Problems with Steel Frame
- greyhoundtom
- Posts: 3023
- Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 6:28 am
- Location: Wherever the sun is shining
- Contact:
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby greyhoundtom » Mon Apr 23, 2012 8:45 am
Glad you came out of that one with only minimum damage.
I do a bit of welding from time to time and the welding on both frames is some of the worst I have seen, and simply a major disaster waiting to happen.
I can only hope that there are not too many other frames like that out there, as the poor buggers riding them are looking at serious injury problems and even possibly death.
The state of these frames needs to be reported to the right authorities and an urgent recall of all these frames instigated, and if that gets the person responsible for allowing these frames to be manufactured and sold in trouble........bad bloody luck.
This is an extremely serious issue that needs to be addressed ASAP.
- MichaelB
- Posts: 14775
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby MichaelB » Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:20 am
Glad you are OK, but you certainly have recourse from what you have shown.
Incidentally, that brand of bike was also reviewed in the latest issue of Ride Cycling Review, but it was a fillet brazed jobbie ...
-
- Posts: 5131
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby rkelsen » Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:47 am
Their grammar is as poor as their bike frames.drubie wrote:http://www.bikepro.com.au/what-is-champione-
- m@
- Posts: 5112
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:20 pm
- Location: Wurundjeri Country
- Contact:
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby m@ » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:34 am
+1, I would be expecting a full refund on the frame, replacement/reimbursement for your helmet and any other costs incurred - and the retailer to issue an immediate product recall.RobertFrith wrote:The manufacturer should be initiating a voluntary recall before a rider is seriously hurt. In case they're not willing to do it I've copied/pasted from the ACCC's site;
- brentono
- Posts: 3698
- Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:33 pm
- Location: Perth DubyaEh.
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby brentono » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:55 am
rkelsen wrote:Their grammar is as poor as their bike frames.drubie wrote:http://www.bikepro.com.au/what-is-champione-
That's got to be the funniest story I've read, about the naming.The name "Champione" was suggested to us by an Italian customer, meaning "champion".
Andy should have done his research BEFORE they got the decals made.
Jon, you were very lucky, and if you want steel (which is the best) I would go for an older,
reputable, lugged, steel frame. IMO.
Hope it gets sorted out (money back, fullstop) as it should be.
Cheers
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby Nobody » Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:00 pm
Rivbike wrote:Defect tolerance is the least-talked about material quality, and it's risky to talk about because it's easy for a reader to get the idea that the writer must be tolerant of defects. But it is a real category, a real quality, a real thing that rocket scientists care about and bicycle makers ought to.
Defect tolerance is the ability of a material to be safe even when defective.
It matters because perfect quality control is impossible, no matter how white-coated engineers in sterile rooms you have monitoring production. Some bug or booger or bubble will work its way in, and then what?
Then you want a material that maintains its integrity.
http://www.rivbike.com/kb_results.asp?ID=29Rivbike wrote:Failure mode is one of those "more important factors." It is how suddenly failure occurs after the first crack, hole, or gouge. Nobody talks about it, but it's really, really, really important.
...You want your bike stuff to respond to trauma by bending and denting, not shattering and snapping. Metals tend to do that. And once that's covered, you want plenty of time and lots of warning between the onset of failure (a crack, for instance) and total material separation.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby il padrone » Mon Apr 23, 2012 5:19 pm
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- WyvernRH
- Posts: 3179
- Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:41 pm
- Location: Newcastle NSW
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby WyvernRH » Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:24 am
Indeed, very good article but in this case I don't think you can blame the material. It looks to me as though the weld failed. The tube literally came 'unstuck' as the weld failed due to lack of weld penetration.il padrone wrote:Some very pertinent points there from Rivendell.
The weld metal itself failed as it alone appears to have been taking the load of the joint. Cracks would have probably formed initially on the inside of the weld bead at stress points and propagated rapidly outwards as the bead itself is not 953 (what rod did they use?) and the failure would have been almost instantaneous. I have seen this failure mode before in bad aluminium welds under test where the crack propagates from the ragged inside of the bead, not the smooth (sic) outside layer and nothing is seen on the outside until joint failure. Mind you, I have to say that the dramatic secondary failure of the top tube by the the seat joint weld (at the end of the HAZ ? At the butt?) is a bit worrying. Possibly overheating?
Cheers
Richard
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby Nobody » Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:52 am
If the thin 953 cannot be reliably welded by an experienced/professional frame builder (as clearly evident) then it isn't worth the risk. If the tubes are too thin to allow a big enough weld bead without blowing through the tube then the tolerance for error (one way or the other) is too low.
An ideal frame material should never crack and only bend in crashes. I know many frames do crack (including steel) but this probably has much to do with being built poorly and/or too light.
