ExMachina

Why would you assume that's what I am assuming? What I'm suspecting is that the customer knew that the frame would not be considered by Canyon for warranty work--so the question is WHY

Exactly! There could be any number of routes by which this frame got into circulation, and not all of them require that the frames were ever officially okay-ed for sale by Canyon

smashndash

I agree that all of Hambini’s videos should include the customer’s efforts prior to consultation with him and why the warranty was denied. But if we aren’t to assume the man is a pathological liar, he has seen many frames from Canyon (as mentioned in the video) and his opinion is that this was representative of the quality of their bikes.

AnkleWork

I'm doing the worst possible thing: responding to your own words and thought process.

smashndash

So you’re trolling then. You don’t even have an argument? You just want to hassle people? What do I currently believe that you want to change my mind about? I am genuinely asking.

ExMachina

While I never thought of Hambini as a "pathological liar", we also don't need to go that far to recognize that people will distort the truth to further their own argument. Until Hambini shows us proof that Canyon, Specialized, Orbea etc habitually produce "****e" frames, then all he's doing is selectively citing whatever "evidence" suites him. Do I think he's seen other damaged frames?--yes. Do I think that none of them were due to customer misuse or neglect or whatever other extenuating circumstances may be in play?--no.

AnkleWork

Apparently you need a little help with reading comprehension so here's a couple of claims restated for your benefit:
1. You have not verified any of the statements you generously spam.
2. You have not verified your own statements (feelings).

You're welcome.

smashndash

You’re going to have to explain further, sorry. Clearly my brain doesn’t even function at a 1st grader’s level. I have said 2 things:

1) The defects that Hambini encounters are unacceptable and should be caught in QC. What should I do in order to “verify” it? Please guide me.

2) My Hambini BB feels good and makes me happy. I didn’t do a brain scan to see if dopamine was actually being released into my bloodstream in order to verify that I, indeed, was made happy by my purchase. Is that what you are asking me to do?

Please explain what you want from me or what you want to change my mind about.

smashndash

Hambini has just posted an email from Canyon. It seems like the way it went was:

1) customer has BB issues
2) customer sends frame to Hambini for diagnosis
3) customer contacts Canyon with diagnosis from Hambini
4) Canyon replies effectively saying “unless this is a safety problem, it is not our concern”
5) customer chooses to employ Hambini to fix the BB rather than send the frame to Canyon who most likely would send the frame back as-is anyway.

So while Canyon *could* have corrected the situation, they didn’t exactly say they would.

ExMachina

Will definitly take a look! Where is this posted? I don;t see it on Hambini's website/blog or on the youtube page

tyrion

It's not about perfection (that's your strawman), it's about being within specs. Ensuring something is within specs is what QC does.

smashndash

Go to his channel and see the “community” page

canklecat

An out-of-round bottom bracket shell like that would be quickly identified with a simple go/no-go gauge, similar to those used by military armorers and gunsmiths. Doesn't even require any special training to use.

And the Hambini video shows that the problem isn't just measurably out of round, it's visibly out of round.

Granted, he does tend to drone on and on rather profanely, so it's easy to miss the meat of his videos amid the noise. He and Raoul Luescher of Luescher Teknik could both use a video production consultant for a stock camera and lighting setup, and to contract out editing. I rarely watch any technique oriented video that's longer than 3-5 minutes, whether it's bike oriented or exercise demos.

That's why I appreciate concise videos like those by Bowflex for their specific types of exercises that don't require Bowflex machines. They're far better and more concise than 95% of the homebrewed physical therapy videos online.

The only bike oriented videos longer than 3-5 minutes that I'll pay attention to are from RJ the Bike Guy (who could still use a little tighter editing) and Park Tools (ditto). Both are very informative but tend to run longer than absolutely necessary.

guy153

Some of them might. Many don't as you can see from Hambini's measurements.

canklecat

Here's an example of why consumer/enthusiast cyclists worry about carbon fiber bike stuff being out of whack or aspoloding...

In September 2019, the steerer on Simon Pellaud's "Bianchi" (reportedly not actually made by Bianchi) snapped right at the finish line at the Tour du Doubs. It's astonishing he wasn't seriously injured, probably because it wasn't actually a sprint finish with serious pressure on the handlebar. He was in the second small bunch trailing 10 seconds behind the winner who blew through solo, and had a comfortable position in the small bunch, so it wasn't a reckless Cavendish type sprint. Otherwise it's likely he'd have been badly injured.

Now, as this writer speculates, it's likely the steerer tube snapped due to human error -- too much tension on the stem, not using spacers, etc. Maybe a previous crash and the mechanic didn't inspect or replace the fork. Neither the team nor Bianchi ever responded to requests for followups from the cycling media, and the initial Tweet and photo of the snapped steerer posted by Pellaud were quickly deleted from Instagram, although screencaps were published.

