# R-Sys explosion



## kretzel (Aug 1, 2007)

Didn't see this linked yet...

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

Gimics suck.


----------



## ssauter (Aug 1, 2007)

Wow, I had thought for sure mavic would have fixed any chance of that occuring again. I hope that is a isolated incident. 

Steve


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

The (hidden) cost of bling


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Not good. Not good at all.


----------



## wuggabugga (Oct 3, 2005)

Interesting,

This looks like Mavic is going to be out a bunch of money for a second recall! I wonder if Mavic will do another recall and come out with R-Sys V3 with metal spokes!


----------



## botto (Jul 22, 2005)

Marc said:


> The (hidden) cost of bling


50mm rims are bling. R-Sys, not so much.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

goodbye carbon spokes. this will be the end of r-sys. cool looking wheel but looks super dangerous.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

I never understood what these wheels were all about.

Not light.

Not aero.

What does that leave? 

Shiny?


----------



## BunnV (Sep 7, 2005)

My friend had his pre-recall R-Sys wheels replaced with the new versions. He's never had a problem with either set, but I'm going to recommend that he replace them anyway. That is too scary!


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

I like this one: "Crash pictures circulating on the Internet show first-generation wheels with numerous shattered spokes, but Mavic contends these wheels were all subjected to forces that would cause any wheel to fail."

Maybe... but no other wheel breaks every spoke if just one of them goes...


----------



## hawker12 (Oct 19, 2003)

Can you imagine descending and this happens? Whew!


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

MerlinAma said:


> I never understood what these wheels were all about.
> 
> Not light.
> 
> ...



They cost lots of money. They HAVE to be better than those silly OpenPro/Ultegra 32/3X wheels you bought 10 years ago that are still true.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

MerlinAma said:


> I never understood what these wheels were all about.
> Not light.
> Not aero.
> What does that leave?
> Shiny?


Yeah that plus expensive & stupid.


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

I'm sure the Mavic reps are crapping themselves. Nothing better than when your product fails, and a member of the press is on the receiving end! Too bad. I hope that guy recovers quickly.


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

I was there and watched it happen. It was SCARY. Ben was going to win that race, too. He was the strongest guy in there and had only 1/3 lap to go.


----------



## rdolson (Sep 2, 2003)

Pushing the performance envelope is one thing.

Pushing the safety envelope is something else all together.

Using the public as guinnea pigs for product developement is down right criminal.

Pro racers take on risk as part of their jobs. Product developement under the stress of competition is the root of "Racing improves the breed".

The public places their trust in a manufacturer to put product on the market that should withstand normal wear and tear.

To have product catostrophically fail for no appearant reason, and have the manufacturer scratching it's head, should be immediate grounds for the removal of the product from the mainstream.

One of the unique qualities of our sport, is the ability for anyone with, oh say $10,000 or so, to go down to the local shop and take posession of the current state-of-the-art grand prix level racing equipment. No other sport allows the public such ready access to the same equipment that the top level pro's use. Ever try and buy a Ferrari F60? I don't think they would even sell one to their past golden boy Michael Schumacher! Yet if you want the same bicycle that just won the Giro... no problem.

But...

I think that Mavic should do the right thing (before the Government forces them to) and get these products out of the hands of consumers before somebody gets killed.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2009)

Sherpa23 said:


> I was there and watched it happen. It was SCARY. Ben was going to win that race, too. He was the strongest guy in there and had only 1/3 lap to go.


What a crappy day to have as a rider, glad he wasn't more seriously hurt. Mavic has to be thinking "of all the guys to have this happen too..." It would not have been good no matter who it was but the editor in chief of Velonews?

Not only is the catastrophic wheel failure disconcerting but those pictures of the broken spokes again make me think racers are lucky no one has been impaled by a broken spoke. That type of implosion is a long way from the ping and tic tic tic of a conventional spoke failure.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

wow, look at all the technology there is there. The fibers!


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

rdolson said:


> Using the public as guinnea pigs for product developement is down right criminal.


The funny thing is that the UCI is supposedly testing wheels to make sure they are "safe"... but it is hard to imagine a wheel be less safe than these. Mavic added the fibers to the insides of the spokes so that pieces wouldn't go flying everywhere... but that is hardly a comfort to the guy doing a quick faceplant on the pavement.

In a way I feel sorry for the guy who designed these wheels... it truly was a bold concept to use compression spokes, even though I think it was a non-starter because of the crappy aero. But Mavic... what were they thinking? Didn't they do any testing to see what would happen? Not only are the spokes brittle and fail easily if there is any side impact, the wheel apparently self-destructs very quickly once one spoke is lost!


----------



## Bertrand (Feb 1, 2005)

Look at all that fluffy stuff sticking out the spokes! Would I be confident coming down Hurricane Ridge on those things? I. don't. think. so.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2009)

CleavesF said:


> wow, look at all the technology there is there. The fibers!


I think that's Barbie Doll hair.


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Look at what happens when you try to re invent the wheel.


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

*Mavic R-SYS failure..........NOTE*

On the Serotta forum, the editor of Velonews was racing and using the new after recall Mavic carbon spoked R Sys wheels, he did not hit anything but the wheel spokes exploded and caused a depression of the wheel and he did a header as the wheel stopped in the fork and he broke a collarbone etc. The spokes completely failed (all) and Mavic sent 5 guys from france to Boulder Co to investigate. He had slowed , lucky for him he was not in a descent. If you have the recalled ones on your bike ..............I would remove them.....The Serotta forum is free and is at www.serotta.com ................check it out...............c


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

ciclisto said:


> On the Serotta forum, the editor of Velonews was racing and using the new after recall Mavic carbon spoked R Sys wheels, he did not hit anything but the wheel spokes exploded and caused a depression of the wheel and he did a header as the wheel stopped in the fork and he broke a collarbone etc. The spokes completely failed (all) and Mavic sent 5 guys from france to Boulder Co to investigate. He had slowed , lucky for him he was not in a descent. If you have the recalled ones on your bike ..............I would remove them.....The Serotta forum is free and is at www.serotta.com ................check it out...............c


It was a broken shoulder from what has been posted on VeloNews, and discussed here earlier:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=175481


----------



## ciclisto (Nov 8, 2005)

sorry did a quick look and did not see it.................two notices are ok anyway. collarbone is part of shoulder; the front part (clavicle) scapula, the rear.Anatomy!!! 
by the way it was in the wheel and tire section , not something I check every week, better in this section so the users might see it.


----------



## tjjm36m3 (Mar 4, 2008)

rruff said:


> I like this one: "Crash pictures circulating on the Internet show first-generation wheels with numerous shattered spokes, but Mavic contends these wheels were all subjected to forces that would cause any wheel to fail."


Maybe a problem with mass production quality, the vendor producing less than standard carbon fiber spokes? The spokes tested by Mavic during the design phase may have been made to spec, but mass producing then later, especially carbon fiber parts, is always a challenge.


----------



## rdolson (Sep 2, 2003)

tjjm36m3 said:


> Maybe a problem with mass production quality, the vendor producing less than standard carbon fiber spokes? The spokes tested by Mavic during the design phase may have been made to spec, but mass producing then later, especially carbon fiber parts, is always a challenge.


Where's Ralph when you need him?


----------



## justsomeotherdude (Jun 1, 2004)

Marc said:


> They cost lots of money. They HAVE to be better than those silly OpenPro/Ultegra 32/3X wheels you bought 10 years ago that are still true.


open pro's with ultegra/dura-ace is what I still build to this day when someone wants a quality wheel that will last and is still pretty light. The strength to weight and the life expectancy to price ratio is just right for me and it shows when people come in with 30,000 plus miles on their old open pros and want me to rebuild their old hubs with new open pro's. Of course, some people just decide to buy a whole new setup like some Torelli Bormio Ultra Lights or something. lol :thumbsup:


----------



## Le Wrench (May 12, 2009)

Carbon Spokes = Explosions.

The exposed yellow fibre material looks like doll hair.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

rruff said:


> The funny thing is that the UCI is supposedly testing wheels to make sure they are "safe"... but it is hard to imagine a wheel be less safe than these. Mavic added the fibers to the insides of the spokes so that pieces wouldn't go flying everywhere... but that is hardly a comfort to the guy doing a quick faceplant on the pavement.


Maybe they'll recall them again and this time come back with carbon spokes with thin stainless rods down their centers  



> In a way I feel sorry for the guy who designed these wheels... it truly was a bold concept to use compression spokes, even though I think it was a non-starter because of the crappy aero. But Mavic... what were they thinking? Didn't they do any testing to see what would happen? Not only are the spokes brittle and fail easily if there is any side impact, the wheel apparently self-destructs very quickly once one spoke is lost!


It seems hard to imagine that they wouldn't do a destruction test where they load the wheel heavily on a rotating drum, spin it up to speed and then fail one or two of the spokes (like what might happen in real life!) and see what happens. Surely they had to have done this and more.

I think they should just bow out as gracefully possible before someone gets killed.


----------



## Wookiebiker (Sep 5, 2005)

lookrider said:


> Look at what happens when you try to re invent the wheel.


It's not so bad re-inventing the wheel....however, re-inventing the "Wagon" wheel is another thing


----------



## jpick915 (May 7, 2006)

I am interested to see Mavic's response to this issue. I wonder if one is forthcoming.


----------



## Wines of WA (Jan 10, 2005)

R-Sys wheels use tubular carbon spokes which do indeed seem intuitiuvely a bad idea. 

But what about the Ultimates and Cosmic Carbone SLRs which use solid flat carbon spokes? Has anyone heard of catastrophic failures on either of these wheels?


----------



## Leopold Porkstacker (Jul 15, 2005)

I really don’t think it’s justified to go with such a lightweight front wheel anyway, when in actuality it is the rotating mass of the rear wheel that saps power from the drivetrain.

Maybe the next production run will see the spokes made from a fiber spun from gunpowder and flint, so that when they fail, they put on a big show.


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

This is the link to the full article at Velonews

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


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

Wow. That wheel truly did self destruct.


Pic from the Velo News article.
.


----------



## johnhellas (May 7, 2006)

I have the Horribly Hilly Hundred ride coming up next week in Wisconsin. Really fast descents. Do you think its safe to only use the rear R-sys wheel? (of course I definitely won't use the front). As far as I know, there was no recall on the rear wheel which is alternating carbon-aluminum spokes.


----------



## il sogno (Jul 15, 2002)

The Mavic website talks about how these much stiffer these carbon spokes are as compared to aluminum and steel spokes. 

Seems to me you need a little bit of flex in the spokes to absorb some of the stress on the wheels. In this case, it was in the middle of a 23 mph turn. 

It's too bad the Velo News writer broke his clavicle in this crash.


----------



## johnhellas (May 7, 2006)

*R-sys explosion*

I have the Horribly Hilly Hundred ride coming up next week in Wisconsin. Really fast descents. Do you think its safe to only use the rear R-sys wheel? (of course I definitely won't use the front). As far as I know, there was no recall on the rear wheel which is alternating carbon-aluminum spokes.


----------



## Le Wrench (May 12, 2009)

il sogno said:


> Wow. That wheel truly did self destruct.


Carbon spokes for wheels is like an airship filled with hydrogen.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

Leopold Porkstacker said:


> I really don’t think it’s justified to go with such a lightweight front wheel anyway, when in actuality it is the rotating mass of the rear wheel that saps power from the drivetrain.


Physics fail.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

tjjm36m3 said:


> Maybe a problem with mass production quality, the vendor producing less than standard carbon fiber spokes? The spokes tested by Mavic during the design phase may have been made to spec, but mass producing then later, especially carbon fiber parts, is always a challenge.


Could be I guess... Chinese vendor cutting corners.

But... surely a company the size of Mavic does QC in person for every major vendor?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> I think they should just bow out as gracefully possible before someone gets killed.


I wonder if anyone *has* been killed? 

As for "bowing out" I guess they could just give R-Sys owners credit on one of their other wheels at equal or greater value. I've heard that their incremental production costs are super low (like $100 on a $1000 wheelset), so they could probably afford to do this without going bankrupt. 

Oh... they have a new super light carbon tubular out now with the same spokes.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=/tech/2009/news/05-08


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Wines of WA said:


> But what about the Ultimates and Cosmic Carbone SLRs which use solid flat carbon spokes? Has anyone heard of catastrophic failures on either of these wheels?


AFAIK, those wheels operate only in tension rather than compression... and the bladed spokes are much more flexible.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

Wines of WA said:


> R-Sys wheels use tubular carbon spokes which do indeed seem intuitiuvely a bad idea.
> 
> But what about the Ultimates and Cosmic Carbone SLRs which use solid flat carbon spokes? Has anyone heard of catastrophic failures on either of these wheels?


The Ultimates and new SLRs don't have spokes in compression, they are all in tension - big difference.


