That certainly does seem to align with what they’re saying. Thank you for sharing that!
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.
There is zero evidence of this.
Again, the data does not support this.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
.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.
3 Likes
Gone global per this update:
1 Like
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.
4 Likes
Tell that to Shimano…
Voluntary Recall: 11-Speed Bonded HOLLOWTECH II Road Cranksets Inspection and Replacement Campaign
Why do you think this isn’t a recall specifically?
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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?
Well as long as we can take everything a corporation says at face value I guess that is fine…
The fact that they are admitting there is an underlying problem with their product but not fixing the problem unless it has already caused an issue.
OK, you can tell it to the CPSC then….
2 Likes
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!
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Unfortunately the answer to this is likely to be the accountants’ calculation about cost of replacement vs cost of future class-action lawsuits. Clearly that threshold has now been breached.
The failure rate for the Shimano crankset recall in 1997 was “more than” 630 reported with 22 injuries for more than 1,000,000 cranksets.
This is a base failure rate of less than 0.063%. 10x less than the current base failure rate of 0.59%
In my opinion this is relatively a massive problem. People “report” their bike failures online, if there were thousands of people who had broken part X, we’d know about it. As we do with previous relatively high-rate failures.
Oh for handlebars?
Failure rate of 0.41% - or 37 out of 9,090 - Quality Bicycle Products Recalls Carbon Handlebars and Bicycles Due to Injury Hazard | CPSC.gov
Giant recalled about 2,400 carbon fiber fork back in 2001 - because 2 of them broke: CPSC, Giant Bicycle, Inc. Recall Giant Bicycle Forks | CPSC.gov
Lots of interesting data on the CPSC site.
7 Likes
Again, you are making an assumption here that is not necessarily borne out by the evidence.
Honestly, this is a bit frustrating. You are willing to ask me a similar question (“would you accept a 0.5% failure rate for HB”), but pass when it it is posed to you. The reality is that almost all consumer product goods have a failure rate of some level.
Well, that is exactly what the recall notice advises.
WADR, statements like this underscore a lack of understanding about recalls. A recall can take many different forms. Inspection, replacement, etc. It is a defined legal term and there are certain processes that must be completed and submitted to the CPSC. Moreover, AFAIK, it does not provide legal cover against future legal claims since no recall is 100% effective in reaching the consumer.
These cranks have been in the field for 10+ years, with reported failures across that time frame. Why have there been no class-action lawsuits up to this point? Further, with the rate of failures inevitably declining over time, what indicates that there will be future class action lawsuits?
Again, none of these numbers are taken in isolation. If Giant was able to determine that there was an underlying issue for the forks, I would hope that they issued a recall over a relatively minor number of incidents.
1 Like
wondering this as well. I have several ultegra crank sets with later date codes, which according to shimano, do not fall under the recall.