But that's the sort of nightmare scenario many of us envision every time we're rolling the bike out for another crack at Strava fame or infamy. (Or, in my case, another crack at nudging up from middle of the pack amidst the other 60something year old MAMILs.)

Considering an out-of-round or ovalized BB shell, etc., could quickly and easily be spotted with a simple go/no-go gauge, it's reasonable to worry about QC, or lack thereof. With rock bottom bargain bin priced carbon fiber bits, such as the Toseek flat aero handlebars, I'd just assume it's up to me to check them and assume the risk for handlebars costing under $100 when other name brand bars sell for at least double or triple that amount. With Trek, Specialized, Giant, etc., I'm assuming part of the higher price is due to QC and liability.

With Canyon, positioned midway between a first line maker like Trek, and no-name stuff from ebay or Alibaba, it still seems reasonable to assume they do at least some QC. An ovalized BB shell should have been caught.

After that Pellaud incident, I took my Diamondback Podium out of service to thoroughly inspect it as best I could, considering I don't have access to ultrasound for inspections (a friend in the aircraft industry does and has used it to check his bikes, but I don't want to impose). Sure 'nuff, I found some abrasions in the fork I didn't notice the last time I'd checked the bike. Looks like scrapes caused by rubbing against a curb. I know I didn't ride into a curb or drop it, so I'm guessing it happened either when I was careless when rolling to bike during a rest stop, or the bike may have fallen or been knocked over during a group ride rest stop and nobody told me.

No apparent problems with the steerer tube or frame, but it has me wondering whether I even want to ride the bike again after replacing the fork.

It's probably superstition, not based on anything logical, but I have a bit more faith in my older 1993 Trek 5900 which uses carbon forks but steel steerer tube and dropouts.

Hambini may be a potty mouthed smartypants, but he's reminding consumers to be aware of some legit risks.

ExMachina

Thanks for the pointer. It's really hard to tell what the context of the letter is as the email it is responding to is not included.

Best as we can tell from the discussion, it seems that Canyon was not given first crack at making it right, nor did the customer take Canyon up on their offer to let them (Canyon) inspect the frame. So even though Canyon offered, the customer never gave Canyon an opportunity to look at the frame first hand so it's not clear exactly what (if anything) Canyon would have done. In as far as it goes, it seems perfectly reasonable to not want to provide any promises without first seeing the defective frame in question.

Here's the letter Hambini posted (I'm going to delete the sender's name in case privacy is an issue here):
-------------------------------

bitpuddle

Unless you’re having issues with your bottom bracket (worn bearings, creaking), I wouldn’t touch it. If you need to replace, I’d consider a screw-together model like WheelsManufacturing.

Wilfred Laurier

I have seen this scenario many times - bike bought from seller X, a problem is discovered, then bike is brought to seller Y for repair. Why do people do this? I don't know. Maybe they like seller Y better, maybe seller X did something to annoy the customer, maybe the customer didn't realize seller X has an after-sales service policy. In the case of Hambini, maybe his correct-but-overly-fastidious theories have convinced the customer his approach is best, to the exclusion of all others.

Whatever, it's common.

AnkleWork

Is Hambini measuring undamaged new, as-delivered frames?

koolerb

The frames we see in the video's are problem, in service frames. The bike owners purchased Hambini BB's to a fix to a problem with their stock bikes. If it doesn't fix the problem he offers to inspect, troubleshoot and repair. The frames that end up in the video's are the worst of the worst and not representative of the over-all quality of the brands. That said he's pointing out in detail poor quality that should not be excused. Get pissed at the brand quality managers not the the guy shining the spotlight on the problems. I don't expect any manufacturer to be perfect but we should expect reasonable standards of quality to be maintained at the prices we're paying for these products.

guy153

Don't know... my assumption is CF either stays the shape it always was or breaks, but you raise an interesting point. Can they sort of go out of round and alignment over time somehow?

jadocs

As mentioned the stuff he points out are Engineering 101 design deficiencies that should never pass muster for the prices people are paying for these brand name products. What makes it worse and the reason he gets riled up as he does, is the dishonesty in advertisement or straight out lies about the quality of said products.

Racing Dan

Several of the flaws Hambini is pointing out are really obvious and easily identifiable with basic hand tools like a digital caliper. Shouldn't be a problem on any bike and is simply inexcusable on expensive carbon bikes. Its not minutia and the flaws have real negative impact on performance and is potentially negating any theoretical performance benefit to extra light frames. Loosing a few additional watts in the BB on account of an out spec BB shell mero than negates any benefit to the frame being lightweight.