- elStado
- Posts: 2363
- Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 12:27 am
- Location: Syd, NSW
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby elStado » Tue Apr 24, 2012 1:07 pm
Those welds look dodgy as. I'd be looking at getting a full refund plus full compensation for injury and damaged clothes, helmet etc.
Take plenty of pics, record everything that happened, get the frame looked at and go from there.
The manufacturer needs to recall these and have them checked/replaced asap before someone is killed or seriously injured.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby RonK » Tue Apr 24, 2012 2:14 pm
Yeah, I wondered about that, since I couldn't find a reference to 953 in the quotes.Nobody wrote:The two points I was trying to make by Rivendell's quotes were:
If the thin 953 cannot be reliably welded by an experienced/professional frame builder (as clearly evident) then it isn't worth the risk. If the tubes are too thin to allow a big enough weld bead without blowing through the tube then the tolerance for error (one way or the other) is too low.
An ideal frame material should never crack and only bend in crashes. I know many frames do crack (including steel) but this probably has much to do with being built poorly and/or too light.
But just because one bike builder cannot weld the stuff doesn't make unsuitable. I'm sure Reynolds would have put in a lot of research before releasing 953 bike tubes on the market.
And I doubt that it is any thinner than other steel or titanium bike tubes.
Darren Baum will build you a bike in 953, and I'd be pretty confident about its construction.
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby Nobody » Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:17 pm
We all know a lot of very light carbon products are released to the market and plenty of people still experience failures. Remember that the first frame cracked in the middle of the chainstay and the second in the top tube. Regardless of the welding, still not an ideal product IMO. No frame material is ideal, but I believe heavier, thicker tubing would come closer, with the cost being in extra weight.RonK wrote:But just because one bike builder cannot weld the stuff doesn't make unsuitable. I'm sure Reynolds would have put in a lot of research before releasing 953 bike tubes on the market.
I don't know about Ti, but from what I've read, the whole point of high strength steels is to make the walls thinner to make the tubing lighter. My understanding at this time is that steels weigh approximately the same per volume as they are all derived from Fe.RonK wrote:And I doubt that it is any thinner than other steel or titanium bike tubes.
-
- Posts: 2083
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:07 am
- Location: Adelaide
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby silkishuge » Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:16 pm
Thanks for the advise mate. I will be getting in touch with the LBS owner on Thursday. I will need to send him an email with the photos which I am sure he will have a look at and offer a replacement frame.elStado wrote:Wowow! Glad to hear you made it out of that alive.
Those welds look dodgy as. I'd be looking at getting a full refund plus full compensation for injury and damaged clothes, helmet etc.
Take plenty of pics, record everything that happened, get the frame looked at and go from there.
The manufacturer needs to recall these and have them checked/replaced asap before someone is killed or seriously injured.
Jon
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby RonK » Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:35 pm
Yeah, I don't know if 953 is necessarily intended to be lighter - I thought it was meant as less expensive paint free corrosion-proof finish alternative to titanium. And in any case, bike tubes are butted - they are thin in the middle but thicker at the ends to allow for the weld.Nobody wrote:I don't know about Ti, but from what I've read, the whole point of high strength steels is to make the walls thinner to make the tubing lighter. My understanding at this time is that steels weigh approximately the same per volume as they are all derived from Fe.RonK wrote:And I doubt that it is any thinner than other steel or titanium bike tubes.
Noneless any tube can fail if the welder overheats the tube so its temper is lost and doesn't re-temper it correctly. Also if the tubes are not cut and mitred properly, or if they are not properly tacked welded and finished in the correct order then stress can be induced that leads to fatigue failure. In the photos of the top tube I wonder if perhaps too much has been cut off the butt so the weld is in the thin part.
-
- Posts: 10316
- Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 12:10 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby Nobody » Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:00 pm
The articles below show that the wall thickness can get down to 0.3mm and a small to medium frame weight is as low as 1 Kg. Seems pretty light to me since my Surly CC is more than twice that.RonK wrote:Yeah, I don't know if 953 is necessarily intended to be lighter - I thought it was meant as less expensive paint free corrosion-proof finish alternative to titanium. And in any case, bike tubes are butted - they are thin in the middle but thicker at the ends to allow for the weld.
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/tech/200 ... stralia051
http://roadcyclinguk.com/news/gear-news ... r-953.html
Also Jon, your sig needs an update.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby RonK » Tue Apr 24, 2012 6:48 pm
One of my ti touring frames is around 800 gms, the other 1 kg.I don't think you can draw comparisons with a Surly Cross Check - they are very different classes of bike.Nobody wrote:The articles below show that the wall thickness can get down to 0.3mm and a small to medium frame weight is as low as 1 Kg. Seems pretty light to me since my Surly CC is more than twice that.
As I mentioned in a previous post, around the time (2005) Baum built the bike in the article you linked, they posted on their blog about the difficulties they encountered mastering the welding technique. The blog archives only go back a couple of years so it can't be viewed any more. But it was apparent to me that the welding technique required was different.
