Oh what a surprise!

foy

Have a read back through and try to make less assumptions, bloody hell do you not read the previous posts? Supersonic put the full specification of the rockhopper on 2 days ago you dimwit, read the bloody post and stop asking the same question.

cooldad

foy wrote:

Have a read back through and try to make less assumptions, bloody hell do you not read the previous posts? Supersonic put the full specification of the rockhopper on 2 days ago you dimwit, read the bloody post and stop asking the same question.

??
and
????

lbalony

RockmonkeySC wrote:

lbalony wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Its no secret that Canyons, boardmans etc are poorer frames

What are you basing this on?

I couldn't personally put a Boardman frame in the same category as a specialised frame.

I'd take the Boardman on any bike less than 2 grand. The hardtails especially, lighter, more extensively butted.

On experience and few other things. Ive seen a good few cracked Boardmans. 1 cracked Canyon. No cracked Specialized yet. From an engineering point of view the frames on spesh, giant, trek, scott etc ate better I bet if you put a boardman frame against a Specialized frame through the same fatigue and other tests in a lab the specialized would win hands down. My preference and opinion though.

I have cracked a Giant Glory, snapped the chain stay on a Giant XTC, snapped a few bottom linkages on a Giant Reign X. I have seen friends snap a linkage on a Specialized Stmpjumper and a Specialized Demo 8, I also know of three Demos which have snapped shocks. I know of various snapped chain stays on various Treks. I have never seen a session without a big dent in the ultra thin down tube.
Boardmans, Canyons etc break but so do the premium brand frames. Every frame has a weakness somewhere.

Couldn't agree more. I couldn't comment though as not seen a cracked giant or Specialized. Like I say its my opinion based on my findings. All I'm saying is if a bike is ridden hard and frequent I think the premium brands will endure it better.

lbalony

foy wrote:

Have a read back through and try to make less assumptions, bloody hell do you not read the previous posts? Supersonic put the full specification of the rockhopper on 2 days ago you dimwit, read the bloody post and stop asking the same question.

Haha oh no.

Not quite sure why you've started to quote me but then asked if I read the posts? I do read them and understand them.

Please read all the previous posts you'll soon see why Ive asked a few times to the link. Yes the spec has been posted. No link to the said bike and no price. Again I only deal with the facts you dimwit! At least if you start a thread have the decency to back it up with some facts.

rockmonkeysc

Facts are meaningless. You can prove anything with facts.

Angus Young

lbalony wrote:

Why is it some threads just blow up like this? Getting back to the original post, is there a link any one has to this joke of a Specialized? Would like to see how it compares to other bikes of the same class.

This isn't a thread blowing up. Don't be so touchy.

lbalony

Angus Young wrote:

lbalony wrote:

Why is it some threads just blow up like this? Getting back to the original post, is there a link any one has to this joke of a Specialized? Would like to see how it compares to other bikes of the same class.

This isn't a thread blowing up. Don't be so touchy.

Arrogant and now touchy. Hmm ok. Go on go for the 3rd!

No your right, it hasnt blown up, 7 pages and still no link to the original posters 'oh what a surprise'.

foy

So supersonic is a liar then according to the gospel of mega what a lot of baloney, take it from me the specification that supersonic listed is identical to the one i saw in leisure lakes you pompous arsehole. Seems to me you just want to bloody argue and doubt folks integrity on here, get a bloody life.

Angus Young

O.K. now it blew up. Lol!

rockmonkeysc

lbalony wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

lbalony wrote:

Why is it some threads just blow up like this? Getting back to the original post, is there a link any one has to this joke of a Specialized? Would like to see how it compares to other bikes of the same class.

This isn't a thread blowing up. Don't be so touchy.

Arrogant and now touchy. Hmm ok. Go on go for the 3rd!

No your right, it hasnt blown up, 7 pages and still no link to the original posters 'oh what a surprise'.