For reference it takes 1.1W to lift one lbs 3000 ft in one hour, > loosing 1.1 additional watt in the BB is equal to adding one lbs to the bike, if you are ascending at a 3000 ft / hour rate. !!!

ingo

For the most part the problems that Hambini finds with pressfit bottom brackets are solved with screw together BBs in a misaligned shell. My Cervelo S3 has one from Wheels Manufacturing and shows no problems even with the slop of the pressfit. The other topic he attacks is aero claims by manufacturers, particularly wheels. I have a degree in Mech Eng. and worked in fluid dynamics (some airfoils) for 30 years including simulation, and I agree with what he says. Other than his profanity and the length of his rants, there is some worthwhile information in the videos. With wheels he has no financial interest, but with BBs he does so consider that with his conclusions. His general analysis of the BB problems and tolerances is pretty much accurate.

u235

I think a lot of comments here are from people that have not watched a few of his videos. I have and I came to very different conclusions on what he does and looks at than others have. He gets a frame from someone and that someone had/has a problem with it. Creaking, cranks do not spin freely, going through bearings every 1000 miles etc.. He does a deep analysis of that specific frame he has in his possession and comments on what he finds and what he had to do to work around the defect. He details the raw facts and figures in great detail of what he found. His overall presentation also adds some colorful words, attitude and he formulates opinions of the companies of the frames he works on as a whole and I assume based on what he sees. Bottom line, if he gets a frame and the BB is out of round and not aligned correctly he questions how that company could let that happen. I agree with him. You are paying TOP dollar for a professional level product and it has really basic glaring flaws. He is calling them out. Not every company is perfect but at those levels and cost and what they claim they offer above the competition, these basic problems should not be getting through. Why didn't the owner of the frame contact the company directly instead of going to him? Who knows if they did or not or why, that is NOT the point. Going to the company does not change the fact that the product was seriously flawed. Are they all flawed? No. Are they some? Yes. He has seen them. Let's be honest here.. a bike frame and bearign surface alignment is an **EXTREMELY** simple thing to check and verify on the line and very important, I can't image it taking more than 30 seconds in a jig with some equipment. Cars have 5000+ components including multiple bearing surfaces that are under a lot more stress and critical than a bike BB and they have great QA systems in place. Considering the the cost of a car and its complexity vs a very simple bike frame and its cost, any flaw in a bike frame in that price range is a slap in your face.

The flip side, I am not a metallurgist or a what ever the non metallic carbon equivalent discipline is and I have no idea if the diagnosed misalignment, out of rounds, voids, and/or axis changes can happen over time with extreme use or abuse, etc vs normal use and what once one great at the factory is not great now. If I had to guess a trend, I would say a perfect one would stay perfect, a slightly bad one might gradually get worse until it is terrible. Either way, that is still an initial flaw.

WizardOfBoz

To get a better sense of this, I watched Hambini's review of Canyon. My thoughts:
1) Hambini has some technical knowledge. He claims to be an engineer, and some of the things he says support that.
2) He says he works in aerospace (and is wearing an Airbus overall in his vids). Aerospace has notably higher requirements for reliability than do bicycles.
3) He has a business producing bottom-bracket related stuff.

In the vid, he critiques the Canyon frame as being full of voids, delaminations, weak points and .. bottom bracket holes that aren't concentric or on spec for size. I suspect he's correct (I think he's probably using his friends at Airbus to get the assessments done, and I suspect that they do them correctly). My take:
1) The solution he provides to fix the non-concentricity is elementary and seems to be nicely executed.
2) On the other hand, if the frame is "scheeite" as he puts it, why would he fix such a frame? Isn't he putting the young rider at risk by giving him back a now-better-functioning frame with lots of hidden defects?

My last observation is that this is a very self-indulgent young man, and a man who is much less effective at delivering his message than he thinks. The self-indulgency refers to the constant barrage of curse-words and scatological terms. He either doesn't realize, or (here's the self-indulgent part) doesn't care that this lack of discipline and respect for others is offputting. Worse, he doesn't realize or care that it limits the effectiveness of his message. He's also pretty repetitive (I mean, how many times must he repeat his comparison to certain people in industry using scatological/anatomical terms?)

Try this message:
"There are a lot of bikes that are sold as super-high quality that aren't. I work in aerospace and we know high quality carbon fiber pretty well. When we do x-ray scans of the frames, we see all manner of voids and delaminations. Here's what these are and what they mean (insert explanations that are less wordy and repetitive and come to the point and don't have him scribbling over the powerpoint slides). There are some in industry, such as John Smith, who seem to sell poorly made Chinese frames but describe the frames as the epitome of German engineering. They're not."

Fill in some blanks, and you have a cogent, tight presentation of 3-5 minutes and the message is delivered and is effective. Instead Hambini goes off for the better part of an hour, a lot of which is spent on him describing, in ever-ascending arcs of scatological logorrhea, which body part (often covered with excrement) a person he doesn't like resembles. Frankly, if I were one of the subjects of his attacks I'd be glad for his lack of discipline and the lack of effectiveness of his presentation. If this is the type of presentation he delivers at work, he's going to limit his career progression. Unless, of course, Airbus has a high tolerance for ineffective, profane, and overly-long/verbose presentations.

The young man has some good points. And the solution for the Canyon lack of concentricity seems nicely done (even if he shouldn't have made that frame rideable on safety grounds). He hamstrings himself, though, with his lack of discipline.