Sir Richard Branson hospitalised after “colossal” bike crash

Captain Badger wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

.....

Not that i'd put my bike upside down - that's blasphemy!

Well I do it all the time. Ha, yes sometimes in vain. What've you got to say to that??

Every time someone turns their bike upside down, Lord Cthulhu eats a kitten, so I hope you're happy now!

hawkinspeter wrote:

.....

Every time someone turns their bike upside down, Lord Cthulhu eats a kitten, so I hope you're happy now!

Really? I'm off to my garage. And I warn you, both my wife and daughter have bikes. And I, as a keen cyclist, own 2....

Captain Badger wrote:

Really? I'm off to my garage. And I warn you, both my wife and daughter have bikes. And I, as a keen cyclist, own 2....

Also hydraulic brakes can suffer fade if they get very very hot , say on a long decent . I've not had that on a bicycle but have had it on a motorbike dropping down out of the hills above Nice to the Mediteranean coast. (and I wish I was there now) . 

nicmason wrote:

Also hydraulic brakes can suffer fade if they get very very hot , say on a long decent . I've not had that on a bicycle but have had it on a motorbike dropping down out of the hills above Nice to the Mediteranean coast. (and I wish I was there now) . 

I believe it's much less likely to get hydraulic brake fade on bicycles unless you're doing some extreme riding/braking, although dragging your brakes could be an issue.

Michael Adomeit, Head engineer, Canyon Bikes wrote:

Heat dissipation is certainly an important issue in the development of disc brakes. It is actually the reason why we see technologies like Icetech or Freeza or ceramic pistons.

In the summertime we carried out some brake heat testing in the Black Forest, simulating an anxious, heavy rider.

With 120kg system weight and just using the front brake, we were going downhill for 8.6km on a nine per cent average slope.

Repeating this test several times we could not provoke any fading.

I am convinced that a rim brake would have troubles to pass this scenario, especially with carbon rims.

Regarding safety and braking performance, there is no doubt to me that disc brakes are superior to rim brakes in any situation.

Maybe he rode to the top of the hill,had a quick rest & laid the bike down, then did the descent part ?

But mechanical disc brakes could fade from working to not working, as you can wear the pad through in a ride, so it loses any real contact with the disc and it wont adjust itself. Normally you feel it developing as an increasingly long braking handle action. But it all depends on pad material, feel on the bike etc, the rear never brakes with same force as the front anyway so can feel like it's not doing anything, and as its rarely used you get less feel about it and it might be more prone to glazing.

Without knowing anything about the bike its impossible to say with certainty what the actual problem was.

Awavey wrote:

But mechanical disc brakes could fade from working to not working, as you can wear the pad through in a ride, so it loses any real contact with the disc and it wont adjust itself.

How long is this ride that wears a disc brake pad through?

well unless you fit new pads every ride, youll always be dealing with a degree of wear from previous rides, its up to you as the rider how you maintain your bike with that, but with mechanical discs the onus is on you to make adjustments to keep the pad in contact with the disc and it can wear out during a ride

Ive been in that position where I started a ride, and I might be unusual in that I cant literally get on a bike without using the brakes to stop the bike moving away from me in the first place so I always know the brakes are working to some extent...and it was all fine till I was approaching a junction which had a downhill approach, not a steep one but one I could freewheel towards.

and I pulled the front brake handle, as I had to stop to join this normally busy road ahead and literally nothing happened, obviously something was happening but I was just grabbing at maybe a millimetre difference of thin air vs disc contact, maybe it had worn off on the initial application I dont know, all I know was I was heading towards a junction and not slowing down no matter how hard I pulled the brake.

panicked, I tried the back brake, but that didnt seem to be helping at all,or not as responsive as the front should have been, so I deployed what I did as a kid and ruined many pairs of school shoes as a result to the ire of my mum, I just put both feet down and combination of that and the back brake I slid to a stop, with my front wheel fully  over the junction, if anything had been coming Id have been hit for sure.

but it taught me to pay closer attention to the wear on the pads with mechanical disc brakes, if the brake ever felt like it was getting long on application especially in points where weight/speed/gravity might be overpowering what would be fine even on level ground, and definitely uphill, Id adjust the pads to be closer to the disc.

