R-Sys wheel explodes under VeloNews editor

[BumbleBeeDave]

Yeeow! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Gotta wonder about those carbon spokes . . .

http://www.velonews.com/article/93054/a-shattering-experience---a-post-recall-r-sys-wheel-failure

BBD

[Ahneida Ride]

scares the **** outa me ...

Makes me glad Serotta made me a Battleship Legend Ti Frame ..

Incidentally my spokes are Sapim CX-ray.

[bagochips3]

They should put a steel spoke inside those hollow carbon tubes to make 'em safe ;)

[zap]

scares the **** outa me ...

Makes me glad Serotta made me a Battleship Legend Ti Frame ..

Incidentally my spokes are Sapim CX-ray.

There was a bad batch of CX-ray spokes 2-3 years ago. But heck, if one or two break, no big deal as you will likely stay up.

[Nathanrtaylor]

They should put a steel spoke inside those hollow carbon tubes to make 'em safe ;)

What are odd on this being the 'solution' for the third gen R-SYS?

[Blue Jays]

Well, an inserted metal spoke would work to maintain integrity of the wheel! :beer:

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . they are going to have to do something pretty drastic to get past this PR disaster in any condition to ever come out with another carbon spoke wheel of any kind.

BBD

[mike p]

Wow! Were can I buy a pair.

Mike

[Blue Jays]

Wow! Were can I buy a pair.Choice of the word Were is correct, because these puppies will be history soon! ;)

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . to replace the Spinergy Rev-X as the "Great deal" on eBay? :rolleyes:

BBD

[pdmtong]

this couldnt be more sadly ironic - catastrophic JRA to Mr Delaney, the flipping EDITOR IN CHIEF of velonews in a race, with witnesses. Luckily it was nothing WORSE than a broken shoulder.

Imagine joe consumer rocketing down some colorado pass at 45+ now communicating via keyboard and stick his mouth becasue he's now confined to a wheelchair? Do we need that for folks to get the message?

I love Mavic. I love carbon. Been using carbon windsurf masts for years. Hey, surf durable too, except when you get pounded in the spin cycle and the tip digs in

it seems that this is not a place to push the limits. Thank gawd my 2005 F3 fork is incompatible with r-sys hub flange, else I might just have bought a pair upon initial introduction. I was drinking some of the kool-aid back then.

[jmgorman]

I love the bit from the MAVIC engineers who say that most of the earlier R-Sys failures resulted from use failures that would have destroyed any wheel. I'm going to go out on a limb here and call bull****.

[GuyGadois]

I have good luck with wheels. I think I should try a pair of these pups.

I am learning (albeit slowly) wheels maybe aren't the place to save a gram :no:

-GG-

[dnades]

Hope Mavic springs for a new bike for him. Least they could do considering the wheel completely deconstructed itself. Like someone was saying if he'd been going down a hill at 45+mph - total toast. What a nightmare for Mavic. How long do you think till a recall happens?

[1centaur]

Kenny Rogers had a song that needs to be played at Mavic HQ:

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em"

I am sure there are real structural engineers ready to comment on this story on various forums, but my first thought is that hitting that dip in the road at speed while leaning over in the turn creates a force that the testing machines at the wheel factory did not replicate.

I am pretty sure materials engineers will make CF spokes that dominate metal in all aspects (except cost) at some point, but if I were a product developer or a regulator at this point I'd be thinking that I would not want something out there that would result in loss of wheel integrity if one or two spokes broke from ANY cause. Reinforcing the spoke to withstand side impact damage just does not cut it for me. How about a bad batch of spokes or a bad build or a 3 inch rock hit at 50 mph? Stuff happens and WHEN spokes break the wheel should hold up for at least a few seconds of slowing.

I wonder if there's a change in properties in that wheel when the ground drops away, like from hopping off a curb.

Can you imagine the joy of that trip by FIVE Mavic employees - spending bucks to travel long distance to gather info to report back to HQ that the engineers might have missed something.

All this for a few grams in an aerodynamically challenged wheel priced for people who might know and care about their wheel choices. Aren't there bikes with the R-Sys specced as original equipment?

[jeffinCT]

I just got my recall wheel replaced and now I think I should sell these wheels.

[Ray]

I just got my recall wheel replaced and now I think I should sell these wheels.
I don't think you should sell them. I think you should jump all over your shop and Mavic to give you a full refund for them so you can buy something else. Don't put 'em under some other poor unsuspecting rider.

-Ray

[Lifelover]

I don't think you should sell them. I think you should jump all over your shop and Mavic to give you a full refund for them so you can buy something else. Don't put 'em under some other poor unsuspecting rider.

-Ray


+1 If they are not safe for you than they are not safe for anyone.

At least see if you can get them to replace them with another product from their line up.

[BCS]

I used to really like Mavic wheels. It appears that the R-sys is a failed experiment. Now I wonder, are any of their product offerings best in class? There are lighter, more aero, more durable competitors at most price points.

[shiftyfixedgear]

I sure would hope that Mavic tries to make things right with the banged-up editor. Maybe they can send him a set of the old ZAP electric derailleurs that worked so well ?
Or perhaps they can sweet talk their friends over at Stronglight to toss in a pair of carbon cranks in to sweeten the deal.

Those good ol' Classics Pro wheels sure never looked better !

[jasond]

I've probably put 500 miles on my post recall R-Sys with no issues. This story does not give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about continuing to ride on them though. Kind of scary since I was decending a hill two Sundays ago at 45mph. May just go back to the back up wheels, hope Mavic does the right thing and gives customers credit. I wouldn't try to sell them now, a. you won't get squat and b. can a third party be held liable for selling someone a faulty wheel? :confused: I would definitely consider handing Mavic some cash for the exchange of some Cosmics.

[c-record]

Wow! Were can I buy a pair.

Mike

Maybe time to sell mine!

[c-record]

Kenny Rogers had a song that needs to be played at Mavic HQ:

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em"

I am sure there are real structural engineers ready to comment on this story on various forums, but my first thought is that hitting that dip in the road at speed while leaning over in the turn creates a force that the testing machines at the wheel factory did not replicate.

I am pretty sure materials engineers will make CF spokes that dominate metal in all aspects (except cost) at some point, but if I were a product developer or a regulator at this point I'd be thinking that I would not want something out there that would result in loss of wheel integrity if one or two spokes broke from ANY cause. Reinforcing the spoke to withstand side impact damage just does not cut it for me. How about a bad batch of spokes or a bad build or a 3 inch rock hit at 50 mph? Stuff happens and WHEN spokes break the wheel should hold up for at least a few seconds of slowing.

I wonder if there's a change in properties in that wheel when the ground drops away, like from hopping off a curb.

Can you imagine the joy of that trip by FIVE Mavic employees - spending bucks to travel long distance to gather info to report back to HQ that the engineers might have missed something.

All this for a few grams in an aerodynamically challenged wheel priced for people who might know and care about their wheel choices. Aren't there bikes with the R-Sys specced as original equipment?

They came on my Addict. They have made their way to my Prince but this has got me thinking.

[texbike]

Aren't there bikes with the R-Sys specced as original equipment?

