"Frames do break"

wgwarburton

mudcovered wrote:

LBS man shouldn't be so smug. I can't believe he has never had to replace a frame he has sold under waranty.
Frames do break from time to time. I've been through 2 complete Trek Fuel frames.

Always Tyred wrote:

Afraid its just one of those things.

That's interesting... I've been cycling for forty-odd years (some of them very odd :-) ) and the only frame failures I've experienced personally have been the result of abuse :

Rode a small-wheeled bike into a gully dodging a dog & bent the main tube rear dropout broke after shifting abused rear mech into wheel Chainstay rusted through on neglected 20 y/o winter hack (twice)

A colleague (Hi Gordon!) had a Al commuter frame failure a few years back- I thought that was just very bad luck, though it didn't help my irrational prejudice against Al(!).

I would expect a frame failure to be a once-in-a-blue-moon thing, either through a dodgy weld or serious abuse but it sounds like you guys think it's not uncommon?

Is that really the case? Would you expect modern frames to fail sometimes?

Cheers,
W.

TheBrogueadier

I'd expect a higher failure rate on modern aluminium and carbon frames when compared to steel frames.

Not so much the construction of modern frames, but the way materials handle stress and loading - Aluminium always suffers stress damage and over time that'll lead to failure - Carbon takes loads very very well from designed angles, but suffers damage easily if hit or loaded incorrectly (much like a knee).

Edit:

Science!

That said, I wouldn't expect a frame to fail within a year unless it had been abused/heavily used/or some such.. or even fail within a few years for that matter..

DonDaddyD

I agree with you.

I don't expect a frame to fail within a year of its purchase. Unless it has been used heavily, constantly and somewhat misused.

roger_merriman

DonDaddyD wrote:

I agree with you.

I don't expect a frame to fail within a year of its purchase. Unless it has been used heavily, constantly and somewhat misused.

I'd expect a frame to last years, certinly a road bike. a MTB is more expected.

Headhuunter

Yes, a frame should last for many years unless it has been in a crash of some kind or had something dropped on it etc. I've had steel frames fail, they are not completely immune. I had a Reynolds 653 frame and before that a 501 frame, both cracked around the head tube. Someone on one of our club rides broke his collar bone recently after his steel forks completely failed when he hit a pot hole. I think the thing is you usually get more of a warning with steel frames, they don't tend to suddenly fail, whereas this is more likely for aluminium and carbon.

mudcovered

WGWarburton wrote:

I would expect a frame failure to be a once-in-a-blue-moon thing, either through a dodgy weld or serious abuse but it sounds like you guys think it's not uncommon?

Well in my case it was down to metal strength being degraded around weld areas which were partially caused by manufacturing issues (weld weakening the tube) and partially a design flaw in the frame (tube not thick enough at the weld area). The replacement frames used different welding and tube thicknesses in the areas where my frames failed. In all cases the bike didn't collapse underneath me (it just became quite flexy) so even if it had happened while I was at speed on a trail I think I'd still have had time to get the bike halted before the bike collapsed underneath me.

Expecting 0 defects out of any manufacturing process is massively unrealistic so yes I would expect some number of any frames (regardless of material used) to fail. With the pressure to build lightweight frames it is likely that new designs of frames may need design adjustments after a year or two of being sold. Especially if the material being used is new. The Al frames that I had that failed were built in 2001 when Al was a relatively new frame material. I'd certainly expect the failure rate of frames designed in 2009 to be lower than the older frames as the capabilities of the material in the real world are now much better understood.

Even steel frame is going to fail eventually. No matter how careful you are with it water will get into the frame (via seat tube, bottle bosses and bottom bracked) which will eventually cause enough corrosion for the tubes to become weak. It will of course
be easier repaired than an Al or Carbon frame.

Mike

mudcovered

I would say that frame failures (with any design) should be a rare event. I was incredibly unlucky to have 2 failures. My LBS were not that surprised about the first ( I think they had seen a couple of other instances of the same failure) but were shocked when I ran into the same problem twice. That's why they arranged for a frame upgrade the second time round.

Mike

DonDaddyD

mudcovered wrote:

Expecting 0 defects out of any manufacturing process is massively unrealistic so yes I would expect some number of any frames (regardless of material used) to fail. With the pressure to build lightweight frames it is likely that new designs of frames may need design adjustments after a year or two of being sold.

This is part of the reason why the Japanese/Asian manufacturers sector boomed and the western ones England and America (car manufacturers specifically) declined. With quality approaches such as TQM (total quality management). They pride themselves on the guarantee that the quality of one poduct is exactly the same as all the same products manufactured before it and all the same product manufactured after it.

I don't think it is massively unrealistic to expect the quality of a product not to infringe on the guarantee and for the build quality of said product to uphold the quality standards set by the company who made it. That is pretty standard really.

Buckled_Rims

DonDaddyD wrote:

This is part of the reason why the Japanese/Asian manufacturers sector boomed and the western ones England and America (car manufacturers specifically) declined. With quality approaches such as TQM (total quality management). They pride themselves on the guarantee that the quality of one poduct is exactly the same as all the same products manufactured before it and all the same product manufactured after it.

Although a complicated area to understand and explain in a short reply, essentially many of the Japanese firms relied on sub-contracting small businesses producing "JIT - Just in time" methodology. The quality HAD to be 99.99999% spot on as any failure would have had a ripple effect on production.

The original American/British way was to mass produce inhouse large quantities of stock and use them when (or if) they were needed.

Roastie

At the cross race on Sat there were at least two broken frames. A Voodoo with cracked down tube, something else carbon with snapped off mech hanger (and dropout by the look of it)...

