FBinNY 

You shouldn't be surprised. Not counting pros in bike shops, people don't see that many bikes other than their own. So those who are somewhat knowledgeable probably ride with othes who are too, and those who don't know how QRs work wouldn't recognize the problem anyway.

However, anyone who works in a bike shop that caters to non-serious riders can tell you that QR misuse is very common.

CB HI

They must not ride much or cycle commute. In the last week, I saw 3 bikes with the rear brake released (opened up and not functioning) because the rear wheel was way out of true.

Whenever I pass another cyclist, I look for the little clues they may do something stupid.

fietsbob

particularly of value on the 80% of the bikes sold annually, thru wally world and other box stores ,

but those Corporate Business' have A Retained Legal staff ..
ready to crush a claim or just pay off a bit in a pre court settlement.

John Forester

My point is that making the proper adjustment takes time and a bit of skill, but, without lawyer lips, once done it is done for always. Making the proper adjustment without taking the extra time and care to check it, particularly when under difficult circumstances (as in rain or darkness, or when racing) is more likely to be improperly done than properly done.

SwampDude

I understand your point. I'll take extra care in the future.

hotbike

I still say you 're all missing the point.

There are people who are NOT ready for Quick Release wheels, i.e. Novices, and they should be provided with Solid Axles, which require a Wrench to remove or install a Wheel.

You need to back up about a mile to realize the Whole Picture...

LesterOfPuppets

Wrench? Who the hell's got a wrench? Vice grips are the proper tool.

Another point being missed is that front wheel retention systems, such as lawyer lips, aren't QR-specific. Tons of solid axle front wheels with tabbed washers as backup.

There was one front wheel retention system that had me scratching my head for a good while. The inside faces of the dropouts had a hollow into which the locknuts settled (inverse lawyer lips?) so with the axle nuts off the wheel stayed in there. You REALLY had to spread the fork legs to get that wheel to drop out.

JoeyBike

Far from foolproof. You have to know which side of the fork dropout to put the grooved friction washer, and the Lawyer Clips (which serves the same basic purpose as Lawyer Tabs - preventing loose nuts from dropping a wheel out of the dropouts) have to be installed on the correct side of the dropouts as well. Then the "mechanic" must know how to loosen and tighten the nuts in order to not inadvertently unscrew or over-tighten the hub adjusting nuts causing permanent damage to the hub. And the "mechanic" in question is going to use a vice-grip pliers, crescent wrench, pipe wrench, chopsticks, nutcracker, or virtually ANY tool at hand other than the proper one. So after a couple of wheel removals the nuts will all be rounded off virtually ASSURING they will never again be properly tightened causing, guess what?? Yep...the wheel will fall off (most likely on someone else's bike, like a child of the "mechanic").

All of THIS^^ and...solid axles suck. Rear solid axles bend and break all the time on freewheel multi-geared bikes - especially for heavy riders.

Homebrew01

Carbon lips will file just as easily as Al or steel.

I file them off my bikes, but clearly see that many people misuse qr levers, so I would not modify anyone else's bike. And for "backwards" mounted disc brakes they are needed too.

italktocats

ive had a MAMIL run into my back wheel twice, one after having to brake for a *** car driver other time after braking before a 90* bend and nowadays 1) get as far away from mamils as possible 2) tap the brake a few times so IF some fool is on my ass he got a few seconds to back off

dual disc setup has some braking power

I-Like-To-Bike

You are stretching trying very hard to justify the correctness of U.S. bicycle distributors equipping bikes intended for their typical customers (especially those that are not "knowledgeable enthusiasts") with QR; and really stretching to imply that it would be ethical or safe to sell them without additional safety devices to protect those riders from the known QR fussiness to be precisely installed and correctly maintained by typical users.

JoeyBike

I'm just saying that there does not exist a perfect system for bicycle wheel retention other than welding the axle to the dropout. Nothing is idiot proof because idiots are very clever sometimes. A simple "mattress tag" warning label on every QR lever stating "WARNING...DO NOT mess with this thing without proper instruction from a trained professional" is going to save exactly no one from disaster. It will make the printing industry a little happier.

Looigi

Yes. We need big orange safety stickers on each fork leg.

I'm the OP haven't chimed in since. The reason I made the OP was not about the pros/cons of lawyer lips but rather that I found it amazing that this guy had served as a witness on 20+ such cases, with 3 fatalities. A plaintiff's witness, which likely means for the rider (or estate of the rider) and against the manufacturers, which likely means he argues the design, including lawyer lips, is defective.