Angus just called your mum a ****

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Angus just called your mum a ****

Very Lol!

lbalony

foy wrote:

So supersonic is a liar then according to the gospel of mega what a lot of baloney, take it from me the specification that supersonic listed is identical to the one i saw in leisure lakes you pompous arsehole. Seems to me you just want to bloody argue and doubt folks integrity on here, get a bloody life.

No you said that. Again just asked for the link because the one I saw looked comparable to other top brands at that price point. Not the one in your photo and neither at 1200. He's listing is not your photo. Ive not argued once just answered all that asked of me. Pompous arsehole? Not even going to respond to that, just acknowledge it.

If your so heated and upset by your opinion of speciliazed and how they rip everyone off, because they just pluck these numbers out of this air you know, they have no one who gets paid lots of money to work out what each bike cost them in labour, materials, research & development, distribution, marketing, development etc etc then give it a fair mark up for the class of bike it is. just buy your rockrider thats just the same but half the price. Just don't get so upset and angry about it. Or buy second hand?

lbalony

Angus Young wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Angus just called your mum a ****

Very Lol!

He wouldn't he's far to intellectual for that

rockmonkeysc

lbalony wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Angus just called your mum a ****

Very Lol!

Did you just call Angus a c***?


He wouldn't he's far to intellectual for that

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

lbalony wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Angus just called your mum a ****

Very Lol!

Did you just call Angus a c***?


He wouldn't he's far to intellectual for that

Indeed. Lol!

Ryan Jones

lbalony wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Its no secret that Canyons, boardmans etc are poorer frames

What are you basing this on?

I couldn't personally put a Boardman frame in the same category as a specialised frame.

I'd take the Boardman on any bike less than 2 grand. The hardtails especially, lighter, more extensively butted.

On experience and few other things. Ive seen a good few cracked Boardmans. 1 cracked Canyon. No cracked Specialized yet. From an engineering point of view the frames on spesh, giant, trek, scott etc ate better I bet if you put a boardman frame against a Specialized frame through the same fatigue and other tests in a lab the specialized would win hands down. My preference and opinion though.

Ibalony, you state that you work in engineering and then suggest that some very well reviewed bikes owned by many people are inferior quality. I don't know what kind of engineering shop you work in, but one thing I've learned working in engineering myself is that you shouldn't assume things that you simply don't know.
Where are your warranty claim figures to back up the failure rates ?
Where are your copies of the cad drawings sent off to the factory for production, with the calculations/simulation models to back up the design ?
Where are your copies of the quality assurance documentation, stating that they are made of inferior metals and welded using inferior processes, then inspected in an inferior way ?
Where are the findings from the prototype testing, showing that somebrands do more testing than others ?

It's ridiculous to slate a product based on assumptions and the odd failure you've heard of. I saw a BMW broke down once upon a time, must be bad cars right ? It annoys me as thats precisely the attitude that keeps costs artificially high, newcomers being swayed by the big names as it represents trust in being sold a decent product. Lets give the newcomers a fair review of these products so they can make an informed choice, not just put out biased ficticious statements dressed as "facts". You do state that you only deal with facts right ?

Foy, please buy something and enjoy what you ride without worrying about products you aren't going to buy.

Hugs + Kisses to all others

foy

Well said ryan xxxxxxxxxxx

rockmonkeysc

I have worked in engineering for nearly 20 years, in manufacturing, design and now failure analysis.
Being an engineer gives no knowledge of which frames are most likely to fail unless you have seen FEA models, prototype failure data and quality data.
I only have a boardman road bike and visually, the build quality is excellent, as good as any other bike I have owned.
I think one of the reasons there have been frame failures on boardman bikes is that they are very popular with beginners. Beginners generally ride badly and are harsh on frames. They don't know how to ride smoothly and are very rigid on a bike. A good rider can ride much harder and faster while stressing the bike less.

lbalony

Ryan Jones wrote:

lbalony wrote:

supersonic wrote:

Its no secret that Canyons, boardmans etc are poorer frames

What are you basing this on?