----------



## BunnV (Sep 7, 2005)

Wines of WA said:


> R-Sys wheels use tubular carbon spokes which do indeed seem intuitiuvely a bad idea.
> 
> But what about the Ultimates and Cosmic Carbone SLRs which use solid flat carbon spokes? Has anyone heard of catastrophic failures on either of these wheels?


I was thinking the same thing! Lightweight and Topolino also use some form of flat carbon or carbon-like spokes. 

Here is a test Mavic should have tried on the R-Sys....


----------



## bigreen505 (Jun 10, 2007)

Le Wrench said:


> Carbon spokes for wheels is like an airship filled with hydrogen.


A good idea on paper?


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Someone has to say it. Steel is real.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

I find it a bit more interesting that the Editor in Chief of VeloNews, who you'd think would know better, was racing on R-Sys wheels. 

In my mind this dings the credibility of that publication quite a bit. 

I mean, seriously, the dude could probably get any kind of schwag wheels he wants... and he gets these?


----------



## muscleendurance (Jan 11, 2009)

il sogno said:


> Wow. That wheel truly did self destruct.
> 
> 
> Pic from the Velo News article.
> .


no wonder!, they were filled with some blondes hair castoffs


----------



## Le Wrench (May 12, 2009)

bigreen505 said:


> A good idea on paper?


Ze Germans thought so.


----------



## Le Wrench (May 12, 2009)

muscleendurance said:


> no wonder!, they were filled with some blondes hair castoffs


recycled Barbie doll hair it looks like.


----------



## Le Wrench (May 12, 2009)

Creakyknees said:


> I find it a bit more interesting that the Editor in Chief of VeloNews, who you'd think would know better, was racing on R-Sys wheels.
> 
> In my mind this dings the credibility of that publication quite a bit.
> 
> I mean, seriously, the dude could probably get any kind of schwag wheels he wants... and he gets these?


Maybe he had faith in the redesigned version post recall.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Which physics?*



Leopold Porkstacker said:


> I really don’t think it’s justified to go with such a lightweight front wheel anyway, when in actuality it is the rotating mass of the rear wheel that saps power from the drivetrain.


Say what? Not using the physics that works in this universe. Perhaps you live in a parallel universe? It apparently will come as a complete shock to you that the bicycle and rider are a completely interconnected system, and that therefore mass (rotating or not) anywhere in that system will have an identical effect to mass (rotating or not) anywhere else in that system. Physics 101, baby.


----------



## DS1239622 (Mar 21, 2007)

I can't believe people still buy these things. I for one wouldn't buy a $1400 wheelset without researching it first and two seconds on google would be enough to throw up about 40 red flags screaming 'don't buy me Im dangerous'.


----------



## MontyCrisco (Sep 21, 2008)

Further evidence that if you put carbon on something and triple the price, we roadies will flock to it like moths to a flame.


----------



## Ronman (Feb 12, 2007)

johnhellas,
Only you can make that call. I suppose having a catastrophic rear wheel failure is a lesser of two evils, but having either wheel fail in this manner is a major red flag. 
Maybe the metal spokes in the rear wheel are carrying the majority of the loading, which might explain the difference between the front and rear wheel failures. 
I just don't know that I would take the chance but, again, it's your call.


----------



## Wines of WA (Jan 10, 2005)

DS1239622 said:


> I can't believe people still buy these things. I for one wouldn't buy a $1400 wheelset without researching it first and two seconds on google would be enough to throw up about 40 red flags screaming 'don't buy me Im dangerous'.


And doubly amazing are people paying for these wheels USED on Ebay. Incredible.


----------



## mendo (Apr 18, 2007)

Surely this wheel line's dead for a long while. Can you imagine a third iteration failing in large numbers and what that would mean for the image of the company, which produces some of the most venerable rims and wheels on the planet, e.g. Open Pro clinchers, the Krysium line and so on.

I don't think the new spokes were a gimmick. The physics was kind of over my head, but they seemed to be breaking new ground, shifting the function of the spoke with the whole tension plus compression thing. 

Maybe they could liscence some of the R&D to Lew or some other company.


----------



## lucer0 (Apr 13, 2007)

To be fair, this was the first complete failure of the recall version of the wheels, or so Mavic says. One could forgive said editor for believing that the company fixed the original issue. On the other hand, the whole design does lend itself to spectacular self-destruction.


----------



## siphinitau (May 21, 2009)

so, i would like to buy the record by motobecane off of BD ~ but the size i want is sold out (56 cm) 
it's a dumb question probaly, but is it ok if i purchase the 54 cm, and just raise the seat a lil bit? 
i'm 5'10'' and 150 lb. 
just wanna know if this is bad for the bike or somethin ....
any response is appreciated  
thanks!


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

I like that the kevlar fibers were said to be added as a last ditch safety feature, to hold everything in one piece in the event of a spoke failure.

fail


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

I just bought me a second set of Ksyrium ES, almost new for cheap from a guy who just upgraded to R-Sys.

I guess he is regreting the sale right now.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Salsa_Lover said:


> upgraded to R-Sys


This will go down in history, compared to ANY other wheelset out there, as a total oxymoron. Maybe it'll show up on Wikipedia as a prime example.


----------



## bigreen505 (Jun 10, 2007)

mendo said:


> I don't think the new spokes were a gimmick. ... they seemed to be breaking new ground, shifting the function of the spoke with the whole tension plus compression thing.


If we can take a short break from ripping on Mavic and the people who buy its wheels, I think that, as Mendo pointed out, there is an argument that the R-SYS is a natural evolution from Spinergy (PBO fibers used as spokes in tension like traditional spokes) to Topolino (single band of aramid fiber going from rim through hub to rim, but still in tension) to a full carbon rod used both in tension and compression.

I'll go out on a limb and say that wheels like the Ksyriums and the Heliums before it revitalized the high-end boutique wheel building market that exists today for builders like rruff and Ligero by stimulating demand and encouraging companies to build stronger, lighter components (Kinlin, Tune, Saipim, etc.). I'm not suggesting we all used to ride around on boat anchors before we were saved by the Mavic marketing department (remember the GL280/GEL330 combo?), but before the Helium, most of us were riding a 36-spoke wheel, maybe even with double butted spokes. After the Helium came out, we started riding a 32-spoke Open Pros (or Reflex, still not sure of the difference) and some of you crazy kids even went to a 28-hole front rim.

All I'm saying is that every now and again, someone needs to re-invent the wheel, even if it takes a marketing department to do it. Even the avowed Kysrium haters on the board (I own a set and am not too keen on them) are better off because of them and what they did for the road bike industry.

Ben got some unnecessary slagging here for using the wheels, but that is what magazine editors do - use the products that everyone is wondering about and see what succeeds and what fails and from experience in another industry, sometimes new products that push the envelope fail explosively. We trust Velonews to tell us the truth. You know you would not see that article in Bicycling, even if it happened to them.


----------



## Wines of WA (Jan 10, 2005)

Edsel...Corvair...Apple Newton...New Coke...R-Sys


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

I think all of us know that highly-engineered, lightweight cycling components can and do fail. But this story is exceptional in that involves a product that has already seen enough failures to be recalled by the factory, and has shown that it still can fail, suddenly and catastrophically, and cause serious injury to a rider. 

There is a lot of "buyer beware" in our passion for bikes. I enjoy keeping up with the latest technology, but at 185 pounds I stay away from the most flyweight stuff myself.

That being said, I have my doubts whether the in-house testing Mavic is conducting is comprehensive enough to ensure the safety of consumers buying these wheels. I admit to a snicker here and there when somebody's uber-expensive, hyper-light frame or component breaks after a too-short period of use. But I don't want any company releasing an unsafe product on the public. This is only one case with the R-SYS, but my eyes are definitely open to look out for more.


----------



## johnhellas (May 7, 2006)

Thanks, Ronman. I guess I will use another set of wheels to play it safe. I am furious about this situation. As a lawyer who handles products liability class action cases, I have been contacted already by another R-Sys owner to file suit to get a full refund for all R-Sys purchasers/users. So let me be clear, AND I HOPE MAVIC READS THIS, if Mavic does not own up to its responsibility asap (I have not seen anything about this on Mavic's website) then they will be made to do so in a court of law.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

johnhellas said:


> Thanks, Ronman. I guess I will use another set of wheels to play it safe. I am furious about this situation. As a lawyer who handles products liability class action cases, I have been contacted already by another R-Sys owner to file suit to get a full refund for all R-Sys purchasers/users. So let me be clear, AND I HOPE MAVIC READS THIS, if Mavic does not own up to its responsibility asap (I have not seen anything about this on Mavic's website) then they will be made to do so in a court of law.


Good luck with that.


----------



## johnhellas (May 7, 2006)

Thanks. Just got a call from my LBS guy who just spoke with the local Mavic rep. Mavic (according to what the rep told the LBS) will be shortly making a press release stating that the wheels are safe and that the failure of this wheel was not due to any defect in the wheel. That's all he told me. I can't wait to see what their press release says, and I ask that whoever learns of it first to post it here.


----------



## Spunout (Aug 12, 2002)

johnhellas said:


> Thanks, Ronman. I guess I will use another set of wheels to play it safe. I am furious about this situation. As a lawyer...snip..


Just return them and advise others to do the same.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

i would love it if mavic gets sued over these... 'wheels'.... 

john, what exactly was your (or the other person who contacted you) 'loss' as basis of claim? btw, i'm pretty sure the previous 'good luck with that' comment was disingenuous.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I have a feeling Velonews got stonewalled by Mavic on this. It's uncharacteristic of Velonews to criticize a manufacturer (a buyer of ad space). Mavic must have blamed 'operator error' on this, leading to the decision to print a high-profile piece against the wheel. Looks like Mavic is going to dig their heels in on this one.


----------



## rocco (Apr 30, 2005)

stevesbike said:


> I have a feeling Velonews got stonewalled by Mavic on this. It's uncharacteristic of Velonews to criticize a manufacturer (a buyer of ad space). Mavic must have blamed 'operator error' on this, leading to the decision to print a high-profile piece against the wheel. Looks like Mavic is going to dig their heels in on this one.



Word travels fast... they can dig their heals in all they want but it won't do them one bit of good.


----------



## crispy010 (Jan 26, 2009)

Long slender members in compression is NEVER a good idea. Mavic should have known better - they've been building wheels long enough that this kind of elementary mistake is unacceptable. 

R-sys is a sign that Mavic's marketing department has taken over. Idiots.



> But what about the Ultimates and Cosmic Carbone SLRs which use solid flat carbon spokes? Has anyone heard of catastrophic failures on either of these wheels?


The spokes on these wheels operate in tension 100% of the time, just like every other wheel built. The problem is not the material of the spoke, it's how the spokes were used in the R-sys design. Carbon spokes, if properly designed, are no more problematic than normal spokes. Just look at the topolino wheels, for example.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

rocco said:


> Word travels fast... they can dig their heals in all they want but it won't do them one bit of good.


They can spin this one any way they want. There isn't a steel spoke wheel I can think of that would have exploded like that wheel. Get a pedal in your spokes (bin there, dun that) and the wheel isn't a total failure. User error my @rse.


----------



## fmarrs3 (Jul 10, 2007)

Yes! Carbon in compression is always bad. Before combining w/ epoxy (or other matrix), carbon fibers look like the thin fibers hanging out of the spokes (Barbie doll hair). If you pull on them, they are super strong, but they can carry no compressive load. Now imagine suspending these fibers in glue, and trying to stand on them lengthwise. Can you say fiber buckling? This should be even weaker than the epoxy alone. No one with any degree in engineering would place unidirectional carbon fibers under compression, even with a couple layers of 20 degree fibers. I second the 'idiots' comment.


----------



## Hoffman (Jul 29, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Look at what happens when you try to re invent the wheel.


!!!!

Best comment ever?


----------



## gibbons (Nov 9, 2002)

Are those spokes really in tension and compression in the same wheel? Being a skeptical mechanical engineer, I don't think so. In the spectrum between tension and compression there is zero load. At zero load, the wheel would be floppy, just like when building a wheel before you really start to snug the nipples down. I could be wrong, but in any case, the barbie hair doesn't do anything for compression as they are not rigid. If you want to feel queazy about the design, based on slenderness ratio, check out this synopsis of the Euler buckling theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Ouch! I guess I'm not buying those wheels.

The problem is carbon spokes. Carbon is good material, but not good for use in spokes.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

rdolson said:


> One of the unique qualities of our sport, is the ability for anyone with, oh say $10,000 or so, to go down to the local shop and take posession of the current state-of-the-art grand prix level racing equipment. No other sport allows the public such ready access to the same equipment that the top level pro's use. Ever try and buy a Ferrari F60? I don't think they would even sell one to their past golden boy Michael Schumacher! Yet if you want the same bicycle that just won the Giro... no problem.


