cny-bikeman

Well, to be accurate there were two different questions - one in the title, the other in the text, and a third added later. Yes, it is a straightforward question, to which one could have answered with a straightforward "I am." That many here answered with much more detail does not make the question any better for eliciting information. It is not unreasonable to ask for more info in order to provide a better answer. I hold no grudge against the OP, just pointing out the consequences of insufficient info.

Nooner

maddog34

this thread appears to have developed a large rabbit hole.... sigh...

Andy_K 

You should try working in the software industry with people who have recently completed a PhD. You won't find smarter people with fewer practical skills anywhere in the world. They usually get the hang of it after a few years though. I guess any field is like this. You can't teach experience.

Bike Gremlin

A very good mechanic had told me, I'll quote the meaning from memory:

"A good mechanic will do a job as good as it can be done. But it takes an engineer to truly know why the job needs to be done the way it is done. That's very important in case something changes."

My "mechanics CV"
Relja Novovi?

Siu Blue Wind

Moose answered it for me. Thank you Moose.

If I told you all before I got the answers, it will make a difference, I guarantee.

MidTNBrad

I am not.

wschruba

I have worked in or run the service portion of a shop over the past 10 years.

Several people have mentioned, and it's true, that the only professional certification that actually impacts pay (which you could take to also mean, the only important one) is a USAC license. The catch is that it's often unreasonable for a low-paying position to travel to Boulder to take a test (that could easily be administered elsewhere) that doesn't have a huge impact on brick-and-mortar pay. Admittedly, there is a group that is working to fix that particular problem.

The seminar-type certifications (Bosch, S-tec, etc) are nice, but the people that go to/do them will get out exactly what they put in. That is to say, completing them does not guarantee competency.

cny-bikeman

Many posters have asked question that have a specific answer but have an unspoken intent. Examples: What is the lightest frame I can get for under $500? What is the smallest tire I can mount on my rim? What’s the biggest sprocket I can fit on my cranks? A straightforward answer to those questions is fairly easy. However, if that’s all the person gets they can easily be left with the false belief that a pound or two off their frame, a smaller tire, or higher gears will make them faster. Alternatively, those answering have to guess the motive behind the question.

To the OP: As you did not explain that you just are doing a survey, nor point out that you are an administrator/moderator (I did not notice the 3 stars) I took the latter choice above, in an attempt to do more than give you an answer that would potentially leave you with a false belief. But let’s take your questions on face value. If people had just said “I am” (mechanic, certified, shop owner, manager), would that have met your needs? What about those who only used to be in such a position, as is the case with me and several who answered you? Does it not matter which position they have, or how long they have had it? All of those factors will potentially make a difference or bias the answers, as will who chooses to answer the question, or even sees it.

Finally, for those of the “try uncaffeinated” persuasion, it’s my time and energy I am consuming, and my choice about how to do so. I have a long time interest in the dynamics of discussion and helping. I would note that a common assumption is that a person asking for help does not have an obligation to the person offering assistance, only the reverse.

Feel free to take or leave my input. I will be interested to learn the end game here.

p.s. There may be an understandable reason, but I find it odd that someone looking for information from others has no "About Me" tab
in their profile. Not stalking, just curious!

Dan Burkhart 

I totally agree with this. I'm currently working my way through S-Tec, and while I'm definitely learning stuff that would take me a lot of trial and error to figure out, the multiple guess quiz at the end of each module does nothing to display one's competency.
The hands on training with instructor feedback and evaluation, such as I experienced at Barnett's and STU gives a certification much more credibility in my view.

FBinNY 

I worked in a bike shop for 5 years from the late 60s forward. Since then, and until i retired i manufactured bike tools and other items, plus owned a decent size bike parts distributor business. Now, the only thing i kept is the chain lube business to keep from going senile.

Eggman84

I wonder, does the relatively low number of posters to this thread (as compared to all the posters over lets say the last year to the Bike Mechanics forum) indicate 1) lack of interest in replying to this post or 2) lack of certification since the poster seemed to only ask for an affirmative answer.

For what its worth, I am not certified. My experience is that certification only indicates someone is good at test taking, not necessarily at the actual job.

cny-bikeman

As others have put in their perspective on training/certification I thought I'd put in my 2 cents. I designed and taught a 60 hour mechanic training back in the 70's. We had no tests or homework, and not a lot in writing, other than a tutorial on using Vernier calipers. I focused on two things - understanding the function and interplay of components and using a logical approach to problem solving, rather than memorizing specs and procedures. The students practiced on bikes that we had for a storage/overhaul special (free winter storage with complete overhaul, discounted for complete tune-up) and used bikes that we had purchased for overhaul and resale. Thus they had the chance to see and solve real world problems with my supervision and feedback. Many told me later that it gave them a solid base for the future, especially for diagnosing and solving problems they had not seen before.
As to certification, all it can do is assure an employer that the person has at least been exposed to a defined set of information. That is certainly valuable, and preferable to the hit and miss approach of learning on one's own. The missing part to any certification is that it is not a measure of problem-solving skills.

maddog34

and who notifies the engineer that a problem has been discovered, and then suggests a work-around or permanent fix?

a good mechanic with years of experience.

