow.
Goes up to the shed to check on seat post insertion on numerous bikes and take steps to address an unquenchable love of pies and cakes.
I've got previous.....
[img] 
[/img]
Definitely not enough seat post, as said many times already.
😀
I'll send them those pictures - no worries. I'd not put in a bent claim - more than me jobs worth!
Says 16stone in the manual - and doesn't give shock pressures for anyone over that weight. They also supply the bike with a 400mm post.oldgit - Member
Rider weight limit circa 17 stone.
Would the OP like to tell us what his "all up" weight is? 😆
Think of the pretty new bikes you can persuade everyone you need now. Sounds like a new frame exucse to me!
Also...your seatpost looks bent....
I thought that too but presumed it was a trick of the light or camera.GregMay - Member
Also...your seatpost looks bent....
druidh - 15 1/2.
Seat post is definitely not bent - must be trick of the light.
15 1/2 - is that when you breath in 😉
haha impressive OP, never seen a frame fail like that before 😀
😀
Disagree with the seatpost comments- that's a reasonable amount of insertion, and not a long post either (usual minimum frame insertion advice obviously goes out the window with a really long post).
Current Whyte advice is to refer to the seatpost insertion marks btw. Can't find older manuals.
I'm sticking with my toptube theory. [i]Very[/i] clean toptupe break, and just in front of the reinforcement. Is it butted there? Seems fairly likely. Seat-tube break is much more ragged and distorted, the top tube definately broke clean through before the seat-tube did (the latter has obviously folded backwards[i] as[/i] it broke, couldn't do that with an intact TT)
There is a fairly obvious lesson here - Buy a Thomson seatpost, they appear to be tough as old boots
I wonder if Thomson have ever considered making bike tubing?
I won't even use a saddle bag anymore. I've seen a USE wear through and break from constant rubbing
I know that Pace insisted on the seatpost being inserted to a point below where the top tube met the seat tube but if Whyte didn't provide any firm guidance and your seat post was inserted at or further than its minimum insertion marker then I'd hope you have a chance with a warranty (if their warranty covers frames after > 5 years).
It's pretty alarming if it went like that all in one go, with no cracks beforehand. I really wouldn't want a significant chunk of a frame to break away while I was riding a bike!
Pace - every owner of a large 303 had a short seat post, when they cracked. They told me that my 400mm thomson was too short because of a mark about 50mm from the bottom of the post. By their maths i would have had something like a 43in inside leg!
Anyway, I'm with Nothwind on this one, looks a more complicated failure than a simple seat post length. But its ATB/Marin, they generally have a common sense approuch to these things.
That's not a crack, it's just a sticker on the frame... oh, hang on.
What's this 'Too many pies' bollocks?
Pies, like bikes operate on the n+1 principle - surely everyone knows this?
Shit like this makes me laugh. All the noddies on here shouting "not enough seatpost" before there were photos to show seatpost insertion.....
I'd get in touch with the manufacturer on that one. They might be able to do something regardless of how much seatpost you did or didn't have in the frame.
Is the post cut down, out of interest?
Face it, enough seatpost or not, there were too many pies involved in this incident.
The frame looks prettier post breakage 😉
Hope you get sorted
Face it, enough seatpost or not, there were too many pies involved in this incident.
If the cycling industry didn't cater for overweight, middle aged, single, IT managers with lots of disposable, then there really wouldn't be much of an industry and those of us left would have to go beck to riding hardtails with 100mm stems and purple anodised bits. In that regard, if this frame failed due to "too many pies", it's clearly not fit for purpose.
In that regard, if this frame failed due to "too many pies", it's clearly not fit for purpose.
lots of bikes and components have rider weight limits, it's mainly a UK phenomena that mountain bikers are tubsters. Every where else they seem to manage to loose weight and get fitter actually doing some form of exercise whereas here lots of folk do a lap of trail centre powered by a couple of energy bars, then have a full english breakfast and cake as well as they must have burned loads of calories.
anyway back to the point about lots of folks commenting on seat post insertion before pictures.....it may actually be that lots of folk have ridden for years and may actually know what they're on about and it would be the most common cause of a frame snapping like that. 😀
[i]Shit like this makes me laugh. All the noddies on here shouting "not enough seatpost" before there were photos to show seatpost insertion.....[/i]
Except the second photo in the first post, that shows the seatpost still installed in the seat tube, but not protruding past the break...