I couldn't personally put a Boardman frame in the same category as a specialised frame.

I'd take the Boardman on any bike less than 2 grand. The hardtails especially, lighter, more extensively butted.

On experience and few other things. Ive seen a good few cracked Boardmans. 1 cracked Canyon. No cracked Specialized yet. From an engineering point of view the frames on spesh, giant, trek, scott etc ate better I bet if you put a boardman frame against a Specialized frame through the same fatigue and other tests in a lab the specialized would win hands down. My preference and opinion though.

Ibalony, you state that you work in engineering and then suggest that some very well reviewed bikes owned by many people are inferior quality. I don't know what kind of engineering shop you work in, but one thing I've learned working in engineering myself is that you shouldn't assume things that you simply don't know.
Where are your warranty claim figures to back up the failure rates ?
Where are your copies of the cad drawings sent off to the factory for production, with the calculations/simulation models to back up the design ?
Where are your copies of the quality assurance documentation, stating that they are made of inferior metals and welded using inferior processes, then inspected in an inferior way ?
Where are the findings from the prototype testing, showing that somebrands do more testing than others ?

It's ridiculous to slate a product based on assumptions and the odd failure you've heard of. I saw a BMW broke down once upon a time, must be bad cars right ? It annoys me as thats precisely the attitude that keeps costs artificially high, newcomers being swayed by the big names as it represents trust in being sold a decent product. Lets give the newcomers a fair review of these products so they can make an informed choice, not just put out biased ficticious statements dressed as "facts". You do state that you only deal with facts right ?

Foy, please buy something and enjoy what you ride without worrying about products you aren't going to buy.

Hugs + Kisses to all others

I dont need to back my opinion up with anything. I do work in engineering but not a shop as you put it. Getting back to the point I was merely stating that I do not believe that carreras, rockriders and boardmans etc are not as good a frame as treks, giants & specialised etc. yes they may come with glowing reviews based on the ride and full package, but I think you was missing my point. (Think foy missed it along time ago!) Which is purely on the frame. Im not disliking any ones bike just stating my opinion based on my engineering knowledge and experience with cracked frames. I encourage people to buy the sort of bikes we speak of. Infact I have told 2 people based on reviews to buy a voodoo bizango and 1 hoodoo. Now that sounds contradictory doesn't it? But i simply saw with my own eyes that it was a trail ready package for peanuts. They wouldn't need to swap anything out. Im not bothered if it won trail bike of the year as I know if it was priced at a grand it wouldn't be.


Btw I ride a bonded Ti Raleigh frame known for splitting. I love it. Do I believe its as good as a Lynskey Ti frame? No!

lbalony

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I have worked in engineering for nearly 20 years, in manufacturing, design and now failure analysis.
Being an engineer gives no knowledge of which frames are most likely to fail unless you have seen FEA models, prototype failure data and quality data.
I only have a boardman road bike and visually, the build quality is excellent, as good as any other bike I have owned.
I think one of the reasons there have been frame failures on boardman bikes is that they are very popular with beginners. Beginners generally ride badly and are harsh on frames. They don't know how to ride smoothly and are very rigid on a bike. A good rider can ride much harder and faster while stressing the bike less.

Your dead right. But understanding engineering and its process's I can confidently say that I know boardmans are manufactured in a certain way. I.e they send a trek or what ever hydroformed no visable weldings frame of to tawain and say we like this, we need it with 16 differences which weve advised and looked at and our own paint job on it. The makers say no problem we can do that then they get there frame. Now the difference is, the trek has been through years of r&d. The boardman hasnt. Altering things even slightly can have detrimental effects. Rockriders, solid frame as made completely differemt, same with voodoo.

New riders could contribute i agree but the said frame should be able to cope. Voodoos etc do. Thing is with the likes of boardmans and rockriders, there not trend setters there followers. You have the same hierachy through out all engineering and fashion and food etc etc!

