Forum menu
No punches spared on this particular outing.
I love the fact that he calls out bad QC/QA, but it's clear he's not familiar with mountain bike bottom brackets.
I wouldn't pull my punches on him that's for sure.
but it’s clear he’s not familiar with mountain bike bottom brackets.
Please tell me he moans about the [s] iscg tabs [/s] clamping points not having been removed after it was machined.
One of many reasons to have the plate with ISCG mounts recessed from the BB face, and then use spacers on the bolts for the chainguide/bashplate whatever...
Hold on... might not be clear on that Ti frame... here's a painted steel one that should make it easier to see...
I've little desire to watch the potty mouthed one but I'm intrigued kelvin what's benefit sitting the plate behind the bb surface that the spacer behind the DS cup doesn't serve?
The video shows you why quite early on (but only after lots of pointless swearing, of course).
Basically, you need to be able to face BB shells, which you can't easily do when the ISCG mount plate is trying to be flush with the end of the BB shell. Made even worse with Titanium.
Ah, fair do, that makes sense.
He comes across as very unprofessional, which tends to undermine his assessment, regardless of whether they are correct or not.
All that hyperbole is ridiculous. It doesn't help that he appears to base his assessments on very small sample sets, in this case 1, when roasting a product or manufacturer.
I love the fact that he calls out bad QC/QA, but it’s clear he’s not familiar with mountain bike bottom brackets.
Engineering is Engineering and is product agnostic. Irrelevant if it's a road bike, mountain bike or not a bike at all.
He had the same issue with the Open Up frame. It had a dropped drive side chain stay to create tyre clearance but resulted in a really strange shaped and contoured chaninstay around the BB area. Hambini had no idea why it was designed like that but highlighted that in that area there were loads of voids and defects in the carbon lay up due to the extreme shape in that area pushing the limits of the carbon lay up process. Just plain and simple poor design.
He's an acquired taste and who knows if he's just picking up on the odd Friday afternoon / Monday morning frame, but he's certainly showing up alot of the big premium bike brands for a bunch of amateur chumps. Just goes to show just because you're paying a premium for a premium brand you're not getting premium engineering, design or manufacturing quality.
Luesher Teknic is good for similar insight if you like things a bit less sweary.
He comes across as very unprofessional, which tends to undermine his assessment, regardless of whether they are correct or not.
All that hyperbole is ridiculous. It doesn’t help that he appears to base his assessments on very small sample sets, in this case 1, when roasting a product or manufacturer.
Agreed, I can only watch a few minutes without wanting to switch him off... only watched a few minutes of this one, because I saw the Kingdom, and they tend to be well thought out and built, so was intrigued...
He's a tosser.
Did he...did he say that whoever fabricated the BB needed a dose of Cyclon/Zyklon? @22 mins
Wouldn't be the first time. He thinks (or, says) anyone who worked on GXP should kill themselves, and told his audience as such...
Not watching the vid/giving him the click. What he sees as catastrophic failures are, in the vast majority of cases, good enough for the intended use within a budget.
One of many reasons to have the plate with ISCG mounts recessed from the BB face
I'd say well done Cotic BUT the standard actually shows the mount is 2.5mm inboard from the BB face ISCG 05 and also describes it "Variable tab setback amount - preferred to be in 2.5mm increments"
Basically, you need to be able to face BB shells, which you can’t easily do when the ISCG mount plate is trying to be flush with the end of the BB shell. Made even worse with Titanium.
Except is it really that big a deal?
When external BB's first appeared we all ran down to our LBS to pay £20 to get the BB faced as the internet and MBUK told us we had to. I think I had my first frame faced, then after that never bothered, and never noticed any difference in BB longevity. Winter kills them with grit and water through the seals in a few hundred hours, not the minutiae of alignment tolerances that make the difference to a bearing in your car's engine that's expected to last 10,000 hours.
but he’s certainly showing up alot of the big premium bike brands for a bunch of amateur chumps
Nope, he's just applying un-necessarily high standards in most instances.
What he sees as catastrophic failures are, in the vast majority of cases, good enough for the intended use within a budget.
...exactly.
