Sorry, but if you’re serious you REALLY need some proper advice. There’s some ill-advised but well meaning comments, and some utter tosh. You need someone who does this day-in, day-out to advise*.

A half-decent solicitor will be able to point you in the right direction, and will probably act on a no-win, no-fee arrangement for you too.

*<yankspeak> full disclosure, IAAL but don’t do PI work</yankspeak>

Said frame issues(guys race in both DH & Enduro)

Said frame issues

Yep, I know a few reasons where shops have dropped brands, everything from normal business relations, to betrayal, arguments, finance and getting pissed off with distributors. Which one is it?

when i used to work and run a workshop many many years ago the reps would think nothing of starting rumour x and y  complete horseshit some of it the next one would come in and do the same

I can’t agree with the “suck it up” plan. Newish components failing in normal use is something I thought we said goodbye to 10 years ago, especially safety critical things like pivot bolts.

If everyone just sucked it up, there ain’t as much urgency for them to actually fix these issues.

Personally if you want a a payout out I wouldn’t go shouting from the rooftops about it, manufactures know how Cannondale = crack and fail type labels can murder a brand, they’ll want an out of court settlement, but not if the horse has already bolted.

I can’t agree with the “suck it up” plan. Newish components failing in normal use is something I thought we said goodbye to 10 years ago, especially safety critical things like pivot bolts.

Happens across all industries though

Personally if you want a a payout out I wouldn’t go shouting from the rooftops about it, manufactures know how Cannondale = crack and fail type labels can murder a brand, they’ll want an out of court settlement, but not if the horse has already bolted.

How much can they afford to push?

That bolt is hard to get to but appeared tight when I checked it last week.

What does this mean?

An 140/140 full suspension mountain should be designed for really rough trails and jumps and stuff…

One of my bikes is an 150/150 Cube Stereo 27,5+ aluminium bike. Model year 2017? Bought the frame for little money at the bike-discount.de and use 2,6 inch rubber. No issue with jumping, downhill stuff. Very rugged design.

Interesting part: the design detail which failed at the PO’s bike is very different at this 150/150 Stereo compared to the 140/140 Stereo designs (at least the older 27.5 aluminium bikes).

As far as I’am informed: the 140/140 bike have issues with exactly the bolt the PO is talking about. It’s the drivetrain sided lower pivot bolt (which is hidden behind the chain ring). The 140/140 uses (at least the older aluminium versions) left and right a stud / bolt which carries the bearing. No thru axle. Don’t like this detail at all.

Other Stereo bikes – like my 150/150 (2017): conventional design with some sort of “thru axle”.

My guess: the 160 mm travel Stereos will have this – conventional thru axle design – as well (but don’t know anybody biking a 160 Stereo)

The PO talks about a model year 2018 Stereo 140/140? Sounds like Cube kept this “single bolt/stud” design also for the new 140/140 bikes then? Just an opinion: this design depends too heavily onto “Loctite” glue. Don’t like this design detail at all.

additional to above, quickly checked this:

Is the POs design like this:

https://www.bike-discount.de/en/buy/cube-bearing-screw-set-main-bearing-stereo-140-27.5-fritzz-180-27.5-my2015-461883

? (Or similar?)

No conventional thru axle / main bolt?

Issue with the design: depends too heavily onto the assembly quality. Plenty of Cube 140 bikes (aluminium bikes?) which don’t have issues at all. But many which have the issue the PO describes. In my opinion: the risk of this design is too high (also used in many other full suspension bikes).

Design of the 150/150 Stereo more “standard”? Even my Bossnut V2 has the “thru axle”/”main bolt”….

It’s not the worst I’ve seen but it’s definitely not the best either! A bit worrying if the OP has done two model years the same.

Sent mine off some decent sized flat landers without issue so far and I’m no lightweight at 13 stone, all muscle of course. Hmmm I’ll keep an eye on it.

The award was well into 6 figures so don’t get fobbed off, or listen to the biking is dangerous brigade.

It depends on the injuries, the ops are nothing like your friends.

