Cycling UK Forum

In my opinion,filing off lawyers lips falls into the same category of behaviour as smoking, talking on a mobile while driving, not wearing a seatbelt, <Mod: short section removed to save slimtim from the inevitable put downs that such 'ill informed opinion' normally generates - leave it for the special section of the forum please> , riding in the dark without lights, jumping red lights, riding brakeless and so on.

Basically, you are looking for trouble by defying accepted convention and shouldn't be surprised when you find it.

Audax67 wrote:

Mick F wrote:What would they have said if the forks hadn't had the "lips" in the first place?

It would have been a pretty old bike then, and the break wouldn't have been so surprising.

I had a a couple of bikes years ago with the lips. A Raleigh Esquire circa 1981. Then later a cheapo "racing bike" circa 1982.

Oh, and thinking about it, my Hercules 3sp that my dad bought for me for my 12th birthday had them.

So it's nowt to do with only modern bikes.

My 1986 Mercian frame hasn't got them thank goodness. Campagnolo dropouts never had them to my knowledge.

What are they for, other than to make taking the front wheel out a complete pain?

"I once knew a bloke who used the quick release lever for leverage to twist the nut around to tighten it. His dad who was even less mechanically minded showed him that trick."

I watched, in amazement, as one of my club's 2nd Cat roadmen did exactly that!
Needless to say, I did show him the correct method.

Mick F wrote:What are they for, other than to make taking the front wheel out a complete pain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer_lips#Lawyer_lips

My 1999 steel Bianchi hasn't got them. But my 2005 alloy Bianchi (bought in France) does.

.

Mick F wrote:What are they for, other than to make taking the front wheel out a complete pain?

And rear.

Not sure how many hands I am supposed to have been born with, but I'm not from Norfolk, so I don't seem to have enough.

Still can't get over the idea of 'making a claim to the suppliers' having made a modification to the relevant part. Is there a culture of litigation in France, or is it the influence of all those politicos and lobbyists in Strasbourg?

Reminds me of the tales of burglars suing home-owners when they've hurt themselves during a break-in.

661-Pete wrote:

Mick F wrote:What are they for, other than to make taking the front wheel out a complete pain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer_lips#Lawyer_lips.

Yes, I read that, but I still ask, "What are they for?"

Answer:
Nothing.

............... but if Mr Campag hadn't invented the QR, we'd still be on nuts and wingnuts and LLs wouldn't have been "needed".

With respect to our transatlantic members, weren't these wretched things added to forkends in response to the draconian litigation system prevalent in the USA which supposes that whatever happens, someone - other than the complainant - must be to blame? Same as 'Closed' and 'Open' on QR levers, little lips on the front edges of Campag front changer cages, Campag Super Record rear mechs having little 'shrouds' over the adjuster screw heads? Probably many other examples of attempts to save people from their own idiotic actions that they won't accept responsibilty for.

However, I haven't filed any off. I've been tempted though!!

I'd still look at seeking recompense if I'd filed the ends off - assuming that the failure wasn't anything to do with that end of the fork (i.e. a separation at the crown with the wheel still in the fork)

Mick F wrote:

661-Pete wrote:

Mick F wrote:What are they for, other than to make taking the front wheel out a complete pain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawyer_lips#Lawyer_lips.

Yes, I read that, but I still ask, "What are they for?"

Answer:
Nothing.

............... but if Mr Campag hadn't invented the QR, we'd still be on nuts and wingnuts and LLs wouldn't have been "needed".

They have been designed to allow the completely mechanically inept to ride a bicycle with the wheel(s) not properly secured - because they will no longer just fall out when you lift the bike up.

[XAP]Bob wrote:I'd still look at seeking recompense if I'd filed the ends off - assuming that the failure wasn't anything to do with that end of the fork (i.e. a separation at the crown with the wheel still in the fork)

But the investigation says it is due to the wheel coming out of the drop-out in a way that sounds like LLs would've prevented it.

I realise my opinion is probably contrary to most, but I think it is madness to file off parts of a fork, especially a carbon fork. You can't possibly know what the lay of the fibre is or the consequence of filing of part of the structure. You could be creating great stress within the structure or creating a significant weak spot? What happens when water gets in the structure, how does carbon fibre react to water or oil ingress? Carbon isn't aluminium, nor is it steel. How does the fork flex or react under load when part of a cured structure is filed off?

I think the manufacturer should be absolved of all blame since the rider chose to modify a crucial part. If you think about it, all the load on the bike is carried through four contact points, the front and rear dropouts. Lots of hammering up and down plus loads of sideways load, plus lots of twisting, certainly on the long downhills I hit 35mph, or up to 45mph on. I wouldn't dare file off parts of the carbon fork. The instructions with my 3T fork on the Cervelo do state that it needs regular inspection and it is categorally not designed for off road use.

aprildavy wrote:I realise my opinion is probably contrary to most, but I think it is madness to file off parts of a fork, especially a carbon fork. You can't possibly know what the lay of the fibre is or the consequence of filing of part of the structure. You could be creating great stress within the structure or creating a significant weak spot? What happens when water gets in the structure, how does carbon fibre react to water or oil ingress? Carbon isn't aluminium, nor is it steel. How does the fork flex or react under load when part of a cured structure is filed off?

I think the manufacturer should be absolved of all blame since the rider chose to modify a crucial part. If you think about it, all the load on the bike is carried through four contact points, the front and rear dropouts. Lots of hammering up and down plus loads of sideways load, plus lots of twisting, certainly on the long downhills I hit 35mph, or up to 45mph on. I wouldn't dare file off parts of the carbon fork. The instructions with my 3T fork on the Cervelo do state that it needs regular inspection and it is categorally not designed for off road use.

The dropouts (and the lawyers lips that you file off) are aluminium inserts (on mine at least), not part of the carbon fibre.
There is no possible way that a bit of gentle filing would have any effect on the rest of the forks.

I'd agree with the "your fault" if it was caused by the wheel falling out.

I'd not expect metal components to suffer from the loss of such devices.

I should have thought that the main point here is that it's nothing to do with the manufacturer except to the extent that their technical experts might be able to demonstrate that the bike wasn't faulty.

With a retail sale, the contract is between the purchaser and the seller. Any extra "lifetime "warranties" and the like, can only be offered subject to the condition that they do not affect statutory rights and that declaration has to be made clear at POS. I'm outside my familiar territory here but I suspect it's an offence not to comply with this provision.

I fancy this is one of the downsides of having any sort of friendly relationship with an LBS: nobody really wants to be having to say that they are not interested in what the manufacturers have to say about warranties. I don't remember ever having any sort of problem with a bike shop over something like this, but on the very rare occasion when I've had any sort of consumer problem I've hot-footed it to West Yorkshire Trading Standards (just up the road in Gildersome) and they've sorted it PDQ. (I was once having trouble with the trading arm of the Open University and they got me a full refund with one phone call.)

If the cause of the problem was in doubt, it would obviously need technical evidence to get to the bottom of it,