1992, Honda's new xr650L is released for sale... i uncrate the absolute first one off the cargo ship docked in Seattle... set up completed. i fire it up... turn steering left, no prob... turn right, ENGINE REVS TO 5 GRAND... not good... note routing in manual... seems ok on bike,,,fire it up, turn right, revs to the moon again... hmmmm... customer waiting, paid in full two months earlier!... best find new, safe T. cable routing!... pics taken to document procedure... an hour later, customer rides his shiny new Dual Sport out of shop's driveway... forward pics to Honda with notes... NEXT DAY, Honda sends emergency notification to immediately uncrate all 650L's and reroute cable as per my instructions... they had found the exact same issue on two they uncrated at Torrance facility that night... an official, fancy printed version of the update showed up in the shop's mail three days later... Honda don't mess around when safety is an issue...

Over two thousand 650L's were uncrated and modified, then boxed back up for delivery to either dealers or dealer prep contractors.... all 650L's already delivered to dealers/preppers were also changed as needed.

every single person that responds to calls for assistance WANTS to help people... we all have differing ways of achieving our goal.... and every one of us are competitive, to varying degrees... the thrill of victory, the agony from that old seat..... Remember the Wide World of Sports lead-ins? Chuck Sun tossing his bike at Brock Glover over the Tabletop jump at Washougal? That jump became "the Chuck Sun Jump" after that tantrum... that jump was in my Front Yard for 4 years, Literally, IN MY FRONT YARD.... i used to ride with Chuck Sun... he was slow in the woods... his brother Ron was much quicker in the tight trails and rocky ditches of the Oregon Coast Range hills...... Jeff Ward was worlds faster than either of them, and faster than i, by a margin.... Jeff does 50 push ups before any ride... 25 are "hand clappers".

yah, i've got experience to share.... way beyond just the bicycle world. It's amazing how much carries over to other disciplines..... QUALITY Taps have a relief clearance angle engineered into the "threads"... i'm sorry if you can't see it easily, but it's there....... etc...

i am still friends with the service manager of that Honda shop... we argue endlessly over politics, but are the best of friends to this day...

we are a team... not everyone is a pitcher, and most pitchers make lousy catchers. Siu's a coach... training in progress.

oh, and Jeremy McGrath is Anthropophobic.... poor guy.... fears meeting new people... i always ask how his dad Jack is doing, disarms the phobia..... The Chuck Sun Jump is now fill dirt, the area is now reserved for VENDOR BOOTHS during the National MX... the Park has two CX races a year now... plus every weekend, in-season, there's an MX race or private rental... 200+ acres of heaven, with a race track in the middle....

Bike Gremlin

@Kontact, @cny-bikeman & @maddog34

I've had lots of both "hands on" experience, as well as studying in my life. Mostly with computers and bicycles (and amateur road motorcycle racing and wrenching my hacks ). Have learned to value both the theory, practice, and user feedback. All those things work best when complementary, but all have their limits.

I don't agree both with engineers who disregard user feedback and technician experience, as well as with technicians/mechanics who look down on "theory". I've also met and worked with technicians who are practically engineers by everything, except the "job description" (and university degree), as well as with engineers who are not able to visualize and comprehend some problems, and/or rely a lot on trial and error.

None of that is better or worse on itself. If I want something to just "get working" as soon as possible, I'd choose one man for the job, if I want to learn how to prevent it from happening again (even if it means not solving the problem then and there), I'd go with another.

The original reply was in terms of (PhD) theory vs experience. Some people can learn both. Some are more limited (inclined) towards one end of the two. Not all the engineers can be good technicians, just like not all the technicians are capable of learning the theory and understanding the causes of (some) problems they face.

Kontact

That's all nice, in theory.

In practice the bike industry does not have any real standards for engineering, and what is done by the industry at times would not pass muster either to other engineers or mechanics.

A great example is the 2014 Cervelo/3T P5 integrated aerobar recall. The designer of the bars glued internally threaded tubular aluminum anchors into holes in the carbon stem. When you rest your weight on the aerobars the screws pull these tubular anchors straight up out of the stem, like pulling nails with a hammer.

The anchors should have been either plates or T-nuts. There is no possible defense of the design, and it nearly killed one of our customers - so I was the one explaining to Cervelo what the 'engineer' did wrong. Something a basic wood worker would have understood immediately.


Being an engineer does not impart intelligence, just the capacity to use design tools built on physics models. The bike industry is full of bad engineers that do not understand scaling engineering models designed for aviation down to bicycles and the tolerances of bicycle manufacturing.