I'll play Devil's advocate here and say you're wrong.
It's not unique with cycling since in golf you can play with the same clubs that pros play with. In basketball you could wear the same shoes pros wear, etc. 
Back to topic. Before we start going down the "R-SYS is [email protected]" road I would like to know why they failed. I hope that independent engineers investigate this particular problem and come out with a public report.


----------



## crispy010 (Jan 26, 2009)

gibbons said:


> Are those spokes really in tension and compression in the same wheel? Being a skeptical mechanical engineer, I don't think so. In the spectrum between tension and compression there is zero load. At zero load, the wheel would be floppy, just like when building a wheel before you really start to snug the nipples down. I could be wrong, but in any case, the barbie hair doesn't do anything for compression as they are not rigid.


Everything I've read (Mavic statements, independent reviews, etc) indicate that this is indeed the case: the spokes have minimal to no pre-loaded tension. At some point in the wheel's rotation they operate purely in compression. 

My understanding is the barbie hair was added to the spokes to keep the pieces from turning into bullets when the wheel explodes - it contains them and reduces the chance of injury to other riders.

I am a 4th year ME student and it blew my mind, too. Building a wheel like that is inexcusably stupid.


----------



## gibbons (Nov 9, 2002)

crispy010 said:


> Everything I've read (Mavic statements, independent reviews, etc) indicate that this is indeed the case: the spokes have minimal to no pre-loaded tension. At some point in the wheel's rotation they operate purely in compression.
> 
> My understanding is the barbie hair was added to the spokes to keep the pieces from turning into bullets when the wheel explodes - it contains them and reduces the chance of injury to other riders.
> 
> I am a 4th year ME student and it blew my mind, too. Building a wheel like that is inexcusably stupid.


I had some of the first generation RSys, and the spokes had plenty of tension. There would be a heck of a lot of strain for them to go from tension to compression. If that's the case, while one side was going to compression, the tension in the opposite would have to double. I just don't believe they compress. There is plenty of tension in the spokes, I had a set of RSys.

It wouldn't be the first time I have seen marketing hype try to defy engineering principles. I remember when Dynastar skis advertised that the "elas-steel" in their racing skis got stiffer as it flexed. Huh, it had a variable E (Young's Modulus)? I was an engineering student at the time, working at a ski shop, and got into an argument with the Dynastar rep about it.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Mavic's response (so a flat tire can cause the top tube to crack, leading to the wheel exploding??)..

http://www.velonews.com/article/93240/mavic-responds-to-wheel-collapse-article


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

MerlinAma said:


> I never understood what these wheels were all about.
> 
> Not light.
> 
> ...


Maybe you could point us to any factory production wheel that is lighter? I've weighed more than a few of them and have yet to find one.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Maybe you could point us to any factory production wheel that is lighter? I've weighed more than a few of them and have yet to find one.


I'd take the Reynolds MV32c UL any day over these - lighter, more aero, and less susceptible to spontaneous implosion...


----------



## thinkcooper (Jan 5, 2005)

Mavic's response: http://www.velonews.com/article/93240



> MAVIC’S RESPONSE TO VELONEWS ARTICLE PUBLISHED JUNE 9, 2009
> 
> This letter is to address Ben’s Delaney’s article 'A Shattering Experience' posted on Velonews.com on June 9, 2009. We thank VeloNews for their continued help in investigating this accident and giving us the opportunity to respond.
> 
> ...


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

rook said:


> Ouch! I guess I'm not buying those wheels.
> 
> The problem is carbon spokes. Carbon is good material, but not good for use in spokes.


I wouldn't say that. The problem is that their quality testing was either wrong altogether, or did not adequately test conditions wheels experience. 

In Mavic's own words, these carbon spokes work in tension and compression. These spokes, failed because of compression. I'm fairly certain of this assumption as compressive forces have to be overcome before you can even begin to engineer for tensile forces. 

Is carbon fiber a good compressive material? I don't know, I'm sure it could be made to be. CFRP formulas greatly differ and do make a difference.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

^^^ what if they're right? Anyone ever wonder?

I understand they're trying to make money, but nobody really knows what happens. I mean if sitting on a top tube can crack it, then... I defer to my saying:

"Carbon = Explode"


----------



## JayZee (Sep 3, 2008)

Even if Mavic is right (which I don't think they are), I am a little surprised they don't tell current users to stop using front wheel until they figure it out. Personally if I had a new R-Sys I would immediately stop using the front wheel. Frankly, unless Mavic can conclusively prove it wasn't a design defect, I would probably never trust that front wheel again. The risk is way to high, particularly bombing down a canyon.

Furthermore, even if Mavic is right and it was caused by something else, it doesn't change the fact that the wheel disintigrated in an extremely dangerous manner. I mean if I get a flat or tear off a valve stem, or crack a frame, I would never expect my front wheel to collapse. The bottom line is that it seems to be a really unsafe design even if the design itself is solid. The UCI would be crazy to allow the use of this wheel is mass start events if that is what happens to the wheel when a tire comes off the rim or some other problem. 

Sorry Mavic, but I think you are screwed on this one.


----------



## crazyc (Jun 5, 2008)

Still a poor excuse IMO. I hope when one system fails on a bike it does not
lead to total system failure. Prior to or during an accident I would hope that
other components will withstand the shock without adding insult to injury.
One of Mavic's original comments was this might have happened due to 
a loss of control. If a rider is losing control that is when he/she is
counting on everthing to hopefully remain intact to attempt a recovery. 
I know in this world of trade-off between strength and weight we are
sometimes going to lose but this hopefully isolated incident is shameful.


----------



## wuggabugga (Oct 3, 2005)

Well,

I guess the R-Sys is the best wheelset for a beach cruiser and never goes over 10 MPH, make sure your frame is made a case hardened steel and always glue your clincher tires and tubes in the manner of a sew-up! Ride them slow and never run them in a crit!

I'm personally glad I've never owned a Mavic wheel; I was recently considering a new set of Carbone SLR's; not now or ever. Mavic certainly has a less than stellar corporate credo or code of ethics. Instead of simply replying to the customer that Mavic is testing the wheel to determinne the fault, the letter goes on and on to point out every option that alleviates Mavic from possible responsibility and closes with a reference that independent testing will continue. I sincerely hope that no cyclist who rides these wheels is seriously injured or dies.

Mavic, show some corporate responsibility and genuine concern for your customers.


----------



## fmarrs3 (Jul 10, 2007)

How could you tell they were tensioned? Those tubular carbon spokes should be rigid enough that global buckling is not a big issue, at least for someone holding the wheel and applying side loads by hand. My point is that I don't think you can tell from a visual inspection whether they're under tension or not. Imagine a wheel with steel spokes the size of the TraComp ones. Do you think you could tell if they were tensioned, and how much? And the carbon spokes are even stiffer than steel, so it should be even more difficult to tell. Also, I just watched the video on their website and they really plug the tension/compression thing. Finally, there are no threaded nipples, right? Can you imagine trying to build a wheel where all the spokes were under tensions w/o gradually increasing tension? You'd have to place all the spokes at once. I really think they are under tension and compression. And before, I was talking about local fiber buckling (as carbon fibers in the epoxy) rather than buckling of the entire spoke.

In Mavic's defense, this is the first reported failure of the 2nd-gen wheel that I've seen, and it really could have been caused by something else, like a puncture (although Ben Delaney would probably know a puncture from a wheel failure). It's their prerogative to investigate the incident before claiming it as their own failure. Something as simple as a small rock skipping into the spokes at speed might cause enough damage to fail the wheel the next time it was under significant loading. That's the thing about carbon fiber: it's very susceptible to impact damage, and it's difficult to tell when any has been incurred. A situation like this might not technically be "Mavic's fault" in a warranty sense, but they are the ones that built these unsafe (in concept, in my opinion) wheels. I still would never ride on a wheel that claims to have carbon spokes in tension and compression.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Mavic's explanation has all the hallmarks of a general counsel's involvement, not a bunch of engineer's trying to really understand the crash. Their alternative view makes little sense:

the velonews view of events: 1. wheel fails, 2. tire impacts fork, 3. impact causes top tube to crack and sudden deceleration sends rider over the bars. 4. impact of tire on fork underside causes tire to deflate and valve to shear. Ovalization of wheel due to impact with fork. Everything Mavic states in their response consistent with wheel failure the primary event. 

Mavic's view. 1. either top tube fails or tire flats. If top tube failure, what leads to wheel failure? Wouldn't the most likely next event be either a crash with front wheel intact, or failure of downtube? neither happened. If tire flats, how does this lead to catastrophic failure. This is not going to cause a sudden deceleration in itself - it would be loss of control and crash - not an endo unless rider locks up front brake, but still doesn't lead to wheel failure. Pretty hard to reconstruct a feasible scenario from their response.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> I'd take the Reynolds MV32c UL any day over these - lighter, more aero, and less susceptible to spontaneous implosion...


Steve, actully, the MV 32 carbon clinchers are 120 grams heavier. I don't dispute that they are more aero and time will tell if the revised r-sys wheels have a signifcant failure rate. The 32's may well be a better and more durable set. Time will tell.

My real issue is that I continue to see people post BS about wheel weights and have come to believe that you can believe nothing you read on this forum. It's important that we all tell it like it is and not how we'd like to believe it is.


----------



## Sablotny (Aug 15, 2002)

And Mavic's response.

http://www.velonews.com/article/93240/mavic-responds-to-wheel-collapse-article


----------



## masterbiker (Dec 13, 2007)

I have the same set of wheels, I hope this dosnt happen to me. They are great wheels.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

I have nothing against Mavic, but seriously they've lost a step or two in terms of their carbon wheels. The 32c ul's are 1320 grams (I've weighed them), 30+ grams less than the R-SYS. The 46t uls weigh less than cosmic carbones, are a lot stronger in my opinion and just plain superior in terms of carbon technology (all without gimicky spoke technology)


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

SwiftSolo said:


> Steve, actully, the MV 32 carbon clinchers are 120 grams heavier. I don't dispute that they are more aero and time will tell if the revised r-sys wheels have a signifcant failure rate. The 32's may well be a better and more durable set. Time will tell.
> 
> My real issue is that I continue to see people post BS about wheel weights and have come to believe that you can believe nothing you read on this forum. It's important that we all tell it like it is and not how we'd like to believe it is.



I have:
AC420 rims
Tune 45 front and lightened Mag 190 rear (172g)
18 CX-Ray spokes front
16 cx-Rays and 8 Sapim Race spokes rear triplet
alloy nips

My set weighs around 1364g which is about the actual weight or R-Sys. It wouldn't be hard to build a set of wheels lighter. I and others have. My set will destroy the R-Sys in an aero test and with that spoke choice/pattern is plenty stiff for serious sprinting.

-Eric


----------



## gibbons (Nov 9, 2002)

fmarrs3 said:


> How could you tell they were tensioned? Those tubular carbon spokes should be rigid enough that global buckling is not a big issue, at least for someone holding the wheel and applying side loads by hand. My point is that I don't think you can tell from a visual inspection whether they're under tension or not. Imagine a wheel with steel spokes the size of the TraComp ones. Do you think you could tell if they were tensioned, and how much? And the carbon spokes are even stiffer than steel, so it should be even more difficult to tell. Also, I just watched the video on their website and they really plug the tension/compression thing. Finally, there are no threaded nipples, right? Can you imagine trying to build a wheel where all the spokes were under tensions w/o gradually increasing tension? You'd have to place all the spokes at once. I really think they are under tension and compression. And before, I was talking about local fiber buckling (as carbon fibers in the epoxy) rather than buckling of the entire spoke.
> ...snip.


They are under tension. Yes, they have threaded nipples, but they are bonded to the end of the spoke and screw into the rim. When you true the wheels, you have to remove a retaining ring on the hub end so they can spin, and the whole spoke/nipple combo turns in the threaded hole on the rim. The wheels come with a spoke wrench for truing.

The front wheels are symetrically, radially laced. Wouldn't we all agree that the loading in the spokes, whether tension or compression, has to be the same? Otherwise, the wheel would be a taco. Sooooo... do the spokes change their loading from tension to compression as they rotate? Remember, there is a point called "loose" (no load) between tension and compression. From the engineering video on their site, they themselves say that if spokes get loose, there is a huge loss of wheel stiffness. How true. So, we must conclude that if the spokes go through a tension to compression state, at some point the wheel would loose its characteristic stiffness. The rear wheels have aluminum spokes on one side, they certainly aren't in compression. Their own pretzel logic seems to indicate that their tracomp technology is marketing hype. 

Also, the threading on the nipple and rim definitely isn't a Class 5 fit (so snug there is deformation). If the spokes were undergoing a tension/compression cycle each turn of the wheel, how long to you think this less than perfect fit would keep its adjustment?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

stevesbike said:


> I have nothing against Mavic, but seriously they've lost a step or two in terms of their carbon wheels. The 32c ul's are 1320 grams (I've weighed them), 30+ grams less than the R-SYS. The 46t uls weigh less than cosmic carbones, are a lot stronger in my opinion and just plain superior in terms of carbon technology (all without gimicky spoke technology)


Steve,
My apologies. I was apparently looking at just the 32c's. You are correct.


