Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

Mavic R-Sys

greg66_tri_v2.0greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
edited June 2009 in Commuting chat
Anyone here running Mavic R-Sys wheels?
Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

Bike 1
Bike 2-A
«1

Posts

  • storckstorck Posts: 64
    Yes im running them,great wheels not the most aero of wheels but they are very strong and light suit my needs perfectly Mavic done a recall on them there service was great.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Indeed. The Mavic response seems to suggest that they think all bets are off if you get a puncture. Since when was catastrophic wheel disintegration in the event of a puncture acceptable? That is the jist of the Mavic response though.

    Just legal posturing. The wheels will eventually have to be recalled again. Its a rediculous idea anyway - like using your central heating system to hold the roof up.
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    I am so, so glad I didnt buy them and went for cheaper alloy ones. :shock:
  • That blog is quite funny, from now on my brakes are "clampers" and my rims "hoops" - not that I really understand the "wagon wheel" dynamics??? Surely wagon wheels are made of wood and modern bike wheels are made of metal? Those mavic wheels seem to be made of string... or is it feathers?

    But, at least I found this little gem as a result:
    Son asked me. 'Why do Super Mario Bros.?" I told him "I needed to buy you a new pair of shoes." his reply? "I don't need shoes that bad."
  • Gavin GilbertGavin Gilbert Posts: 4,019
    That bikesnob article is probably the biggest pile of censored I've wasted my eyes on since the last time I bothered to fritter away time on his blatherings. The original Velonews report is much better but tries to draw conclusions whilst ignoring competing causes.

    I'm running R-Sys. My pair arrived 3 days before the story of the new failure hit the headlines. I know enough about Product Recall not to worry about using them until there are more examples of the wheels falling to bits. Until then I'll just have hope I'm not 'Exhibit B'

    In my time I've managed to lunch a Brooks saddle rail, a Look Delta cleat, a Shimano brake hood (it came off in my hand!), thrown my derailleur into my rear wheel when my chain snagged and had a downtube lug come loose on me.

    I've also seen friends snap carbon handlebars, break an alloy stem, crack a rear drop out, have a pedal unscrew on them and shear cranks. Bikes break, that's life.
  • downfaderdownfader Posts: 3,686
    I've also seen friends snap carbon handlebars, break an alloy stem, crack a rear drop out, have a pedal unscrew on them and shear cranks. Bikes break, that's life.

    On my old raleigh scorpian it had a steel stem and I managed to have that break on me whilst riding across a junction. Thankfully the normally busy junction was being crossed on a sunday morning when I ended up with my bike collapsing between my feet with my handle bars still in my hands, LOL! :lol:
  • thinking about it, wagon wheels are actually made of chocolate...
  • thinking about it, wagon wheels are actually made of chocolate...
  • storckstorck Posts: 64
    Indeed thats one sorry looking wheel,so far i have had no problems my wheels are over a year old now god knows how many miles i have done on them,last year was in Italy done Mortirolo,Gavia,Stelvio {both sides} Bormio 2000 not a problem,going over to Ventoux July and dont expect any problems ,i know of seriously good frames having problems breaking that s not to say there all bad is it.
  • greg66_tri_v2.0greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    Mavic's preliminary response

    I posted this more for FYI than to sh!t stir. I don't have an agenda for or against Mavic.

    That said, if someone's riding these, I think it's important that they know that this happened to a post-recall version of the wheel. It's up to them to decide whether to continuing using the wheel, and I don't have a problem with anyone deciding that's what they will do.

    FWIW, Mavic's points: that the cause of the crash may have been either (a) an exploding tyre leading to the losing it, or (b) an exploding top tube; and in both cases damage to the wheel was incidental during the crash, seem implausible. The frame was, I think, a Spesh Tarmac. Spesh's CEO no doubt has a view on (b).
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • Gavin GilbertGavin Gilbert Posts: 4,019
    Meanwhile, Schwalbe have issued a recall on their Ultremo R tyres due to sidewall failures. This could also cause a rider to crash.

    Are the web forums buzzing with stories of how useless Schwalbe tyres are? Are they heck. My theory - it's because Ultremos don't cost that much.
  • roger_merrimanroger_merriman Posts: 6,165
    I'd expect most makers to have to recall at some point, partically as the high end tires are naff all to them, further down the food chain blizard sports seem fairly fast and tough tires.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Product recalls are common enough, but they are usually due to manufacturing problems rather than fundamental design problems. So these wheels are more comparable to the Campag seat posts with too much material drilled out, than to a batch of stems with faulty welds.

