CliffordK

It is stupid to ride with the QR open.
It is stupid to ride with the wheel loose enough to need the safety washers or lawyer tabs.

But those safety washers and lawyer tabs are put on for a reason (other than to annoy people working on the bikes).

The problem isn't riding with the QR loose, or cranking it down by twisting the lever while open. But, what happens if it comes loose during a ride and gets caught in the brake disc? One could be riding just fine... and suddenly flip.

Ok, I did find one Shimano Skewer that when open, would slip into a Tektro disc mounted on a Shimano hub, although not the original configuration. I still have troubles imagining why manufactures would have allowed this design.

NOT TREK


One thing I noted. On the Tektro disc, there is a rotation arrow. If the disc is mounted to rotate in the direction of the arrow, it will snag the skewer. If the disc is mounted to rotate in the opposite direction of the arrow, it would tend to exclude the skewer.

The difference? I'm not sure. Rotating in the direction of the arrow, the disc would tend to expand with heat and hard braking. Rotating in the opposite direction, the disc would tend to contract with hard braking. Would that warp the disc? Is it an actual problem?

CliffordK

I was in the new local Performance Bike shop today.

One would think the shop would have a standard on how they would orient the skewers on all of their bikes.

Many of the rear skewers were pointed into the left rear triangle. However, there were several rear skewers that were pointed forward, below the chainstays... a position that I would consider sub-optimal.

Likewise, most of the fronts were oriented upwards, towards the fork, but a couple were pointed downward, again sub-optimal orientation.

So, if a bike shop can't have rigorous standards on how they mount the wheels... Why would one think the people they sell the bikes would?

grolby

This is not so much a disc brake problem as it is the chickens finally coming home to roost on the venerable quick-release.

I don't think that the argument that the QR is not a flawed design can hold water anymore. No, this is not Trek's design flaw, but it is a flaw. I agree that we need to face reality: the quick-release is a terrible UI design. Its proper function is totally opaque to a huge number of people, and it is very easy to misuse it in a way that misleads the user into thinking that the wheel is securely fastened. If it did not perform such a safety-critical function, this would be no big deal. But front-wheel retention is kind of important. For decades, experienced cyclists and mechanics have written off the people who fasten their wheel improperly as idiots. That's just wrong. For one thing, the sheer number of people that you see come through a shop with the QR fastened wrong defies that explanation. For another, I've seen plenty of perfectly smart people make the same mistake.

Yep. We've been putting lipstick on this pig for a long, long time. The realities of modern application on practically all bicycles plus the costs of litigation are finally catching up with us. There's no doubt that the QR is brilliant for its intended use IF the user is knowledgeable about proper function. That's not really a reasonable assumption, though.

I hope that this will spur the brainiacs in the industry to put their heads together and come up with a new quick-release device - maybe a thru-axle design! - that has only one way to be fastened, that is obvious to 99%+ of users and that will not mislead users into thinking that it is fastened securely when it isn't. The rear wheel is still an open question for me. Do we keep the QR? The problem with poor UI design is still there, but it's less safety critical. But having two totally different wheel-retention devices on a mass-market bike doesn't seem great from the perspective of an average user. I don't know.

merlinextraligh

You can install the skewer lever opposite the disc, without changing the side the disc is on. Instead of flipping the wheel, you just remove the QR, and reinstall it from the opposite side. Has no effect on the rotation of the disc.

Stucky

Why have i never had a single problem with QR's in my life?

Is a QR something which is too complex for the average American now-a-days?

nhluhr

I have to agree with you. If you have a process that is continually being improperly peformed by the average end user, is it really correct to blame it on the average end user or more correct to implement process improvements to either mitigate the failure modes or simply eliminate the failure mode entirely?

For instance, many shops worth their salt make sure that every single customer who buys a bike receives a hands-on demonstration of proper QR use along with an understanding of what happens when misused. If more shops did this, there's a damn good chance those 3 incidents out of 900,000 bikes would not have happened.