Coming soon to a GMC road bike near you! :)

Texbike

[Dekonick]

I don't think you should sell them. I think you should jump all over your shop and Mavic to give you a full refund for them so you can buy something else. Don't put 'em under some other poor unsuspecting rider.

-Ray

+1

you could kill someone.

[MattTuck]

you could kill someone.


A little sanity please. There has been one confirmed isolated incident.

By this logic, you suggest that any time there is a random product failure (take for example a car's brake system) you want to ban all secondary market sales of said product? Or atleast, that people have some ethical obligation NOT to sell their perfectly good and working product?

c'mon.

[Chris]

I don't think you should sell them. I think you should jump all over your shop and Mavic to give you a full refund for them so you can buy something else. Don't put 'em under some other poor unsuspecting rider.

-Ray

word. those things were idiotic from the gitgo.

[ty-ro]

I'm glad that I didn't buy a pair of these when I was thinking about it. It's just not worth it to me.

[JD Smith]

Kenny Rogers had a song that needs to be played at Mavic HQ:

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em"

I am sure there are real structural engineers ready to comment on this story on various forums, but my first thought is that hitting that dip in the road at speed while leaning over in the turn creates a force that the testing machines at the wheel factory did not replicate.

I am pretty sure materials engineers will make CF spokes that dominate metal in all aspects (except cost) at some point, but if I were a product developer or a regulator at this point I'd be thinking that I would not want something out there that would result in loss of wheel integrity if one or two spokes broke from ANY cause. Reinforcing the spoke to withstand side impact damage just does not cut it for me. How about a bad batch of spokes or a bad build or a 3 inch rock hit at 50 mph? Stuff happens and WHEN spokes break the wheel should hold up for at least a few seconds of slowing.

I wonder if there's a change in properties in that wheel when the ground drops away, like from hopping off a curb.

Can you imagine the joy of that trip by FIVE Mavic employees - spending bucks to travel long distance to gather info to report back to HQ that the engineers might have missed something.

All this for a few grams in an aerodynamically challenged wheel priced for people who might know and care about their wheel choices. Aren't there bikes with the R-Sys specced as original equipment?

This is where the politics of a big corporation come into play. Mavic has a lot of riding on this. They have spend money-and it can be awfully tough for a corporation to face the fact that they wasted money, money they'll never get back.
Mavic invested a lot of time and research. The more time and research they invested, the harder and harder it becomes to face the fact that that time and research was a failure, a mistake. The engineers who signed off have their professional reputation invested. Possibly their careers are on the line. It's awfully tempting to make excuses and cover things up if it will save your butt. All these things are past losses.
All this doesn't even yet take into account the future losses they'll face if a mistake is admitted. The time, energy, and money necessary to stabilize after the two steps back, and then more time, money and energy to take a step forward, is tough to face when corporations handcuff themselves to a "no going back" mindset.

[Ray]

A little sanity please. There has been one confirmed isolated incident.

By this logic, you suggest that any time there is a random product failure (take for example a car's brake system) you want to ban all secondary market sales of said product? Or atleast, that people have some ethical obligation NOT to sell their perfectly good and working product?

c'mon.
Its a little different when its a product that has just come off of a recall and had such a catastrophic failure and most knowledgeable wheelbuilders and engineers have criticized the design from day 1 as unsafe. If there is a chance that even one tenth of one percent of these wheels can fail this catastrophically again (its not just THAT they fail, its HOW they fail), they should be gotten off the road asap.

Look, I had a crank snap off on me once while I was out of the saddle. Ended up on my back in the middle of the road and if it had happened three or four standing pedal strokes earlier, I wouldn't be here to type this. It was a faulty design and the part was later recalled, but they knew about the problem before it happened to me. OK, they dealt with it and recalled them eventually, as Mavic did the first time with these wheels. But if the NEW AND IMPROVED version of that crank had snapped again, even ONCE, I'd be all over that manufacturer to get them off bikes again. Once a produce has been shown to be faulty enough to be recalled, that manufacturer forfeits the right to the benefit of the doubt on that product from that point forward. I don't know about legally, but IMHO, morally and ethically.

There are many good reasons not to sell these wheels, the most important being that you COULD kill someone. But you also probably won't get much for them as this news spreads and you SHOULD be entitled to a full refund from Mavic. So it makes no economic sense to sell them either.

-Ray

[jasond]

A little sanity please. There has been one confirmed isolated incident.

By this logic, you suggest that any time there is a random product failure (take for example a car's brake system) you want to ban all secondary market sales of said product? Or atleast, that people have some ethical obligation NOT to sell their perfectly good and working product?

c'mon.

Matt do you own a pair of these? I'm a lot like yourself in that I sometimes feel people take things way out of proportion. However in this case I think I'll err on the side of caution. Not sure if anyone can put a number on how many r-sys wheels failed pre recall but the majority of r-sys owners only received their post recall wheel two months ago. So one major accident in two months, that doesn't seem promising. Who knows, maybe it was an unusual thing and nothing like this will happen to me. However, I'm not sure I want to take the risk, rather put them in a corner, eat the $1400 for now and, wait for a full recall. The cons far out weigh the pros at this point. $1,400 sitting around hoping for a recall or thousands in hospital bills because I decided to use the wheel. I might be going over board but if I can't trust the wheel when decending a hill at high speeds than I might has well not use it.

J

[Kines]

A little sanity please. There has been one confirmed isolated incident.

By this logic, you suggest that any time there is a random product failure (take for example a car's brake system) you want to ban all secondary market sales of said product? Or atleast, that people have some ethical obligation NOT to sell their perfectly good and working product?

c'mon.


I think you might be missing the point. Even if the post recall wheel has the lowest failure rate of any wheel currently manufactured, the point is that when they fail, they do so completely, and your fork will meet the road at whatever speed you're going, and your body will follow.

It's your own decision of course, but there is no doubt in my mind that if I owned these, I would cut my losses NOW.

KN

[goonster]

you suggest that any time there is a random product failure (take for example a car's brake system) you want to ban all secondary market sales of said product?
Yes!

If car brakes were found to have a significant risk of complete failure, due to a fundamental design flaw, and if that failure mode were sudden and complete, then those brakes shouldn't be on any cars, period.

Luckily, the high-zoot car brake market (Brembo, Wilwood, et al) is not exactly driven by weight weeniness.

[Gothard]

I don't see how *anyone* with a working brain would risk their life with this wheel from there on.

I sure as hell would not. Too much at stake. Hell I have a kid I Love to hold, and a wife, etc.

Likely to fail? Not really. Compared to any other Mavic wheel?....

[gemship]

Yeeow! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Gotta wonder about those carbon spokes . . .

http://www.velonews.com/article/93054/a-shattering-experience---a-post-recall-r-sys-wheel-failure

BBD


I read about this a while ago over on another forum. Here's a link: http://www.cyclingforums.com/t468214.html

There's been a lot of nothing good to say over there about Mavic. According to a few of that forums members about the only thing safe from Mavic is their open pro rims.

