This YouTube video seems to say that users should do a visual self-inspection and only return to a dealer if they have doubts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKMKsbts3t8. This doesn’t really match the details I’ve been reading in articles today.
Seems a bit lame really. That said, I have two bikes impacted by this and I’ve been regularly doing this exact “inspection” for years because we’ve all known about this issue anyway So maybe regular inspections are “enough”. But the thought of sudden dramatic failure does play on me a bit now…
Escape CC also quote the $$ rebate figures Shimano will write cheques for if you’re the unlucky owner of a 3rd party power meter that needs replacing. I haven’t seen these figures anywhere from Shimano.
My Twitter has blown up on this today. I guess people are looking for clarification or more information.
Below is their crank replacement plans. As I’ve posted on Twitter - All based on the newer 12spd 8100/9200 design, likely with a 1mm reduction in chainline for 11spd drivetrains.
Wouldn’t you use different criteria for a safety critical part, though? If I had to replace my trigger shifters, blender, bottle cage or smartphones at that defect rate, that’d be one thing. But cranks or, worse, handlebars should be held to a much higher standard.
If it helps you sleep at night, both my ultegra crank failure and all the failures I’ve personally known about (I.e. Not ones I’ve seen on the Internet) were gradual not dramatic failures. I wasn’t aware of the issue so wasn’t inspecting my crank. But had a weird creaking noise for a few rides which I meant to look into but hadn’t occurred to me was a problem, and then on one ride there was noticeable movement - could feel my foot wasn’t tracking in nice circles. Felt like a bent pedal spindle which I’ve had once before following a crash. Stopped to look and found a hairline crack in the crank which was flexing under load. Rode the bike carefully home, got the replacement under warranty a week later. Others I’ve known with the same problem have had similar experiences.
Not saying it’s not possible for it to dramatically fail, but based purely on my anecdata I would think that regular inspections and not ignoring any unusual noises or movement in your bike would go a long way towards avoiding a dramatic failure.
Need to stop referring to this as a recall. Is isn’t.
If the inspection finds nothing, you keep them until they potentially fail at a later date. If it finds failure, they are replaced by cranks with the same underlying problem.
There’s no actual solution/fix here, only Shimano finally admitting there is a massive problem.
Really?
Shimano paying shops to check cranks and even paying (partially) for third-party power meters for affected cranks seems very rare. At least I don’t remember the last time Shimano did something like that.
To me that is a data point that this is serious to Shimano.
.5% reported failure rate is not a “massive” problem. As noted previously, this is likely gotten to being a recall because of the large number of cranks in existence, not because of the failure rate. As a number, +4K failures is a lot of people.
As part of the overall failure rate, it is extremely small.
I honestly don’t understand why some find this controversial. It is just a number analysis.
You keep saying that, referring to your experience with consumer products. Cranks are different in that failures might lead to serious accidents. It isn’t as dangerous as handlebars failing (would you accept a failure rate of 0.5 % in handlebars?), but definitely more significant than trigger shifters or smartphones failing. What about the automobile industry, would they accept 0.5 % failure rates in critical parts?
Besides, we don’t have to argue back and forth about what failure rates we would find acceptable, because we already have the most important data point, namely Shimano’s assessment. Going solely off of what they have done, Shimano has decided a failure rate of 0.5 % is too high.
It seems to me you are conflating probabilities with expectation values. I don’t think the absolute numbers mattered, bike frame manufacturers have recalled bike frames or forks that were sold in much, much smaller numbers. I think it is the rate that matters and the potential for severe injuries, not the absolute number of failures.
Can’t say…I don’t know the nature of the hypothetical failures. But in general, I would not be alarmed by that failure rate. What do you think the current failure rate is for handlebars? (Hint - it is not zero)
You don’t know this and I have presented a reasonable argument, based on my experience in the industry and consumer products in general, as to why this is happening now.
These products have been in the market for 10 years now….failures have been reported across the length of that time. This is not in dispute. So if the 0.5% reported failure rate is now too high (your position), that would indicate that the failure rate is increasing. We simply don’t have the data to make that claim. What we DO know is that the pure number of incidents has continued to rise.
Given the span of the products involved, it is can be reasonably argued that the failure rate is decreasing, since fewer cranks are likely still in service. At the same time, you could also argue that the failure rate is the same / increasing since corrosion failure is failure across time. We simply don’t know. But we do know that the pure number of failures continues to increase.
It can be all of these things. They are all used to make a determination re: the product.
For example, for the frames / forks that were sold in “much, much smaller numbers”, what was the failure rate? What was the nature of the failure? What were the reported injuries?
If the inspection finds nothing, you keep them until they potentially fail at a later date. If it finds failure, they are replaced by cranks with the same underlying problem.
Assuming the Shimano continued to manufacture Ultegra and Dura-Ace 11 spd cranksets after July 2019, ( the new design of cranks for 12sp didn’t launch until August 2021), I can only assume that they must have changed the design, materials or manufacturing process, ( t was certainly changed for R9200 and R8100 cranks, as we’ve not seen the same sort of failures of those) otherwise they’d be calling for inspection of post July 2019 11spd cranks as well. My next assumption has to be they changed because they knew there was a problem, i.e they are admitting that they knew there was a problem 4 years ago and didn’t tell anyone!
I seem to recall something about that, but can’t swear to it.
Manufacturers change processes all the time to improve product reliability. The implication that they made a change to cover up a problem is a bit disingenuous, IMO. It was well-known by that point that some quantity of cranks were having the issue.
Last comment and clarification: this isn’t my position, it is Shimano’s by virtue of their actions. I don’t know what failure rates are acceptable for consumer products, I don’t know what failure rates should be acceptable for cranks. Shimano does and it has crossed their threshold. (Some would say “finally”.)
My advice to everyone is get your cranks inspected irrespective of whether you think there is an issue or not.
Doing a “recall” without actually replacing the crank is nothing but a legal trick Shimano are doing to mitigate future lawsuits (“the consumer was offered a recall”).
But if your cranks were inspected and then fail, the lawyers will have a field day.
So maybe regular inspections are “enough”. But the thought of sudden dramatic failure does play on me a bit now…