Likewise, we could use better systems. Hell, even a QR that is much more apparently 'open' when not closed. Hell, a QR that works more the way people expect it to (like those DT QRs that you essentially treat like a fancy wingnut). Hell, a Thru-Axle which is harder to misuse...

OR we could just keep blaming it on the end users.

cale

Sorry for hacking up your post. I don't think the differences will matter. Thru axle design makes a great deal of sense for the front but the rider isn't exposed to the same risks in the rear where the faulty installation of the wheel is a serious matter but doesn't carry the same risks of injury. It is the danger of going over the bars or loss of braking, steering, etc that makes the front retention requirements different.

I have strong reservations about the advice to move the cinch lever of the front wheel to the right side of the bike. In general, I don't like recommendations that ask people to change the way they do something when it is so closely tied to best practices for safety. I think that habits are important and while few use a checklist before going out on a ride, the fact that skewer retention levers are located on the side of the bike that the rider mounts from, is not by accident. Wheel release levers have traditionally been positioned on the "driver's side" for reason's of necessity and safety. Locating the release lever on the right side of the bike would make wheel changes an even messier and fussy business. Chain, cogs, derailleur and tight clearances all make it logical to locate the lever on the left in the back. But equally important, by locating the lever on the non-drive side, it is much simpler to assess its status, open or closed, at a glance. I would have placed the front disc on the right side of the bike, leaving open the option to modify the front brake retention device, to thru axle for example, while retaining its traditional lever on the left. This solution, however, would require specific front and rear brake calipers for cable/housing routing purposes. Creating mirror image mechanisms shouldn't be too difficult but brake components, front and rear, have traditionally been identical and traditional practices are important

Moving the quick release lever to the right side of the bike holds the potential to upset a routine of safe cycling that is ingrained in our biking brains. Unless riders have strong reasons to make the change, I think few will and because the equipment, wheel skewer, doesn't care which side it is on located on. Safe cyclists use familiarity with their bike as the primary means of locating potential safety problems and in the absence of first hand experience with a problem, will resist the change.

The advent of front brakes for road bikes is a significant move in the direction towards better braking for all. But there is plenty of room for improvement. All riders want is a simple solution to wheel retention. One that has easy to understand rules for use and is equally easy to verify for proper engagement.

nhluhr

And now the two M6 bolts that hold the caliper on are in tension and become new failure points.

cale

How so? If the caliper is a mirror image, not identical to the rear caliper, forces on the mounting hardware should be the same as before.

nhluhr

Oh, nevermind, I thought you meant to flip it around so it's in front of the fork (which is the usual suggestion for people worried about the axle coming out of the dropouts)

RNAV

I don't think you truly understand what a design flaw is. A design flaw is some aspect of a product's design that prevents it from performing its intended purpose. There is nothing about a quick release's design that prevents it from performing its task without flaw.

There is a difference between design flaw and installation error. Installation error does not equal design flaw.

If you install the oil filter on your car incorrectly, that doesn't mean the oil filter has a design flaw. It means you installed it incorrectly. You may or may not know how to correctly install your oil filter. But your knowledge, or lack thereof, has absolutely NOTHING to do with the design of the oil filter.

Another example, just in case that one didn't sink in. Just because you don't know how to use a scalpel to properly remove an appendix does not mean that the scalpel has a design flaw. It simply means you don't know how to use the scalpel to remove an appendix. There is precisely nothing wrong with the design of the scalpel.

Your appeal to the stupidity of the population at large does not justify your conclusion that the QR skewer is a flawed design. It doesn't matter how many people correctly or incorrectly install qr skewers because the proper installation of the skewer is dependent upon the end-user, NOT the design of the skewer itself -- just like the scalpel and the oil filter.

GlennR

Stupid people are ingenious at finding the worst possible way to use a product. Engineers are just not as ingenious and have to play catch up all the time.

BTW... Ford just recalled 600,000 cars because the door can open accidentally when its moving.

In other word ***** happens.

CliffordK

Ahhh... but it could be.

I had a 1984 Renault Encore (first production year).

There was a mid-year change in the oil filters.