----------



## the Phantom (Feb 17, 2006)

*Sh!T storm of BAD response to Mavic.*

I spoke to a Mavic Customer Service rep earlier in the week. I got the same clearly pre rehersed response as seen in the VeloNews follow up. As an engineer, the failure of the wheel is clearly the fault of a single spoke and cascaded badly from there. The lame Mavic response regarding the egged wheel was caused by the drop of the fork onto the then rapidly self destructing wheel. The claim of no damage or marks on the fork was a smoke screen and an attempt to deflect the actual blame. 

Face it. Mavic R- Sys wheels really stink and no matter what recall or fix is made the stigma will remain. Mavic needs to take back ALL the wheels and offer either a replacement (Ky- SL or better). Better a complete refund. Spinergy learned the hard way with similar stinky designed wheels, all of thier wheels sucked... 

A law suit or several complaints will wake them up fast. Suggest any and all effected file a consumer fraud complaint on-line with the Massachusetts Attorney Generals office. This is remarkably easy to do! Massachusetts has the toughest consumer protection laws in the states, any response from Mavic will require serious legal representation. 

Someone should test thier response and show up at the Haverhill Mass. corporate offices with that crappy replacement wheel supplied. Gimme a new set of wheels or else...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> Steve,
> My apologies. I was apparently looking at just the 32c's. You are correct.


no problem - it's not so much about the weight as it is the failure mode - I think Mavic's response neglects a crucial step - they can dispute the primary event, but the wheel still catastrophically failed. That failure mode just seems unacceptable. I've front flatted on clinchers descending (scary), broken front spokes at high speeds, etc but my wheel has never totally failed as a result. I don't think wheels that could catastrophically fail in those conditions should be on the market...


----------



## JoWu (Feb 9, 2008)

A possibility: innertube deflates, clincher tire comes off the rim, loose tire and rim can't get through the fork opening, this causes sudden deceleration and the rider flips over the handle bars while rim collapses. Top tube cracking is the result of the crash. I saw that last year with the same brand when a guy touched wheels and crashed.
I would say let Mavic investigate and come to a conclusion. They are not from yesterday and have shown corporate responsibility in the past.
That said, I do not ride Mavic rims but I do use clinchers. And flattening with clinchers on a deep descent (or at a fast speed) has never a good ending.


----------



## gibbons (Nov 9, 2002)

Theory: The spokes explode, and the wheel goes upwards into the fork. Now the wheel is like an giant snap-ring spring, and the fork "bounces" off it, launching the rider over the bars as the bike flips. The hub never has to touch the ground. That absolutely, positively could happen.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

hoyatown said:


> Can you expound on this? I have a degree in forensic science and though I don't know squat on engineering I can say from who has more info Mavic seems to be way ahead. Please explain how the fork and hub would not be damaged in a wheel failure?
> 
> would enjoy hearing this.


pretty straightforward (based on the 'forensics'). Look at the pattern of damage on the fork. (http://www.velonews.com/photo/93062). Imagine suddenly removing all spokes and the bike falls - the first point of contact will be the tire and fork underside (about half an inch of travel). This will cause a sudden deceleration. The rider is thrown and the bike and rider are now separated - what force is left to drive the hub into the rim (this is what Mavic is implying would have damaged the hub)? If you weren't moving, you would drive the hub right into the ground, but the forward motion rules this out.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

hoyatown said:


> Can you expound on this? I have a degree in forensic science and though I don't know squat on engineering I can say from who has more info Mavic seems to be way ahead. Please explain how the fork and hub would not be damaged in a wheel failure?
> 
> would enjoy hearing this.


If the spokes failed, the fork would drop and the top of the tire would hit the crown of the fork long before the fork ends/hub got to the ground. The tire could have come off at several points in the crash shearing the valve stem. The rider would be ejected over the bars and the rest is history.

Even if they are right, a tire popping off the rim shouldn't destroy any wheel.

-Eric


----------



## holy cromoly (Nov 9, 2008)

JayZee said:


> Even if Mavic is right (which I don't think they are), I am a little surprised they don't tell current users to stop using front wheel until they figure it out.


Good point.

I suppose Mavic is not sounding the alarm because that would undermine their own stance on safety of the product and their post recall design?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

hoyatown said:


> This is actually a fairly good and well thought out response. If the spokes had all broken the hub and fork would have shown serious damage. Going into a corner at high speeds and getting a flat will mess your handling - big time. It's at least consistent with what he said he "felt." The key question is has this happened to others and given that it was posted for all to see on velonews I'm inclined to think that if it had we''re going to hear.


This is the point Mavic is trying to make,

The flat, or the top tube breakage could have caused the accident, the rider crashed badly and the crash destroyed the wheel.

They do have a point. 

if an spoke broke leading to selft destruction of the wheel as most people here have assumed, then the fork and hub would have hit the ground at high speed, suffering great dammage. 

Dammage that is not there.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

gibbons said:


> Theory: The spokes explode, and the wheel goes upwards into the fork. Now the wheel is like an giant snap-ring spring, and the fork "bounces" off it, launching the rider over the bars as the bike flips. The hub never has to touch the ground. That absolutely, positively could happen.


And didn't Mavic say something about the rim going oval? Couldn't that have had something to do with the bead of the tire coming off and the valve stem shearing?


----------



## gibbons (Nov 9, 2002)

We will probably never know what happened. BUT.... how many of us here would buy a set of RSys now? I'm guessing the potential market has been sufficiently poisoned to kill them off.


----------



## JayZee (Sep 3, 2008)

In my opinion I think the fork crown dropping on top of the tire would likely stop you immediately and vault you forward, just as it appears to have done in this case. Just look at the side of road bike and imagine what would happen if your front hub fell straight down. The fork crown would hit the upward sloping side of the wheel, stop the tire and vault you forward.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

hoyatown said:


> So I iterate what I said above, if I am riding and out of no where my spokes disappear I do not envision my form and wheel hitting to stop the mass movement of force of me and my bike. It's just too great, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. They will hit, but a complete and utter stop I think not. Add to that a corner and things aren't lined up and I doubly don't see it.
> 
> The only thing I see is the tire going flat, a corner and no good outcome. The frame broke and so too did the wheel, my guess if they were both steel neither would have broken clean off, damage, yea, broken, no.


here's something you can try to test it. Hop on your bike, get up to 23 mph (the speed reported on Velonews) and slam on your front brake. I'll bet you go flying over the handlebars!


----------



## JayZee (Sep 3, 2008)

JoWu said:


> A possibility: innertube deflates, clincher tire comes off the rim, loose tire and rim can't get through the fork opening, this causes sudden deceleration and the rider flips over the handle bars while rim collapses.


That is a possible explanation, but I don't see how the wheel collapses in that scenario and at the speed he was traveling. If that could cause the wheel to collapse then the wheel is weak. I once had a rock lodge between my front tire and fork crown (on my mountain bike) which caused my wheel to suddenly stop and threw me over the bars in an instant. That didn't cause any damage to the wheel, which just acted like a hinge. I also don't see how that would break the frame.

Although there are other possible explanations, it seems the one that fits the majority of the evidence is a spoke breaking and causing the collapse of the wheel.

Of course it could be that the spoke that broke was previously damaged. I know from experience that a fly fishing rod that suffers a nick from a lead weight or cone has a weak point where the rod may break the next time you are fighting a fish.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

hoyatown said:


> So I iterate what I said above, if I am riding and out of no where my spokes disappear I do not envision my form and wheel hitting to stop the mass movement of force of me and my bike. It's just too great, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. They will hit, but a complete and utter stop I think not. Add to that a corner and things aren't lined up and I doubly don't see it.
> 
> The only thing I see is the tire going flat, a corner and no good outcome. The frame broke and so too did the wheel, my guess if they were both steel neither would have broken clean off, damage, yea, broken, no.


All the spokes didn't have to sheer at the same exact time. If a few spokes failed, the wheel drops to the fork crown or flops to one side and stops the wheel from spinning. The rest of the spokes come apart sue to the stresses and the ovalizing of the wheel, sends the ride flying as a result, and the tire pops off.

That makes a lot more sense to me than blaming Specialized for the failure.

Seriously, how many times have people ridden and a rock pops up from someone's tire? It happens all the time. I've even had a rock come up from under my own front wheel and hit my leg/foot. If a rock pops off another rider's wheel and nicks one of those spokes, it will be catastrophically damaged. They can't handle scratch or impact damage to the point that a spoke will fail. They even know that.

Sorry, but this design has no business on the road. I've said it elsewhere, I have no problem recognizing Mavic's better wheels. The CC line is excellent from the base model on up to the full carbon CCU. They just screwed the pooch on the R-Sys.

-Eric


----------



## the Phantom (Feb 17, 2006)

*The smoking gun is seen...*

Everybody take a look at the picture posted of the blown R-Sys wheel. Notice the spoke at the 2:00 position... Note the separation of the spoke and the nipple at the nipple. Notice the Kevlar hairs extending from the spoke they have been pulled out of the nipple. This should not happen regardless. Looks like the Kevlar hairs came unbonded from the nipple... Notice the 180 degrees opposite position at the 8:00... Same failure. Hummm.. Look at all the other spokes broken somewhere on the length of the carbon, thus a different failure. Can someone find a post crash picture of the egged shape of the wheel and see where the break at the nipple corresponds. Also look for where the tire rolled in relation. 

Mavic is in trouble now...


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

Blaming the wheel failure on a flat tire is a red herring for Mavic. Flat tires are foreseeable and a common experience in bike riding. Complete wheel failure due to a flat is not. This is a bad design.

As to what precipitated the wheel failure who knows. But a likely outcome immediately following catastrophic spoke failure and hub drop is the fork crown slamming down onto the wheel (tire/rim) Immediately thereafter, the tire/rim ovals, causing part of it to also slam into the downtube (not sure if this happened.) But you now have a non-rotating brake wedged into your fork and frame, still somewhat holding it up from burying the forks into the pavement, and like Dave Stohler, over you go.

The CPSC may remove the decision from Mavic and force a recall. I am sure Mavic is also dealing with PL suits on the first round of wheels/injuries. I wonder how many incidents have occurred on the 2nd generation that we have yet to hear about.

zac


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

fmarrs3 said:


> Yes! Carbon in compression is always bad. Before combining w/ epoxy (or other matrix), carbon fibers look like the thin fibers hanging out of the spokes (Barbie doll hair). If you pull on them, they are super strong, but they can carry no compressive load. Now imagine suspending these fibers in glue, and trying to stand on them lengthwise. Can you say fiber buckling? This should be even weaker than the epoxy alone. No one with any degree in engineering would place unidirectional carbon fibers under compression, even with a couple layers of 20 degree fibers. I second the 'idiots' comment.


Before we get too carried away, it is important to remember that most high performance skiff masts are made of mostly uni carbon. Often, a 2 1/4" tube is bent 24" in 24 feet and still carries more than 1000 lbs of weight in compression (mostly from primary and cap shrouds.

I noted my concern from the beginning that these spokes were suspicious without some Kevlar inside the matrix. I dont know why they didn't incorporate those Kevlar fibers in the matrix (kevlar takes impact loading and carbon fiber does not--for the most part). It would not add anything to the tensile strength but would to a lot to mitigate the side loading issues likely involved in this kind of cato failure. The kevlar would need to be near the outer surface. It is true that the matrix, not the fiber, is mostly involved in compression loading (until the tube comes out of column)


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

CleavesF said:


> I wouldn't say that. The problem is that their quality testing was either wrong altogether, or did not adequately test conditions wheels experience.
> 
> In Mavic's own words, these carbon spokes work in tension and compression. These spokes, failed because of compression. I'm fairly certain of this assumption as compressive forces have to be overcome before you can even begin to engineer for tensile forces.
> 
> Is carbon fiber a good compressive material? I don't know, I'm sure it could be made to be. CFRP formulas greatly differ and do make a difference.



On the Velonews article, it states that these Mavic carbon spokes are not built with tension, but only compression (like a wagon wheel). So, when one spoke fails, the other spokes immediately fail in unison leading to a dramatic and catastrophic crash.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

One thing for certain--if Mavic is wrong and another wheel fails causing injury or death, that riders family will own Mavic. The cost of trying to BS their way through without a recall is likely to be far higher than an immediate recall.

I'm guessing that they think they are right.


----------



## tantra (Jan 8, 2008)

Is there anyone out there who would feel comfortable running R-Sys wheels at this time? As an R-Sys wheel owner, this is more than just an academic question.