it taught me to pay closer attention to the wear on the pads with mechanical disc brakes

There seem to be at least 2 universes existing in parallel- one in which disc brakes are the source of unending problems and worry, and mine. I recently did most of the Pennine Bridleway. Before I left, I glanced at the pads and thought the fronts could wear out during the trip. I would have carried a spare pad set anyway. Just beyond the point in the photo, where the Pennine Way turns right away from the Bridleway at Standedge, there was a sudden odd noise coming from the front brake area. This turned out not to be pad wear, but some freak incident where a stone had got in and broken one leg of the return spring- there was a score line over the pads. The replacement took 10 minutes, and the difficult bit is not losing the tiny clip which prevents the pad holding bolt unscrewing accidentally. Those pads are now the spare pair, but I now carry an additional return spring. Pads last about a year, and the 'adjustment' consists of tightening the cable barrel adjuster- having lubricated it to prevent seizing.

I didnt say it caused me "unending problems and worry" I said it taught me to play closer attention to the wear on the pads, which is just something I monitor akin to chain wear, or tyre pressure loss, or overall wear and tear on the bike, that I cover when I periodically clean it, because thats the thing you learn when you ride a bike regularly over time that it needs some TLC to keep it working properly from time to time.

No, indeed you didn't, but yours was only one end of a spectrum of comments describing disc brake difficulties which don't seem to exist, when discs obviously have to be compared with the brakes that went before which were worse in every way- except possibly on professional racing bikes. Of course, I may just have been lucky with TRP Spyres, but looking down at the discs to see how much pad is left and twisting the adjuster don't seem arduous maintenance to me.

I suspect the reason he didn't check them, will be the same reason he would put his bike upside down;

I doubt he does any of his own maintenance, doesn't understand the technicalities, doesn't know the potential pitfalls, doesn't know the rectification actions and really doesn't ride that much.

I don't blame him, he obviously can decide exactly how he wants to spend every minute of his day, and doing bike maintenance and logging hundreds of miles a week probably aren't high on his priority list. That's how you end up as an 'occasional cyclist' with little in-depth knowledge and few skills to deal with situations that many would find easy to rectify. Chances are the comment about just pumping the brakes is true - someone at the scene, or subsequently, did this and pointed out the brakes then worked as designed again. Hopefully they will also have explained that he shouldn't leave his bike upside down, but if he does it would be wise to pump/ test his hydraulic brakes before descending a steep hill next time.

I've heard this about not inverting a bike with hydraulic brakes before. Anyway, I got a puncture and, what the hell, I inverted my bike to facilitate the repair. Nothing happened. Did I invert it wrong? What is supposed to happen?

No, it's just a possibility that if there is a tiny amount of air in the system, it will naturally rise to the highest point. With an inverted bike that would be the caliper.

On first application of the brakes subsequently, there is a possibility that the brakes will not come on as designed due to that air.

The lever houses a reservoir. As you apply the brake, fluid from the reservoir if forced under pressure along the line to operate the pistons in the caliper which actuate the pads into contact with the rotor. If there is a tiny amount of air in the reservoir the brakes may still work as long as that air is not squeezed into the brake line/ to the caliper. It remains on the 'low pressure' side in the reservoir.

If the bike is inverted that air will naturally start to rise to the highest point, which will now be your caliper (front brake) or possibly somewhere in the line to the rear brake (the brake hose around the bottom bracket area may be higher than the rear caliper now). Either way, those tiny air bubbles are now on the 'high pressure' side of the system when the brake is applied. The air will compress rather than the fluid actuate the pistons as designed. You will not get full (or possibly any) braking force applied.

If your brakes are well bled and there are absolutely no air bubbles trapped in the system you shouldn't have any such problems.

So, I'm not saying don't ever put your hydraulic disc braked bike upside down, but just be aware of what may occur should you do so.

Obviously storing the bike for any time inverted as opposed to just putting it upside down whilst fixing a puncture will facilitate more tiny bubbles (if present) migrating to the caliper.

If it is only a tiny amount of air, standing the bike the right way up and a couple of applications of the brake maybe enough to force it back to the reservoir and get your brakes working again. If there is too much this won't work and they will need bleeding to remove it.