Not surprised to see the usual victim-blaming. It’s your fault for being stupid enough to believe that the manufacturer had the competence and conscience to design and build the bike properly.

A mate did some work for a LBS building up bikes and said Cubes were hateful things with very poor finishing on the frames. Lots of swarf, random weld blobs and burrs that made building them more involved. He just felt they were made very cheaply with little care.

Not surprised to see the usual victim-blaming

Maybe some realism too. Personal injury unless it’s life changing and involving a decent anoint of financial loss won’t be that much. Legal fees could eat lots ans still require you to prove negligence.  It’s very risky if you will be faves with costs.

A mate did some work for a LBS building up bikes and said Cubes were hateful things with very poor finishing on the frames.

Mmmhhh. My posts above, the 150/150 Cube frame I bought from bike-discount: finest quality aluminium frame. Bit of a piece of art in my opinion. Very, very happy with the bike – no issues at all.

If the POs design Stereo 140/140 is like this (aluminium bike):

https://www.bike-discount.de/en/buy/cube-bearing-screw-set-main-bearing-stereo-140-27.5-fritzz-180-27.5-my2015-461883

? (Or similar?)

…then this part of the design (with the aluminium Stereo 140) is not the most rugged way of doing it. Don’t like this design. And there are enough Stereo 140 owners which had problems with this design.

What I don’t understand so: the PO talks about a 2018 model. Aren’t these 2018 bikes now all carbon frame bikes?

And those have the “thru axle / main bolt” design – or? Means the “conventional” design…

I’d definitely be taking the legal advice route. As mentioned above – probably best with the no win no fee types. My cousin (who is a lawyer) recommends Irwin Mitchell. They’ll obviously gobble some of any compensation that you may get, but at least you’ll know that it won’t cost you anything to get the ball rolling.

Definitely don’t suck it up. Race or no race, the part shouldn’t fail and the fact that there had already been recalls would indicate not fit for purpose / a degree of negligence on behalf of the manufacturer.

Get onto them immediately and they’ll put you in touch with a medical assessor. Document any bruises, scrapes, hospital, physio appointments that you have before they heel. Photograph the bike as clearly as possible.

If you’ve no case, then the solicitors will tell you not to waste their time. If there is, then see it through.

Definitely don’t suck it up. Race or no race, the part shouldn’t fail and the fact that there had already been recalls would indicate not fit for purpose / a degree of negligence on behalf of the manufacturer.

This is a bold leap. There will be a long and complicated legal argument about failure rates, modes and likely outcomes there along with how somebody has tested and assessed the design.

There’s been no mention of any recalls, and AFAIK cube haven’t issued any for the 2018/19 stereo HPC frame.

2018/19 stereo HPC frame.

These carbon frames: main bearing is – as far as I know – conventional thru axle / main bolt design.

The critical design: as far as I know only some aluminium frames – like (older?) Stereo 140.

And critical in a sense of “depending onto Loctite” / to much onto (factory) assembly quality.

Many Stereo 140 bikes out there which don’t have an issue. But too many bikes where the “critical” bolt came loose (happens in the first half year of biking – or newer. The “critical” bolt is on the drivetrain side, hidden behind the chain ring…).

No idea why an company uses such a critical design on one aluminium bike like the (older?) Stereo 140 and at the same time better designs on the Stereo 27.5+ 150/150 or Stereo 160.

PO’s bike: 140 Stereo aluminium – or carbon? Carbon: no issues there (?).

where the bolt snapped should make it obvious whether it had significantly loosened first or not (assuming the bolt type as above) – it would probably sheer in line with where it entered the frame, if there is more than the bearing’s thickness of thread on the head end of the snapped bolt, it was loose. If there’s the same amount, then it was probably tight at time of failure.

where the bolt snapped should make it obvious whether it had significantly loosened first or not (assuming the bolt type as above) – it would probably sheer in line with where it entered the frame, if there is more than the bearing’s thickness of thread on the head end of the snapped bolt, it was loose. If there’s the same amount, then it was probably tight at time of failure.

Good point.