Angus Young

lbalony wrote:

Your dead right. But understanding engineering and its process's I can confidently say that I know boardmans are manufactured in a certain way. I.e they send a trek or what ever hydroformed no visable weldings frame of to tawain and say we like this, we need it with 16 differences which weve advised and looked at and our own paint job on it. The makers say no problem we can do that then they get there frame. Now the difference is, the trek has been through years of r&d. The boardman hasnt. Altering things even slightly can have detrimental effects. Rockriders, solid frame as made completely differemt, same with voodoo.

New riders could contribute i agree but the said frame should be able to cope. Voodoos etc do. Thing is with the likes of boardmans and rockriders, there not trend setters there followers. You have the same hierachy through out all engineering and fashion and food etc etc!

Your screen name is quite appropriate.

The real reason more Boardmans fail (taking Boardman just as an example) is because they sell a shitload more of them so it just looks like it's more. Unless you can show a higher percentage figure of failed frames for total bikes sold for Boardmans then you're just talking out of your arsé. So, as has been quite eloquently pointed out already, as an engineer, show us your data.

rockmonkeysc

lbalony wrote:

RockmonkeySC wrote:

I have worked in engineering for nearly 20 years, in manufacturing, design and now failure analysis.
Being an engineer gives no knowledge of which frames are most likely to fail unless you have seen FEA models, prototype failure data and quality data.
I only have a boardman road bike and visually, the build quality is excellent, as good as any other bike I have owned.
I think one of the reasons there have been frame failures on boardman bikes is that they are very popular with beginners. Beginners generally ride badly and are harsh on frames. They don't know how to ride smoothly and are very rigid on a bike. A good rider can ride much harder and faster while stressing the bike less.

Your dead right. But understanding engineering and its process's I can confidently say that I know boardmans are manufactured in a certain way. I.e they send a trek or what ever hydroformed no visable weldings frame of to tawain and say we like this, we need it with 16 differences which weve advised and looked at and our own paint job on it. The makers say no problem we can do that then they get there frame. Now the difference is, the trek has been through years of r&d. The boardman hasnt. Altering things even slightly can have detrimental effects. Rockriders, solid frame as made completely differemt, same with voodoo.

New riders could contribute i agree but the said frame should be able to cope. Voodoos etc do. Thing is with the likes of boardmans and rockriders, there not trend setters there followers. You have the same hierachy through out all engineering and fashion and food etc etc!

You really are talking a load of rubbish. There is no way you can know how boardman frames are manufactured or developed.
No one copies the design of Trek, Specialized etc because they are so heavily protected by patents and big legal deoartments. This means they have to develop their own designs.
Selling a weak product in high volumes sends manufacturers bankrupt, for this reason alone I can guarantee Boardman frames have gone through a very thorough development process.

cooldad

lbalony wrote:

Your dead right. But understanding engineering and its process's I can confidently say that I know boardmans are manufactured in a certain way. I.e they send a trek or what ever hydroformed no visable weldings frame of to tawain and say we like this, we need it with 16 differences which weve advised and looked at and our own paint job on it. The makers say no problem we can do that then they get there frame. Now the difference is, the trek has been through years of r&d. The boardman hasnt. Altering things even slightly can have detrimental effects. Rockriders, solid frame as made completely differemt, same with voodoo.

New riders could contribute i agree but the said frame should be able to cope. Voodoos etc do. Thing is with the likes of boardmans and rockriders, there not trend setters there followers. You have the same hierachy through out all engineering and fashion and food etc etc!

I always trust semi literate 'engineers'.

lbalony

Angus Young wrote:

lbalony wrote:

Your dead right. But understanding engineering and its process's I can confidently say that I know boardmans are manufactured in a certain way. I.e they send a trek or what ever hydroformed no visable weldings frame of to tawain and say we like this, we need it with 16 differences which weve advised and looked at and our own paint job on it. The makers say no problem we can do that then they get there frame. Now the difference is, the trek has been through years of r&d. The boardman hasnt. Altering things even slightly can have detrimental effects. Rockriders, solid frame as made completely differemt, same with voodoo.