Whatever, I'd be delighted to have a 953 frame built by either Baum or Independent Fabrications. I've shortlisted both for frames at times, but couldn't make the numbers work to buy.
An interesting note from the Reynolds web site leaves me wondering if perhaps the builder of the broken frame trimmed the wrong end of the tube.
Our literature shows the frame builder the butt profile in each tube. Some have equal butt lengths at each end, others have one long end and one short. All the tubes are marked with the Reynolds name at the short butt end, so trimming should be done at the opposite end, unless a very small frame is being built and then the builder may trim both ends.
- biker jk
- Posts: 7001
- Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 6:18 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby biker jk » Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:54 pm
Can you tell me the brand and model of these super light titanium frames?RonK wrote:One of my ti touring frames is around 800 gms, the other 1 kg.I don't think you can draw comparisons with a Surly Cross Check - they are very different classes of bike.
- toolonglegs
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:49 pm
- Location: Somewhere with padded walls and really big hills!
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby toolonglegs » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:53 pm
- drubie
- Posts: 4714
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:12 am
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby drubie » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:36 pm
Sharp eyes TLL.toolonglegs wrote:Hard to tell looking at the those pictures... bit blurry!. But on the one showing the head tube it looks like the lower one has been cracked for a while... not shiny clean break all the way around... maybe that is just the photos though?.
The buildup of dirt under there makes it a bit hard to tell though. I think the picture that scared me the most was the cracked chainstay on the first frame.
but really, that's rubbish. We get none of it because the choices are illusory.
- RonK
- Posts: 11508
- Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 2:08 pm
- Location: If you need to know, ask me
- Contact:
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby RonK » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:50 pm
Do I detect a challenge in the way you worded the question?biker jk wrote:Can you tell me the brand and model of these super light titanium frames?RonK wrote:One of my ti touring frames is around 800 gms, the other 1 kg.I don't think you can draw comparisons with a Surly Cross Check - they are very different classes of bike.
I am of course referring to the weight of the frame only.
Sabbath Silk Route, size XL 1.7 kgs with the OEM Surly LHT fork which weights 1.02 kgs.
Van Nicholas Pioneer Rohloff, size L 55cm 1.88 kgs with the VNT TRX Alloy expedition fork 0.8 kgs
- Le Velo
- Posts: 534
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:59 pm
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby Le Velo » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:00 pm
This is the quality of the weld you would get for a Baum, the tubes are also butted, in comparison to other welds out there it would have to be the best to be seen
-
- Posts: 5131
- Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby rkelsen » Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:52 pm
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby trailgumby » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:00 am
I think you may have that reversed. Shiny failure surfaces mean the crack has been there for some time. The shine is from the crack surfaces polishing each other from movement against each other.toolonglegs wrote:Hard to tell looking at the those pictures... bit blurry!. But on the one showing the head tube it looks like the lower one has been cracked for a while... not shiny clean break all the way around... maybe that is just the photos though?.
It is the rough crystalline failure surface that shows where the material let go last.
@silk: glad you avoided further injury, that is seriously scary. To be honest, I'm not sure I'd go stainless on a bike. The memory is foggy, but I seem to recall it has less than ideal properties for use as a structural material. I see from the BikePro website that they no longer seem to be using Reyonolds 953, but after two failures in a row and one of them catastrophic and undetectable until failure, my confidence in their engineering would be (pun intended) seriously dented.
Further, I'd definitely be raising it with Fair Trading and ACCC. Based on the admittedly limited info the photos provide, it seems like there might be a systemic quality issue. Personally, I wouldn't want it on my conscience if someone else got hurt and I'd not escalated it.
-
- Posts: 2083
- Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 10:07 am
- Location: Adelaide
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby silkishuge » Sat Apr 28, 2012 4:49 pm
These are the photos I sent to the LBS and I am still not naming names but the LBS owner has been very honest and offered a full refund. He also offered me two options of replacement frames. One from a reputable Ti frame and another similar bike but constructed differently but the latter option would require additional funds. After the last incident, I am afraid I will step away from complicated materials and go back to simple steel. Heavier but still comfortable.
The LBS owner had indicated to me that he had refunded half of the agreed amount and will transfer the other half when the frame arrives at his LBS which I think is reasonable.
The guys here ere shocked to see a frame fail this way and even more surprised that I am back on my bike again with only a few sore muscles and bones.
Thanks for the information and advise guys. Greatly appreciated. If you have the opportunity, you should definately take a trip to this area. Alot of nice riding around. You can even try to local Roubaix.
Jon
- MichaelB
- Posts: 14775
- Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 9:29 am
- Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Re: Problems with Steel Frame
Postby MichaelB » Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:24 pm
Time for a lottery ticket .....
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: familyguy
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.