[Closed] Pinder v Fox

fingers crossed he got a big settlement (which I suspect he did) my partner who has worked in this field (on the insurers side) was amazed it was ran to court especially considering the consequences of them judging against Fox.

Fox must have been trying to call there bluff in order to reduce the settlement fee.

Yes, heard this from a quiet place last week.

So.....what happens if someone has an accident with the same forks in good working condition? There isnt a precedent to go on so where would they stand? Just thinking is it worth people with this type of design continuing to run such forks? A lad from Hebden Bridge has the same forks and his once came undone- he noticed though and retightened before anything untoward happened.

out of court settlements change nothing.

If someone thought they had a case on it's merits they could pursue it if they had the courage.

for Fox to settle out of court they must have realised that there was a good chance fox would lose and both set precedent and opened the doors for many other claims.

I am disappointed that Fox were not brave enough to see it thru as I would like to have seen a precedent set but good on Russ Pinder for getting a settlement. good luck to the man.

For Pinder to settle out of court he must have realised that there was a good chance he would lose and get nothing.

I am disappointed that Pinder was not brave enough to see it thru as I would like to have seen a precedent set but good on Fox for paying a settlement anyway. Good luck to them.

I imagine the future financial security was more important to him that setting a precedent.

Slightly disappointing from our POV perhaps, but not surprising when you think about it.

Why bother seeing it through if Fox are going to pay him enough to cover his medical bills and living expenses for the rest of his life?

If I was Russ I would have done exactly the same, as in the end you have to look out for your own future, screw the moral high ground when it the choice between a comfortable future or struggling to make ends meet.

I was expecting Michelle vs Sam in boob-off.

🙁

I don't blame Pinder at all - he went for it and he got what he needed.

PMSL @ druidh

For Pinder to settle out of court he must have realised that there was a good chance he would lose and get nothing.

Not at all surprised Fox didn't want to risk the precedent even if they thought they had a good chance of winning - they had a lot more to lose than Russ by a precedent being set - they surely must have always had an out of court settlement ready and waiting.

For Pinder to settle out of court he must have realised that there was a good chance he would lose and get nothing.

Not necessarily. Fox have far more at stake than Pinder. As others have said, a court ruling would set a precedent and gain a lot of news. So fox may opt to settle out of court, even if it costs them more this time, as it may save money in the future.

There are engineering reasons behind Pinders case and like Stoner, i'm glad there are now improvements in this area.

I wonder how much effect his case getting tossed out of the Californian Courts had on his decision to settle over here...

IWH - care to elaborate?

IWH zero I expect, especially considering the entirely different legal systems.

TandemJeremy - Member
for Fox to settle out of court they must have realised that there was a good chance fox would lose and both set precedent and opened the doors for many other claims.

The decision to settle was probably made by Fox's insurers, not Fox.

Fox themselves may have thought they had a good chance of defending the claim, but the insurance company may have considered it more economical to settle to make the claim go away.

Stoner - he filed suit at the San Jose Courts as well back in 2005. It didn't go anywhere.
Richc - I was just wondering seeing as California is the land of Litigation and if you can't get a settlement there...

Regardless I'm glad to see he got something. I don't want to get into his fault / their fault, it was a horrible accident which should never have happened.

jimmy - mee too, was expecting some girl on girl action. Ah well there's always the AandA thread

Personally I would have liked to see fox go through with it as although there is no formalized judgement or precedent set I think it sets an informal precedent that further removes the individual from their personal responsibility and shifts the blame elsewhere. It would also have concluded whether forks are inherently dangerous, which I don't believe they are if operated properly, and looked after. If they were that bad, wouldn't we all be mashed up by now?

PK ripper - many folk have had QRS come lose. Its a known design flaw to have downward facing dropouts, QRs and discs.

It needs a number of things to be less than optimum for it to happen so with many set ups it won't. I personally know of several people who have had the QR losening happen - WHEN THEY HAVE FITTED THE WHEEEL PROPERLY

....and he's off...

You see tj, that's fine, but of the people I know and have ridden with for the last 20 years and countless hundreds of miles, there's only one incidence of this that I'm aware of, which was with marzocchi forks and hope quick releases.

So, that begs the question is it just luck or not? I still believe that whilst it's a design that has flaws, they're not sufficiently bad to cause such a number of problems compared with user error. Oh, and before you ask, the one incidence I know of was on my own bike, and I freely accept that on the balance of probabilities it was likely to be my error in putting the wheel on.

PK ripper - for sure its rare that it actually cause issues - but when simple design changes will totally prevent the issue why not make those changes - indeed many fork manufacturers are doing so - all it needs is either the angle of the drop-out changing or the calliper to go in front of the fork leg. Then the issue goes away.

Myself - I would never ride with a QR and disc.

