2 weeks and already a crack?
 

:( i just got my madone 5.5 2 weeks ago today, only 224 miles, and noticed this under the seat mast when cleaning the bike. I cant tell if its in the clear coat. I took the bike over to my LBS and they said it was fine, Im in the process of contacting trek, i'm just waiting for an email back just to get a second opinion.
btw I have a torque wrench, the spec is 7nm for the seat clamp. My LBS did say though that if it gets worse it'll definitely be replaced under warranty, I just need to hear back from Trek to see if its safe to ride.
Thanks

http://www.flickr.com/photos/75617289@N05/8747564175/

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8415/8...34f8e770_b.jpg
Image 5 by nelson4568, on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8411/8...ed793023_b.jpg
Image 4 by nelson4568, on Flickr
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8260/8...7378117e_b.jpg
Image 2 by nelson4568, on Flickr

I have no long term experience with carbon posts.
I could be wrong but clearcoats and paint are not very integral to the structure of carbon from what I understand.
The paint is there to cover up voids/air pockets left over from the molding process so it looks shiny and nice.

If it's just surface scratches, I wouldn't worry, but if it's in the carbon you should be concerned.
Perhaps a carefully worded letter to Trek stating you are not at ease might get you a new post?
Or maybe mail it to them for inspection.

thanks, I need to hear back from Trek, if I don't by monday i'll post a picture on their facebook page since i've seen some people post pics of their damage, resulting in a warranty.

Hard to tell what that is. It looks like a crack, but it could also just be a scratch on the clear coat. A second opinion from Trek is needed at this point.

Take a quarter out of your pocket. Start tapping the seatpost above the flaw (at this point I think we can agree there is a flaw) and work your way down. If it sounds solid until you get to the flaw and then sounds dull, then starts sounding solid again below the flaw then it's highly likely that your seatpost is cracked.

Do not even think of riding it unless checked by a knowledgeable expert. You don't want to chance it.

Should have bought a frame made out of some sort of metal instead of plastic...

Another uninformed post about carbon frames. If you really feel this way, you shouldn't fly on a modern airliner either because they too are composite-based and have been for about 10 years.

I think he was kind of kidding.....

How did that get so scratched?

I have 8 steel frames ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bike Rebel (Post 15637690)

Take a quarter out of your pocket. Start tapping the seatpost above the flaw (at this point I think we can agree there is a flaw) and work your way down. If it sounds solid until you get to the flaw and then sounds dull, then starts sounding solid again below the flaw then it's highly likely that your seatpost is cracked.

---

I did, the bubbled up paint part is muted/dull when I tap on it, so is the crack. I'm still waiting to hear back from Trek

This good advice.

Don't freak out. Clear coat can be very fragile, but it's no big deal.

[QUOTE=nelson4568;15637947]I have 8 steel frames ;)
/QUOTE]

A friend collects old obsolete car as well.

Take it to a shop. let them deal with trek.

what'd you do to it?

Yep - including AA 587, from which the entire vertical stabilizer assembly separated in flight from what, up until then, had been normal control inputs.

Oops.

I don't know unless I see it in person, but my first impression is that it is a scratch and not a crack.

There have been many, many, many aircraft crashes resulting from metal fatigue and failure.

It's a scratch. What a bunch of chicken littles.

oohh yay, another steel vs plastic fight!

:popcorn

Until you get a broken post up your rectum and a diverting colostomy for it to heal. Rectal trauma bad.

You mean there have been others?:eek:

I've got bikes made of each material. I've never seen them fight. They get along fine :-p

What it looks like is someone rode it without the seat post clamp being tight. The scratches are from the post slipping or someone pulling it up without loosening the clamp

So we're citing aircraft crashes now, eh?



747s have completely disintegrated in mid-air.

Oops, nothing, Crank. Honestly, please, I'm begging you, educate yourself. I covered aviation for more than a decade as a journalist and know what I'm talking about here. First off, AA 587 was not, repeat not, a plane that was composite based; in fact that crash itself occurred more than 10 years ago. The Airbus 300-600 is an aluminum-based aircraft, not made of composites. The official NTSB report ruled that the crash was caused by a pilot entering improper rudder inputs in response to wake turbulence, so it was a situation of pilot error, plain and simple. Note that the A300-600 did not fall apart, rather the pilot caused a situation that made it impossible for the aircraft to maintain lift. He overreacted to wake turbulence and basically caused a mechanical failure much like you would if you ran an engine on your car at max output for hours.

The A300 was Airbus' entry into the U.S. market and it debuted in 1972, long, long before composites were available. I don't remember exactly, but I believe the plane that crashed in Queens was built in the mid 1980s. Age was not a factor here either. There are many planes 30 years old that are flying today in the U.S. with absolutely no problems, especially for cargo carriers. The main thing that prompts an airline to upgrade isn't fear the plane will no longer reliably operate, but rather the plane becomes too expensive to operate.

And those situations have been either the result of improper repairs, such as in the case of China Airlines 611, or metal fatigue. Quite simply, there's no substance on Earth that won't fail under certain conditions. But when properly maintained, the likelihood becomes extremely rare.

Later A300 models made extensive use of composites, including the A300-600, including some of the lugs attaching the vertical stabilizer to the fuselage. They were not at fault, however, because they failed while pushed far beyond their design limits.

The first officer in the crash made a series of alternating full rudder inputs, which should never be done at speed. Each time he applied the rudder, the aircraft sideslipped. To correct, he applied full rudder in the other direction causing the aircraft to swing around and slideslip even further in the other direction. He kept doing this until the aircraft eventually entered an extreme sideslip angle and the aerodynamic loads ripped the vertical stabilizer off. Pilot error. Had the pilot simply done nothing, or stopped applying rudder at any point before the failure, the aircraft would have stabilized on it's own. It's much like drivers who don't know how to handle skids and end up causing a crash.

Though American Airlines blames Airbus for their fly-by-wire system. The rudder pedals are too easy to push, leading poorly trained pilots to simply jam them to the floor. When you try that at high speed in a mechanical or hydraulic system the force required for full defection is very high.

Ha ha. Chill out a bit. I'm not quite as ignorant as I tend to sound. I have a pretty strong science background (my undergrad degree was EE) so I understand the physics involved.. Hold an airman's certificate as well.

Anyway, I just felt like jerking your chain a bit... My road bikes have carbon forks, and my TT bike is a P2C.



All that being said, your statement that "The official NTSB report ruled that the crash was caused by a pilot entering improper rudder inputs in response to wake turbulence, so it was a situation of pilot error, plain and simple." is misleading. The NTSB sided with the manufacturer and the operator based on politics.

"The first officer in the crash made a series of alternating full rudder inputs, which should never be done at speed". Correct, as long as you are defining "at speed" as being above MA (design maneuvering speed). They weren't. You are a pilot? You know that nothing you do with the flight controls below MA should ever cause a structural failure. That's the very definition of MA!. Were you ever warned that a hard-over could cause a structural failure in any of your flight training? The whole concept of a rudder "hard over" is a red herring. No A300 pilots had ever heard of the issue or were trained on it before the accident...

Anyway, we are getting way off topic, so back to cycling.