    Mavic may well be correct to propose that their wheels are sufficiently strong to withstand normal riding conditions and that they will not be the cause of failure. But this is to completely miss the point.

    When they DO fail, there appears to be a possibility of catastrophic failure inherent in the design that is not present in other wheels. Not even Mavic argue that the wheel didn't very rapidly break ALL its spokes. What other type of wheel does this?

    So the question is, are you happy to be riding a wheel which will be fine unless you have a puncture on a bend, or just before a pothole? Or a wheel that is fine unless, for some reason, it breaks one spoke, in which case there is a possibility that they could all break before you have the time to stop?

    Or, for 100g extra would you prefer to ride a wheel which will withstand a puncture, or 1, or 2 spoke breakages?

    I'd put money on this concept being binned sooner or later by Mavic.
  • Gavin GilbertGavin Gilbert Posts: 4,019
    So the question is, are you happy to be riding a wheel which will be fine unless you have a puncture on a bend, or just before a pothole? Or a wheel that is fine unless, for some reason, it breaks one spoke, in which case there is a possibility that they could all break before you have the time to stop? Or, for 100g extra would you prefer to ride a wheel which will withstand a puncture, or 1, or 2 spoke breakages?

    The R Sys are a high end wheelset and I purchased a pair knowing that would mean they wouldn't be robust wheels. For the days where I need robust wheels I have 3-cross 32 spoke Ambrosio Nemesis on Record with Roubaix tubs. Horses for courses.

    Whilst I'm concerned about the recent failure, I also accepted when I purchased the wheels that having carbon spokes that damage would probably be serious. Caveat emptor. Mavic have not claimed that a puncture or tyre failure caused the wheel to fail. They have said that a puncture or tyre failure could have been the proximate cause of the accident and that the wheel then failed as a consequence of that accident.

    There is no way on earth that Mavic would allow an unsafe product to be used. But at this precise moment Mavic are correctly treating the incident as an isolated example and have requested the failed wheel be tested. If evidence emerges of other failures, or the testing reveals issues, then doubtless there will be another recall.
  • el_presidenteel_presidente Posts: 1,963
    For the days where I need robust wheels I have 3-cross 32 spoke Ambrosio Nemesis on Record with Roubaix tubs.

    what are the days that you don't need a robust wheel Gavin? When you are cycling in your suit of armour? :)
    <a>road</a>
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Mavic have not claimed that a puncture or tyre failure caused the wheel to fail.

    They have said that a puncture or tyre failure could have been the proximate cause of the accident and that the wheel then failed as a consequence of that accident
    How are those two statements different? And, as I said previously, point my to another wheel design with the property of catastrophic failure under those circumstances, consequential or otherwise.

    I think you are still missing the point. Even a weak climbing wheel, although it will fail more often, will not completely disintegrate and pitch the rider onto their face.

    I agree that its an isolated incident and, on that basis alone, Mavic would not be justified in any recall. Your faith in Mavic is admirable, but they DID put the original unsafe wheels on the market, so their product testing is not fullproof, is it?

    I also found their response to have a slight essence of "head in the sand" about it, given the similarity to the evens with the previous wheels.
  • Gavin GilbertGavin Gilbert Posts: 4,019
    Do you not understand the concept of Proximate Cause?
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Do you not understand the concept of Proximate Cause?
    Do you?

    Mavic propose that a mechanical failure of some description occured and that the damage was sustained to the wheel during the resulting incident. One proposal was that the tyre had rolled off the rim. I keep asking you what other hub would entirely separate from what other rim in what other wheel design under those circumstances? Other wheels might taco - that's about as bad as I could imagine.

    I might be wrong. Time will tell. However, I see no prima facie reason to assume that the cause of the failure is any different to the original verions and for that reason I think that Mavic are clutching at straws.
  • Gavin GilbertGavin Gilbert Posts: 4,019
    Yes I do understand it. I've worked in the insurance industry for 25 years so it's something that pops up occasionally. I'll give you a pointer but it's dense so you may need to work through it a couple of times:

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... mate+Cause

    Mavic have not said the wheel failed because the tyre rolled. Give their response more than one read and it's clear they have put forward the counter proposition that the rolled tyre caused a crash and that wheel failed in that crash. Similarly they are also proposing that the rider hitting a pothole caused the inital crash. It's not playing with words, it's a clearly different sequence of events.

    FWIW - I have problems with Mavic relying on the puncture statement. The evidence presented by both sides confirms the rim was ovalised. Clearly it is to be expected that the tyre would be seperated from the rim given that damage.

