Originally Posted by SkepticalOne

This isn't a bad response...I appreciate the decorum...

My post above is not intended to be incendiary, but observational. And it is 'designed' to cause you some reflection on how your posts are perceived by me and ostensibly others - I have taken care to try not to overreach into maliciousness. I do not have the benefit of knowing you or your experiences personally, and can only take your posts at face value.

The possibilities of greed and corruption of which you speak are not impossible. Consider that it might be a stretch, and is at the very least an uninformed guess from the cheap seats when it comes to this specific case. I think it borders on conspiracy-theorist to liken the gravity of releasing a new suspension design to corruption that may have led to the death of astronauts.

Corruption shouldn't be your first 'go-to'...it is why there exists Professional Engineering licensure in many western jurisdictions. To neglect such defects is often punishable by law. I am a licensed Professional Engineer and this is strong component of the judgment exercised in any application where human safety hangs in the balance. Understand that product development is hard to get perfectly right, and small design errors and oversights become amplified once things hit production. Consider that not everyone is experiencing issues at this time with their FS bikes which should highlight the possibility that under the controlled conditions of pre-production, such a (hypothetical) flaw may have gone undetected.

If you think it's easy to get it perfectly right, you aren't experienced enough in design. Often the more successful your products, the more likely you are to quickly learn their shortcomings, notwithstanding their excellence (see bending iPhone 6).

Consider the impact of human cognitive bias, especially in the use of DFMEA. To quote Daniel Kanheman, What you see is all there is. Nowhere is this more true than in DFMEA or PFMEA. You are almost completely perfect at controlling for those failure modes that you can identify. Upon completion of your analysis, you are now falsely assured that you are safe from those Black Swans that are inherently unknowable or not previously observed.

I would simply advise that you tone down the attribution part of your posts, and leave it to your expert dissection of the components. Avoid the condescending tone if you want others to absorb the technical value you are trying to provide.