DonDaddyD

Buckled_Rims wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

This is part of the reason why the Japanese/Asian manufacturers sector boomed and the western ones England and America (car manufacturers specifically) declined. With quality approaches such as TQM (total quality management). They pride themselves on the guarantee that the quality of one poduct is exactly the same as all the same products manufactured before it and all the same product manufactured after it.

Although a complicated area to understand and explain in a short reply, essentially many of the Japanese firms relied on sub-contracting small businesses producing "JIT - Just in time" methodology. The quality HAD to be 99.99999% spot on as any failure would have had a ripple effect on production.

The original American/British way was to mass produce inhouse large quantities of stock and use them when (or if) they were needed.

True to true. Neither of us are going to be able to fully explain quality in terms of production on a forum. But in principle I agree with you.

I just don't think its unreasonable to expect a frame not to fail. Expecting not to fail inside a year should be the norm not the exception.

always_tyred

Sometimes I'm baffled by the responses on the forum.

Of course you don't EXPECT a frame to fail in a year. However, it sometimes happens through no fault of the rider or the supplier or the manufacturer. This has never happened to me and the only frame material I don't have is titanium.

My "sometimes these things just happen" advice is so as to assure the OP in the relevant thread that it's a freak occurrence, that they are liable to get a replacement, and that they shouldn't be overly fearful that there is some systematic problem with the type of bike, and that they shouldn't be overly furious with Halfords, their staff or Boardman Bicycles.

May I point out that all of these responses to posts asking about frame failure, indicating that frame failure generally only occurs due to some form of abuse, might be interpreted to infer that whoever suffers frame failure is somehow responsible. I think that is simply incorrect. If you have a mountain bike and riding if off road causes the frame to crack, yes, there is causality derived from riding over a rock, but it is not fair to suggest that therefore the rider is responsible if the bicycle is designed to be ridden over a rock. Precisely the same thing applies to a bicycle designed for use on the public highway, said public highway being repleat with drain covers and road surface imperfections. A bicycle unable to withstand use on imprefect road surfaces is not fit for purpose.

Corporate Camper

You could spend £80k on a quality car and have to have the engine replaced under warranty, you wouldn't expect that either.

You can't attain 100% reliability in any manufacturing process, even if you employ Six Sigma Ninjas (like wot I am)

wgwarburton

Always Tyred wrote:

Sometimes I'm baffled by the responses on the forum.

Of course you don't EXPECT a frame to fail in a year. However, it sometimes happens through no fault of the rider or the supplier or the manufacturer. This has never happened to me and the only frame material I don't have is titanium.

Nor me. I was surprised that it seemed to be considered fairly routine.

My "sometimes these things just happen" advice is so as to assure the OP in the relevant thread that it's a freak occurrence, that they are liable to get a replacement, and that they shouldn't be overly fearful that there is some systematic problem with the type of bike, and that they shouldn't be overly furious with Halfords, their staff or Boardman Bicycles.

Indeed.... Under a year seems like a clear case of a manufacturing problem of some sort.

May I point out that all of these responses to posts asking about frame failure, indicating that frame failure generally only occurs due to some form of abuse, might be interpreted to infer that whoever suffers frame failure is somehow responsible. I think that is simply incorrect. If you have a mountain bike and riding if off road causes the frame to crack, yes, there is causality derived from riding over a rock, but it is not fair to suggest that therefore the rider is responsible if the bicycle is designed to be ridden over a rock. Precisely the same thing applies to a bicycle designed for use on the public highway, said public highway being repleat with drain covers and road surface imperfections. A bicycle unable to withstand use on imprefect road surfaces is not fit for purpose.

I'm not sure I'm getting your point, here: You say frame failures arn't always associated with abuse, and then that riding an ATB off road or a road bike over a pothole isn't abuse...

The failures I've experienced have all been a direct result of abuse or neglect, as described in my initial post. The OPs problems seem to have been the result of a manufacturing problem, given how quickly it was manifested.
What I wonder about is whether a cracked weld in a five year old bike that's had normal wear & tear would be looked upon as an unusual, but not unexceptional failure... If so, that stikes me as a significant lowering of expectations.

Cheers,
W.

always_tyred

WG, its simple really - I'm distinguishing between "use" and "abuse".

shoulder_of_orion

My trek frame has a lifetime warranty

supersonic

I have seen a number of frame failures in my time, with quite a variance in the modes.

In the 90s many alu and steel MTBs were just too light, and were only expected to last a season of racing, if that. Same could be said of a few scary light components that we saw back then.

Even today I see quite a few failures - flaring of headtube being perhaps the most common, and on full suspension machine, cracking around the linakges and pivots.

MBUK, percentage wise, have had more Ti frames fail than anything else. This is put down to poor quality control on the russian built frames that found their way onto the market.

rolf_f

Corporate Camper wrote:

You can't attain 100% reliability in any manufacturing process, even if you employ Six Sigma Ninjas (like wot I am)

You can quite easily. What you can't do is do this without adversely impacting on the cost of the product to the extent that purchasers wouldn't be prepared to pay for it.

This is what the idiots who say 'you can't put a price on a human life' (everytime something unfortunate happens due to some failure in the system) don't understand. Society would grind to a halt if we didn't put prices on everything - including lives and statistically remote chances of frame failure in use.

rolf_f

supersonic wrote:

I had more Ti frames fail than anything else. This is put down to poor quality control on the russian built frames that found their way onto the market.

20 years or so ago I used to go pot holing and once I bought a couple of rather cool Russian Titanium karabiners. They still look OK today but I never did dare use them! The paper they were wrapped in disintigrated and I never felt that convinced that the karabiners would be much different under use