[RPS]

Kenny Rogers had a song that needs to be played at Mavic HQ:

"You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em"

I am sure there are real structural engineers ready to comment on this story on various forums, but my first thought is that hitting that dip in the road at speed while leaning over in the turn creates a force that the testing machines at the wheel factory did not replicate.

I am pretty sure materials engineers will make CF spokes that dominate metal in all aspects (except cost) at some point, but if I were a product developer or a regulator at this point I'd be thinking that I would not want something out there that would result in loss of wheel integrity if one or two spokes broke from ANY cause. Reinforcing the spoke to withstand side impact damage just does not cut it for me. How about a bad batch of spokes or a bad build or a 3 inch rock hit at 50 mph? Stuff happens and WHEN spokes break the wheel should hold up for at least a few seconds of slowing.

I wonder if there's a change in properties in that wheel when the ground drops away, like from hopping off a curb.

Can you imagine the joy of that trip by FIVE Mavic employees - spending bucks to travel long distance to gather info to report back to HQ that the engineers might have missed something.

All this for a few grams in an aerodynamically challenged wheel priced for people who might know and care about their wheel choices. Aren't there bikes with the R-Sys specced as original equipment?My technical “guesstimate” is that the sudden failure mode may be due more to the fact that spokes are designed to be in compression than their material being carbon. In a standard wheel if a spoke breaks the others remain in tension, so the wheel has some level of stability to continue doing its job – albeit poorly while out of true. If spokes are designed to be in compression, my concern would be (and was when these were first discussed) that the spokes could buckle, which would in turn transfer greater loads to other spokes (which then makes the opposite spoke more in compression which increases the change of then also buckling).

Unlike a wagon wheel (as someone brought up) where the compression can be quite high, the amount of compression of a slender long spoke has to be closely controlled to prevent buckling. It seems to me that once things start to go wrong with the general design (regardless of spoke material) the failure mode is too unpredictable (to put it mildly).

And as you stated, the aerodynamics of fat spokes don’t make much sense to me in order to save a slight amount of weight at the rim. I haven’t looked at the marketing of the “new” design, but as I recall the main advantage of the design is that the rim doesn’t have to carry as much compressive load, hence it can be made a little lighter.

[MattTuck]

To clarify my point, I do not own a pair of these wheels.

And, given the news, I would be hesitant to put these wheels on my bike if I did own them.

My only point was: If someone wants to pay you a reasonable price for your wheels, and that price incorporates all the current information, you do not have an ethical duty to avoid selling them.

Mavic may have an ethical AND legal duty to recall the product. But unless you know for a fact that your pair of working wheels is defective, I don't see a problem with selling them in the secondary market.



I am sympathetic to Mavic. As a company, their job is to make products that people consider valuable enough to pay for - as evidenced by people that bought this wheel system. This requires innovation and research and development and those all cost money. I appreciate that they are pushing the envelope and developing radical new wheels.

I would be surprised if they thought these wheels were unsafe, and took them to market anyway. Sometimes you only discover rare product failures once they are released to the public, and they are ridden in high volume.

I agree that the previous recall sets the bar a higher than if this were a new product roll out. But I still don't know that a single incident should move your opinion from "OK" to "not ok, you're going to kill someone if you sell them" Perhaps your prior opinion was already "not OK" given the previous recall, which I can understand. But if that were the case, you shouldn't have been riding these wheels once the recall happened. If you believe that Mavic made the adjustments to make them safe, and you put them back on your bike, then a single event shouldn't change your opinion so much.

In general, people overweight the strength of an event, rather than it's weight. Strength = how spectacular it is, weight=statistical probability.

Sorry for the meandering post and controversial statements.

[BumbleBeeDave]

A little sanity please. There has been one confirmed isolated incident.

By this logic, you suggest that any time there is a random product failure (take for example a car's brake system) you want to ban all secondary market sales of said product? Or atleast, that people have some ethical obligation NOT to sell their perfectly good and working product?

c'mon.

. . . is the public relations bad luck (if you can call it that without sounding callous) Mavic had to have this one failure be on a bike under someone who has so much ability to publicize the incident. That aspect in itself might force Mavic to do something concrete in this case--the "right thing."

Unfortunately, JD Smith's comments are right on target. Many internal people will have reputations and lots of work riding on the research and marketing of these wheels. There will be lots of pressure internally to resist doing the "right thing," which would be to pull the wheels and take the hit to give all owners a set of replacement wheels of equivalent value. But I have my doubts, based on their previous recall, that they have the PR savvy to do that. Remember that for their previous recall they took owner's very expensive R-sys wheels and gave them what to replace them for an indeterminate period?--Yep, Aksiums.

What they should really do is take back the R-Sys, give owners Ksyrium SL's--roughly equivalent value--and then trumpet doing the "right thing" to everyone. Look at the discussion here, then multiply that by all the other cycling discussion boards out there and the additional discussions at races and any other place high end cyclists gather. They have a HUGE Pr problem on their hands. Should be interesting to see how they deal with it . . .

BBD

[Charles M]

Having had the wheels, I would not, under any conditions, take a set of these wheels even if they were free. I would not ride them and I would not sell them or even give them away for fear of future litigation...



Mavic are a GREAT company with exceptional field guys and very good customer service.

If this lingers at all, it's is a classic case of someone, somewhere in upper management not wanting to take proper blame for a simply bad idea.

If I were Mr Mavic, I would end this now. Swap or credit for the wheels and move on. The problem with that is I think Mavic feel this is their way forward.



I could be wrong and maybe this is fixable... But I'm not sure how.

This can be a minor Hicup or a 3 OZ hunk if steak in their wind-pipe...


Their choice.

[1centaur]

I suspect the spokes passed all the engineering tests Mavic used and clearly passed hundreds of thousands of miles of real world testing in versions 1 and 2 without exhibiting a propensity to explode. That would explain why they put the wheels out and why they thought reinforcing the spokes with a little Kevlar would stop the side-impact breakage that they apparently viewed as highly improbable. As engineers, they're probably scratching their heads and swearing to corporate that what happened should not have happened.

Corporate could call it a day (know when to fold 'em) given the expense and uncertainty of ever regaining public trust (which, in a great example of chicken and egg, would only really work after several years of zero incidents from this point forward under many thousands of riders willing to buy and ride the wheels PLUS an engineering explanation for what occurred that we understand and believe). But if they could pinpoint the issue (faulty component, for example, not faulty design) they might be able to salvage their investment and avoid all sorts of expenses (replacement wheels; recalls). That decision (hold vs. fold) is why five people were needed, one might surmise.

Personally, I'd fold unless I had a rock solid answer very quickly. Engineers can be wrong, and the downside of putting something out after a second recall that had a single subsequent similar incident would be devastating (goodbye CEO for a start; cultural reputation built over years of high quality products besmirched for a generation, probably). Do I really want my engineers spending lots of time and money testing to find out there IS a design flaw under rare circumstances? Would it matter to buyers if Mavic spent lots of money and time and FAILED to find a flaw? So much easier to bow out while saying the testing found no flaw so it must have been a freak and random incident that might not have been repeated for a million years. Then spend R&D for the next few years on products other than revolutionary wheel designs.