I have to wonder, how many on here are running dropper posts with a 100mm shim, where the shim isn't extending past the top tube junction? A shim on a post with loads of insertion is the same as only having the length of the shim in the frame. My wife's bike is borderline...
15 1/2 ??? Hhhhmmm. Sounds like a new frame and a new scales. No offence.
I'll send them those pictures - no worries. I'd not put in a bent claim - more than me jobs worth!
Top marks for that though. Hope they do a decent job on the warranty for you.
i'd have run more seatpost, but nothing appears in the Whyte manual, and if you're new to biking how are you to know until its too late?
I'd agree with the seatpost not being in far enough below the seat tube/top tube junction.
However, if there's nothoing in the manual about it then I think ATB/Marin should be sympathetic.
For future reference - Blackspire do a 430mm seatpost which might prevent a recurrence/injury.
Can you get a close-up of the the top tube break. The crack appears to go right through the weld /HAZ. That would be a far more plausible origin.
Weight is not an issue. Am 17st and never had a problem with any of my bikes all of which were built up light.
Do any of your bikes/frames come with a published weight limit?loddrik - Member
Weight is not an issue. Am 17st and never had a problem with any of my bikes all of which were built up light.
As someone above said, the top tube went first, and even if there was an extra 6" of seatpost in the frame, the frame had still failed
Glad your OK buddy - i've had a number of frames fail on me. Its part of cycling
Hopefully Whyte will honour their warranty or at least offer you a good discount on a new frame
If not, you've got 5 years good use out of the old frame, so what a great opportunity to purchase that frame/bike you've been lusting after for the last 12 months??? I'm sure Mr Credit Card will understand!! 😀
it's mainly a UK phenomena that mountain bikers are tubsters
You've clearly never been to a Spanish mtb "race", then...
[i]i've had a number of frames fail on me. Its part of cycling[/i]
really?
I wouldn;t treat catastrophic frame failure as 'just one of those things', tbh.
If theres is no mapboard attached to the bars and a massive long rear mudguard at a jaunty angle Whyte wont warranty it.
If the cycling industry didn't cater for overweight, middle aged, single, IT managers with lots of disposable, then there really wouldn't be much of an industry and those of us left would have to go beck to riding hardtails with 100mm stems and purple anodised bits. In that regard, if this frame failed due to "too many pies", it's clearly not fit for purpose.
Yes, pies are a good thing. Bring back the pies 🙂
if this frame failed due to "too many pies", it's clearly not fit for purpose.
Or the rider is not fit. For purpose, obviously. 😉
here lots of folk do a lap of trail centre powered by a couple of energy bars, then have a full english breakfast and cake as well as they must have burned loads of calories.
This is what drew me to the whole MTB scene!
I would have taken my bike straight into Bike before posting pic's on the web, the sister shop Ralphies has always looked after me very well, in fact when I noticed a crack in my 2006 E5 frame last year, the new frame arrived the next day.
People seem to be ignoring the brace from the top tube to the top of the seat tube. That is taking a lot of the stress and allows them to have a lower top tube without putting a big curve in it.
Also on hydroformed tubes may open out lower down so the post doesnt touch inside lower down.
It is pretty useless saying not enough is inserted without measurements - the post, the length to the min insertion mark and any other features of the tubing. Frame makers know what a typical minimum insertion mark height is so should allow for that or make it clear on the bike that a seat post must be past a certain point. I have a lot more post than that showing on my C456 but am still way off the min insertion mark and my top tube joins right near the top where that brace does.
If the warranty is more than 5 years then I would say it should be a warranty job going on the pics. See what Bike and Whyte have to say.
common sense says the post is too short.
you can kinda forget the top brace (belt and braces) - if you don't, you're relying entirely on the top brace as you create a rearward force rotating around the real toptube/seatpost interface.
loads of tension through that brace - good welding so it failed just below.
put a longer post in and all the forces are evenly distributed
I would have taken my bike straight into Bike before posting pic's on the web
Dibbs, what difference does it make? I shall be reporting the facts to ATB exactly as I've told them on here. If for any reason they say shove off, then I'll consider the reply and no doubt move on. I like to think myself a reasonable and honest bloke like that.
I'm not as yet persuaded by the minimum seat post insertion theory - I've been riding that bike for five years with it at that exact height. There are no markings or anything else on the frame to indicate a minimum seat post level and nothing in the documentation. I do take the point that maybe the post should have penetrated past the top tube though - I think at the time I'd assumed it had?
too short for def but they should maybe print a mark / warning on the frame - save any issues
For the benefit of any Metallurgist's out there -
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
