Re: [CR]Viscount Forks and Campy Death Cranks

(Example: History:Ted Ernst)

Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 21:10:56 -0500
From: "John Thompson" <JohnThompson@new.rr.com>
Organization: The Crimson Permanent Assurance
To: CR <classicrendezvous@bikelist.org>
Subject: Re: [CR]Viscount Forks and Campy Death Cranks
References: <20050717221814.29961.qmail@web81004.mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050717221814.29961.qmail@web81004.mail.yahoo.com>


Jerome & Elizabeth Moos wrote:
> I do find one great irony in all the "Death __" stuff. Campy NR/SR
> cranks are well known to have failed, both at the crank spider and at
> the pedal hole, at a higher rate than many competitors, Including
> Stronglight and TA. In the case of the spider, this was clearly a
> design defect, and even in the case of the pedal hole, one could
> argue this was a design defect, as Campy used a harder alloy that was
> more brittle. So why aren't these called CAMPY DEATH CRANKS?

A crank failure is much less dangerous than a fork failure. You can still control your bike if the crank fails, and bring it to a safe stop.

The Lambert/Viscount "death forks" on the other hand, failed where the steer tube was pinned to the blade casting, resulting in the entire front wheel separating from the rest of the bike. It's difficult for me to imagine a more catastrophic failure on a bicycle.

--
John (john@os2.dhs.org)
Appleton WI USA