New riders could contribute i agree but the said frame should be able to cope. Voodoos etc do. Thing is with the likes of boardmans and rockriders, there not trend setters there followers. You have the same hierachy through out all engineering and fashion and food etc etc!

Your screen name is quite appropriate.

The real reason more Boardmans fail (taking Boardman just as an example) is because they sell a shitload more of them so it just looks like it's more. Unless you can show a higher percentage figure of failed frames for total bikes sold for Boardmans then you're just talking out of your arsé. So, as has been quite eloquently pointed out already, as an engineer, show us your data.

I guessed you was young with out the indication of your forum name. You hit the 3rd. But I still wont respond to your w&nkerisms! Ok so in your findings and argument, weve gone from spesh being over priced, someone questioning that opinion to you also agreeing with op and want to see date specific to the bikes? Your asking the wrong guy and still missing the point brain wave! Maybe you and Foy could write a letter together to specialized? You could write in you want data on all tests as you beleive there no better than a boardman. Foy can point out that theyve made a mistake as too much for basically a boardman. Im sure they'll assist you.

RIGHT! i would like to offer a full and frank retraction of all my answers. They are ill founded and I have absolutely no basis. I do not know what I am on about and I made it all up. Im really sorry for upsetting some of you. I understand from the tone of some messages that you are greatly effected by my unfounded opinions! This is my last post in here on this topic as I cant go one making this stuff up. Im also scared its getting more popular than the Canyon page.

Foy this is a special one for you. Im really sorry and i'll pray this evening for you to get a Specialized one day, you may walk into Evans or Leisure lakes and some new sales guy may have marked it up wrong and you'll get it for the same price as an Apollo or something.

The young lad. Jumps on the bandwagon, misses the point and uses insults. Im sure you'll grow out of it! Just be patient.


Que more insults......

Angus Young

cooldad wrote:

I always trust semi literate 'engineers'.

And you only highlighted half the errors, so when you say "semi" you're being kind.

cooldad

Angus Young wrote:

cooldad wrote:

I always trust semi literate 'engineers'.

And you only highlighted half the errors, so when you say "semi" you're being kind.

I couldn't be bothered with grammar, context and just plain clumsy syntax.

rockmonkeysc

Angus Young wrote:

cooldad wrote:

I always trust semi literate 'engineers'.

And you only highlighted half the errors, so when you say "semi" you're being kind.

To be fair, engineers need to be good with maths, physics and problem solving, not so much grammar and spelling.

Angus Young

RockmonkeySC wrote:

Angus Young wrote:

cooldad wrote:

I always trust semi literate 'engineers'.

And you only highlighted half the errors, so when you say "semi" you're being kind.

To be fair, engineers need to be good with maths, physics and problem solving, not so much grammar and spelling.

But, presumably, you need to be able to convey your ideas and findings accurately and without ambiguity. Depending on your 'field', lives may depend upon it.

The Rookie

lbalony wrote:

hey send a trek or what ever hydroformed no visable weldings frame of to tawain and say we like this, we need it with 16 differences which weve advised and looked at and our own paint job on it!

I stopped reading after this, the other makers produce nearly all their frames in Taiwan as well, so as clearly you know nothing, you'll have nothing worth saying.

I can only assume you became an engineer in in Birmingham where the pass criteria is to be able to say (adopt Brummie accent) "ah look there is an engine 'ere".

If you were an engineer you would use data, which is......

I'm an engineer, I know my English isn't great, but it's not that bad!

foy

Funny old world, a lot of balony demands the link to the specialized specification but on the other hand cannot back his comments on frame failures with hard facts as folk have requested. Mr balony if you are an engineer then wayne rooney is better looking than tom cruise. Maybe you are very good at engineering bullshit of the highest degree, but in fairness to you, boardman and carrera only give a 2 year warranty on their frames so some of what you say may be true. Hope i have opened another can of worms with my last comment. Bloody hell who needs coronation street when we have entertainment like this lol.