SwampDude

This discussion has caused me to think beyond my own bikes. I have an adult daughter and son, and five young granddaughters who probably haven't been schooled about the importance of proper QR tightening. I'll share some info with the 'kids' this week and follow up with personal tutoring whenever possible.

Homebrew01

That's John Howard. He's transformed from an awesome bike racer, into a sleazy ambulance chasing "expert witness" to extract money from bike companies.

I-Like-To-Bike

Plantiff lawyers could just as likely been arguing that an older bike equipped with QR should have had lawyer lips installed or never been sold to the general public (i.e. not "certified" expert experienced enthusiasts) by LBS or mass merchandisers without a backup safety mechanism due to the safety hazards of the non intuitive tightening procedure of QR, or at least not sold without clear and specific safety instructions and warnings about the safety hazard of improperly installed/maintained QR mechanisms. An expert witness (sleazy or not) could easily substantiate and demonstrate that argument.

FBinNY 

We don't know the nature and specifics of his testimony. For all we know, he's simply describing the existence of CPSC standards relating to secondary retention, and not offering n opinion either way. This would put professionals who remove lips in a position similar to that of an employer who removes or defeats safeguards on machinery.

If that's the case, I don't see anything wrong with it.

Homebrew01

Based on previous articles and comments from well respected members of the cycling community over the years, it appears he testifies that QR is a faulty design by itself, and they can fail at any time even if installed correctly.

John Forester

Originally Posted by Homebrew01
That's John Howard. He's transformed from an awesome bike racer, into a sleazy ambulance chasing "expert witness" to extract money from bike companies.


Based on previous articles and comments from well respected members of the cycling community over the years, it appears he testifies that QR is a faulty design by itself, and they can fail at any time even if installed correctly.

An expert witness, such as John Howard operates as, does not testify to such matters without giving an opinion. He is hired by an attorney precisely to give an opinion on whatever subject the attorney is interested in, and in which the expert can be qualified as an expert. I have operated as an expert witness in cycling matters for about forty years; see my website johnforester.com. I have observed John Howard's professional performance in several cases, and I am not inclined to consider him as a well-qualified engineer.

FBinNY 

I'm ambivalent about Lawyer Lips, which I consider a poorly conceived solution. I don't and won't have them on my own bikes, but they do serve a purpose.

Today I was riding on the BRP, and passed a family of properly helmeted riders, and for whatever reason, my eye was drawn to the little girl's front QR whose lever was hanging down and flopping it the breeze. I waved them over and made them all stop, and showed mom the problem. To demonstrate I lifted the bike and the wheel stayed on hanging from the lips, but it was obvious that it was loose. I showed them how to adjust the QR and set it up correctly, and they took off.

It's hard to say that I made a difference since the wheel was staying on thanks to the lips, but it might have gotten loose later on. OTOH, absent the lips, it's just as likely that the front wheel would have fallen off when the bike was on a car rack, or picked up as it was taken from the house.

rydabent

It amazes me how many people can argue against something so simple, and that offers a small added measure of safety.

FBinNY 

You're very easy to amaze, and have a simplistic world view lacking nuance.

The lips do solve one problem, but they create another. The debate is whether -- on balance -- they are an improvement, or create a worse problem than they solve.

genec

Or as likely happened... when they tightened the QR, they adjusted it to fit on the lips, without realizing it... then locked down the QR thinking they were doing things just right and at the first little bump the axle moved up and off the lips, thus leaving a loose QR. This is one of the downsides of the lawyer lips.

Or perhaps they simply used the QR as a wingnut and failed to use the lever action. In this case the lawyer lips saved the cyclist, but primarily because they didn't know how to use the QR properly.

Maybe a better solution, instead of lawyer lips is just marking on the QR lever to indicate "open" or "closed."

JoeyBike

Many, if not most QR levers are already marked as such.


https://www.jimlangley.net/wrench/qrexplained1.jpg


https://lacbc.files.wordpress.com/201...ickrelease.jpg


I prefer imagery myself:

= Safe to ride.

= Unsafe to ride.

FBinNY 

I had the advantage of speaking directly to the people involved. They had zero idea how to use a QR, and thought it was that way all along (which we know it wasn't). Odds are it was a case of QR as wingnut, since it was closed tight enough for the lips to hold it in place.

As for the second. Marking OPEN and CLOSED has been required since the original CPSC standards. These apply to OEM equipment only, so aftermarket QRs aren't covered. But IMO, makers of aftermarket QRs may be taking legal risks by marketing skewers that don't meet the standard.