BikeRadar joining the shotgun approach by putting a Stages crank in the headline image. 
1 Like
LOL, I was wondering about that too 
1 Like
Just overheard at the Stages Marketing Team meeting - âpull all our advertising from BRâŚNOW!!!â
2 Likes
Just for grins I clicked on the link to the lawsuit filing and the first plaintiff bought their bike from my LBS 
.
Iâve yet to take my bike in for official inspection. I plan on pulling my cranks and removing the chainrings to take a close look myself before taking them in. The bike could use a good cleanup anyways.
2 Likes
A buddy has a ~4 year old Canyon AeroRoad, took it in for service and once they looked there was obvious cracks/delamination.
Where did you find those specs?
Iâd be switching from an older ultregra 6800 - is that just the same as a R8000?
EDIT:
Found it⌠looks like the chainline on the 6800 is also 43.5 and the Q-factor is slightly larger at 146.6
The sad thing about the class action lawsuit is that the only people really going to make money are the lawyers. The consumers, who were actually affected, arenât likely to gain much.
2 Likes
I am sure this is a legal tactic, but I find adding the bike manufacturers a stretch. Unless they had some insider info that we all didnât have. A great number of consumers (at least deep nerds like us) were aware that these cranks had shown some problems. There is #thanksshimano and several forums like this with threads discussing the issue years before this recall. And yet, we bought the bikes with the cranks and hoped for the best.
1 Like
Perhaps, but as you note, hte issue was known for years. Based on experience, it is highly unlikely that suppliers never brought the issue up with Shimano. A reasonable case, IMO, can be made that they continued to spec the cranks with a known default.
Iâm not saying I agree with it necessarily, but the case can be made.
Anyone can make a case, and sure they knew cranks break. But could/should they have known it was a âdefect.â These companies have experience with their own frames, bars, seatposts breaking. Doesnât mean they are defective. Doesnât mean they do a recall. Things break and that is part of their business. It is really the same thing as the bike shop. Should we make a 3rd party the arbitrator on the safety of a product, with incomplete information and/or skills to diagnose?
Sure, I get the cynicism to a point since the system we have is flawed. But with all the uproar with the way Shimano handled this before and after the announcement, people have the choice to do nothing more than what Shimano has offered or head down the legal route.
We have people complaining about the crappy way Shimano is handling this and implied more should be done. Now that someone has kicked into a gear to try and make Shimano do more, we have people complaining about that. Lose / Lose situation and it seems impossible to make anyone happy 
2 Likes
The sad truth.
I have made the case repeatedly that simply because there is breakage doesnât mean there is a need for a recallâŚno manufactured product has a zero defect rate.
But yes, there is a responsibility for 3rd party suppliers to ensure products specâd are safe. One of the companies I worked for had an extensive testing process. Fatigue testing, static load, etc. (I have previously relayed the story of how we could not spec what was universally considered a very reliable / durable (and popular) seatpost because it could not pass our fatigue testing) Now, we admittedly probably went over and above what was reasonably expectedâŚbut it was a point of differentiation for us. You knew our stuff was tested and reliable.
Another company I worked for simply relied on testing from the component suppliers. But we also rarely took their tests at face valueâŚ
If I had been a product guy in the last 12 years, I would definitely have pushed to see some hard data from Shimano on return rate, reported defective rates, etcâŚnot only to ensure I was specâing a safe product, but to cover my own ass, too. If any bike supplier requested similar information from Shimano and can provide the documentation, then I would imagine they can survive the suit with no issues.
Another issue will be whether any bike supplier had requested indemnity from ShimanoâŚI honestly canât remember if we had any indemnity clause with our suppliers back then.
I HIGHLY recommend everyone do this, I posted above some cracks on my crankset - this is what it looks like with the rings removed.
Did your cranks get sent in to Shimano yet? And if so, what kind of timeframe are they stating for replacement cranks?
Thanks.
I honestly have not taken them in yet because I am stuck in a delima which was discussed on post 163 where I run the system as a 1x and have multiple chainrings.
The replacement crank may or may not work for me at this rate and the cost of ring replacement is so high. I thought about getting the DA crank warrantied and then selling it to replace it with another crank brand (rotor in my case) but I fear that these cranks are going to be pennies on the dollar now in the private sale market.
Total bummer situation for me.
1 Like
Your photos are great but I canât actually make out the issue. Would it be possible to describe or circle where the debonding is happening?
2 Likes
I have not had a de-bonding issue âyetâ but when Shimano had posted their original inspection video they recommended checking the chainring âearsâ for hairline/micro cracks.
I have highlighted in red the cracks my crankset has which shows a crack leading to a bond/press point for the 2-pieces.
Got it now thanks. It looked like a joint point rather than a crack in original photo.