----------



## crispy010 (Jan 26, 2009)

tantra said:


> Is there anyone out there who would feel comfortable running R-Sys wheels at this time? As an R-Sys wheel owner, this is more than just an academic question.


No. Never. Any wheel that uses spokes in compression is a bad idea, no matter who makes it and what it's made out of. Stay. Away.

Get those wheels off of your bike before they kill you. There are many, many better wheels (lighter, more aero) on the market for about the same price that do not spontaneously explode during normal use.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

tantra said:


> Is there anyone out there who would feel comfortable running R-Sys wheels at this time? As an R-Sys wheel owner, this is more than just an academic question.


I'll be riding them tomorrow--including a fast decent down from Paradise on Mt. Rainier. I'm also walking around without a mask--risking swine flu. But the most risky thing I'll be doing is driving my car to the beginning of the ride taking the chance that I'll be one of 32,000 who will die in an auto accident this year in the US. 

Life is a death defying experience! In the end, we all lose. Don't join the many who die when they're 25, but just arn't buried until they're 80!


----------



## rhauft (Aug 8, 2006)

VeloNews Link: Mavic Responds To Wheel Collapse Article
To hell with all lawyers. I for one, won't spend one more red cent on Mavic products until this is resolved. 
Mavic needs to nut up and admit when they've srewed up.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

regardless of the inciting event there was a catastrophic wheel failure that wouldnt occur on a traditional wheel. buy a different product.


----------



## wuggabugga (Oct 3, 2005)

Folks,

Take a peek at this posting on BikeHugger http://bikehugger.com/tag/r-sys for rear wheel carbon spokes failing.

These wheels are "death traps" front or rear!

Yikes! :mad2:


----------



## ssauter (Aug 1, 2007)

gibbons said:


> They are under tension. Yes, they have threaded nipples, but they are bonded to the end of the spoke and screw into the rim. When you true the wheels, you have to remove a retaining ring on the hub end so they can spin, and the whole spoke/nipple combo turns in the threaded hole on the rim. The wheels come with a spoke wrench for truing.
> 
> The front wheels are symetrically, radially laced. Wouldn't we all agree that the loading in the spokes, whether tension or compression, has to be the same? Otherwise, the wheel would be a taco. Sooooo... do the spokes change their loading from tension to compression as they rotate? Remember, there is a point called "loose" (no load) between tension and compression. From the engineering video on their site, they themselves say that if spokes get loose, there is a huge loss of wheel stiffness. How true. So, we must conclude that if the spokes go through a tension to compression state, at some point the wheel would loose its characteristic stiffness. The rear wheels have aluminum spokes on one side, they certainly aren't in compression. Their own pretzel logic seems to indicate that their tracomp technology is marketing hype.
> 
> Also, the threading on the nipple and rim definitely isn't a Class 5 fit (so snug there is deformation). If the spokes were undergoing a tension/compression cycle each turn of the wheel, how long to you think this less than perfect fit would keep its adjustment?



I have tested a rear R-sys wheel for lateral stiffness. The load I applied was from the drive side towards the non-drive. There was definitely a nice linear line from tension to compression as the load increased suggesting that there is no dead zone in between tension and compression.

Steve


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

Wow. The Mavic response recently published on Velonews shows them taking no responsibility whatsoever for Ben's crash. They even imply that it was his fault that the wheel collapsed.

I used to be a long-time Mavic user. No more. Not after reading their response to the Velonews' article.


----------



## rhauft (Aug 8, 2006)

If Mavic's claims are correct and the frame or tire (or anything but the wheel) caused the initial crash...

The question remains: If the frame/tire/wheel had failed similarly on a conventionally laced wheel, would it have resulted in a domino effect with the same catastrophic result? 

The smoking gun is a wheel with a very suspect track record has catastrophically failed in a manner that has resulted in excessive injury to the rider. 

MAVIC = FAIL 

I am a 30 year Mavic consumer. Mavic has lost another customer.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

SwiftSolo said:


> I'll be riding them tomorrow--including a fast decent down from Paradise on Mt. Rainier. I'm also walking around without a mask--risking swine flu. But the most risky thing I'll be doing is driving my car to the beginning of the ride taking the chance that I'll be one of 32,000 who will die in an auto accident this year in the US.
> 
> Life is a death defying experience! In the end, we all lose. Don't join the many who die when they're 25, but just arn't buried until they're 80!


Yeah, but will you be driving around in a Pinto (the Ford model that exploded if rear-ended)? The assumption of risk in everyday life is certainly not a reason for allowing defective products. Besides, there's a lot of perfectly justified risk averse behavior (bet you have some insurance). Wanting to ride on products that aren't defective seems like a rational thing to me...


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

JayZee said:


> even if Mavic is right and it was caused by something else, it doesn't change the fact that the wheel disintigrated in an extremely dangerous manner. I mean if I get a flat or tear off a valve stem, or crack a frame, I would never expect my front wheel to collapse. The bottom line is that it seems to be a really unsafe design even if the design itself is solid. The UCI would be crazy to allow the use of this wheel is mass start events if that is what happens to the wheel when a tire comes off the rim or some other problem.
> Sorry Mavic, but I think you are screwed on this one.


Precisely. Let's assume the frame broke, the clincher rolled off (??) and the valve stem sheared (?). What other 'normal' wheels would disintegrate leaving sharp spears to endanger anyone that's close? Not my steel spoked wheels that's for sure. FOR THIS REASON ALONE, if Mavic doesn't do the right thing then the UCI should step in. Didn't they ban tri-spoke carbon wheels for this same reason?


----------



## Marc (Jan 23, 2005)

hoyatown said:


> The question is, did the failure cause or compound rider injury? That's it, that's the only question that matters. No one here has any direct evidence that either is true. No one.


Easy.

_*Would a standard steel spoked wheel have similarly catastrophically failed, in any realistic circumstance?*_ Can you honestly think or contrive a circumstance mentally where all the spokes would have broken-leading to a endo?

NO wheel should catastrphically fail like this. The rider should be able to ride it safely to a stop. 

Causation is somewhat moot.  One way or another-every spoke broke, further causing or at least leading to an endo and a broken shoulder for the rider. No steel spoke wheel would fail in a manner similar to this-that I can imagine.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

hoyatown said:


> I have an idea for you, check it out, this thing is all over the internets - everyone knows about it. It's the number one read story on velonews, even more so than the latest Lance twitter rumbling. It's alive here on RBR. If this happens again, we'll hear about it and you can give a big told you so and rebirth this topic. If it doesn't, it is possible, just possible, that this dude crashed, for whatever reason, and the wheel and frame broke - but neither was the cause of the crash. Just a coincidence, but how about you wait for the oncoming slaughter of failures to come in before you go and equate this to the pinto.


Instead of trying to spread your sarcastic wit [less], why don't you actually read the Velonews article. There are numerous eye-witness accounts ruling out your crash-first conspiracy theory. The wheel did not break as the secondary result of a crash. This wheel was also the subject of a voluntary recall - and do your own web search for documented rear wheel failures. Right now the only compelling consistent account is that the fix they did for the post-recall wheel was ineffective.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

hoyatown said:


> Causation is all that matters.


Totally agree. Right now, we simply don't know what occured first.

And yes: in crashes, light stuff breaks more easily and dramatically than heavy stuff. But that has been common knowledge ever since someone made a lighter spear.


----------



## bigreen505 (Jun 10, 2007)

I was going to post something intelligent, but hoyatown is looking for a fight, not logic or reason, and is starting to sound like Mavic PR. Let's all stop feeding the troll.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

hoyatown said:


> So I slip on some sand in a corner and my carbon bars break - let's ban those, too.
> 
> I hit a pothole and my zipp 404 has a crack in it - let's ban those, too.
> 
> ...


The UCI has banned stuff in the past due to knowledge gained that the damaged parts might (will?) be dangerous. They have the job of looking out for the racers. They usually eff it up (like the minimum bike weight ruling) but maybe they got the "carbon trispoke" one right. Maybe they looked at carbon steerers after Hincapie's meltdown. Maybe this wheel needs banning too. Maybe carbon bars/steerers/rims don't. I wouldn't know.

But from what I see of this wheel fiasco (assuming that the problem was caused by the user) *I* wouldn't buy an exploding wheel (steel spoked wheels don't explode in a user-caused crash) and maybe the UCI should stop its licensed racers from using them. If *I* still raced I wouldn't want anyone near me with one of those wheels.


----------



## bigreen505 (Jun 10, 2007)

hoyatown said:


> I'm not looking for a fight


Fair enough, my apologies. I'll take your word for it. 

Your comment about judge, jury and executioner is the problem - you just described Mavic's role in this. When they sent their team of lawyers to write that note in response to VeloNews they took their case to the court of public opinion and put together their case in such a way that even if it is true it is unlikely that anyone will believe them.

So let's look at some theory first and facts later.

Theory:



hoyatown said:


> I thought of something else - since it seemed to me you were trying to make my point seem silly, which it's just.


I don't think so, a spinning tire suddenly jammed against a fork would be exactly like slamming on your brakes. There is a big difference between having the tire rub against the fork, versus jammed against it. There are a number of ways to flip a rider/bike, but jamming something against a spinning wheel is one of the best - that's how ball launchers work and if you've ever spent much time behind a table saw, you've probably learned the lesson the hard way, I know I have. 

Don't believe me? Next time you are on a group ride, jam a stick or bike pump in the front wheel of a fellow rider (preferably on a carbon Specialized). I'm willing to guess the crash sequence, complete with cracked top tube, happens exactly the same way. Maybe have your friend wear football pads - just in case I'm right.

I know you are convinced Mavic is not at fault, so just humor me for a minute here. Let's assume Ben and all the witnesses are correct - one or several spokes break allowing the tire to come in contact with the fork.

This was a crit race near the end, so guessing they were riding about 28 mph seems reasonable (again, humor me). That translates to about 40 feet per second, which from the look of the photos is about where he landed. That also translates to about four wheel rotations. So by that timeline it took roughly a second, maybe two, and between four and eight wheel revolutions for the whole event to transpire. That is plenty of time for a skilled rider to realize something is wrong, unclip and start to slow down, but still be carrying enough speed to do real damage to body and bike.

Do a search on any bike forums and you will find comments from people who learned first hand that if you break a spoke on a high-tension, low-spoke wheel, it will throw it way out of true.

So my theory (based on the same little information that everyone else has) is that Delaney broke a spoke mid turn. I don't know and don't care why or how, but there are enough witnesses -- including the other riders -- to know it was not from contact during the race. Breaking one spoke threw the wheel against a brake pad, stressing the overall wheel system/matrix rapidly causing the wheel to fail, dropping the fork onto the wheel and jamming it. This action stopped the bike quickly enough to jettison the rider. A wheel with no spokes is not particularly stable and dropping the bike onto it is both what ovalized it blew the tire off the rim.

People on various forums have thrown out a lot of what ifs (what if the top tube randomly broke mid corner?), but I think that is a bit like looking at a car crash as saying what if the cars were already smashed like that and just stopped near each other in a line?

So that is my theory. Poke holes in it all you want, you have no more or less information than I do, or anyone else besides Delaney and Mavic.

So let's look at the facts, and these IMO are indisputable, though in some cases time may tell a different story.

Facts:
- Mavic released a very lightweight wheel that relies on the inherent properties of a unidirectional fiber orientation carbon fiber rod.

- Most engineers would agree that this system should work perfectly well in a vacuum - i.e. with no outside forces operating against it.

- There are variances in source material manufacturing that could render this system non functioning - for example a bad run of carbon tubes, glue that didn't bond properly, etc.

- In the best cases bending a carbon tube, particularly a unidirectional one, is not a good idea and the forces on a wheel are bending forces, not just in-line tension/compression due to cornering and braking. If you look at high performance sailing and windsurfing masts, they are bent considerably, but they are not rapidly cycled, are much larger and are held under relatively constant compression - get a mast under a couple thousand pounds of rig tension, snap a stay and it will blow up, just like the wheel did. As was discussed higher in this thread, if the wheel works the way Mavic says it does, the forces on the carbon rods are constantly cycling.

- There are pictures of the original R-sys exploding in much the way I hypothesize Delaney's wheel exploded. Mavic did not significantly change the layup of the spokes (assumption), just added some kevlar fibers inside the tube to retain the spoke in the event of a failure. Kevlar, even in a resin matrix, doesn't really add strength, just impact durability. So it doesn't help much.

- There are pictures of the original R-sys ejecting spokes. If this happened here, rather than one spoke shooting free, it is now dragged along to damage the others.

- The photos clearly show that the aramid fibers were not successful in holding the wheel together. 

- Some spokes were completely removed from the rim (spoke is still intact, complete with nipple).

- Based on the original R-sys design and subsequent failures, the onus is on Mavic to demonstrate they are safe and solved the problem.

- There are many ways to handle a crisis, but what really matters is the long term health of the company, and the actions and attitudes of Mavic, and they way they are handling this situation, does not give them long term credibility.