What I know from some older Stereo 140 bikes which had problems with the main bearing: there the bolt on the drivetrain side slowly came loose. And if you are really lucky you start feeling some “play”/”twisting” when pedalling. If not the whole suspension fails and makes a mess.

PO’s bike: no idea.

This is a bold leap. There will be a long and complicated legal argument about failure rates, modes and likely outcomes there along with how somebody has tested and assessed the design.

Maybe – but that is where the solicitor comes in. To at least question that.

A personal experience – I wasn’t racing, but I was commuting on a road bike of just a month or so old. Out of the saddle on a climb  the crank arm sheered off sending me heavily OTB and into the road. thankfully other than bruising and concussion, nothing broken except for a lot of wrecked kit (rucksack, phone smashed, helmet split like a melon, shorts, jacket torn). They’d cross threaded the crank arm when building it, judging by the metal thread coil that I removed from the crank arm

Company in question replaced the bike for a brand new one, gave me brand new kit (new for old) and paid for all repairs to my phone etc. I signed a waiver to take it no further. I expect it could have gone a fair bit further had I taken the legal route.

Hopefully you’ve spoken to a solicitor now, but please do keep us posted on this OP.

Ignore the “suck it up” crew, it’s mainly the forum’s resident bell end contrarians telling you that.

Company in question replaced the bike for a brand new one, gave me brand new kit (new for old) and paid for all repairs to my phone etc. I signed a waiver to take it no further. I expect it could have gone a fair bit further had I taken the legal route.

In that case negligence was evident, it was an easy prove and an easy win. the lawyers their side will have done the sums and made you an offer.

for the OP it’s proving the case that will be tough and expensive, and not at all certain from this point. He also needs to be aware that the answer will be not worth it, unless you have cash to burn getting the moral victory is not always the most sensible course of action.

It’s not being contrary to also point out that things can fail and assuming nothing will fail is not a good place to start from.

for the OP it’s proving the case that will be tough and expensive, and not at all certain from this point. He also needs to be aware that the answer will be not worth it, unless you have cash to burn getting the moral victory is not always the most sensible course of action.

It’s not being contrary to also point out that things can fail and assuming nothing will fail is not a good place to start from.

Hence my point about the No Win No Fee types. Why wouldn’t you explore it? It won’t cost you anything to do that.

Hence my point about the No Win No Fee types.

Who only take on cases that they feel are a definite win. That or they make you pay for an insurance policy in case they don’t.

@garryfmacdonald:

you mention two bikes: a 140 mm fs 2016 and a 140 mm fs 2018. One the Stereo aluminium – the other carbon? Or both Carbon?

140/140 mm fs suspenion bike: you should be able to do any mountain bike race with it.

And the Stereo 140 in Carbon frame version is indeed used in many races – one example is EWS…

The pivot bolt design is very different on the aluminium and the carbon bikes. The 140 mm aluminium bike has a “known” issue with one bolt.

On the 140 mm Stereo carbon bikes (at least the older ones) the pivot bearings appear a bit small. But no idea if there are problems with those. Would be neat to know which bikes you are talking about.

Who only take on cases that they feel are a definite win. That or they make you pay for an insurance policy in case they don’t.

You have to do that anyway.

I’m not going to write too much but this current issue is an ‘18 model so Carbon Front end, aluminium swingarm.

Once I know what has happened with an independent expert type mechanical advisor I’ll let you know.

Cheers.

Thanks.

Understand.

O.k. – the carbon frame Stereo.

What I saw: problems with (older) 140 mm aluminium versions. Your design is different from that (Carbon frames mass produced in Asia: maybe even no “design issue” – more a quality control issue? Proper quality control on carbon parts is difficult. But when the part is critical for the safety the manufacturer has to invest into quality control – no matter how difficult it is!)

Good luck!

If the bolt failed you probably want a metallurgist to look at it and verify it was the ‘correct’ grade (steel) bolt according to the frame manufacturers specs. Also check if the bolt was defective itself either on a micro (too much slag) or macro scale (fatigue or corrosion), and if the threads were machine correctly or were even the right thread form.

I assume you have both parts of the bolt still?

If it was loose when it failed then the portion still in the threads will still be loose.