Cycling UK Forum

Front wheel retention devices are hardly a new thing; many Raleigh front hubs through the 1950s and 1960s had lips on the locknuts or the tracknuts that engaged with a specially shaped front dropout. This meant that the front hub couldn't drop out (or in fact vibrate very much) even if one or both of the tracknuts worked loose.

Re the prang; sounds horrible.

It is possible to break a fork by simply having one side of the hub tight on the dropout, and the other one not. I know, because I did exactly that. I didn't tighten both sides up tight, and one side came loose. Admittedly it was a dynohub, and the heavier side was loose, so it flapped about rather more agressively than it might have otherwise, but even so it broke one side, at which point I noticed there was a problem. (IIRC I rode -slowly- home on it even though only one side of the fork was able to take any real load; the other side was broken clean through and would kind of bear the weight but nothing else).

With a QR hub there is a minimum thickness of dropout that will be clamped by the side with the nut, even if the lever goes tight on the other side; this is because the nut can bear against the end of the axle, and/or the spring etc, instead of the dropout. It is obviously possible to tighten a QR insufficiently, however, it is also possible to install a wheel with the QR lever tight, but with the wheel loose in the frame on one side. The side loads on the front wheel, plus bumps in the road, then cause the wheel to move/vibrate and this will flex the fork just above the dropout on one side; the other side sees a repeated rattling/hammering that can also be harmful. Breakage follows, usually on the side where it is clamped. Breakage on the other side may then follow shortly after. In the resultant prang, neither fork end may look damaged; one may still have the wheel in it, and the other may have broken off as the final event prior to loss of control. If one side wasn't tight, I'd expect to see scuffing marks where the hub had been moving in the dropout, rather than the usual sharp tooth marks, BTW.

Before my fork broke, there had been a rattle (presumably the hub in the dropout) that I had noticed but not worried about too much; it wasn't very loud. When the breakage occurred, I noticed there was something wrong because it didn't feel right. I couldn't quite see because it was dark. IIRC I then rode on slowly having tightened the nut properly (stable door and all) and made sure that the other side wasn't cracked as best I could. I made sure I didn't use the front brake, and I walked down the hills. Oddly enough had the fork been stiffer, there may have been little difference in feel after one side broke; as it was, the rattle didn't seem much worse. If I'd not had my wits about me it could well have ended rather badly.

It may be of scant consolation to your friend that there is a reasonable explanation for the failure like this; I've had a problem with a QR hub where the spring became deformed and this caused the nut to bear on it instead of the dropout, even though the same arrangement had worked OK for years before. These days I am stupidly careful with stuff like this; you don't get much in the way of second chances. I've even left the lips on my bikes where they are fitted, even though I think they shouldn't be necessary with rim brakes.

cheers

Audax67 wrote:The expert's report says that the damage is consistent with the loss of the front wheel. It suggests that the front wheel came out of the left dropout, thereby putting excessive stress on the right blade of the fork, which accordingly fractured. The left-hand blade then came into contact with the road, broke across most of its thickness but remained attached and bent back at 90°. The absence of the lips facilitated the wheel coming out, and the fact that they had been voluntarily removed cleared the manufacturer and retailer. There was no reference to the manner in which the lips might have been removed.

It sounds feasible to me.

What these experts are is (1) not neutral (2) paid by the manufacturer (3) expert in thinking up a reason why it isn't the manufacturer's fault. Basically to win such a case you have to employ your own expert. But it usually isn't worth the cost of doing so.

Example: the leather on our expensive dining chairs. Nice chairs but crap leather. The leather has weaknesses in it which gradually stretch and then fail merely from sitting on the chairs. We complained. The manufacturer sent around an expert who wrote a report saying the damage was consistent with trauma from a blunt instrument. We know that isn't how it happened, but the expert is paid to give the conclusion most convenient to the person who employed him. He knows we won't be employing our own real expert to look at the fibres in a microscope and demonstrate him for the liar he is.

iviehoff wrote:What these experts are is (1) not neutral (2) paid by the manufacturer (3) expert in thinking up a reason why it isn't the manufacturer's fault. Basically to win such a case you have to employ your own expert. But it usually isn't worth the cost of doing so.

Example: the leather on our expensive dining chairs. Nice chairs but crap leather. The leather has weaknesses in it which gradually stretch and then fail merely from sitting on the chairs. We complained. The manufacturer sent around an expert who wrote a report saying the damage was consistent with trauma from a blunt instrument. We know that isn't how it happened, but the expert is paid to give the conclusion most convenient to the person who employed him. He knows we won't be employing our own real expert to look at the fibres in a microscope and demonstrate him for the liar he is.

The "expert" the company sends round to your house is very different from the expert witness in a Court case. The former is in the pay of the company and might be expected to be an advocate for them. The latter has a duty to the Court and is expected to be an unbiased source of expertise. The Courts do not take kindly to "expert witnesses" who try to be advocates for the side engaging them. And it is not uncommon where there is disagreement between experts for the Court to ask them to discuss it between themselves and then prepare an joint statement for the Court. The Supreme Court recently removed the immunity of expert witnesses for giving wrong or misleading testimony

Can't be too careful with q/rs. A friend of mine was messing a bout on his mtb. He went off the top of a short set of steps and pull the front end up to get the correct landing angle for the bike only to see the front wheel fall off. Expensive dental bills followed.

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.

.

Are you sure you read it. The answer is in the first 3 or 4 lines

It suggests that the front wheel came out of the left dropout,

So no evidence that the wheel did come out! With the reputation that carbon forks have of snapping without warning, one has to wonder how the court came to it's conclusion.