And it was never well noted in any parts book.

Dad actually put the wrong filter on it and it apparently screwed on ok... before all the oil leaked out in the middle of the woods someplace.

I just learned that I would never ask for an 84 Encore filter, but rather would always ask for an 83 Alliance filter (to be used on the 84 Encore)

So... yes.... user error. But, if the wrong filter is in all the parts books, and it kind of fits... then it has to at least be considered in part a design flaw, or perhaps just poor planning by the company.

As part of a good design,one has to anticipate that people will try stupid things, and just make it more difficult to do that.

Telling people to always put their QR on the left, except in certain cases. Somebody will goof, and one still has the issue on the rear with one side having the derailleur and the other side having the disc brakes.

CliffordK

Why do you think Suicide doors fell out of favor (or got their name)?

I've opened doors that I discovered hadn't closed properly while a vehicle is moving. But it wasn't an accident to open and slam the door.

Sometimes while backing to hitch a trailer, I'll crack the door and look at the ground to gauge the distance moved. Dodge started putting in an annoying alarm to tell one to close the door before backing up 2 inches

RNAV

Excellent point. What you're highlighting is product design change (which is different from design flaw), and the resulting lack of interoperability as a result of that change. Plus poor parts management.

I used to work for Volvo, and my memory is a bit hazy, but essentially the same thing happened with the initial release of the re-designed S40 circa 2004. The very first models were released as 2004.5 model year cars -- so you had new 2004 first generation S40s alongside new 2004.5 second generation S40s, and they were completely different cars with very few interchangeable parts. Now, the parts management system isn't designed to handle .5 model years. So what do you think happened in the parts inventory with 2004 S40 parts and 2004.5 S40 parts?

Yet another excellent point (you're in danger of being on a roll!). Just because a design is not flawed does not entail that it cannot be improved upon -- for ancillary reasons other than its intended purpose (improved user interface, for example).

Imagine a QR skewer design that could not be installed incorrectly, and a current QR skewer that can be installed incorrectly. If they are both installed correctly, they both perform the function for which they were designed (to hold the wheel in place in fork/frame) without failure. The ancillary benefit of the re-designed skewer is that it can't be installed incorrectly. But it still holds the wheel in place just as well as the old design.

And therein lie the key concepts of design flaw versus design improvement. I'm totally willing to admit that the current qr skewer design could be improved upon. But I'm not willing to agree that its design is flawed -- the only flaw lies with the end user who is either smart enough to figure out how to install the qr skewer, or not.

GlennR

Ford recalls 389,585 cars for doors that fly open
"Ford is recalling 389,585 late-model Ford Fiestas, Fusions and Lincoln MKZ sedans because of faulty latches that can allow the doors to fly open while the car is being driven.
Ford says the problem was limited to certain models built at its plant in Mexico. It says a part called the pawl spring tab can break, which results in doors that can't be latched. The unlatching problem can occur while the car is being driven."

CliffordK

Interesting. The latches are supposed to have primary plus secondary latches (which is why doors sometimes seem to be closed, but aren't). Your article indicates they just open unexpectedly.

I do dislike cars that automatically lock the doors.

And had a bad experience with one... Borrowed a vehicle for the day. Got in, fired it up and turned the heater on high. Then stepped out and started scraping the frost from the windows when I heard an ominous "click".

mrFreel

I have noticed a disturbing trend. It seems that many new riders have no idea of how to work the QR and remove a wheel. Even more have no idea of how to change a flat. Maybe we should just go back to axle nuts but then I suppose some people would not know how to tighten them either.

Mike

bt

you guys still on this?

UnfilteredDregs

Whuddaya mean "now-a-days"? the average American has been an imbecile for a long time.

grolby

Don't you condescend to me. Design is about more than whether something can perform its task. It also has to take into account the users of the product. The quick-release skewer functions great if you know how to operate it. The problem is that proper operation is not at all obvious to a very large proportion of the population that ends up having to use one. On top of that, it can be improperly used in a way that will lead inexperienced users to believe that it has been properly fastened, creating a potentially dangerous condition. That's not a problem with those people, that is a problem with the design of the product. Saying that the users are simply stupid isn't just insulting, it's also factually wrong. Even if it weren't wrong, it doesn't matter because pervasive misuse of quick-release skewers creates a dangerous condition for users of the product and manufacturers have a responsibility to prevent that.

