Internal rim hole damage on new wheels

[bakaman]

Hi, three wheels bought mainly for use on steel tourer converted to gravel bike. On delivery, every inner spoke hole is damaged presumably because a wheel-build robot's nipple insertion holder was too large. As an engineer, I feel that it is only a matter of time before one of the cracks grows to total failure, caused by alternating spoke tension at the top of its rotation and rim bead expansion at the bottom of its rotation. This is not mentioning the sharp edges on the cracks that would abrade rim tape and eventually damage inner tube, and small parts of alloy that may detach and rattle around between the walls.

I am awaiting a response from the retailer, having asked for them to be returned, and won't build them up.

Has anyone else seen this type of damage? I am normally an A319/LX or XT man on my touring bikes, and CXpro/105 on my lighter bikes. These are single eyeletted double wall, with 36 hole Champion spokes on Shimano TX hubs. Heavier wheels than I'd normally ride, rims rated for this type of use, and when shod with heavy-ish offroad tyres I thought that the weight and agricultural nature of the wheels would be a reasonable compromise for what is a bit of a beater. The new wheels were deliberately chosen as cheaper wheels that I didn't care too much about treating them harshly on rough gravel.
Photos are available here:https://photos.app.goo.gl/yeS4UgR1XFemHh826

[PhilD28]

Punched holes, they will tell you this is now normal and perfectly acceptable. Like you I'm an engineer and know it is a likely source of crack propogation.
I don't accept them like this and no longer buy rims from manufacturers who claim this is normal, it may be their normal but it isn't mine. Unfortunately it's becoming increasingly common.

[Vorpal]

Thats ****. I wouldn't accept them, either.

If they tell you it's normal, get your money back & buy a different brand.

(also an engineer)

[[XAP]Bob]

If it's normal they should prominently display those pictures on their sales page.

Most bike wheels only need to last a few hundred miles over their lifetime, so unlikely to be an issue.

Distance selling, you might need to send them back, but full refund shouldn't be hard to obtain.

[Govnor]

The crack will spread, if new they need to go back for a refund as not a uniform cut same on every spoke hole.

[slowster]

Has anyone else seen this type of damage?

The same issue mentioned in a couple of relatively recent threads:

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=144485

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=143576

[bakaman]

No reply from retailer yet.
A reply from manufacturer says “there is absolutely no problem/risk in using these wheels” and "punching ... is cheaper ...leaves larger holes (=good) ... and avoids sharp burrs caused by drilling that can break/tear the rim tube”.
I ask him if he has looked at the photos, the sharp edges, the burrs, the cracks heading towards the rim. Reply awaited. I say that I'd be astonished if major manufacturer sold rims like that.
What I didn't say was that I'd be astonished if their lawyers would'nt have sleepless nights thinking about post-accident claims of not being fit for pupose, I can't possibly see how any 'technical expert' could justify, expertly and with reasonable grounds that the cracks would not grow and propagate due to fatigue at the ever-widening crack root. Surely it is just a matter of time. Not for me, though.

[PH]

Whether it's good or bad, if you've just received them (14 days?) you have the right to return under distance selling regs. The only thing questionable is the postage costs, their responsibility if the good are unfit, yours if not (Or a matter of goodwill).

[Vorpal]

My first job out of uni was for a company that did automotive stampings. I was a process / tooling engineer. I can assure you that it is possible to avoid damage like that. Tearing the material like that suggests dull tooling, a mismatch between the process and material (for example, excessive punch press speed), or both.

[PhilD28]

As I said, they would argue that this was normal with punched rims, which it pretty much is. The last ones I had like this were Exal, I sent them back via a well known touring bike shop who did refund me but said they are happy with them ...I'm not and but other brands now.
I took it up with the manufacturer who didn't want to know even after I told them I was concerned as a Chartered Mechanical Engineer and Fellow of one of the largest most respected engineering institutions in the world and have 40 years experience as a design engineer and consultant. They couldn't care less.

Just get a refund and take your business elsewhere.

[peetee]

I made this comment last year;
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=143576&p=1572714&hi ... m#p1572714

[bakaman]

Agreed, and disappointed. From a process point of view, punching can be fine, if the process is good, but worn tooling and/or incorrect setup can lead to it being not fine.

I will be returning them, fear not.

Also as a fellow CEng, I do despair at things like this. Unfortunately, big bike shops, even respected ones are sometimes a bit ignorant of the technical aspects,and are happy to sell them, presumably because they haven't seen an actual failure yet, and because if the manufacturer claims they are fit for purpose then the retailer thinks that the consequences of an accident that derived from product issues would sit on the manufacturer's account. Life isn't that simple in my experience.

I look fondly at my other new wheel with its double eyelet design, and think that I'll buy double-eyelets in the future ...

[prestavalve]

...presumably because a wheel-build robot's nipple insertion holder was too large...

This contributes nothing, but this may be the finest phrase to have ever followed the casual "presumably".

[Vorpal]

As I said, they would argue that this was normal with punched rims, which it pretty much is.

It might be normal, but it doesn't need to be. Punching can produce very much better results.

[bakaman]

...presumably because a wheel-build robot's nipple insertion holder was too large...

This contributes nothing, but this may be the finest phrase to have ever followed the casual "presumably".

Unfortunately, my presumption was incorrect, and the limited implications of a single badly-performing robot (AI running amok?) are overtaken by an even more seriously alarming attitude by major manufacturers.

Of course, to a degree, we are the causes of the problem in our endeavours to pay less for our goods, which does mean that manufacturers have to find a way to make them cost less.

Also, regardless of our engineering knowledge, no manufacturer will accept fault because to do so could bring countless claims against them. Better to settle out of court on the handful of claims that reach them where the user can somehow prove that the tyres hadn’t been over or under inflated, or that the bike wasn’t overloaded, or that the damage wasn’t caused by excessive tension caused by you or someone else - the defences that the manufacturer’s lawyers could produce would mean it extremely unlikely that successful compensation would ever be obtained.

Which brings me back to the principle of needing to be ready and willing to pay more for a respected manufacturer, and not buying their budget line, or lines that they might have been made in further flung, lower-cost corners of the world that might use cheap machine clones, or worn-out tooling that wasn’t good enough for the main manufacturer’s products.

I was thinking of getting an LX17/XT setup until some of the earlier comments were made about LX17s. Now, what is the alternative to LX17 without shoddy manufacturing history?