    As for the extent of the damage caused - the spokes are made from carbon. Anyone who's been around bikes for more than 10 minutes knows that damage to carbon components is impossible to spot with the naked eye and that failure tends to be sudden and catastrophic. I purchased my set of R-Sys knowing that a serious stack would involve a re-spoke. Just as I would need to replace my carbon forks and carbon handlebars.

    However, thinking about the the issue more; given the tendancy of the spokes is to break in a crash I can see the UCI banning the technology on safety grounds. Nobody wants shards of carbon straws flying around a collapsed peloton.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    Give their response more than one read and it's clear they have put forward the counter proposition that the rolled tyre caused a crash and that wheel failed in that crash. Similarly they are also proposing that the rider hitting a pothole caused the inital crash. It's not playing with words, it's a clearly different sequence of events.
    Christ alive, does it only count when you say it?

    The point is that any other type of wheel, given the same events, would not break so as to completely separate the hub from the rim. Mavic's only point of argument is that the rider would have come down anyway, but this is to assume that the injuries would not have been any worse in a "normal accident" as compared to one during which the rider suddenly found themselves with no front wheel. The probability of the wheel not causing the accident appears slim, the probability of the wheel not exacerbating the accident even lower.
    FWIW - I have problems with Mavic relying on the puncture statement. The evidence presented by both sides confirms the rim was ovalised. Clearly it is to be expected that the tyre would be seperated from the rim given that damage.
    Yes, and the eye witness damage that the guy slowed down, pulled out of the line and had the wheel disintegrate while he was freewheeling. That does suggest that the wheel just might have been the cause.
    As for the extent of the damage caused - the spokes are made from carbon. Anyone who's been around bikes for more than 10 minutes knows that damage to carbon components is impossible to spot with the naked eye and that failure tends to be sudden and catastrophic. I purchased my set of R-Sys knowing that a serious stack would involve a re-spoke. Just as I would need to replace my carbon forks and carbon handlebars.
    The issue isn't one of having a crash and replacing A spoke, or having a crash and having a precautionary rebuild, its the risk that you have a crash BECAUSE of the spokes, or are injured because the crash is unecessarily severe. If I ping a spoke, I expect brake rub and to abort a ride. I might even expect to scratch the paint of my frame, or have a laceration fron the spoke. If I ping a spoke, I don't expect to suddenly be riding a unicycle.

    The comparison to stems and bars is interesting. Some pros still won't ride them. However, they do use carbon in tension, whereas Mavic are trying to use it in compression. Try dangling a kg weight from a drinking straw. Then try balancing a kg weight on a dringing straw.
    However, thinking about the the issue more; given the tendancy of the spokes is to break in a crash I can see the UCI banning the technology on safety grounds. Nobody wants shards of carbon straws flying around a collapsed peloton.
    No, the UCI may ban them because they don't want more collapsed peletons than necessary.
  • How ther hell did the marketing get away with calling a new product Arses?!? :lol:
  • PokerfacePokerface Posts: 7,960
    Meanwhile, Schwalbe have issued a recall on their Ultremo R tyres due to sidewall failures. This could also cause a rider to crash.

    Are the web forums buzzing with stories of how useless Schwalbe tyres are? Are they heck. My theory - it's because Ultremos don't cost that much.

    Ultremo R's are not cheap tyres by any stretch of the imagination! Close to £30 EACH. Yes, there are more expensive ones out there - but they still range near the top of the heap.

    I bought a pair and the rear one blew up in the first 10 miles - leaving me stranded. Schwalbe sent me 4 new ones and told me to destroy the pair on my bike.

    As for the R-Sys wheels - I'm riding the post-recall wheels now. My pre-recall wheels lasted well over 5000 miles with no problems.

    Of course I'm a little worried about the wheel failing but I have to have faith in Mavic that they wouldn't have sent out another batch of dodgy wheels. And that this incident was an isolated one.

    If we hear more like this, then I'll be swapping to another set...
  • AllTheGearAllTheGear Posts: 248
    You were riding Ultremo R's and R-Sys?

    Glad you're ok!!
    ... and no idea ...

    FCN: 3
  • biondinobiondino Posts: 5,990
    AllTheGear wrote:
    You were riding Ultremo R's and R-Sys?

    Glad you're ok!!

    And what are the odds they were attached to a Cervélo :shock:
  • AllTheGearAllTheGear Posts: 248
    biondino wrote:
    AllTheGear wrote:
    You were riding Ultremo R's and R-Sys?

    Glad you're ok!!

    And what are the odds they were attached to a Cervélo :shock:

    :shock: is there something I need to know?
    ... and no idea ...