[pdmtong]

I can't imagine anyone who owns r-sys ever feeling completely comfortable riding it again nor can i envision anyone contemplating a future purcHASE

what we have here is a wheel with moderate upside and huge downside.

It seems like the best move is to just STOP, admit defeat and move on. and work out some kind of trade in. They have such a good rep they can get over this since its orthoganal technology...not a failure for the std K's.

I dont think it needs to be 100% money value, but more along the lines of a solid customer retention move. I personally wouldnt expect full refund - not everything we buy works as proimsed or hoped, especially in cycling. But not everythign we buy could kill us if it fails.

[BumbleBeeDave]

Mavic are a GREAT company with exceptional field guys and very good customer service.

If this lingers at all, it's is a classic case of someone, somewhere in upper management not wanting to take proper blame for a simply bad idea.

If I were Mr Mavic, I would end this now. Swap or credit for the wheels and move on. The problem with that is I think Mavic feel this is their way forward.

. . . but we'll see what they do. 15 years ago Mavic was almost the only game in town for pre-built wheels and they might have been able to brazen it out. But today there are any number of other companies that also make very good pre-builts and if Mavic corporate doesn't do the right thing quickly the customers will go elsewhere.

BBD

[Your_Friend!]

Friends!




I Believe That Mavic

Will Re-engineer

The R_SYS To Utilize

Non_Tubular Spokes:

A Metal_Rimmed Version

Of The New Carbone!




Love,
Y_F!

[jvp]

mavic responds: it's not our fault (http://www.velonews.com/article/93240/mavic-responds-to-wheel-collapse-article)
apparently their wheel was the real victim.

[paulrad9]

I can't imagine anyone who owns r-sys ever feeling completely comfortable riding it again nor can i envision anyone contemplating a future purcHASE

I think you're assuming that all r-sys owners are reading chat boards and have the same insight many on here do. I'll guess that most owners don't even know there was a problem and if they did, few would have heard of this incident related to the 'new' r-sys wheels.

[palincss]

There was a bad batch of CX-ray spokes 2-3 years ago. But heck, if one or two break, no big deal as you will likely stay up.

In this case, one spoke's failure is enough to cause the wheel to self-destruct. I wouldn't call that very much of a margin of safety.

The article seemed to imply that the manufacturer tried to blame this on "rider error". I'm sorry, but IMHO wheels should be designed in such a way that no rider error should cause a failure like this.

What, exactly, is a design like this supposed to buy us?

[rugbysecondrow]

I like the rationale for why this might not be there fault, especially the failed or punctured tire. Isn't part of field testing actually testing what happens in the real world while biking, ie. flats? I mean, a flat tire or puncture WILL happen if you actually ride the bike, so this does not seem to me as a good excuse. Frankly, if any independent issue can cause a failure like this, I would not want that wheel on my bike.

Preliminary Indication: A failed tire or a puncture could have caused the cyclist to instantly lose control of the bike, resulting in a crash event involving the subsequent breakage of the wheel. On May 26, the Mavic Engineering Team requested the opportunity to conduct specialized testing on the tire at an independent testing lab in Belgium. As of this date, Mavic has not yet received the tire from Mr. Delaney. Mavic understands that the tire is currently being shipped to Mavic for such independent testing purposes.
The inner tube

Fact: The valve stem is missing. One can see on the picture attached the location of the hole in the rim where the valve stem to the tire should be.

Preliminary Indications: The shearing of the valve stem would occur under conditions where the tire moves, slides or fails, and the wheel rim continues to rotate slightly relative to the tire, cutting the stem. The forces needed to generate such an event would require that the integrity of the wheel (meaning hub connected to the rim by the spokes) had not yet been compromised at the moment the shearing occurred.

[cdimattio]

mavic responds: it's not our fault (http://www.velonews.com/article/93240/mavic-responds-to-wheel-collapse-article)
apparently their wheel was the real victim.

I agree with the thought that no conclusions should be drawn until the investigation is complete, but Mavic seemed to be stretching hard to raise doubts and promote conjecture.

I thought the sheared valve stem was an interesting point.

The other suggestions seemed less compelling. Various scenarios can be visualized where the hub may not violently hit the pavement (the hard turn, or the elongated rim first freezing against the fork). The top tube failure suggestion also seemed a stretch to me.

No matter what might be determined as the most likely "cause" of the acccident, the complete disintegration of the wheel is an issue onto itself which was not addressed.

[Keith A]

No matter what might be determined as the most likely "cause" of the acccident, the complete disintegration of the wheel is an issue onto itself which was not addressed.Exactly! Even if I have a tire blow off the rim, valve stem shear off or even the top tube break...I would NOT expect my front wheel to come apart :no:

[CNY rider]

. Isn't part of field testing actually testing what happens in the real world while biking, ie. flats?. [/I]


Sort of like the Microsoft model of software development:

We'll let you pay for the privelege of beta-testing our crappy product (at full retail price mind you), then once you figure out the problems we'll put out patches to fix the problem.
No thanks.
Not what I would expect from Mavic, with a long history of making quality bike goodies.
I still love Open Pros. :beer:

[jasond]

Hurry up.....CYA :banana:

[Charles M]

Mavic's response...


Factual What If's (http://www.velonews.com/article/93240)



Their response makes them look worse.

The obvious answer seems to be:
1) Wheel failed.
2) Fork crown fell onto rotating wheel.
3) Tire jammed into fork crown, sending rider over bars.
4) Force of tire jamming in fork crown blew tube, sheared valve, dislodged tire.
5) Top tube cracked as a result of crash.

Besides, implying that a front puncture could lead to a catastrophic failure of the R-SYS isn't a glowing endorsement...


This is the exact same assesment that I have heard now several times...



I have started or finished with positive comment about Mavic as a company but this response was simply silly.


Facts backed by what if's following the admission they don't know what happened...

Leading with all the other damage that was non-Mavic was a blind swing as well.


What an absolutely horrible response.


And how the UCI approved a wheel as safe when it will collaps it's self into a modern replica of a Ninja Throwing Star is also beyond me.

[Charles M]

And...

The fun conversation will be when someone asks Mike Sinyard what he thinks of the "facts" pointing to the Tarmac having top tube that spontaneously explodes with enough concussive force to shatter a front wheel...

[dannyg1]

I'm supposing that Mavic's suspicion is that the front end instability that the OP Velo-ed wrote of 'coming out of the corner' could've been caused by the frame being broken. The chain of events would then be:

Frame top tube breaks,
Front end flex along with forces coming out of the turn jam wheel against downtube.
Wheel jams against fork crown and turning forces break spokes en-masse.
All falls down.

It sounds reasonable but there should be plenty of evidence.

[Charles M]

Hmmm yeah...


But then one of these products has failed this way so many times they recalled it..

You might call that amount of evidence "plenty"


The other has no history of this problem.

[lavi]

This could end up like Tyler Durden's job from Fight Club. Does the company bear the cost of a full recall, or just pay out for damages as they happen? Answer: pick the lower number.