However many hundreds of miles they might have done, that's still a pretty small sample you've got there, pk. Negative evidence for such incidents which happen relatively rarely is no evidence at all. We're not all mashed up because it does take a particular set of circumstances to happen.

Meanwhile I'm aware of several instances of it happening, including one where I'm pretty sure it wasn't user error.

<Oops - not actually the real TJ - though in this instance I have a very similar viewpoint to him>

he filed suit at the San Jose Courts as well back in 2005

as aracer says IWH, I wasnt aware he'd filed at San Jose too.

EDIT: found the filing, not sure what it means in terms of process though...
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-candce/case_no-5:2005cv00757/case_id-28519/

I can put in a formal request for information at the Courts to find out exactly what happened. I was told it got thrown out (or something less dramatic) by one of the local shop guys.

I'm very disappointed, I thought this topic was about the merits of Lucy pinder vs Sam Fox (breasts etc)!. Go Google for yourselves and you too will be amazed.

I'm with PK, it is totally understandable, but I really thought it was going all the way.
Just who will be the one to stand up? the father of a dead son?

🙁

Whatever the legal ins and outs I now have Pikes on my bike... £400 poorer is better than a broken neck. Hope Russ Pinder can now live life as fully as he can now he (presumably) has financial security...

I'm happy Russ seems to have got what he wanted. If nothing else it will have made manufacturers rethink their design processes and that benefits us all.

As far as the design goes, as mentioned above (whilst it is pretty crap), hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of riders have been using disks with suspension forks for twenty years and have (statistically speaking) not had any issues at all. I've been using them for 10 years and never had a wheel come out, even when the QR has been loose because I've not done it up properly. It's a very special set of circumstances that can create this problem.

I've broken 4 cranks in that time and each time I've slewed sideways dramatically and have luckily not shot under a car or fallen off a cliff. From my perspective, crank design is fundamentally flawed and should be rectified. But then I've been a lot luckier than Russ.

can't see how its fox's fault.

this happened to me with a set of revs.

[img] [/img]

luckily i was ok but had it happened on the road or even if had come a croppper and ended up like Mr Pinder, i think i'd have had a stronger case against the fok manufacturer...

i think in Mr Pinder's cae it was more his fault than that of fox. if anything it was more the fault of the skewer manufacturer. surely you check the QR tension before each ride....?

J

this happened to me with a set of revs.

Manufacturing defect, workshop damage, fitted on a roof rack oddly... nothing close to what Pinder vs Fox was about.

I ride Revelations, with a DT QR spinny thing, and a big front disc. I'm entirely happy with the security of the system.

Small discs and shit skewers create the situation where the alledged problem occurs. I've seen "movement" happen under nose wheelies on tarmac (dropping down past the old Walsden Printing mill site just below the fishing lake), which led me to design my rigid forks with a forward angled slot.

Small discs are OK. Shit skewers never are. I would never use any lightweight or titanium skewer on the front of my own bike if it had disc brakes.

I've never experienced the "percussive loosening" that Pinder/Annan claim.

I've seen plenty of badly fastened QRs.

People will continue to get injured and crippled for life due to bicycles. Hopefully this will be infrequent. Good luck to all.

IWH, with respect to the San Jose case, I now understand that it did not go to full trial following legal arguments regarding jurisdiction and the parties involved. It was not a decision made with respect to any of the technical arguments of the main case. The timing was a function of the respective statutes of limitation in each jurisdiction.

Why do big discs help prevent this?

Not that the case is named to Fox Racing Box? 🙂

Why do big discs help prevent this?

Angle of force reaction.

if you consider the caliper becomes the pivot when the brake is applied, the further the caliper is away from the dropout the more rearward the resultant force. Assumign the caliper is mounted close to the leg, but further away from the drop out for larger rotors, the closer the calpier to the drop out, the more the resultant force is directed in a vertical direction, i.e. in the direction of the drop out opening.

Sad world we live in if someone cant do a qr up correctly. even thou there are some really stite qr's out there. I say use shimano,mavic or salsa no probs even if opperated with half a brain.

I see you've followed the evidence closely then mr frosty.

Indeed sounded something like bla bla bla

So what happened here? the case is not one i cba in following.

But am i right in saying the forks failed in some way, causing the rider to crash and hurt himself, was it a user error, was the wheel incorrectly fitted, ie, qr too tight/loose os was it a product failure.

I'm just wondering if the same happened to another product, where it failed in some manner, potentially causing a major incident, i've heard stories of things like brakes pads failing and the manufactor's have nothing to do with it, it's down to the supplier to just say "Ahhhhh! it's one of the bad batch, here have another foc" and the comsumer is happy to accept that...

