News
Wheel ejection theory goes legal
Carlton Reid Feb 6 2007, 1:15pm
A rider disabled after a fall from his bike is suing brake and fork manufacturers for compensation, citing Dr James Annan's wheel ejection theory
The bike trade has a three-letter acronym describing the propensity for spurious liability claims: JRA. This stands for Just Riding Along.
David Bernstein of The Fredcast podcast in the US, formerly a product manager for a number of key bike component brands, said on The Spokesmen show (no. 11): "A typical claims starts like this: 'I was just riding along when I went over the handlebars and I broke my nose and knocked out a couple of teeth, you now owe me five million dollars. In one case we investigated we found the rider had 'just been riding along' down five flights of stairs."
However, in the UK a case is currently being prepared against fork and component manufacturers which, it is alleged, is not about pilot error. A case from the same complainant was thrown out in the US last year but a UK win could still have global ramifications: it could, in theory, lead to a universal recall of millions of suspension forks.
It is alleged that the US and UK manufacturers concerned produced components which caused an unscheduled faceplant which led to the lifetime disablement of a competent rider of a high-end bike. BikeBiz has talked to one of the expert witnesses in this case and he feels the British manufacturer has no case to answer.
The theory at the heart of the case – that disc brakes are powerful enough to eject a wheel held on by securely-fastened QR bolts – is no longer a theory to many experts, it's an accepted fact.
The theory first saw the light of day in 2003 thanks to a website produced by Dr James Annan, who works on the Japanese Earth Simulator supercomputer in Yokohama, Japan. He approached fork and brake companies with his theory but all said there was no grounds to his claims. Big-hitter experts disagreed, lining up behind Annan.
Since 2003 many fork manufacturers have modified their drop-out designs and many bike manufacturers now fit thru-axles rather than QRs. To proponents of the 'Annan theory' this is evidence the bike trade discovered there was a problem and fixed it without any costly product recalls. Others say the redesigns are all down to bowing to public pressure, specificially the brouhaha on mountain-bike bulletin boards.
If this is the case, it came too late for Mr X, the rider currently suing two well known brake and fork manufacturers, one British, the other American.
"In March 03, and due to no fault or error of his, [Mr X] crashed on the Gap descent in the Brecon Beacons.
He broke his back and now he’ll be in a wheelchair for the rest of his life," said a claim on a rescue appeals website.
Mr X started his compensation case last year and BikeBiz has spoken to him about the case although he preferred not to put anything on record. Similarly, the two manufacturers being sued also preferred not to comment.
BikeBiz will not name the expert witness for the British manufacturer but he's a recognised authority on bicycles.
He told BikeBiz the case is now at chambers level with barristers on both sides now involved. Some of the engineers who went on record in 2003 saying they trusted the Annan theory have, to date, not signed up to be expert witnesses for Mr X.
There might be a pre-trial hearing to see if the case can proceed or experts on both sides may agree on a statement that allows compensation to be paid but for no liability to be accepted by one or more of the parties concerned.
Many experts claim the Annan theory is scientifically proven.
Jobst Brandt, a renowned authority on bicycle technology and author of The Bicycle Wheel, said in 2003:
"The mechanism has been clearly stated, the forces have been identified in magnitude and direction, and credible descriptions of failures have been presented....Believe it!"
James Annan's theory was much discussed on the public forum of Singletrack magazine's website and, in 2003, Singletrack's Mark Alker believed the genie was now well and truly out of the bottle:
"It doesn't actually matter if the problem is real or perceived. That's never stopped a lawyer before. It's a case of manufacturers proving that the problem doesn't exist rather than a crippled rider proving that it does."
Chris Juden of the CTC, one of Britain's most experienced bike-and-product testers, said:
"It's not just scaremongering, but all hangs together and makes perfect sense," said Juden.
In January 2006, a UK complainant - different to the one featured above - reached an out-of-court compensation settlement with a supplier over the 'QR/wheel ejection' issue.
A prominent UK industry executive told BikeBiz.com: "[If the current case] is successful it could destroy the bike trade."
BikeBiz.com has run 17 stories on the 'QR/wheel ejection theory'. To find them do a site search on 'Annan'.