Of course that probably won't happen. Who knows what will. Mavic's initial response was complete garbage. I would think their PR dept could think more clearly than: "Crap, we've got to get a response out there. Get the intern to write something up. NO, I don't need to proof it. Just sent it out to those wankers at Velonews."

NOW. Here's how this should end. NO SHOP IN THE THEIR RIGHT MIND SHOULD SELL THESE WHEELS. One more incident ane someone is getting PAID. A buyer many not know all of this is going on. However, the retailers sure do. Selling these wheels now is a one way ticket out of business. Say for instance I didn't know the history on these wheels and I go out and buy some today to profess my love of Gibo. Then I go ride and explode my wheels becasue I'm awesome. In the process I bury my teeth in the road and my feet come over my head and touch the groud as well disintegrating my spine. Bummer for me. Bummer for Mavic and the shop that sold them to me. Any lawyer would have no problem filling my bank account. It would still suck tho because I'd no longer be walking.

Note to stores: Please stop selling these wheels 2 days ago.

Let Mavic sort this out however they want.

[gdw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5WuHhVRZcY&feature=related

[fatallightning]

I for one think Mavic using the lack of hub damage as an indicator of why the spokes didn't fail is silly. If the bike was still carrying any kind of lean his trajectory probably would have thrown the hub out, not down. His shoulder would hit before the hub, which it may have.

[dannyg1]

From the OP on Velonews:

"I unclipped one foot and started slowing down, riding in a straight line, now about 30 feet from the corner. I heard a frictional sound, which surprised me as my shoe had not yet touched the ground. A split-second later the front end dove and I catapulted over onto my head and shoulder."

I suppose that if he'd employed the front brake and the top tube was broken, that could've started the chain of events. Telltale would be large forces and resulting tire marks on the downtube. I'm leaning toward agreeing with Mavic on the point about the hub and its lack of damage. The OP obviously endoed from the force of the wheel jamming against either the fork, the frame, or both; otherwise, the hub would've dug into the asphalt and that would've been easy to see. Less obvious though, is what part failed first: Spokes, rim or frame. Maybe the skewer wasn't tightend and the wheel jammed in the curve, broke a spoke and that began the chain? Maybe the wheel is flexy enough in the curve to jam the rim against the front brake pad hard enough to rip/break a spoke?

I've got to remember that, in the event of front end trouble, use the rear brake.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . because I've heard so many stories about top tubes shattering just as people ride around corners. Carbon bike frames exploding while JRA has been such a big problem . . .

What BS . . .

BBD

[Dekonick]

Perhaps they should try the chimeric twin defense...

[lavi]

BOOM! Somewhere a TT just exploded! :beer:

[1centaur]

Watch out Specialized frame owners - Mavic engineers are preparing to sneak into your garage and saw little creases in your top tubes so there will be at least as many spontaneous TT failures in that frame as there have been exploding R-Sys wheels.

Feels a little like the OJ defense strategy: create alternate possibilities that sound reasonable when argued a certain way and hope the audience is credulous. (That would be yes in downtown LA and no in Simi Valley but, importantly, no out there in the real world.)

In this case, the same engineering crew that created the wheel, and then created the technical fix when the wheel was recalled, is taking on the roles of Johnny Cochran and Robert Shapiro to create engineering stories and tell them to non-engineers. They recognize the logic of their stories and know that certain minds will respond to that logic, and probably correctly figure that no independent engineering experts will be called by the other side, so it will come down to real engineers versus forum blow hards - who will win in the popular mind?

Going back to my fold 'em point, this tactic might work in a court room with the right 12 people (and Mavic engineers who believe in their wheel may be emotionally invested in their new rationales AND sincerely believe them), but the dealer community is going to slow play the order cycle as will the OEMs and SRAM will be right there with their ever newer wheel line-up until the pain gets too great. Sometimes, you have to fold 'em even when you know you're right.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . most likely on the advice of the lawyers and all the internal factions that have an emotional investment in the creation and marketing of the wheel.

As a cyclist and reasonably intelligent consumer, before hearing this bogus flaming bag of poo of a response I would have simply made sure to personally never buy a set of R-Sys wheels. Now, after having to sit here and actually smell the burning fecal matter while Mavic's public relations department pees on my head while telling me that's it's really just raining, I am now even more likely to never buy another set of ANY kind of wheels from Mavic.

I imagine I will not be alone in the fraternity of reasonably intelligent and informed cyclists in thinking this way.

BBD

[dannyg1]

I wrote an email to the OP and I got a very quick response that I'm free to share:

Hi Danny,

Thanks for the email, and your direction to the Serotta forum. Some good stuff over there.

Four things I’d like to add:

-The hub remained in the fork.

-There are no scratches on the rim, as I would expect there to be if the tire/tube blew.

-Despite there being literally hundreds of witness, including dozens of them immediately on the scene, and at least three of THEM being veteran bicycle mechanics, Mavic to my knowledge has not contacted any of them for information. I offered names and phone numbers, and they told me they “were all set.” This is discouraging.

-EVEN IF the tire, tube and top tube failed first (which I and others strongly contest), how in the world does that make complete catastrophic failure of a front wheel acceptable?

Feel free to share on the forum.

Have a great weekend,
Ben




On 6/12/09 4:55 PM, (email addy edited) wrote:

Hi Ben,

I've been reading of your accident over the last week and I've become very interested by Mavic's response. There's a lively discussion going on over at the serotta forum here:

http://forums.thepaceline.net/showthread.php?t=60433

And I'd be interested to hear what you think of some of the ideas raised.

Thanks,
Danny Gonzalez

[05Fierte TI]

I think kines hit it on the head with this

"I think you might be missing the point. Even if the post recall wheel has the lowest failure rate of any wheel currently manufactured, the point is that when they fail, they do so completely, and your fork will meet the road at whatever speed you're going, and your body will follow."


Whatever the course of events, I really really do not like the conclusion. Too much damage to rider and bike. I prefer a little redundancy to be built in which does not seem to be the case here

[jbrainin]

Blaming this on the bike is BS. The damage to the top tube would almost certainly have to be a result of the crash induced by the wheel failure. I've seen lots of Tarmacs and while it's easy too flex the top tube with your fingers, you would have to have an impact from the side of the tube to induce failure. Assuming this bike had not been crashed previously and suffered a blow to the side of the top tube that caused non-visible damage (which doesn't seem very likely), then the top tube was ruined after the wheel failure and in no way contributed to the failure of the wheel. I've seen snapped top tubes on Tarmacs as a result of crashes but never as the result of just riding along.

Based on the specious claims by Mavic, I can only hope that they wind up losing so much business, and $ in settling lawsuits, as a result of this unconscionable fiasco that they cease to do business here. There's a lot of other good wheel and rim manufacturers out there who would not even consider putting such a poor excuse of a product on the market. Let them thrive in Mavic's absence.

[Samster]

fixing problems that don't exist causes problems (i.e., carbon spokes? what wrong with steel?)

stupid atmo.

plastic parts = plastic surgery.

[Louis]

Yet more proof that carbon is the deadliest substance known to bikes!!!

Wait, aren't we a carbon-based life form?