The theory is here
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/index.html

court evidence reports here
http://spoomplim.blogspot.com/ /p>

Not a case of manufacturing defect but brought under the consumer protection act.

I'd have been interested to see this case go to its natural conclusion as would Fox I bet. Its probably the Insurers as stated above. Out of court settlement sends out the message that there might be something to fear from this design though so stop people using the old fork design or at the very least people will check theirs more now.
Still on the bright side Fox are raking it in with their 2009 range weighing in at a thousand dollars for a 36 or a similar silly amount here. Along with their silly servicing schedule as a safety net I can't see them being short of a few pennies anytime soon.
Everyone knows mtb kit fails, how does one rider define XC or AM to another? Some riders can land drops and think its just to a stepdown/drop off smoothly whereas others will see it as extreme/technical downhill on the same forks.

Its an unproven design flaw. If a series of things stack up against you when you use QRs and disc then despite the QR being done up properly it can loosen off and then eject the wheel.

If your QR clamping force exceeds the precessional forces produced by braking over bumps then it will never happen. If the QR and dropout do not have a good interface then the QR can loosen, if you have downward facing dropouts then the wheel can be ejected very forcefully. Lawyer lips help reduce this as well.

The basis of the case is (IIRC) that Fox knew of this possible flaw and indeed their own design teams were working on ways to stop this happening but no recall was issued on existing forks nor was any warnings given. So Pinders case is that he was injured due to a design flaw that was known about and preventable by design changes.

Ben @ Kinetics did some experiments on this and replicated the effect. others have as well.

Lifted from Stoner/spoowpliM's blog, this, for me sums up the case:

[i]As to why Russ could have ridden many miles (and indeed the very trail of the accident at least 10 times) without the wheel coming out, the witness said that whilst the theoretical sequence could be defined it was only in a combination of many complex factors (many of which he believed were either not able to be identified yet, or if they are not adequately explained) acting in exactly the right manner that the very unfortunate sequence could occur in real life.[/i]

Russ was very very unlucky. I remember when James Annan first raised this question, and the "robust discussions" that took place at the time. Whilst I would be happy, like Brant to ride with a decent QR and Discs, it's equaly true, I'm even more happy my bike has a 20mm front axle...

I'm dissapointed that this wasn't seen through to the end. If I remember right there had been posts on here stating that Russ's main motivation for bringing this case to court was not finacial remuneration but to attain a ruling so as to prevent this happening to anybody else.

If Russ had proved his case in court it would probably have resulted in a recall of all forks with horizontal drop-outs and disc mounts. Yet by settling out of court and signing a confidentiality agreement if this was to happen to anybody else (which if Russ's claim is correct then it's only a matter of time) then is he now partially responsible?

Jim - I think pragmatism rules. My guess Fox bought him off with enough money. It is not is Foxs or their insurers interests to have a precedent set.

simply through getting as far as he did has raised the issue to a far higher profile than before regardless of whatever responsibility rests with the Fox design. Going to court, putting your own financial security on the line, is not done purely for philanthropic reasons. Even if Russ had been successful in this case the chances are Fox would have appealed adding another few years of cost and mental strain to an already long drawn out and expensive process.

Brant:
I was following a similar thread on here a few days back.
Someone else mentioned these " DT QR spinny things...." and I thought it was a good compromise between qr's and Maxles, then he said his came undone!!!!!
I'm running Rev's with a 180mm rotor up front and holding it all together with XT Qr's.
Do you consider the DT's more substantial than XT qr's?
ta
Q

Yet by settling out of court and signing a confidentiality agreement if this was to happen to anybody else (which if Russ's claim is correct then it's only a matter of time) then is he now partially responsible?

I'd have been interested to see this case go to its natural conclusion as would Fox I bet.

So, had this gone all the way and Pinder had won his claim, there would be a precedence set. Would this then lead to a recall by Fox for all their downward facing dropout forks that are in existance? Effectively therefore a known and proven safety issue.
If this was the case, would Marzocchi, DT, RockShox, Manipoo et al also be required to recall all their forks as essentially its an issue that affects every manufacturer of downward drop out forks.

So, I guess by settling, Fox are essentially protecting the interests of the industry while ensuring that Mr Pinder can carry on with life?

I appreciate going after the big fish, but I still don't see why action wasn't brought against the brake manufacturer and Syncros as ultimately it was a failure of that system that resulted in the terrible injuries. (syncros QR's have a running theme of loosening - check MTBR)
Lawers summary of the case:

"It is Russell Pinder's case that the design of the Fox forks when combined with certain disc brakes, and when using a front wheel secured by a quick release mechanism create loosening of the front wheel after repeated brake application, followed by subsequent ejection of the wheel out of the front forks."