If every brand starts making 'Hambini-approved' products with NASA standard engineering and QA, do you think the manufacturers will just suck up the hit to their profit margin? Nope, we'll just pay more for it.
Of course, you could argue that we're already paying too much for most products but I choose to believe that no-one is getting rich in the industry...
That man needs an editor.
If your frame comes and its not faced or at least bare (in the case of carbon you should have a clean shell free from resin blobs etc.) then you should just send it back. Plain and simple. If you need to face it again during the time you own it then you need to question your BB choices...
Bike manufacturing (at least for above BSO level) has moved well beyond the days of when everything needed re-finishing when you get it.
Wouldn’t be the first time. He thinks (or, says) anyone who worked on GXP should kill themselves, and told his audience as such…
Well I'm all for torturing them 1st ...
What he sees as catastrophic failures are, in the vast majority of cases, good enough for the intended use within a budget.
Obviously excepting GXP
I'm not saying that we, as riders, need to face BB shells, or that we should be having to get the LBS to do so... just that it has to be possible to do so... by whoever preps the frame initially.
I'm still using GXP BBs, with no bad stories to tell.
To be fair most of the stuff he gets upset about is sold & priced as high end. We’re talking a £1300 ti ht frame here. If it was a £99 on-one frame then fair enough.
He’s got quite a unique style but you must have to be a bit random to want to get on YT and make long videos about bike frames that are clearly not profit making. Especially when opening yourself up for legals. I find a lot of value within the randomness. He’d be great to have at the table for a post ride beer 😂
I’m still using GXP BBs, with no bad stories to tell.
So are (tens of?) thousands of others globally.
We’re talking a £1300 ti ht frame here.
Exactly. he's applying the standards of multimillion pound aero products. To a bicycle frame. yes its expensive for a bike frame, but within his scope, its nothing
Like when a 3 michelin star chef labels your local gastropubs food as 'inedible' and that chef should kill himself for not chopping the carrots to an exact size.
He’d be great to have at the table for a post ride beer 😂
For about 3 seconds until he got you all given a right kicking for being a gobby wee shite.
What he sees as catastrophic failures are, in the vast majority of cases, good enough for the intended use within a budget.
Bullshit. They weren't good enough for the intended use which is why their owners sent them to him to investigate and fix, presumably at some cost.
good enough for the intended use within a budget.
The only problem with that is most of the brands he highlights aren’t budget brands or products. As far as I can see he is only holding them to the tolerances the frame manufacturers (or in the case of bottom brackets the component manufacturers) state which shouldn’t be too high a target.
Its a shame the swearing & misogamy are a huge barrier to issues we should be complaining about
Bike frame at £1k+ shouldn’t be shredding bottom brackets or have issues when pedalling. £3k carbon road frames shouldn’t have voids and bb issues.
Wouldn’t quite call it aerospace grade.
Bullshit. They weren’t good enough for the intended use which is why their owners sent them to him to investigate and fix, presumably at some cost.
In the vast majority of cases
aren’t budget brands or products.
No, but they aren't money no object either, there's a limit to what they can do within what they have to spend/can sell for
So you'd spend 1300 quid on a frame and console yourself with the hope that everyone else's is working fine and suck it up when they tell you it is within tolerance? Don't think so.
That what Quality Control is for.
They weren’t good enough for the intended use which is why their owners sent them to him to investigate and fix,
No people sent them because he's a sweary bully and they like watching him be a sweary bully on YouTube. They're the same people who liked to watch the class geek get beaten up at school.
If they wanted it fixed they'd have had much cheaper and greater success with the manufacturers or someone local who didn't run a you tube channel that makes trump look coherent and restrained.
Regardless of how he says it, making / selling frames when the BB shell isn't square is making rubbish. Machining and cutting the thread on a BB shell is a simple lathe job and there's no excuse - it's not just QA/QC it's just crap manufacturing - no matter how many times you look at it doesn't go away - it's still a pile of poo. First off, the frame manufacturer made a pile of rubbish BB shells and even worse made from with them. The fact that Kingdom let it go out the door in that condition just compounds the problem.
That what Quality Control is for.