- There are a LOT of aluminum spoked Ksyriums out there that use essentially the same design, many that have been used hard both on and off road (cyclocross) without failure. I don't think it takes a materials science engineer to look at the failure rates of the R-sys and realize the design doesn't hold up to real-world use.

- Perhaps most importantly, I think it was you who rightfully pointed out that if you make something out of carbon and charge way too much for it, cyclists will flock to it like moths to a flame. What makes the R-sys different is that it is from Mavic, a company that cyclists either love or hate, but everyone trusts. If the R-sys had been from some Chinese manufacturer and sold on eBay, no one would buy them. But we trust Mavic and therefore their products. That means that Mavic leveraged its corporate credibility to sell a product that could not function as advertised. Now, Mavic is claiming that the cyclists who bought the products and used them as advertised are at fault for the product failure.

- These cyclists are now stuck with a very expensive set of wheels that are perceived as unsafe to use. That means owners can't sell them, and if they ride the wheels and crash, it is their own fault for using a product that has been demonstrated to be unsafe. The riders can't win.

- Unless Mavic replaces the wheels with something that people can trust, they can't win either.

So you asked for my thoughts and there they are. The important thing is we are sitting here discussing what happened, discussing why Mavic R-sys wheels are unsafe at any speed, and dissuading people from buying them. I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who where going to buy any Ksyrium wheel are now reconsidering and looking at Mavic's competitors. This is why the court of public opinion is more damning and damaging than the court of law, and this is why Mavic's lawyers brought a knife to a gun fight. Most corporate lawyers and most companies too don't understand the role of social media and the power it has in the marketplace. Mavic needs to do what is perceived as the right thing the jury in the court of public opinion (the people who bought the wheels) to regain standing. There were lots of ways to handle the situation correctly. They chose one of two possible wrong ways, the other being to totally ignore it, like they almost did the first time.

Best wishes,
Bill Green


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

It probably won't be but this _should_ be the final word on this sad topic.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

*Some people commenting here haven't read both Velonews articles...*

Just my personal opinion on this thread so far...
It seems like there are people here supporting Mavic and offering opinions on the crash that haven't read the Velonews Article and seen the multiple pictures from Ben's crash.

I would suggest reading these articles...
1) Ben's crash - http://www.velonews.com/article/93054  
2) Mavic response - http://www.velonews.com/article/93240/mavic-responds-to-wheel-collapse-article   

After having been a Mavic user for many, many years I am now quite disappointed with their response to Ben's crash. There is a feeling, in my opinion, that Mavic is implying that rider fault was the issue here. If you read through the eyewitness accounts, review the pics of the turn, I really don't think Mavic's suggestion has any merit. Please read the above links.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

hoyatown said:


> Oh jeez, you have ZERO evidence of this, you are only speculating. LOOK - yes, a steel wheel would not have done this. YOU ARE CORRECT. Did you not read where I said this stuff fails more so than others?!? Seriously, did you not see that part? Causation is all that matters. You spend the money, you save the weight, you push the boundaries on products and this is what happens. These products are designed to get the most weight and performance out of them, they are NOT designed to last forever and hold up after crashes. Wheels, bars, frames, - basically everything under the sun.


the product appears inherently dangerous as it fails catastrophically. so yes, perhaps it shouldnt be available to customers. the difference in banning this rather than some other potentially dangerous product is that there are simple superior alternatives. the r-sys wheel does not provide an advantage over using another wheel. it would be one thing if the r-sys was the lightest wheel, more aero, or had the least rolling resistance. you say that its not meant to last forever - this wheel was months old. it would be reasonable to expect a product to at least last a race or riding season.


----------



## lalahsghost (Aug 27, 2007)

This has to be the worst publicity for Mavic, ever. 

Will we see them being the neutral assist if they have to fill a ditch with money to get theirselves out of a PR fiasco like this?

I mean, this forum, weight weenies, bikeforums.net and several other big cycling forums are covering this like flies on dog s#!t. Velonews too (as we all know). Thats a lot of people reading, posting, and speculating whatever the hell they want. 

If I was working at mavic, I would be screaming while wiggling my hands in the air and try to destroy internet forums.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

rook said:


> Just my personal opinion on this thread so far...
> It seems like there are people here supporting Mavic and offering opinions on the crash that haven't read the Velonews Article and seen the multiple pictures from Ben's crash.
> 
> I would suggest reading these articles...
> ...


I'm not sure anyone is supporting Mavic here. What is being supported is rational proceedure. None of us have enough facts to determine to what degree, if any, the wheel contributed to the crash. Everything here is speculation at this point. Some of it poor speculation. The statement that the fork crown dropped onto the tire/wheel without including the down tube and the numerous potential paths and outcomes is an example. 

Without a recall, Mavic is giving tacit assurance that these wheels are still good to go. If they are wrong we'll know soon when the next victim's family takes control of the companies assets. They are either very stupid or very certain they have this right. 

We Americans are real fond of jumping to conclusions with few if any facts. If it turns out that Mavic is correct, there will be a few who "knew from the beginning that the crash was not casued by the wheel". If it turns out that Mavic is wrong there will be even more who " always knew that the wheel caused the crash". The truth is that none of us know $hit at this point, but, because we have the patience and imagination of kindergarten children, we pretend.


----------



## bigreen505 (Jun 10, 2007)

First, let me be clear about one thing, I don't own R-sys wheels, nor do I have an axe to grind with Mavic or VeloNews. I'm looking at this purely from a public relations case study perspective, and from that angle Mavic has done a lot of things wrong here. More than half of the wheels my family owns are Mavic - either rims or prebuilt wheels. I also freely admit that I'm not a fan of the way Ksyriums ride and I think Mavic has been lacking in any real innovation lately, but that is as close as I get to having an issue with them as a company.

@SwiftSolo, honestly I think what has people generally riled up has less to do with whether or not the wheel caused the crash, and more of a general feeling of betrayal by Mavic. Taking a guess at the person behind the screen name (could be wrong, but you know who I am) you know more about customer service and building a quality product than most companies, and I know you are not above calling foul when a product is built poorly and a company is taking advantage of its market position. What Mavic did, on the surface, is fly a bunch of people down to Boulder and then start pointing fingers.

@hoyatown, I'm not trying to be rude, sarcastic or anything else you have accused me of being. I think visually, and I think most others do as well. That said, I think I'm finally starting to understand what you are saying. My analogy of shoving a stick in the front wheel loses merit when we are assuming the spokes are no longer attached to the rim because at that point the rim is no longer directly attached to the rest of the bike and therefore is not capable of stopping it. That is where you were going with your analogy of removing a wheel from a car at speed - got it. That's why Mavic is saying that if it happened that way, there should be evidence of the hub hitting the ground. I disagree, but at least I now understand where that train of thought comes from and is going. My line of thinking is that the dynamics of a bicycle are very different than a car.

Again, I'm not blaming Mavic for a crash that has not been proven to be their fault. I'm condemning them as a company for the way they have handled the whole situation, going back to when the first R-sys spoke broke.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

bigreen505 said:


> @SwiftSolo, honestly I think what has people generally riled up has less to do with whether or not the wheel caused the crash, and more of a general feeling of betrayal by Mavic. Taking a guess at the person behind the screen name (could be wrong, but you know who I am) you know more about customer service and building a quality product than most companies, and I know you are not above calling foul when a product is built poorly and a company is taking advantage of its market position. What Mavic did, on the surface, is fly a bunch of people down to Boulder and then start pointing fingers.


Bigreen, 
If Mavic is an honorable company they would have flown a bunch of people to the scene to gather the best evidence possible while it was fresh in order to make an honest appraisal of the incident to determine if their wheel needed to be recalled. I think it would require massive stupidity to go into denial at this point because the truth will be known soon enough--possibly in a "checkmate" situation. I'm only speculating myself when I assume that they are not that ignorant, however, they've been in business for quite a while.

Regarding the wheel: today while decending at about 36 mph across the nisqually bridge on the way down the mountain I did get a little nervous. The bridge surface was poorly finished when bulit. The power screed put waves in the surface with a frequency about 20 feet from peak to peak. The spokes in my front wheel sounded like monotone wind chimes as they loaded and unloaded with each wave. I had not notice this in the previous 15 or so rides since the recalled wheel came back.


----------



## cosmo333 (Oct 5, 2005)

hoyatown said:


> Spoke with a fellow physics professor. This is for the "the tire ran into the fork crown and sent the rider over the bars" crowd.
> 
> Take your car, loosen the lug nuts on your front wheel. Feel free to do one or both, doesn't matter. Drive 5mph, 20, 40, 80 - whatever you want, doesn't matter. When the wheel comes off and goes into the wheel well - what do you think is going to happen? Here's a hint, you wont flip, the car will go down - and before you say the engine weight plays a factor, remember your crits and getting low over the stem and pushing down in the corner.
> 
> ...


does anyone need to point out to the professor bicycles behave very differently than cars in terms of stability? I don't need to lean my car against something to keep it from tipping over-it's physics.


----------



## Doctor Who (Feb 22, 2005)

The car vs. bike comparison is completely flawed, too, because the center of gravity of a bike+cyclist is so much higher than a car's. A car won't flip if you take the front wheels off at speed because its mass is so low and so well-distributed throughout the body that all it'll do is drop down onto the ground. 

A bike+cyclist has a huge proportion of its weight high up and over the front wheel. You stop that wheel suddenly and the larger portion of the mass (the cyclist) is going over the handlebars.

A more apt comparison would be a motorcycle.


----------



## gibbons (Nov 9, 2002)

hoyatown said:


> Let me give you another one. Planes that land when their landing gear is broken. They're going a lot faster than 28 mph - what happens when they land, the area of the failed gear goes down - nothing flips. And please, spare me and everyone that a car is different from a bike (I know it wasn't you) that has to do with physics of left and right, not up and down. Four wheels makes no different from doing an endo versus two - again, failed understanding of even basic science principles (again, I know this example wasn't you) I mean, look, you even said by looking at the photos the guy flew 40 feet - that's what I took it to mean. That is pure and utter speculation - there is ZERO evidence of how far the guy launched.
> 
> Keep the speculation to a minimum, explain your theory, but keep in mind it's a theory with little information and, I might add, seems some of you have an axe to grind with Mavic. Why I don't know, heck, even Trek doesn't draw this much disdain from me, but I digress.


Wow, your complete disregard for kinetics and kinematics is amazing! You seemed credible until this topic came up. Do an engineering freebody diagram of a car vs bike and then try to make this argument again. 

I am glad I sold my RSys wheelset.


----------



## hoyatown (May 31, 2009)

gibbons said:


> Wow, your complete disregard for kinetics and kinematics is amazing! You seemed credible until this topic came up. Do an engineering freebody diagram of a car vs bike and then try to make this argument again.
> 
> I am glad I sold my RSys wheelset.


This warrants no response. Glad I never even bought an RSYS wheel set, so I guess 'im one ahead of you ; )


----------



## crazyc (Jun 5, 2008)

A cars weight has a greater amount a weight distributed over it's length making
it vastly more stable than a cyclist as well as having a much lower center of gravity.
Most cyclist when they look down are starring at the front hub meaning their center over mass is not far behind and their center of gravity is also significantly higher. One of the
most common cycling injuries is a broken clavicle secondary to flipping over the handle bars, we see this time and again. I don't think the car -bike analogy works.


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

ahh i think i totally misunderstood what hoya is saying... he's just trying to say that had the spokes failed, the first thing to hit would be the forks/hub, grind, crunch, break, then endo...

same as car grinding to a halt as the front end grinds along the road as the wheels are ejected (except for maybe an endo for a finale)?? that right?

lack of fork damage would perturb me... also, mavic makes a good point about tyre and especially tube - with the missing valve and all... no reason why, if there is the assumption that the spokes spontaneously combusted, that this should be the case....

also from a PR P.O.V... what else COULD mavic say? they spent sh!teloads putting the r-sys back out? are they really gunna say anything other than 'under investigation'/probably a crash??

no. they're gunna back their product, anything else is suicide.


----------



## GPB (Mar 27, 2006)

cosmo333 said:


> does anyone need to point out to the professor bicycles behave very differently than cars in terms of stability? I don't need to lean my car against something to keep it from tipping over-it's physics.


Oh man, no kidding. Talk about an apples/oranges comparison. I mean, did the professor bring up the model differences with regards to (off the top of my head and from classes long past) moment of force, torque, center of gravity, coefficient of friction, etc. And then there's the more basic things to consider like conservation of energy (is forward momentum lost via tire shredding, rider being launched (which isn't a transfer of energy per se but more that the bike suddenly stops while rider maintains his forward energy) or wheel crumpling or some other method).

All fun!