Seems to me that regardless of what initially caused the problem, this design is not fault or failure tolerant. Not good.

[TAW]

I for one think Mavic using the lack of hub damage as an indicator of why the spokes didn't fail is silly. If the bike was still carrying any kind of lean his trajectory probably would have thrown the hub out, not down. His shoulder would hit before the hub, which it may have.

Wouldn't the crotch of the fork hitting the top of the wheel prevent the hub from hitting the asphalt? The fork stops the wheel from spinning, sending the rider over the bars. Maybe I'm not thinking right here.

[Blue Jays]

Keeping fingers crossed decent businesspeople & honest engineers at Mavic have louder voices than devious attorneys & ledger-conscious beancounters.

[CSTRider]

While it's hard to prove a negative, here's a "lab test" that might yield some insights:

1. get a 195 lb "volunteer" (preferably from the Mavic legal dept) who can generate approximately the same wattage as Ben Delaney.

2. remove or compromise a spoke from an R-Sys front wheel.

3. set up slow-motion cameras on the same turn where Ben Delaney crashed - turn on the camera and record what happens next.

4. put the volunteer in hockey pads and send him out on the crit course for a couple of "hot laps" at speeds recorded by Delaney's power meter while riding a Tarmac with the compromised R-Sys front wheel.

5. if uneventful, repeat step 2-4 until 3 spokes are compromised.

If the R-Sys wheel can be safely ridden at speed with up to 3 compromised spokes, then Mavic's theory may actually have some merit. My guess is the wheel will be just fine - all the way to the crash site.

[Dekonick]

The Mavic excuse reminds me of a bad episode of House.. (love the show, but the medical stories... :p )

At some point, doesn't making something a few grams lighter increase the risk of catastropic failure exponentially? Kinda like playing Jenga IMHO - you can only take so much away before...something gives way.

Even for a 95lb weenie, at some point the rider wt to bike wt ratio doesn't matter anymore - does it?

Mass in motion is unforgiving. I like to know the steed I am riding is going to keep my mass going where I want it to go.

:)

[Louis]

put the volunteer in hockey pads and send him out on the crit course for a couple of "hot laps" at speeds recorded by Delaney's power meter

Now THAT would be almost as interesting as seeing the crash itself!

I would imagine that Mavic has test stands capable of running a wheel under every imaginable load condition, including potholes, steps in the road, rocks, 350 lb rider, etc. without putting some at risk. If they don't that would go a long way in explaining the failure.

[CNY rider]

My simpleton conclusion after reading all this:

Steel or Ti bike + 32 spoke clinchers (28 in front if you're my size) = This wouldn't have happened.

[JonB]

Wow. To see that Mavic is trying to play this out in the public forum is arrogant, stupid, idiotic, etc. I am amazed to think that they'll be able to swell public opinion on this one.

What's their expectation? To convince cyclists that Delaney is lying? That he doesn't know what happened to him?

To release this statement is truly the stupidest thing I've ever seen a company involved in our industry/sport/recreation EVER do.

To see that they can't stay quiet until they get this sorted out and instead try and make Delaney look like a dope is mind-boggling. I've lost all respect for Mavic and will NEVER purchase another product from them.

[MattTuck]

I retract my earlier "benefit of the doubt". It seems that Mavic is in full cover their ass mode.

I am still not convinced that this is anything more than an isolated incident, but I sure wish they would have spent some more time doing some additional testing before coming out with speculation of the "Magic Top Tube" theory.

Sure, there could have been some contributing factors, but I still don't understand how that shows us that the wheel is safe.

It would have been better, in my opinion, to have gone back to the testing facility, and done EXTENSIVE testing on many wheels to try to replicate the failure, and determined if it was another design flaw. If you can't replicate, maybe it was an isolated incident.

Alternatively, if they could identify a defect on the wheel in question that is detectable on other wheels, that would be another improvement over "it wasn't us" defense.

I would love to turn this story into a business school case study illustrating some of the decision making that goes on in a business. From the initial roll out, to the first recall, to the second roll out, to this incident and the public response to it. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall in some of the decision making meetings that were going on.


For what it's worth, I suspect that the engineers are truly surprised by this. I doubt any legal department would let a wheel go out the door that they knew had a major design flaw, and I doubt the engineers would knowingly let a wheel go to market if they saw problems in testing.

[Ray]

It would have been better, in my opinion, to have gone back to the testing facility, and done EXTENSIVE testing on many wheels to try to replicate the failure, and determined if it was another design flaw. If you can't replicate, maybe it was an isolated incident.

I'd be more interested in tests where they purposely broke a single spoke under normal riding stresses and see whether the wheel generally stays ridable (at least long enough to slow down and control the bike) or whether this sort of catastrophic failure when the first spoke goes is the typical outcome. If the wheel can generally be slowed and stopped after the first spoke breaking and they can show that this total disintegration is a freak occurrence, that MIGHT buy them a bit more 'benefit of the doubt'. But if catastrophic failure is more than a completely freak occurrence, these wheels are toast. Probably are anyway.

-Ray

[Pete Serotta]

I have learned a long time ago that everything is not always as we see it. I am at RTR with the Mavic gang and their view of the problem is not the same.

The wheel has been tested more ways that I knew were even possible. This reminds me a lot of the AUDI "sudden acceleration" problem on the A5000 many years ago. (Yeah we never did know for sure about it - except that folks had accidents)>

Not meaning to add fuel to the fire, just saying there are always unknowns. Yeah I am pretty sure the demand for R-SYS wheels is going to be hurt - that is for sure, :confused: :confused:

[gemship]

The Mavic excuse reminds me of a bad episode of House.. (love the show, but the medical stories... :p )

At some point, doesn't making something a few grams lighter increase the risk of catastropic failure exponentially? Kinda like playing Jenga IMHO - you can only take so much away before...something gives way.

Even for a 95lb weenie, at some point the rider wt to bike wt ratio doesn't matter anymore - does it?

Mass in motion is unforgiving. I like to know the steed I am riding is going to keep my mass going where I want it to go.

:)


That's exactly why among a few other reasons that a 16-18 pound built up complete bicycle is the best real world weight weenie machine. Go any lighter and like you said the durability issue becomes a consideration not to mention the price tag. If your not at the top of your game racing then your only doing it for the fun of it so there's a consideration to.

[BumbleBeeDave]

I am at RTR with the Mavic gang and their view of the problem is not the same.

Can you elaborate on who "The Mavic Gang" is? Does this include any of the engineers who actually designed the wheel? Does this include any of their lawyers, or accountants, or the poor PR guy who probably got the orders to write the statement we saw them spew at Velo News?

I'm certain in my own mind that if it does include any of their engineers, you probably got a much more coherent and honest response about what may have caused the wheel to fail (and I'm assuming for the moment that IS what happened). But unfortunately the engineers probably won't be allowed to come anywhere near the public or media to make honest statements. The only ones actually delivering information for public consumption will be the lawyers and the PR flacks who have to deliver the statements.

In any case, I agree with others here. I would never consciously ride a wheel that would fail completely if one spoke is compromised.

BBD

[Grant McLean]

In any case, I agree with others here. I would never consciously ride a wheel that would fail completely if one spoke is compromised.