Mungecrundle wrote:

saved me a trip to A&E

TBH, I've no problem with the idea that a helmet can prevent head injury and a trip to A&E. And lightening the load on the NHS is what it's all about.

But the subtext of these stories is always, "and so helmets should be legally compulsory". Which is where I struggle, because it is shown that such measures increase the burden on the NHS.

So I think those who press for legislation are disingenuous.

Sriracha wrote:

So I think those who press for legislation are disingenuous.

Far too polite; they are blinkered zealots who don't care about anything except getting cyclists to wear helmets.  If they were really interested in making them safe, helmets are the last place they'd start.

Mungecrundle wrote:

There is surely an element of pushing your limits in the mistaken belief that PPE will save you from serious injury in the Branson story.

And in all the other "helmet saved my life" stories too. 

Risk compensation is a well documented phenomenon, and it's why providing safety equipment for the user is rarely, if ever, effective; certainly not in the case of cycle helmets.  The safer you feel, the more risks you take.

Owd Big 'Ead wrote:

I was unfortunate enough to work for Branson at Necker Island a couple of decades ago.

Putting it bluntly, he's an egotistical, know-it-all, yet continues to make the same mistakes time after time. I doubt the helmet saved his life, his head is far too big to actually fit in one.

As usual he will have been trying to do something outside of his skill capabilities. Nothing wrong with that, it's how you get better, but passing it off as the helmet being the answer is probably missing the point.

It'd be far better to say "I made an error of judgement while acting like a total tosser", but that wouldn't fit his nicely curated, self-centred, image of himself.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.....

but but but but he's a self-made man from a background of no privilege or educational opportunities that started everything off himself with no out side help 

Unlike those 'self-made' millionaires who had to do absolutely everything for themselves (after first being loaned £2m by their parents...).

brooksby wrote:

Unlike those 'self-made' millionaires who had to do absolutely everything for themselves (after first being loaned £2m by their parents...).

Exactly, it's almost like we were thinking of the same example...

I made I wrote a reply to another one on this thread before reading yours. Seems to confirm what I suspected - someone who has very little working knowledge, limited skills (due to lack of regular participation), and little mechanical experience or awareness of issues and how to deal with them.

I was more generous saying that I don't blame him, and thought someone would offer him an educated/ expert opinion and he might learn from it. By the sounds of it you think he is too big headed to do that. That's a shame and he will eventually kill himself continuing to ride in such terrain. His helmet won't save him if he goes over the edge next time...

I won't believe it until he shows it was split in two. Helmet also saved his mates glasses life as well it seems. 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I won't believe it until he shows it was split in two. Helmet also saved his mates glasses life as well it seems. 

I always thought that split in two means that the helmet failed in its job. Compression marks in the polystyrene would be the sign that it worked.

So all those pics are wrong? Nooooo.

hawkinspeter wrote:

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I won't believe it until he shows it was split in two. Helmet also saved his mates glasses life as well it seems. 

I always thought that split in two means that the helmet failed in its job. Compression marks in the polystyrene would be the sign that it worked.

I'm not sure either outcome is a reliable measure of the marginal point between life and death.

Incidentally, I can only think of one instance where a helmet has saved me. What it saved me from was, by my estimation, a bruise and lump on the upper forehead and quite possibly a bit of a headache, when I overestimated my ability to brake on wet ground behind an artic trailer whose tractor unit's ability and propensity to brake exceeded mine.

I can only think of one instance where a helmet has saved me. What it saved me from was, by my estimation, a bruise and lump on the upper forehead and quite possibly a bit of a headache

This all sounds like the rubbishy 50s thrillers on R4X, where people have 'flesh wounds' and a 'touch of concussion', so no harm done. Except, concussion doesn't exist and it's all different degrees of traumatic brain injury. The less TBI you suffer, the better. The more 'a bit of a headache's you avoid the better. The oft-quoted pseudo-statistics are just that- the application of sense means you can ignore the 'you're more likely to suffer an injury if you wear a helmet' story and just make your own assessment about whether you want the collision that breaks the helmet applied to your head directly