    FCN: 3
  • greg66_tri_v2.0greg66_tri_v2.0 Posts: 7,172
    AllTheGear wrote:
    biondino wrote:
    AllTheGear wrote:
    You were riding Ultremo R's and R-Sys?

    Glad you're ok!!

    And what are the odds they were attached to a Cervélo :shock:

    :shock: is there something I need to know?

    There's a standing "joke" (I hesitate to elevate it that level, but there you are) about Cervelos and recalls. Forks, R2.5s ... they love that sh!t here...
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • AllTheGearAllTheGear Posts: 248
    Ah, well that was before I came to this forum.

    Actually the Wolf SL fork recall is one of the reasons I was comfortable buying a Cervélo.

    I might have an alloy Cervélo anyway, I haven't disclosed that info ;-)

    EDIT: Sorry this is going OT. We should be talking about other people's dodgey gear, Not mine!
    ... and no idea ...

    FCN: 3
  • Gavin GilbertGavin Gilbert Posts: 4,019
    So the question is, are you happy to be riding a wheel which will be fine unless you have a puncture on a bend, or just before a pothole?
    Christ alive, does it only count when you say it?

    So was your first statement imprecise, or are you backtracking?

    If the tendancy is for the R-Sys to break in a crash, then that's the tendancy of the wheel. I'm not happy about it, but it's a high-end cutting edge design and I'll have to live with it.

    What is being alleged is that the failure in question was a self-contained mechanical disintergation of the spokes. Mavic have put into the public domain a number of counter propositions to this. At the moment there is no evidence available to the public of how the failure occured. It may be a design fault, it may be due damage sustained in the crash, it may be latent damaged caused due to some prior incident, or incorrect storage or transportation.

    At present the information is not in the public domain. There have been no reported similar failures and Mavic are clearly investigating the complaints. If a cause for concern is found, Mavic will have no option but to issue a futher recall. Until that point I am keeping an open mind. It's a pity you are not willing to either.
  • always_tyredalways_tyred Posts: 4,965
    So the question is, are you happy to be riding a wheel which will be fine unless you have a puncture on a bend, or just before a pothole?
    Christ alive, does it only count when you say it?

    So was your first statement imprecise, or are you backtracking?

    If the tendancy is for the R-Sys to break in a crash, then that's the tendancy of the wheel. I'm not happy about it, but it's a high-end cutting edge design and I'll have to live with it.

    What is being alleged is that the failure in question was a self-contained mechanical disintergation of the spokes. Mavic have put into the public domain a number of counter propositions to this. At the moment there is no evidence available to the public of how the failure occured. It may be a design fault, it may be due damage sustained in the crash, it may be latent damaged caused due to some prior incident, or incorrect storage or transportation.

    At present the information is not in the public domain. There have been no reported similar failures and Mavic are clearly investigating the complaints. If a cause for concern is found, Mavic will have no option but to issue a futher recall. Until that point I am keeping an open mind. It's a pity you are not willing to either.
    I don't have a vested interest in this either way. I'm not changing my tune and I have been abundantly clear.

    My honest opinion is that these wheels are a bad idea from a number of perspectives - the design doesn't reflect the inherent strengths of the materials used, requires a number of compromises (e.g. not suitable for bladed spokes or aero rims.. I don't think) and aren't a whole lot lighter than more conventional designs (e.g. 120g lighter than Ksyriums, same weight as http://www.topolinotech.com/products/vx40.php).

    I'm hazarding a guess that these wheels will eventually be recalled. Its only a guess.

    I probably wouldn't ride them if I had a set (this from a guy who just got out of a long argument with a certain manufacturer over a stem recall and a set of wheels with aluminium spoke nipples which were breaking 2 at a time - that was enough for me to desist use of both items).

    As for the cause - I am guessing, and its only a guess, that something caused a spoke failure - most probably forces encountered during use, and not from a puncture, although this isn't important - and that further spoke failures propogated from this.

    The propogation of spoke failures was the problem with the previous version. Other than putting an object through the spokes, I don't think this is seen with wheels having a structure based solely on spoke tension.

    My problem with the Mavic response is that two types of wheel have essentially the same design (old and new R-Sys wheels) and have failed in essentially the same way and they are proposing that it would be logical to assume as a starting point that the failures are different (whilst also managing to question the quality of the VN journalism).

    For sure, there would need to be additional examples before a recall and its correct to investigate if the failure was of another cause, but this could be done without the objectionable defensive response to a bit of pretty considered and balanced (and considering the injuries, restrained) journalism.

    Perhaps the new wheels will be less prone to this type of failure. Sufficiently less prone? I can only guess.
Sign In or Register to comment.