Yep. And it's expensive. How much more would that frame cost if they guarantee'd every one would be perfect, to minute tolerances. Would they be able to sell it?
Sucks if you are the one that falls though the cracks, but proclaiming the whole production run is dogshit because an angry little man on the internet found the bad one is a bit silly
Exactly. he’s applying the standards of multimillion pound aero products. To a bicycle frame. yes its expensive for a bike frame, but within his scope, its nothing
I've got a freeby steel pen in front of me right now. Might have cost some company a couple of quid at most yet the round bits are actually round and fit together.
So you’d spend 1300 quid on a frame and console yourself with the hope that everyone else’s is working fine and suck it up when they tell you it is within tolerance? Don’t think so.
That what Quality Control is for.
You realise that is exactly what QC is for? If tolerances were +-100mm +99mm is in tolerance, it might not work but its in tolerance so it's a QC pass.
Or are you saying that the tolerances are wrong? which is not what QC is for.
The issue on this frame is exacerbated by the use of a Cane Creek chainset and the bearings. I'm guessing a normal shimano bottom bracket wouldn't be so adversely affected. Having said that the design of the ISCG mounts on this frame is poor. Acceptable if the frame cost a couple of hundred pounds, but not on a premium titanium frame.
Yep. And it’s expensive. How much more would that frame cost if they guarantee’d every one would be perfect, to minute tolerances. Would they be able to sell it?
They just need to do it to the tolerances of the BB's they fit.
It doesn't need to cost more, they have a manufacturing/design problem preventing them getting even close to the required tolerances.
Don't be dense. It's the same as case tracking versus population sampling for covid. Both tell you different things and it would be very difficult for an individual to attempt population sampling of bike frame quality, although it would be awesome if someorganisation did it.
It is perfectly valid to take the shit ones that are sold to the general public, show how shit they are and make inferences from that.
In several cases the buyers sought help at length from the retailer and manufacturer and not got a resolution or been told that they met the manufacturer's tolerances.
I don't expect a frame to be aerospace quality, just to be manufactured to a reasonable standard.
I expect the bad ones that don't meet that standard to be identified by QC.
I expect the bad ones that someone poor punter like me buys to be repaired or replaced through good customer service.
I am glad that when that process doesn't work properly someone points it out.
Not watched the video, but guessing the whole argument is against alignment and lack of proper facing, it's not difficult to do properly, not even with titanium, if you're making dozens or hundreds of frames, then there should be a simple tool provided to do a quick check, doesn't even have to be threaded, but if it is it would double up on checking the threads.
Again, you don't need expensive machines to skim or face, you can do it by hand with simple stones/papers/etc.
I find him entertaining and sense talking. Whilst his language is clearly gratuitous for to he sake of it, he actually puts me in mind of what this forum used to be like years ago as a full blooded free exchange of ideas and opinions, rather than the anaemic, censored echo chamber its becoming.
Off the check my new Vendetta now!😳
exchange of ideas and opinions
We’ve just had a good page of that.
The issue on this frame is exacerbated by the use of a Cane Creek chainset and the bearings. I’m guessing a normal shimano bottom bracket wouldn’t be so adversely affected. Having said that the design of the ISCG mounts on this frame is poor. Acceptable if the frame cost a couple of hundred pounds, but not on a premium titanium frame.
Indeed, he states that a standard Shimano BB would probably be ok in the video.
Given his reputation he gave the Cane Creek BB a very easy ride IMO.
His language is ridiculously juvenile though, it is surely possible to be more creatively dismissive of crappy design and execution.
That man needs an editor.
Ctrl+A
Delete
Not watched the video, but guessing the whole argument is against alignment and lack of proper facing, it’s not difficult to do properly, not even with titanium, if you’re making dozens or hundreds of frames, then there should be a simple tool provided to do a quick check, doesn’t even have to be threaded, but if it is it would double up on checking the threads.
The main issue is that their manufacturing process / design prevents remedying this after welding.
Sure you can check it but obviously since they can't then do anything about it they probably don't bother?
Again, you don’t need expensive machines to skim or face, you can do it by hand with simple stones/papers/etc.
Assuming you didn't weld a plate over the top... ^^^