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

mendo said:


> I don't think the new spokes were a gimmick. The physics was kind of over my head, but they seemed to be breaking new ground, shifting the function of the spoke with the whole tension plus compression thing.


yea, its called marketing, aka snake oil... but i concede the point. First alu and carbon bikes using traditional methods were similarly awful... will be interesting to see if the norm is tracomp or some variation of it into the future on high end road bikes....? doubt it but who knows??


----------



## JayZee (Sep 3, 2008)

The other factor that may have contributed to the wheel stopping immediately and the riding being thrown forward was the fact that Ben was slowing down and unclipping which probably means he is out of the saddle with more weight on his hands and the front wheel. So already his weight is more forward than if he was sitting on his seat.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

SwiftSolo said:


> Steve, actully, the MV 32 carbon clinchers are 120 grams heavier. I don't dispute that they are more aero and time will tell if the revised r-sys wheels have a signifcant failure rate. The 32's may well be a better and more durable set. Time will tell.
> 
> My real issue is that I continue to see people post BS about wheel weights and have come to believe that you can believe nothing you read on this forum. It's important that we all tell it like it is and not how we'd like to believe it is.


Are you sure?
reynolds claim that 32 DV UL clinchers weighs 1325 where Mavic claims R-SYS weighs 1355.


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

SwiftSolo,
Please disregard my previous post.
I see you already corrected it..Sorry about that.


----------



## the Phantom (Feb 17, 2006)

*What do R-SYS whells and Airbus 330's have in common?*

What do R-SYS whells and Airbus 330's have in common? One thing... FRENCH ENGINEERING! 
Obviously, Mavic has failed badly with the R-SYS wheel. Mavic has failed with just about anything carbon fiber. AirBus 330 airliners, French made, French designed and the same as what crashed off Brazil recently, have carbon fiber construction. The Airbus aircraft has had significant and well documented structural failures to the vertical stabilizer and rudder. Total failure took down a plane in NYC in 2001 killing all aboard. My bets are that the AirFrance AirBus 330 crashed as a result of the vertical stabilizer breaking off in turbulence and as a result of pilot error with wrong controll inputs. The news pictures clearly show it having broken on one side.

Seems like alot of French cycling products have been recalled in the recent past. Example: Time pedals, Look pedals, Time frames and now Mavic R-SYS wheels. 

Best for Mavic to save face and recall the entire lot of R-SYS wheels not only to put all this behind them but to save all of us from bogus French made products. Mavic has lied about the problems with thier recent smoke screen deflection claiming the VeloNews riders accident was his own fault. Mavic has lied repeatedly regarding the replacement wheels, good bad or otherwise. Clueless engineering and really bad French attitudes have shown thier finest here.

Bottom Line... French engineering stinks the smelliest stench... scary thing... the French now dominate the nuclear power industry...

When was the last time you bought a French made product??


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

the Phantom said:


> What do R-SYS whells and Airbus 330's have in common? One thing... FRENCH ENGINEERING!
> Obviously, Mavic has failed badly with the R-SYS wheel. Mavic has failed with just about anything carbon fiber. AirBus 330 airliners, French made, French designed and the same as what crashed off Brazil recently, have carbon fiber construction. The Airbus aircraft has had significant and well documented structural failures to the vertical stabilizer and rudder. Total failure took down a plane in NYC in 2001 killing all aboard. My bets are that the AirFrance AirBus 330 crashed as a result of the vertical stabilizer breaking off in turbulence and as a result of pilot error with wrong controll inputs. The news pictures clearly show it having broken on one side.
> 
> Seems like alot of French cycling products have been recalled in the recent past. Example: Time pedals, Look pedals, Time frames and now Mavic R-SYS wheels.
> ...


French hater??? I'm not in love with French but that quiet a bit of generalization. I mean any consumer product failure happens to any country's product....heck, I think even Shimano and Campy had some recalls.
By the way when was the recall on Time frame?
I need to check on that recall since I own/have owned several Time frames.....


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

hoyatown said:


> "Completely flawed" is in no way the right term, even by your own description - a cyclist has weight over the front wheel, like an engine with a car. I rode motorcycles and you much further back, especially when compared to a crit. Are people just typing, or are they running this stuff through their heads and reading posts? I'm not sure.
> 
> Fine, use a motorcycle, nothing changes, the front of the bike goes down, fork damage and then the rider either flips or goes to the side - key point here is "front goes down" and fork damage.


"Completely flawed" is exactly the right term when used in connection with your analogy to a car, and almost as worse, to an airplane. There is absolutely no comparison. I believe you mentioned earlier that you were a forensic scientist, but somehow lacking a physics background. Yet you feel comfortable disregarding basic laws of motion and materials science. You have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding in this regard. 

These systems, have completely different centers of gravity, stability once compromised, moments of intertia, and to add to GPB's list, materials shear strengths. Classical laws of motion and momentum cannot be ignored for massive objects traveling at sub-light speeds my friend, ever.

You have made some good points about rushing to judgment before (and if ever) knowing the complete facts, but unfortunately, you are not helping your position by ignoring accepted and valid science.

zac


----------



## gibbons (Nov 9, 2002)

hoyatown said:


> Here is the deal, you can't. If a sold object is holding one up, in this case a front wheel, and said object suddenly disappears - one goes down. Downtown to china town. Said unsecured wheel doesn't have nearly enough power to mimic the power of a secure front brake, some people get this, others don't - I suspect you're in the second group. Until you understand this basic and simple concept I can't help you.
> 
> With all this said, I await your proof of "laws of motion and momentum." Somehow I suspect this will never come.


A couple of posts above, you said about my post, "This warrants no response." What you should have said is, "I have no idea what you're talking about, so I won't try to respond". It's obvious that you are over your head and lashing out.

To respond to your challenge of providing proof, consider the pretty straight forward property of materials and structures called the coefficient of restitution. People who don't understand the quantitative engineering behind it can think of it simply as the degree of ability to bounce. Way above I posted how the crown of the fork could have hit the loosened wheel, and acting like a spring cir-clip, restored the bike/rider's inertial energy by flopping them both over that instant center of rotation (the tire/crown interface). The fork and hub don't have to hit the ground in this situation.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

hoyatown said:


> Zac, do yourself a favor - show me where I said they are all the same. Let me do it for you, you can't. Now, while we're at it, Zac, tell me how the results would be different?
> 
> Waiting . . . . I'll look up some crow recipes, too.
> 
> ...





hoyatown said:


> Spoke with a fellow physics professor. This is for the "the tire ran into the fork crown and sent the rider over the bars" crowd.
> 
> Take your car, loosen the lug nuts on your front wheel. Feel free to do one or both, doesn't matter. Drive 5mph, 20, 40, 80 - whatever you want, doesn't matter. When the wheel comes off and goes into the wheel well - what do you think is going to happen? Here's a hint, you wont flip, the car will go down - and before you say the engine weight plays a factor, remember your crits and getting low over the stem and pushing down in the corner.
> 
> ...


No need to get excited, hoyatown, read in context of this entire thread, you seem to be making and buttressing this statement, if I am wrong, then point it out. These systems are not the same. Your analogy of a bicycle/rider to a car and that it won't flip is as you say completely flawed. 

A car's center of gravity is such that it would not flip in this situation. Now here is a twist on your example and it does deal with motor vehicles: if you want to talk about lifted vehicles, where the center of gravity is vertically altered, then you do indeed have a system that does not act in accord with you conclusion that the vehicle "won't flip." Also vehicles have suspensions that absorb energy, but even negating that system, a typical car's center of gravity is much too low and any angular velocity imparted on it, is essentially inline with it's moment of inertia (you do know what that is, don't you?). However at a certain speed if the angular velocity, as such, of the car's center of gravity exceeds it's moment, then indeed it will flip end over end. (as a somewhat backhanded example of this, ever hear of wheelie castors on drag cars? The acceleration to the rear wheels is such that it's rear (powered) axle is below the center of gravity...so much resistance to motion of the COG (body at rest remains at rest) that its angular momentum (effective perpendicular distance to the axle ) essentially the force acting on the system overcomes the moment and rotates the massive object (the car) over the axle. (or to state it more correctly, pushes the axel under the COG of the car)

Yes I did make note of the a key difference between speeds, as this is an important factor between Classic and Quantum mechanics. Classical theories of motion and momentum don't hold up as well with sub-atomic and massless objects, also as massive objects approach the speed of light then likewise Classic theories start to get muddied. Theories of Classical physics are somewhat over the roadmap at superlight speeds. So yes, there are different speeds, I was just being specific. Perhaps that is beyond your non-physics background. I really care not to further discuss this aspect as it has nothing to do with this discussion, except for limiting the parameters to Classical theory, which is what I did. Your failure to understand or comprehend shows your utter and continued lack of understanding of Classical laws of motion and mechanics (in the physical sense).

But this is like arguing with a blind person as to the color of red, so good day and good sir.

zac


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

hoyatown said:


> Originally Posted by hoyatown
> Spoke with a fellow physics professor. This is for the "the tire ran into the fork crown and sent the rider over the bars" crowd.
> 
> Take your car, loosen the lug nuts on your front wheel. Feel free to do one or both, doesn't matter. Drive 5mph, 20, 40, 80 - *whatever you want, doesn't matter*. When the wheel comes off and goes into the wheel well - what do you think is going to happen? Here's a hint, you wont flip, the car will go down - and before you say the engine weight plays a factor, remember your crits and getting low over the stem and pushing down in the corner.
> ...


Make it real simple for you. Go back and show this to your "fellow physics professor" and see what he says: 

(hint, I'll make it simple for you)
1) if COG is below force vector acting on object, then no, won't flip
2) if COG is inline with force vector acting on object, then no, won't flip
3) if COG is above force vector acting on object, then it depends, and yes, it does matter the speed, because you will reach a speed at which the force is sufficient to overcome the moment and "flip" it. Factor's relevant. Mass of object, strength and direction of force acting on object, Moment of inertia of object, and Center of Gravity of object in relation to force.

Again you are wrong, move on. You have some other gems in here too...especially love the one about the power of a wheel? Are you by chance referring to friction?

The more I read, the more amazing it gets. You talk about education in America...look in a mirror.
zac


----------



## gibbons (Nov 9, 2002)

hoyatown said:


> OK, how's this for a response - whatever google search you did for rock skipping doesn't change my mind. If this was the case, it would have be proven long ago. I'm inclined to go with my physics professor colleague (I'm an adjunct at G'town).
> 
> Good enough for you?


I am a degreed mechanical engineer. I didn't have to google anything, knowing and understanding a coefficient of restitution is pretty elementary, as is my understanding of column slenderness ratios and Euler buckling theory (discussed a few pages ago on carbon spokes in compression).

You're out of your league.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

hoyatown said:


> Zac, you can make fun of me all you want - it just shows you how desperate you are. I don't know physics, so, no, I'm not following you at all - you could be right, you could be wrong, beats me. I still don't see an example - except that of a backflip and you could have done one better by sticking to bikes and referring to a wheelie, but you got all silly and stuck with cars. I call that silly and having no point other than to sound like a - - - -well you fill it in.
> 
> Oh, I don't know cars either, but I know suspension is attached to a wheel and if a wheel comes off the suspension doesn't work. I also know no one ever talked about quantum physics, but again, there you go, Zac.
> 
> ...


I am absolutely speechless.

So your responses are:

1) I don't know physics, I have no idea what you are talking about, but yet, you zac are wrong about physics.

2) I don't know about cars or suspensions, but yet I will make analogies to cars about their handling in motion, and when called out on it, I will just say that you are wrong, because, well I said so.

3) As to quantum physics, if I understand what you are saying, true, I am the only one who mentioned it, and did so simply because your prior posts (from this entire thread) call for specifics and to point out errors. I was just limiting the system to classical motion. As I said quantum physics has nothing to do with this thread.

4) Disability, wow, you are sensitive and emotional. Touché with your retort, however...now you are getting the analogy thing...so try and apply it to topics covered in this thread. And in case you missed the reference...instead of believing it to be a pointer to a disability...you proved my point (about arguing color to someone who cannot detect color) with your answers above about not understanding physics.

As the the rest, hoyatown, keep the personal insults out of it.

And as to one last thing, your persistence that you are correct and for others to point out your errors, is somewhat tantamount to a child saying he is right just "because."

Seriously, good luck to you, you will need it.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

hoyatown said:


> BTW, just in case it's not 100% obvious, I would never hit you - I'm not a fighter, I haven't punched anyone since 3rd grade.


hoyatown, this is just too easy, your statement is impossible, as it hasn't happened yet.


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

wankski said:


> ahh i think i totally misunderstood what hoya is saying... he's just trying to say that had the spokes failed, the first thing to hit would be the forks/hub, grind, crunch, break, then endo...