I see the theory and accept that loosening can occur (I've had it on DT RWS and regular DT skewers on techy enduro races but unsure as to wether or not this was me being fairy fisted when putting my bike together. In both incidences, noticeable knocking and loosness was evident even when the skewer lever was still effectively tight and a long time before the QR nuts were anywhere close to forcing through the lawer tabs. Perhaps as I have a history of restoring/driving classic cars and self built kit cars, I'm somewhat more aware of feelings and noises that don't sound right or normal.

However, not being there, I cant say what the lead up to the ultimate failure was in his case nor indeed that he should have been able to stop and address the (apparently catostrophic) failure. Although the evidence that the QR must have worked loosed enough to pass the lawer tabs without scoring would suggest that significant knocking must have been evident. But sadly it happened, and the resulting injury is terrible.

As a side note, Would reverse thread QR nuts have resulted in a tightening effect as opposed to a loosening one?

Best of luck to Pinder though and I hope he can now look towards the future.

Inspiration?
[url]

[url] http://www.sitski.com/stacyoff.htm [/url]

Do you consider the DT's more substantial than XT qr's?

If I say yes, and yours loosen, are you going to sue me?

[i]As a side note, Would reverse thread QR nuts have resulted in a tightening effect as opposed to a loosening one?[/i]

no. The precession forces are not linked to wheel revolution so are indifferent to thread handedness.

As for going after brake and hub manufacturers etc, it's fair point, but would pit Pinder against the IS standard of caliper mount location. However, the drop out orientation is not defined by the IS mount location. but is solely in Fox's control, and so a forward facing dropout could have been developed compatible with the existing brake mount specifications.

why should he get a payout - he should check his bike before use (and during if need be). Duty if care and all that is bollox, taking responsibility for yourself is where it should be at!

Ralph - Have you not read the evidence / theory?

TJ the whole blame culture bugs me - take responsibilty for yourself is what i was taught and live by. If something goes wrong, look at yourself first and don't try to shift blame.

Theory and conjecture (especially when presented by you tj) are not worth the forum space they take up

Howabout loads of other folk who also believe this - have you read James annans work - if not do so. I can find no flaws in his calculations and there are many many examples of this happening - for sure its a tiny % but this is not the only time it has happened.
How often during a ride do you check your QR - the whole point is that it was not user error - it is a design flaw. For sure your bike should be checked at the start of a ride but are you seriously saying that you should stop and check the Qr during a ride? How often? every downhil? every 100m?

\Oh - and you are both ignorant and offensive in the way you refer to me

How often during a ride do you check your QR

don't have em!

[url= http://hjulcompaniet.com/tech/docs/pdf/Magura/IS%202000.pdf ]As for going after brake and hub manufacturers etc, it's fair point, but would pit Pinder against the IS standard of caliper mount location. However, the drop out orientation is not defined by the IS mount location. but is solely in Fox's control, and so a forward facing dropout could have been developed compatible with the existing brake mount specifications.[/url]

I can find no flaws in his calculations

Many have found several.

Brant:
lol!!!
:=)
Q

BUt tj hasn't thats the difference!

Go on then brant - I'd be interested to hear.

Ralph - shut up yuou know nothing numpty. constant negative sniping.

ha ha - biting

Brant - Im not so good at the technical diagrams, but does that document specify a required range of orientation of the dropout to meet the IS specification?

oh, and R-R, you're an arse.

what about just using a left hand thread on the skewer?
like on pedals - that stops the precession effect doesn't it?

horatio - the issue is its a thru bolt unlike pedal which are a not thru bolts - use a left hand thread and all that would happen is the other end unscrews

Brant - Im not so good at the technical diagrams, but does that document specify a required range of orientation of the dropout to meet the IS specification?

No. not at all. It certainly suggests and attitude, but doesn't give a slot to disc centre suggestion. I'm slightly annoyed as I'm sure I've seen one somewhere.

Go on then brant - I'd be interested to hear.

Fill yer boots lad, but I've drunk too much to google.

It's all out there though.

aha.
So for the time being Im still right? 🙂

Im pist 2 so all arguments from now on are null and void... 🙂

it is a design flaw.

If I don't put my car handbrake on, it will crash into my garage.

Is this a design fault in my drive?

Please let me know as I'm £750 out of pocket (at least).

aha.
So for the time being Im still right?

I'm not really sure what "right" is Mark, and I'm almost a bit dissapointed you've taken sides. 🙁

Ive been achingly equanimonmousnesoulsynous bipartisan I hope.

I was only saying that the IS brake mount standard never required a fork manufacturer to put the dropout one way or another...

TJ the whole blame culture bugs me - take responsibilty for yourself is what i was taught and live by. If something goes wrong, look at yourself first and don't try to shift blame.

*I tried bending it in my hands and it didn't break in the same way an Easton carbon bar didn't - impressive for cardboard.