Well, Shimano Hollowtechgate is now entering its inevitable Erin Brockovich phase with a class-action lawsuit:
Basically, Shimano is only replacing cranks that are already in the process of failing, which leaves everyone else in a “frightening position:”
I hope for the plaintiffs’ sake that the judge is not a retrogrouch, because never in a million years will they buy this “I bought an ultralight plastic bike but now all of a sudden I’m really scared” argument from the Freds. You’re riding a bike you can squeeze like a roll of Charmin but you’re suddenly deathly afraid of the crank? Please:
By the way, unlike that roll of Charmin, you can actually damage the frame simply by squeezing it:
Moreover, the only way to find out for sure if you’ve damaged it or not is to give it an ultrasound like it’s pregnant. With so many people willing to ride bikes like this is it really surprising Shimano figured they might as well just glue their cranks together to save a few more grams? Not to blame the victims here, but I’m totally blaming the victims, because the Freds really bring a lot of this on themselves by buying equipment designed for sponsored professionals and then complaining when–surprise!–it’s not up to the rigors of being ridden transported and stored season after season by someone who doesn’t employ a team of professional mechanics.
Anyway, here’s the suit:
Besides risking injury, riders are also forced to endure cranksets of diminishing value:
Fortunately, any rider who is truly terrified of their bonded Hollowtech crank can buy peace of mind relatively cheaply:
[I do not endorse the seller, I’m just using it as an example.]
Best of all you don’t even need a new bottom bracket–just remove your bonded crank, install this one, and pedal away on your Charmin bike.
As for why Trek is also named in the class action lawsuit, maybe it’s because of that freaky notch they put in the new Madone:
It looks like a tomcat’s ear:
What does a notched ear mean? It means the cat is both aero and laterally stiff yet vertically compliant, silly!
I never imagined I’d become the cycling equivalent of a doomsday prepper, hoarding metal bikes and mechanical components in anticipation of the Fred-pocalypse, but here we are.
And I recently noticed he’s already back, so welcome back:
There are about a million things wrong with “car culture,” but I’ve noticed that the recent trend among urbanists is to attack everyone else where they live–literally–by saying that their houses are stupid:
Hey, at least they have room to do donuts on their own property instead of on a public roadway:
As I just mentioned, there are about a million things wrong with “car culture,” and almost all of them are conveniently on display in that video.
Anyway, I get that the urbanists want DENSITY DENSITY DENSITY, and it’s certainly stupid to fill cities with parking lots or require new apartment buildings near train stations to also have parking for every single resident, but if someone wants an ugly driveway in front of their house instead of some plants is there anything really wrong with that? At least they’re using the space, and the car’s not stored out in the street. Like, does anybody actually use this space?
And presumably in addition to the space they’re also using the car, whereas nobody actually uses most of the other things you might put in front of your house, like a fountain:
Or a giant squirrel:
Of course I’m sure the urbanist answer is that we shouldn’t have any of those things, that private yards are evil, and that single-family houses are a policy failure. In fact I’m surprised nobody’s selling “One Less House” stickers to put on your apartment door yet. (At least as far as I know.) Regardless, people work hard for their homes, and it seems to me you aren’t going to get too far with them by telling them how dumb their houses are.
Fuck it, I’m buying a giant squirrel statue.