Yeah, but if the spokes spontaneously failed, then the first thing to hit would be the tire/rim hitting the underside of the fork. THAT is what caused the endo. In fact, Ben even has pictures of this on the Velonews page.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

wankski said:


> ahh i think i totally misunderstood what hoya is saying... he's just trying to say that had the spokes failed, the first thing to hit would be the forks/hub, grind, crunch, break, then endo...





rook said:


> Yeah, but if the spokes spontaneously failed, then the first thing to hit would be the tire/rim hitting the underside of the fork. THAT is what caused the endo. In fact, Ben even has pictures of this on the Velonews page.


See that is the thing, hoya is arguing that the only thing that could have happened is what wankski is referring to. When it is just as likely, indeed, if not more so, than the tire jamming into the crutch. Not to mention the fact that there is some supporting evidence for this, both physical and eyewitness.

Of course his most recent insistences that his position 100% couldn't have happened, is jsut that, a more recent development in this thread. Of course it is possible that it could have happened that way. That however, belies his earlier analogies and assertions.

What is interesting overall and has been pointed out so plainly by many here: Is that the facts don't back up his argument. Simply put: Ben went OTB, the hub was not grounded, the fork crutch has tire abrasions, and the wheel has not one spoke intact.

I'll pose an alternate question. What sort of forces are needed to shear the R-Sys of spokes from it's rim? Note please that the system is a relatively lightweight object, in and of itself, it has a small rotational mass. Is it Mavic's position that the wheel was incapable of decelerating at such a sudden instance that the rotational mass of the rim ripped itself free from the spokes and hub? Of alternately the spinning (angular velocity) of the hub was such that it sheared the spokes from the suddendly stationary rim? In either case, the wheel is not fit for its intended purpose. (By the way, I am not suggesting that these are the only two alternate scenarios. Just expressed for the purpose of alternates.)

zac


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

While I'm not interested in speculating on what happened, there is a flaw that keeps showing up in the debate. 

The brunt of the force (assuming immediate and total spoke failure) would be taken by the down tube attempting to ride up over the rim/tire. This would happen simultaneously with contact with the fork crown and would be a much larger force to dissipate. The underside of a tarmac down tube is large and flat (athwartships). In this regard, it would act much like a car lug bolt failure where the auto is launched upward as the wheel well runs up and over it's wheel/tire. The difference here is that I would expect the carbon downtube to fail completely as that layup is pretty thin (actually, I'd expect the tire and rim to penetrate the bottom of the downtube at the minimum).

I'm thinking it is pretty easy to eliminate this kind of failure lacking damage and serious impact marks on the downtube.

If I had to bet money, I'd bet that the crash led to wheel failure and not the other way around, however, only time will tell for sure.


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

Double post .... Deleted 

zac


----------



## zac (Aug 5, 2005)

hoyatown said:


> First, look, my earlier comments were way, way out of line. I apologize, you seem like a cool guy and I'm sure we could have a beer and a laugh.


Accepted.



hoyatown said:


> Here is the deal though, I am not saying this is the ONLY outcome. You are saying I said that, I never have - look over the posts. What I saying, and some of this I have said more than once, is that eyewitness accounts are vague, no one said for certain the wheel failed first - it's just not in there. I am also saying as a rule, eye witness accounts are unreliable. Heck, do a google search and you'll find this. It never plays like it does in the movies.
> 
> What I am saying is that it's possible the guy had a blow out. Blowouts are common, and when they occur, thanks to physics, and this is your area, not mine, it's usually not a very good outcome.
> 
> Can we at least agree on that?


Couple things here, like others have said about other areas of expertise, I don't need to google unreliable eyewitness testimony, I make my living at it. However, the converse is not unsupported either (ie, just because some eyewitness testimony is unreliable, indeed can be very unreliable, does not mean all eyewitness testimony is unreliable). Here the physical evidence, both direct and circumstantial is consistent with the eyewitness reports. It is an exact fit? Nope. Does it prove it to be so? No, of course not, as you say, but it is the best evidence there is to date, and it is not inconsistent.

Blowout possible? Absolutely possible, but more likey a rapid loss of pressure as opposed to a direct blow, as a blowout would have been heard too and there were no reports of this. Plus Ben had time to unclip, really not likely coming out of a corner hard and blowing. The softness he felt was just as atributable to a less than blowout flat. I will trust his instinct, he is a long time rider and knows what he felt. 

Regardless, this still doesn't explain the total failure of the wheel. If the wheel catastrophically fails as a result of a blowout, then the R-Sys, IMO, is not fit for its particular purpose. I raced over a decade and have ridden the better part of 30 years and I must say, the total failure of a wheel without impact is extremely rare. I dare say I have never seen a wheel whose rim looked so intact and yet every single spoke had failed. No matter the sequence of events, no one reported impact on the wheel. Yet, there it is, totally shattered.

The question must turn to: why? Is Mavic's response sufficient? I have to agree with many posters here, and with my own instincts, that their position leaves much to be desired. I agree that the facts are not completely know, and in all likelihood, may never be known. But given the two scenarios, one is defensible the other is almost laughable.



hoyatown said:


> Here is also what I am saying - guess what - it's totally possible that the wheel failed. Without question this is a theory that has decent support.
> 
> Can we agree either could happen?


Yes. 



hoyatown said:


> I am also saying that if a wheel did fail it's possible the hub would get damaged or the rider could go sideways (say, if they were in a corner lean and putting downward pressure).
> 
> Can we agree either of these could happen?


Yes, that is possible that the hub could get damaged. Absolutely. I have said this. But the fact remains the hub did not get damaged. I understand the point you are making. That wheel failure would lead to fork/hub drop and hub damage. We know the later didn't happen, but this doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that, therefore, the wheel didn't fail first (or early in the sequence). But yes it is possible. 

It is also possible that rider went down due to some other instance and then wheel failed due to some other forces. 

It is also possible that the initial causation of the sequence of events was the wheel failure. 

I am pretty sure all these different scenarios have been discussed, as well as others.

You can look at it from a time linear chain of events, or you could look at it from a coincidental concurrent failure of multiple systems, or you could look at it from a forensic standpoint and work with what you have available as an end result. (At this time, I want to point out that all of my initial posts really had nothing to do with these points, merely pointing out your assertions about the car analogy - but for the purpose of moving the discussion, I agree to let that go away.) 

To me at least there is one main thing I keep going back to and that is the picture of the wheel. To me it is like looking at a doctored photograph. Your eyes are telling you that the wheel has somehow catastrophically failed, yet there is very little damage to the rim and none to the hub. Every single spoke has sheared as if someone carefully and methodically powered that wheel through a hacksaw blade placed inside the spokes. That doesn't happen in the real world to multi spoked wheels that are designed to be one of the strongest (for their weight) systems known to man. Spoked wheels can and will survive multiple spoke failure and still serve their intended purpose. Likewise, a spoked wheel can take rim failure and still somewhat survive. I have seen, indeed I have caused catastrophic wheel failure, but they were all very high impact incidents and the results were buckled rims, and several, but not every single, spoke failure(s). As I said, I have never, not once, seen this happen before to any other wheel.

Furthermore, on this point, there are two real and troubling facts: 1) Ben did go OTB: if the hub/forks didn't dig into the pavement, then what caused this? A sudden halt to the forward progress of the bike will launch the rider OTB. Common sense, and circumstantial evidence suggests that the crutch dropped onto the tire causing the sudden brake and endo. This is only possible if wheel failure occurred allowing the hub/fork to drop. Was this the first thing to happen? Who knows, should it matter? Ultimately, in my mind, this was the direct cause of the endo; and 2) Assuming some other cause to the endo, and the wheel was still intact at this point, THEN, what caused the catastrophic failure? Once Ben is off the bike and the system is only sustaining some of the 15lbs of the bike, even less since at that time it was suspended, what forces remained to shatter the wheel as such? If this was the result of simply sliding out and incidental impacts, then the R-Sys is equally unfit for its purpose of being a rigid and strong structure. 

Lastly on this point, there is absolutely no evidence in support of any theory that the bike, and more particularly, the front wheel, struck a stationary object first, then concurrently causing an endo and failing. Indeed the roadway was clear, the only obstacle being a curb which eyewitnesses as well as Ben indicated he did not come near. 



hoyatown said:


> With all this, here is what I read - a lot of people proposing that only one scenario was possible. Just because I argue another doesn't mean I think that's the only case?
> 
> Can we agree that one could argue a position, but not think said position is the end all be all?


Yes absolutely. I initially stated you had/have some good points, especially in not rushing to judgment. But this is a discussion, not a court of law, nor one of arbitration. We are all vetting our own as well as other's opinions, that is what these discussion boards are all about. But you also were headed in areas that your expertise was weak or non-existent. You then chose to defend those points, despite many pointing out the mistakes and errors. I have not read/understood this thread with people defending only one scenario. I have indeed read many points of view and theories, and those points were taken in stride and discussed. 

You have to expect people to get called out when they clearly and plainly use faulty assumptions and bad science. There are many very smart people in this forum, some are certified experts. I value opinions expressed here, indeed some are extremely clever, I always try to learn from them as I would hope everyone is always trying to learn.



hoyatown said:


> If you think any of these are totally out of line, then discuss, but don't go and be all nit picky on things like "hahaha force of the tire - did you mean friction." It just enrages people - in this case me. Conversely, I'll do the same cause I know I stepped out of line.
> 
> Thoughts?


Well actually it was power of the tire,  but at the time you were coming across as stating and characterizing as fact and arguing physics, contrary to very basic laws of motion and momentum. If it enraged you, then perhaps you shouldn't pick a verbal argument with folks who have specialized expertise and education in these areas. In the end though, I will agree it was a bit childish of me too. 

Hopefully this discussion is back on track...

zac


----------



## wankski (Jul 24, 2005)

turning into an epic thread....

yea, if the hub broke off and the tire/rim went under the fork, the only place to go is hitting the DT, then yea.... human catapult... 

poor guy. Will be interesting to see where the issue goes between VN and Mavic...


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

Besides making money, what problem was Mavic trying to solve with this novel appoach to wheel construction. It's not that lightweight and it's not aero. Was the ride that much better? Why didn't they focus on tubeless if they wanted a better riding wheel?


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

lookrider said:


> Besides making money, what problem was Mavic trying to solve with this novel appoach to wheel construction. It's not that lightweight and it's not aero. Was the ride that much better? Why didn't they focus on tubeless if they wanted a better riding wheel?


Actually, most of the r-sys wheels I know of are running tubeless. For whatever reason, there is an urban myth that mavic wheels work better with a Stan's kit than most others that arn't made to run tubeless. I have no idea if this belief has any merrit.


----------



## lalahsghost (Aug 27, 2007)

Can we go ahead and lock this thread?


----------



## rook (Apr 5, 2009)

*I say let people have their say.*



lalahsghost said:


> Can we go ahead and lock this thread?




Why? Even reading through all the arguments, there is a ton of safety information on here that could really help a person make an informed buying decision about wheels like this. Even for people that have these wheels already, they can know what to look for and be careful of to try and avoid a catastrophic injury.  

So, why do you personally want to lock this thread? Is it that you can't bother sifting through all the arguments and discourse? You could just click and read something else.


----------



## frdfandc (Nov 27, 2007)

I've read all 7 pages. The only conclusion I have come to is that everyone is speculating what happened. Sure there are quite a few pieces of evidence that pose a death blow to Mavic that it was a complete and utter spoke failure, BUT as we all know, anything can happen at anytime to anything and anyone regardless of the product. 

Look how the fact that there have been instances of alloy handlebars breaking right at the stem, or carbon seat posts shattering. There will never be a perfect product on the market, ever. 

Think of it this way, if there was never a recall on the R-sys, would there be this discussion?

Time will tell what the outcome will be and what Mavic's decision will be regarding the R-Sys wheel.


----------



## Oldteen (Sep 7, 2005)

As a (admittedly ambivalent) Mavic owner- must say I never thought the R-Sys design w/carbon spokes made a whole lot of sense. We've all had road debris hit our wheels/spokes sometimes, and carbon does not stand up well to such sharp impacts (deep chips can damage fibers, etc.). Those carbon spokes may test great when new in the lab, but after a bit of real-world usage.....

And I completely agree that sudden stoppage of a wheel from whatever cause should not cause a wheel to disintegrate like that. A few years ago during an MTB race my front wheel caught a finger-sized stick thrown up by a rider passing me. Stopped my wheel DEAD- and yes Virginia I took Mr Toad's Wild Ride. Fortunately this happened at under 15mph riding singletrack through a soft open field so I was only bruised. I dusted myself off, pulled the stick out & checked my bike. The small bladed AL spokes on my Mavic Crossrides (lower-end MTB wheel, BTW) held up fine. Wheel was plenty true enough for me to finish the race (disc brakes helped). After minor re-true I'm still riding those wheels. I know my circumstances differed from the Velonews case (road vs MTB, speed, bike weights, etc.), but still-
I've never seen or even heard of a wheel blowing up like the R-Sys.


----------