BBD

anyone here ever roll a tubular?

where does this fear stuff end?

-g

[BumbleBeeDave]

anyone here ever roll a tubular?

where does this fear stuff end?

-g

I don't consider that "fear." I consider it prudent consideration for my personal safety. I also wouldn't ride a wheel that would be known to self-destruct just because the tire went flat or the tubular rolled off the rim. Nor would I ride down a hill at 50mph on a bike that had ANY parts that were known to fail unexpectedly and completely if slightly compromised.

But break a spoke and the wheel totally crumples? Come on, Grant . . . If you would like to ride in a race or down a hill at 50mph on such a wheel or bike that has such characteristics, then go right ahead. If you do so without having the slightest hint of fear, then I don't consider that brave. It's just stupid.

BBD

[Lifelover]

mavic responds: it's not our fault (http://www.velonews.com/article/93240/mavic-responds-to-wheel-collapse-article)
apparently their wheel was the real victim.


It is pretty interesting that the Velonews story did not show any pics of the rest of the bike.

Does make the initial story seem pretty biased.

[Bruce K]

OK, I finally decided to chime in on this one.

The cyclocrossworld.com cross team trained and sometimes raced on the Generation 1 R-SYS wheels all this past season with ZERO failures.

There is more to this story than "the wheel failed".

It seems like poor reporting - almost "axe grinding" - to not let Mavic have a fair say in the original story as it virtually destroys the product market wise.

I would be more concerned with the fact that he rolled the clincher off the rim than the possibility of an R-SYS failure going forward, but that said I can't ride them as they don't fit my Serotta forks without the use of spacers.

BK

[pdbrye]

I have learned a long time ago that everything is not always as we see it. I am at RTR with the Mavic gang and their view of the problem is not the same.

The wheel has been tested more ways that I knew were even possible. This reminds me a lot of the AUDI "sudden acceleration" problem on the A5000 many years ago. (Yeah we never did know for sure about it - except that folks had accidents)>

Not meaning to add fuel to the fire, just saying there are always unknowns. Yeah I am pretty sure the demand for R-SYS wheels is going to be hurt - that is for sure, :confused: :confused:

Yeah, I was thinking of this exact same example. That incident and Audi's almost exact same type of "Mavic" response, ie. driver error, almost put the company out of business in the US. As it was it took them probably 5+ years to regain customer confidence.

I have been riding recently with a friend who has the R-Sys wheels on his bike and now has the temporary Aksium replacement wheel on his bike. My friend has recently made a miraculous recovery from a very serious medical condition and is back to riding almost full strength. I forwarded him this discussion when it first started and a copy of the VN article with the advice that he dump those wheels immediately. The last thing he needs is to end up back in the hospital because of a catastrophic wheel failure.

Bottom line, there is not one possible reason to ride a set of wheels that have a proven history of catastrophic failure. Who gives a sh*t what Mavic says, move on to new wheels. There are plenty of great wheels out there to choose from.

Mavic is making a BIG mistake with this response.

[Grant McLean]

I don't consider that "fear." I consider it prudent consideration for my personal safety. It's just stupid.

BBD

so I guess you're expecting tubulars to be taken off the market?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rc0kEMV8GYQ

-g

[BumbleBeeDave]

If you want to ride them, then go ahead. If you want to ride R-Sys wheels, then go ahead. I imagine you'll now find plenty of sets of them on eBay pretty cheap. If you wish to ascribe anyone's reluctance to ride any piece of equipment to "fear" then that's unfortunate.

That's your decision. Life is full of risks. It's up to each of us to determine according to our own comfort level which of those risks we find acceptable. As pdbrye says, "There are plenty of great wheels out there to choose from" . . . I will just stick to ones that generally don't fly into a bunch of pieces if one spoke happens to break. Also part of the reason I don't ride tubulars. A few others are that they are expensive, they are a pain in the ass to mount properly, they are not repairable (at least with my current skills), it takes up a lot of space in my jersey or seat bag, and if I do have a flat I end up with #$&%* glue all over my hands and handlebars for the rest of the ride. And yes, the distinct possibility of one rolling off the rim as I go around a downhill curve at 40mph does play just a bit of a role in there, too.

So yes, I guess i do suffer from "fear" . . . of being made fun of as I drive my wheelchair around by blowing in a tube because I went flying off the road into a utility pole because I didn't want guys like you thinking I'm afraid to ride equipment that may have fatal flaws. Sorry about that . . .

BBD

[lavi]

People willingly accept the risk that they may roll a tubular or blow a tube. People do not willingly accept that a product they are using (frame, handlebar, stem, wheel, etc...) may fail catastrophically...unless they're a pro and ride what they are given.

[Louis]

As an engineer who is often involved in designing and analyzing stuff then coming up with ways to best test them, I have some of sympathy for Mavic. However, it also seems clear that (1) There are issues with the R-SYS wheel (how often would a 28-spoke Ksyrium wheel under those same circumstances have failed in a similar manner?) and (2) The PR parts of this could have been handled more intelligently.

When this is all said and done I can only hope that "the whole truth" will be known to all. It has the makings of a great B-School case study.

I have learned a long time ago that everything is not always as we see it. I am at RTR with the Mavic gang and their view of the problem is not the same.

The wheel has been tested more ways that I knew were even possible. This reminds me a lot of the AUDI "sudden acceleration" problem on the A5000 many years ago. (Yeah we never did know for sure about it - except that folks had accidents)>

Not meaning to add fuel to the fire, just saying there are always unknowns. Yeah I am pretty sure the demand for R-SYS wheels is going to be hurt - that is for sure, :confused: :confused:

[malcolm]

I've not read every response and maybe I missed it, but if your spokes failed while JRA wouldn't the rim contact the fork crown as it dropped down vs the hub impacting the ground?

[Louis]

I've not read every response and maybe I missed it, but if your spokes failed while JRA wouldn't the rim contact the fork crown as it dropped down vs the hub impacting the ground?

The tire / rim would hit the fork crown first, but that's not a stable position, so the tire/rim would probably twist as the rim rotated (not in the manner that the wheel is supposed to rotate, but sideways), allowing the fork end / hub to continue downwards until they hit the road. That may be what caused the tire to come off the rim.

[cody.wms]

I've not read every response and maybe I missed it, but if your spokes failed while JRA wouldn't the rim contact the fork crown as it dropped down vs the hub impacting the ground?

It did, you can see the skidmarks here (http://velonews.com/photo/93062)

[malcolm]

I was referring to Mavic's response that the fork ends/hub would have contacted the pavement forcefully.

[Charles M]

The Mavic excuse reminds me of a bad episode of House.. (love the show, but the medical stories... :p )

At some point, doesn't making something a few grams lighter increase the risk of catastropic failure exponentially?


I agree, but then a set of Zipp Tubulars is better than a half pound lighter...

It's not "Carbon" and it's not "Light" that caused the initial recall, nor this wheel to fail.

It's simply a bad application of Carbon and weight in a poor design by Mavic.