Thinking about the number of people I see who attach their wheels by just winding up an _open_ QR lever as tight as it will go, I can see that LLs may do some good. But, it's a bit of a cure the result rather than the problem type of solution - if people just did their QRs up properly then we wouldn't need LLs. Every new QR that I've had has had instructions on it....but there again people get some intensive training on driving and are asked to read the HC, yet for many you would swear otherwise.

LLs did have another function a few years back when we had all the panic about disc brakes making front wheels fall out despite the QR being done up. But again, the use of LLs wasn't actually curing the problem - that of having the disc mount in the wrong place/drop out angle wrong. Should be noted too, that this happened after LLs had already been introduced due to the litigation concerns.

Brucey wrote:With a QR hub there is a minimum thickness of dropout that will be clamped by the side with the nut, even if the lever goes tight on the other side; this is because the nut can bear against the end of the axle, and/or the spring etc, instead of the dropout. It is obviously possible to tighten a QR insufficiently, however, it is also possible to install a wheel with the QR lever tight, but with the wheel loose in the frame on one side.

Hi Brucey

Sorry - I'm having trouble visualising this. Any chance that you could post a diagram so that I can check all my bikes (none of which have lawyers lips)?

LollyKat wrote:

Brucey wrote:With a QR hub there is a minimum thickness of dropout that will be clamped by the side with the nut, even if the lever goes tight on the other side; this is because the nut can bear against the end of the axle, and/or the spring etc, instead of the dropout. It is obviously possible to tighten a QR insufficiently, however, it is also possible to install a wheel with the QR lever tight, but with the wheel loose in the frame on one side.

Hi Brucey

Sorry - I'm having trouble visualising this. Any chance that you could post a diagram so that I can check all my bikes (none of which have lawyers lips)?

Take the skewer out and pop the wheel in the dropouts. The ends of the axle should be flush or very slightly recessed with the outer surface of the dropout. If its protruding there is a chance the QR will clamp down on the end of the axle not the dropout.

ReedWarbler wrote: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.

Yep.
I see that, but that's not answered my question.

What are they for?
If it's like you say, what about handlebars or saddles with QRs?
I reckon they are to stop litigation. Nothing else.

What about car wheels? A mechanically inept person could not tighten wheel nuts properly.

Perhaps having LLs makes using a QR less intuitive?
Maybe QRs would be better off without them?
Why have QRs in the first place?

Mick F wrote:What about car wheels? A mechanically inept person could not tighten wheel nuts properly.

The advantage there is the *horrible* clunking you get as the wheel flaps about.

You can't fail to notice.


Of course they are there to prevent litigation - they're called "lawyers lips"...

Yes but only because manufacturers have been sued in the past because wheels dropped out of forks, particularly in that America. Don't blame the manufacturers, blame the US litigation driven population. It is the same with lights. Have you seen the disclaimer in new bike documentation stating that the bike should not be ridden at night without lights. That is a direct result of a law suit in the US. Similar to the guy who successfully sued the makers of Winnebago RVs because he crashed the RV whilst making tea. The vehicle was on cruise control at the time. It DID NOT say in the instructions that you couldn't leave the controls and go and make a cup of tea. I bet it does now.

In the UK legal system there is an assumption that the man on the Clapham omnibus is not a complete idiot. In the USA it is a fact that he is.

An impertinent point, perhaps, but the major manufacturers who sponsor professional teams make much of the fact that these professionals use standard "stock" frames. If this is the case, do the team mechanics file the LLs off? Or are these frames not in fact "stock"? Certainly I would bet money that no professional's bicycle is adorned with these things. I guess these annoying (and if you know how to use a QR properly, pointless) LLs are yet another reason to go to a bespoke builder. None of the custom made forks I have ever seen have these things, but ALL of the other forks (mostly composite, all from volume producers) I have seen have them. Apart, perhaps, from pro machines, which I've never seen up close and stationary.

The Mechanic wrote:Similar to the guy who successfully sued the makers of Winnebago RVs because he crashed the RV whilst making tea.

That was shown to be nonsense a long time ago...
http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/cruise.asp

The reality of things is that (in this country at least) suing someone requires you to prove negligence on their part.
That doesn't stop all the 'outrageous' H&S type stories being told though. In fact the H&S website has an entire section devoted to pointing out such myths.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/myth/

Sometimes it turns out there's an element of truth to a story but then it's what's *not* said that's the issue...

Mick F wrote:

ReedWarbler wrote: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.

Yep.
I see that, but that's not answered my question.

What are they for?
If it's like you say, what about handlebars or saddles with QRs?
I reckon they are to stop litigation. Nothing else.

What about car wheels? A mechanically inept person could not tighten wheel nuts properly.

Perhaps having LLs makes using a QR less intuitive?
Maybe QRs would be better off without them?
Why have QRs in the first place?

They are there not to stop litigation in the sense you are meaning it but as a result of litigation. There were a number of successful lawsuits in the US by people who had not done up their QRs correctly and as a result lost the front wheel and been injured. In response to that the lawyers lips were introduced although it completely defeated the pupose of the Quick Release in the process. Having had the lawsuits go against them, doing nothing was not an option for the bicycle manufacturers. Otherwise the next case would have sought exemplary damages because the bicycle manufacturer knew it was a problem and had, in doing nothing about it, shown blatant disregard for the safety of their customer who had been unnecessarily injured as a consequence.

You can say its all an excessive reaction to the American legal system but this thread is all about someone in the UK suing the bicycle manufacturer because of injuries possibly caused by the loss of the front wheel in the absence of any lawyers lips. If there had been no manufacturer's lawyers lips the manufacturer would probably have lost the case. As it is the plaintiff removed them and suffered the consequences.