[Closed] Pinder v Fox

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/ /p>

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

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.

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.

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

[i]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.[/i]

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...

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?

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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?
[url]

[url] http://www.sitski.com/stacyoff.htm [/url]

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?

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

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.

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!

Ralph - Have you not read the evidence / theory?

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

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

How often during a ride do you check your QR

don't have em!

[url= http://hjulcompaniet.com/tech/docs/pdf/Magura/IS%202000.pdf ]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.[/url]

I can find no flaws in his calculations

Many have found several.

Brant:
lol!!!
:=)
Q

BUt tj hasn't thats the difference!

Go on then brant - I'd be interested to hear.

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

ha ha - biting

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?

oh, and R-R, you're an arse.

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

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 - 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.

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.

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

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

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).

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. 🙁

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...

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.

*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.

BearBack - I'd presume that the reason Russ didn't go after the QR manufacturer is because in effect they don't exist any more. The Syncros that designed/made Russ's QR had gone belly up and GT bought the name for their OEM stuff, since then the name has changed hands again and is part of the same group as Ritchey.
As an aside the QR design was so old that I'm pretty sure that when it was designed and manufactured disc brake use was not prominent so it could easily be argued that it was never designed to be used in conjunction with a disc brake.

aracer - If Russ believes what was claimed in court to be correct then he also believes that the sequence of events that led to his accident WILL happen again to somebody else. His claim was not that a use of this qr, with this brake on this fork is dangerous but was in fact ALL forks with vertical dropouts and disc mounts are dangerous and wheels WILL be ejected from the dropouts regardless of which qr, hub or brake you use on a fork with vertical dropouts.
Now of course I can sympathise with his situation, I can't even begin to imagine how horrendous paralysis must be. Yet by taking the out of court settlement he has missed the chance to stop what happened to him potentially happening to THOUSANDS of other people if what he believes to be true is just that.

To be honest though I don't believe that vertical dropouts are to blame for his accident I think using an ancient, stretchy, knackered qr is the more likely culprit but as I said at the top of this post chasing them for money was never going to be viable.

On a more general 'product liability' note - how does buying a complete bike compare with a home build ?
If you buy 'ready to ride' then the manufacturer has selected components that in their view are performance and safety matched and the retailer will have used their profrssional epertise to assmble them.
If you self build I assume you take responsibility for the combination of parts you have selected and so lose any claim for liability if they don't work together ?? (unless of course they don't individually conform to ISO standards or there are material defects)

Yet by taking the out of court settlement he has missed the chance to stop what happened to him potentially happening to THOUSANDS of other people if what he believes to be true is just that.

To be honest though I don't believe that vertical dropouts are to blame for his accident I think using an ancient, stretchy, knackered qr is the more likely culprit

aracer - I'm sure Russ and his legal team considered asking for donations as it is quite common for plaintiffs to make appeals for 'fighting funds' for cases when the outcome will be of benefit to interested third parties. I'm sure if Russ had put such an appeal on here and similar forums then he would have got plenty of support. A problem with that sort of appeal though would be that he would then be obliged to follow the case all the way through and would have to forgo a significant out of court settlement.
By not following the case through to a conclusion it seems apparent that the reason that this case was taken to court was simply to obtain compensation, where there is blame there's claim, and all that.
Now there is nothing wrong with him doing that, I'd probably do the same myself if I was in his situation. What I wouldn't want though would be my mates implying that I'm some sort of a saint fighting the big company for the sake of the common mountain biker.

As for your second point 'why is the skewer to blame?'. If you don't believe the performance of a skewer on a bike plays by far the most significant role in maintaining the wheel between the dropouts then it's pointless discussing this with you. Even a child would be able to identify that a skewer is what keeps a wheel within the dropouts regardless of the orientation of the dropout.

Jim - you soooooooooooooooooo miss the point. With a downward facing dropout a QR failure will be catastrophic as the wheel will be ejected. With a forward facing dropout out it wont. Fail safe????

When there is a clear mechanism for QRS undoing and a QR was never designed for these stresses then QRs will fail ( rarely but I know of half a dozen cases}

With a downward facing dropout a QR failure will be catastrophic as the wheel will be ejected. With a forward facing dropout out it wont. Fail safe????

I would be unhappy riding a disc braked bike without a skewer, particularly over a rough undulating surface.

I have ridden a Magura braked bike with a completely loosened skewer, and surived a small jump without worry. The calipers rubbed the tyre and stopped the wheel falling out.

With a disc braked bike, there is no such backup.

TandemJeremy - After reading some of the reports Anaan, etc, I have come to the same conclusion as you that the forces necessary to loosen the quick release are present. Also that should the quick release be loose and thus no friction between the dropout and the hub during braking then the wheel will eject from a fork with vertical dropouts. This I'm sure is one of the reasons that 'Lawyers Tabs' were fitted as a fail safe.

What I don't believe is that if a functioning qr is fitted correctly that under braking it is able to stretch/deform enough to not only become loose but to also clear the layers tabs with out even marking them. I just don't see how Russ's accident could have happened without either user error or a malfunctioning quick release being the most significant factors.

I'm puzzled about this - the braking forces managed to rip the qr clear of the lawyer tabs? Did the qr itself break or was it pulled free?

And over what sort of timeframe/distance are we talking here? From memory the worst section of the Gap ride is over fairly quickly. We are talking about 100s of yards rather than Alpine miles, iirc. Is that a factor, in that the damage was done over time, or did it happen instantaneously?

I'm not taking sides, just puzzled that something like that could happen to an experienced rider without him being aware that something was wrong.

I would be unhappy riding a disc braked bike without a skewer, particularly over a rough undulating surface.

It's pretty easy to not tighten up a QR lever enough, particularly if there's grit or mud in the mechanism. There's a well written article by Sheldon about this here:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/skewers.html

So I'd really take the "half a dozen of my friends had QR levers loosen" stories with a pinch of salt. If there's any issue to be aware of, it's keeping your QRs clean. Spending £400 on a new set of forks won't help you much if you don't maintain them properly. I've had the Maxle on my Pikes come loose because it was gunged up, and seen pictures of broken dropouts on 20mm forks that were overtightened.