Followed by an exceptionally poor attempt to blame a bunch of other parts on the bike that looked and acted a lot better than the wheel did in the same crash.

Again, I would like Mike Sinyard and Specialized response to Mavic claiming spontanious head tube failure...


Till then, if you asked me, the problem is still the same, now as ever.

The failed wheel pics past looked almost exactly like this...

http://velonews.com/files/images/1wheel.jpg



- Note that a lot of these spokes failed at the point where you stick a carbon tube into a metal sleeve (nipple).


- Note the "string" / hair fabric sticking out of the broken sections.



Using Mavic's own thought process we might call the following "FACT".


Mavic knew full well that their carbon spokes were weak relative to their use as bicycle spokes and that Rsys wheel structure meant that the failure and displacement of a spoke could frequently cause the whole structure to fail catastrophically.

This is evidenced by the addition of the fiber / string they were hoping would at least keep the broken spoke in line. But when one of these spokes gets stressed even a little off line, it puts a lot of stress right where anyone with half a Godamn brain would expect. Right at that point where carbon meets metal. (or if you were paying attention to lots of other pictures of Mavic failures, right where the old ones failed).



People, look at pictures of the old failures and this one.

Mavic addressed the design flaw pointedly and directly in their "fix" attempt, but it wasn't enough. They should have reinforced the spokes differently (and or produced them differently) and or changed the way they are attached to the rim and hub, so that they were more durable end to end and also had the ability to survive the off line stress associated with being a bicycle spoke (different than the expectation of a frame tube).


What's left to do now seems to be finger pointing.


I'm embarassed and wish for better for the Field guys at Mavic. They deserve better from their leadership than this.

[Smiley]

Get those Mavic engineers to ride these wheels as a show of faith during RTR.

[Marcusaurelius]

I did feel badly for the person that had his front wheel explode and I am more than a little disappointed in the mavic response.

I would not be eager to be the first one to try some new wheels with carbon spokes.

[dannyg1]

Got this from Ben yesterday:

Danny,

Here’s a more thorough response.

Cheers,
Ben



Mavic R-Sys: A rebuttal

Counterpoints to Mavic’s alternative theories for the failure of its wheel



By Ben Delaney



Following a deluge of emails from readers about my R-Sys story, it seems appropriate to clarify a few facts surrounding the failure of my front wheel. And following Mavic’s response, which suggested that a tire, tube or top tube failure could cause every spoke on a wheel to shatter (as either the cause or effect of a crash), it seems appropriate to add some relevant information there, too.



I will conclude with my theory, backed by engineers who specialize in composite failure, about the nature of the wheel failure.



A number of readers asked if my quick release could have come undone, and if the dip in the road could have caused the hub to slip out of the dropouts. Such a situation could also cause the crotch of the fork to drop down onto the tire, prompting an endo. The answer is no. The hub was still in the fork after the crash. I don’t have photos of this, but I do have the photo at right showing the quick release lever in the upright position just seconds before the crash, and this picture of the intact “lawyer’s tabs,” which would prevent the hub from leaving the dropouts in the unlikely case of the lever flipping open.



While most readers who wrote in were sympathetic, a few called me out for being a 190-pound fatty riding crits on a lightweight wheel with carbon spokes. Fair enough. That said, the R-Sys is a stock wheel on many bikes, it isn’t particularly light by high-end wheel standards and it does not come with a weight limit.



In Mavic’s response, the company suggests that three things found after the crash could have caused it: a tire somewhat off the rim, a sheared valve stem of a tube, and a cracked top tube. I contend all three are effects of the crash caused by the failed wheel, not the reverse. Still, let me offer the following counterpoints.



Tire off the rim

When a tire comes off a rim with a rider aboard, the rim shows marks where the metal contacts the ground. Most anyone who has rolled a tire or even ridden a flat clincher knows this. There is not a single scratch on the outer circumference of the wheel, as this picture show.



Sheared valve stem

If some external force slashed the tube stem clean off while I was cornering, the tire would have gone flat immediately. As stated above, there would be marks on the rim. I likely would have crashed in the corner, washing out to the side. Instead, I crashed about 30 feet after the corner, going straight over the handlebars.



Cracked top tube

I fail to see how a top tube would just spontaneously fail. Regardless, the top tube remains quite rigid, even with the crack. Considering this, I fail to see how a crack in a top tube could cause an endo or a shattered wheel.



Even if all three of the above did happen before the crash — the valve stem sheared, the top tube cracked, and the tire came partially off the rim — how do you explain the tire marks on the crotch of the fork? How do you explain the ovalized rim? And how does any of this justify a wheel failing catastrophically?



MY THEORY

Based on my experience, my conversations with dozens of witnesses, the input of several carbon engineers, and the very similar way in which many of the first generation R-Sys wheels failed, here is my theory as to what happened with the wheel. It’s important to keep in mind the unique design of the wheels, which are built using Mavic’s “Tra-Comp” method of spoke compression as well as low tension.



The compressive and torsional forces of the turn, amplified by the dip, caused a single spoke to fail. As I straightened up, the other spokes became overloaded, causing them to fail in a cascade. The crotch of the fork dropped onto the tire, which brought its rotation to an immediate halt. This impact blew the tire off the rim and sheared the valve stem. With the tire/rim relatively fixed on the ground, the bike’s forward momentum cracked the top tube, and pivoted the bike like a catapult, launching me over the bars.



A few well-wishers have told me they hope this is an isolated incident. It isn’t. It is only the most recent. Many other riders on the original R-Sys wheel experienced complete and catastrophic failure of their front wheel when every spoke shattered while riding. Sometimes there was a mitigating incident, such as a contact with a derailleur that broke one or perhaps more spokes. Sometimes there wasn’t such a clear cause. But whatever the trigger, the end result was that <i>every single</i> spoke broke and the rider went down.



Mavic recalled these wheels in January. In the reissued model, the Tra-Comp design remained. The company’s fix was a reinforcement of the spokes, using two layers of carbon wrapped at 22 degrees on top of five straight layers, instead of only straight layers as in the original.



Since my story ran, I have heard from a number of engineers who work with carbon. Some are experts at investigating composite failures. None endorsed the idea of carbon in compression in a thin structure such as a spoke. But on a certain level, a detailed structural analysis isn’t needed — just look at the results.


>End

[dvs cycles]

Are there pictures in his e-mail that he mentions?

[pdbrye]

Ben 1
Mavic 0

Ben's story seems much more plausible.

[rounder]

Great response from Ben Delaney. As a relatively long Velonews subsciber, this is the typical type of information and reporting that you get with every issue and from their website. I recommend VN to everyone here. As for Mavic...i have liked their wheels and support of racing...but definitely do not understand their response to this incident. Maybe Mavic is desperate and has their lawyers fighting for survival (pending and future lawsuits??). If they do not come forth and say something better, will never buy their wheels again.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . for any company that makes products used under possibly dangerous conditions--like bike racing. But I'm betting when they factor those costs into their cost of doing business, they weren't counting on this. In this situation, where they had already had one recall of the wheels and this one that flew apart had already been "fixed," if they admit to anything at all here they're going to be buried in lawsuits.

BBD