tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post4549330582049656900..comments2024-02-15T04:42:41.606+00:00Comments on James' Empty Blog: Pinder v FoxJames Annanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-53582673634749373502008-11-05T10:15:00.000+00:002008-11-05T10:15:00.000+00:00Wow. Liveblogging the trial - I feel almost like I...Wow. Liveblogging the trial - I feel almost like I'm there :-) <BR/><BR/>(Actually I was originally supposed to give a videoconference but they all agreed I didn't matter, which was a bit of a relief.)<BR/><BR/>I commented on your blog (first post) BTW.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-84953613407970320092008-11-05T09:58:00.000+00:002008-11-05T09:58:00.000+00:00posting this from outside courtroom. modern age eh...posting this from outside courtroom. modern age eh? :)Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774485977108346956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-81162980777131374612008-11-05T08:47:00.000+00:002008-11-05T08:47:00.000+00:00Thanks! Are you going in again today?JamesThanks! Are you going in again today?<BR/><BR/>JamesJames Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-29816613068057037682008-11-05T08:22:00.000+00:002008-11-05T08:22:00.000+00:00james - my blog updated with tuesday's hearing. Ha...james - my blog updated with tuesday's hearing. Had confirmation that the 1999 document was published by Hayes.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774485977108346956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-86385734912389722702008-11-04T02:33:00.000+00:002008-11-04T02:33:00.000+00:00In other news, today British Rail has awarded a co...In other news, today British Rail has awarded a contract to Shimano to replace all their track fasteners with quick releases...<BR/>;)C W Mageehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09706100504739548720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-50100606612662285712008-11-03T01:45:00.000+00:002008-11-03T01:45:00.000+00:00OK, that sounds like it must be a different docume...OK, that sounds like it must be a different document to what I have. Mine mentions that it is part of some new testing regime that was under development, and only quotes torque values (from which it is easy enough to estimate the actual forces, of course). It wasn't really from any formalised test, just someone riding around in a car-park.<BR/><BR/>This test result was presented at Interbike in 2003 (at the ASTM meeting I've mentioned on my website), so it is hard to believe that Fox can have been unaware of these large forces at that time. Is that really what they are claiming?James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-4107547960547479702008-11-02T07:44:00.000+00:002008-11-02T07:44:00.000+00:00Its encouraging to see that your own calculations ...Its encouraging to see that your own calculations for the force at the axle are in the same order of magnitude as those mentioned in court. The figure of 4,430N was the max load recorded at the disk brake pad centre in the test exercise and written in the top left hand corner of an landscape A4 sheet with a rotor/calliper/axle arrangement diagram. The force at the axle was not specified accuratley but given the mechanical connection to the brake pads at that instant, the plaintiff counsel asked the Fox witness whether it would also imply "massive forces at the axle in the range of 3,000-4,000N" and he had to agree even without doing any calculations.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774485977108346956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-30508000143365453282008-11-02T00:08:00.000+00:002008-11-02T00:08:00.000+00:00Ah, I wonder if that Cannondale testing may be the...Ah, I wonder if that Cannondale testing may be the same thing I have then? But I don't think my copy (performed for the CPSC) mentions the axle force...the figure I gave of 3800N is my own calculation based on the torque values that were provided.James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-61378233007258854362008-11-01T23:53:00.000+00:002008-11-01T23:53:00.000+00:00And for the avoidance of doubt, since I cannot edi...And for the avoidance of doubt, since I cannot edit my comment posted here at 11:55pm 01/11/08, the reference to 1999 above should be ignored.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774485977108346956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-1547737275931039572008-11-01T23:51:00.000+00:002008-11-01T23:51:00.000+00:00in which case Im not confident at the timing so wi...in which case Im not confident at the timing so will remove it from my report. There was reference to 1999 in the court, but I must have misinterpreted as to what the date applied.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774485977108346956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-10477433146055595982008-11-01T21:27:00.000+00:002008-11-01T21:27:00.000+00:00First I heard about 1999 Cannondale data was your ...First I heard about 1999 Cannondale data was your post! However, the numbers you are quoting seem pretty compatible with the 2nd half of Cannondale's tests in 2003 (bottom of <A HREF="http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/disk_and_quick_release/cannondale.html" REL="nofollow">this page</A>).James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-19159385135950824062008-11-01T14:55:00.000+00:002008-11-01T14:55:00.000+00:00James - I ought to point out that contrary to the ...James - I ought to point out that contrary to the sloppy BikeRadar article, Russ's counsel isnt going for a case of negligence. The point of law being argued regards the public's reasonable expectations of safety in a product under the Consumer Protection Act (1987 I think). In itself it's not sufficient simply to have realeased a safer design later to infer insufficent efforts to ensure safety in the earlier design. However, the fact that this one witness (Fox engineer and 40 degree forward drop out patent co-applicant) says that no testing was done to ascertain the effects of braking forces at the drop out area before that 2005 patent raises the question whether sufficient investigation was done at the earlier stage to meet the reasonable expectations of the public - expecially in relation to the Canondale force data, let alone the simple "right between the eyes" obvious fundamental importance of the issue. They showed a diagram in court, apparently from the Canondale study on which it was written "Max load found at axle 4,430N". I couldnt get a look at the piece of paper myself and so I'm not 100% sure it was from Canondale and from 1999, but that's what I recall from the hearing. Are you able to elaborate?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774485977108346956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-86166068569371971232008-11-01T13:14:00.000+00:002008-11-01T13:14:00.000+00:00Mark,Thanks for posting about it. It's shocking th...Mark,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for posting about it. It's shocking that Fox say they only started thinking about the ejection forces in 2005 - that would seem to be prima facie evidence of negligence, whatever the details of Russ's crash...James Annanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318741813895533700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9959776.post-48799517331791617052008-11-01T09:38:00.000+00:002008-11-01T09:38:00.000+00:00James - Ive been following the case in court. Find...James - Ive been following the case in court. Find my update from Friday's interesting session here: http://spoomplim.blogspot.com/Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15774485977108346956noreply@blogger.com