Prior to 2009 almost no one was making molded carbon fiber frames. Then suddenly every major manufacturer gained the expertise in full carbon design and manufacturing? Nope. They were winging it, and often still are.

Darth_Firebolt

yup.

Abe_Froman

I'm not disagreeing with you entirely. But you can't make the claim that bike mechanics can engineer bike components better than bike engineers can.

Or ARE you? Everyone makes mistakes. Somehow I doubt giving all engineers the sack and restocking the design rooms with mechanics will cut down on them.

Bike Gremlin

I mostly agree. One needn't look no further than the pedal to crank attachment. I remember a lecture when something along these lines was said:
"If you want to see how far human race has gone in terms of technology - don't look at the aircraft, spaceships, not even computers - just look at the cars. High levels of knowledge and technology in both physics, mechanics, metallurgy, chemistry - all are combined in there. Being both mass produced and made so that an average idiot can use it."

It seems to me too that the good engineers are not in the bike industry, for some reason. Not that it stops the industry - it relies on marketing and, at least the big companies, gets along just fine. If, however, you want something safe, reliable, durable (even if price is not your concern) - you'll have problems finding it.

Trakhak

Whatever this mystery thread turns out to be about, the posts from about post 45 on have turned it into one of the best threads of the year. Fascinating discussion.

Kontact

It rather depends what we are talking about, but the majority of bike stuff was developed and designed by non-engineers. And some of it was designed by engineers who are passionate bicycle tinkerers who knew how to read engineering data. And some of it is designed by engineers who happen to be working on bikes instead of pumps or vacuum cleaners.

Bicycles, being so incredibly hands-on, need to be approached from a deep understanding of how they are actually used and ridden so the downsides to design decisions are obvious to the designers. Disinterested engineers just don't seem to realize that the theoretical models are incomplete and do not come from the kind of testing data found in other industries. It is mostly derived.

Ideally, the whole industry would be staffed by people who were so enthused about cycling that they worked in shops to pay for engineering degrees to go back into the industry. But I can't think of any luminary in the industry with a story like that.


Shimano has a top notch engineering department. Perhaps someday they'll figure out why everyone else's shifters don't break the cable heads off.

Bike Gremlin

You're probably right. There's also a trend towards de-stimulating people from doing their own wrenching - both in car and bicycle industry. As well as making things break down in time to buy new stuff.

However, only in cycling industry do I see (I could be wrong) safety being compromised. Just some examples:

Pedal to crank attachment - susceptible to fretting damage. End user must regularly inspect cranks for cracks, or risk a pedal falling suddenly off when pedaling hard (and swerving off road, into a car, or off a cliff).

Front disc brake mount at the rear side of the fork, on bikes with a QR front wheel attachment - QR can loosen over time from brake action.

Thru axles without self-securing mechanism that exists on QR held wheels (as well as on freehub cassette attachment and centerlock disks).

6 bolt disk mounts that required thread lock to be safely attached.

Carbon stems and steering columns that are very sensitive to torque and bolt tightening procedure, risking sudden failure of a critical component if not done properly.

- Just from the top of my head. I don't see such things on cars, or motorcycles.

sweeks

Perhaps the designer was not a formally trained engineer. In any case, this seems like something that should have been identified as a problem in pre-production testing. "Engineering" is mostly science and mathematics, seasoned by "common sense" and economics. The science (we're talking "material science" here) isn't always perfect, and not everyone has the right amount of common sense. Consistent perfection is not a human characteristic. Even pre-production testing isn't perfect.

I would argue that anyone who graduates from an accredited college or university with a degree in some branch of "engineering" had to have a fairly high level of intelligence to start. But intelligence isn't common sense, and common sense is a useful check on some of the ideas that engineering types may come up with. Not that many engineers don't have common sense... I know a bunch of engineers who have lots. I don't know about "bad" engineers... maybe that's related to the "economics" thing: having to work too fast in order to meet a deadline, not having adequate resources to properly design or test an idea or product. There are undoubtedly examples of cases where an engineer said a product was not ready for prime time but was over-ruled by an executive for economic reasons.
I will say that there have been, are now and surely will continue to be individuals with the right kind of common sense who will be the equal of some trained engineers.
(Disclaimer: I am not an engineer, but I have slept in a Holiday Inn Express once or twice! )
Steve

Siu Blue Wind

cny, I don't understand why such a simple question is a concern to where you feel there is an ulterior motive. I can give the reason now, but if I do, I will have to close the thread (due to the biased answers) and block out other people who would qualify and it would not be fair to them.

What do you want me to do? Do you want me to post the reason now? Or can you be patient and try to believe that there is no dark hidden BAD thing about this?

Siu Blue Wind

Okay I cleaned up some of the conversation that does not regard to the question.

BUT! You will be able to do that later, I promise!