I reject your examples. If the correct orientation of the oil filter is difficult to determine and it is possible to incorrectly install the oil filter in a way that makes it seem like it is installed perfectly, then the oil filter design is flawed. If putting the filter in the wrong way requires forcing it awkwardly, yes, people will still do it, but at least it will be pretty clear that something is wrong. This problem is mitigated by the fact that few people change their own oil these days. I don't know how easy or difficult it is to install an oil filter correctly.

The scalpel example is simply outrageous. Removing and reattaching the front wheel of a bicycle is not surgery and is not performed exclusively by experts with years of advanced training.

YOU are appealing to the alleged stupidity of the population, not me. The only reason to make this claim is to feel good about yourself because you know how to use a QR skewer. That's not exactly a high bar. Using a QR does not require intelligence. Nor does misusing a QR require stupidity. Among the sorts of people who have incorrectly installed a QR skewer:

• Professors
• Rocket scientists
• Doctors
• Probably the President
• Bankers
• Software engineers
• Auto mechanics
• Etc

I can absolutely guarantee you that lots of people lots smarter than you or me have improperly tightened a QR skewer. Because it's easy to do!

But really, what you want to believe doesn't matter. Whether because it's a bad design or because people are stupid, it seems pretty clear that the quick-release skewer has a hard time ahead of it in terms of continuing design compromises to ward off litigation. Continuing with this design just isn't pragmatic anymore.

Stucky

On that we can agree!

nhluhr

I work in risk-mitigation for stuff that's significantly more dangerous than a bicycle quick release and one thing we have to always come to grips with is that if people are still getting hurt despite all the things that seem obvious to (us), then we need to look at the whole process a little deeper.

To keep insisting that a QR is not a flawed design is quite frankly myopic. To compare it to a scalpel for appendectomy is ridiculous. Scalpels aren't intended for use by kids or other average people but Quick Release skewers are intended for that audience. Design must accomodate the intended audience. If it doesn't, then the design is insufficient. The fact that we still have a notable rate of incidents (actual issues during use) or near misses (just finding the skewer loose) shows us that the design could be improved to mitigate this risk further.

Yes, I've known how to properly operate a QR for decades now and yes, the shops I've worked at take additional steps in their process to help ensure users operate them quickly but what we are doing is basically inserting training on how to mitigate an ever-present hazard whereas with better QR design, the hazard could be eliminated completely.

GlennR

In the animal world, it's called survival of the fittest where the weak are "thinned out".

But in a civilized society we need to make things as fool proof as possible.

It doesn't have to do with intelligence, i'm a mainframe systems programmer with 40 years experience but still have problems with DVRs... I just have a mental block. My wife is extremely good with interpersonal skills but clueless when it comes to anything mechanical. She's the type of person who "could" not close a QR correctly. That's why her bike sits on the ground with the wheel on all the time while mine are hung.

Where's many low end bikes with mechanical disc brakes being sold by big box stores where you're lucky if it's assembled correctly. these are the people most affected by this problem. Someone who buys a $1000+ bike will most likely have had a QR before and will know how to do it.

This is NOT a Trek problem. I saw a Specialized road bike that has the same issue.

Bike manufacturers need to redesign the QR so it only opens 180* or slightly less. And bike owners need to know not to remove the wheels if they don't know how to do it correctly. Just like they should not change a flat tire if they don't know how to do it correctly.

Stucky

Bottom line: It should be people's own responsibility to know or learn how to use the equipment they purchase. To have to hobble design in order to make things foolproof; or to shift responsibility for proper use onto those who manufacture a product which is inherently not defective, is evil. What's next, suing hammer manufacturers because the hammer did not come with a sticker warning people that they could hit their fingers with it?