# Mary almost sent me to ER!



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Just wanting to show all the Mary bar enthusiasts what can happen when you are JRA. 

I'm posting this here because of all the rave reviews of the Mary bar and singlespeeding. I have been using the Mary bar much to my enjoyment on my single speed for about six months and transferred it over to my 1X9 because of an ankle sprain for the past few months and it failed by snapping off at the stem on a downhill section, I had just a second to tap the front brake and grabbed a tree limb to keep me from pitching over the edge of a nice singletrack. No scrapes, no pain except in the wallet since I'm going to a new downhill-type bar (31.8mm). Any suggestions for a strong bar?

The stem was torqued to spec, so it probably was due to fatigue from pulling on it when climbing. Only 1,000 miles on it so I'm now suspicious with all the fancy tube bending. The bar is kind of flexy so this is the result. So if you're a big guy and kind of strong and riding with Mary, you better check it! I've got a Titec Jones bar on the SS now and its giving me the hee-be jee-bees now. :eekster:


----------



## Speedub.Nate (Dec 31, 2003)

That's a bit disturbing, and you're not the first to report this happening.

I installed a Mary on my wife's bike and I really had to work to get it through the stem's single-bolt clamp, leaving a tiny score. It looked like nothing to worry about -- cosmetic only. I'd better re-evaluate.

Did you have a nice walk out?


----------



## BThor (Aug 26, 2004)

I have to second this experience. I have a mary bar that also failed on the exact same side, in the same place. 

Check your bars boys, you don't want the problems that result from the sudden failure. Last summer I had such a failure and just now am I recovering from the head Injury.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Speedub.Nate said:


> Did you have a nice walk out?


Oh, only about five miles. I'll go with a big fat tube and a little tingly in the palms rather than something a little more unpleasant for sure. :madmax:


----------



## abbeytrails (Jan 12, 2006)

I had the same thing happen to my Origin8 Spacebar. I believe mine snapped from pulling on climbs too. I'm 6'2 220(ish) so when I was running downhill and hit a bump, that poor bar had no chance of holding me together. Glad I only escaped with bruises as it sounds like others weren't so lucky! I am now riding 31.8 bars for the added strength but would really like to know what the strongest handlebar on the market is as well....


----------



## j e SS e (Dec 24, 2007)

Yikes!:yikes: I ran Mary's for a couple years and never had any problems with them, even after falling off my roof rack @ 45mph. Though that did score the forward bends pretty badly which has always been a little unnerving. It's starting to look like perhaps the design has a relatively short fatigue life. 

I havn't run the Mary for a while now since I've taken to big risers. Azonics are where it's at.:thumbsup:


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Good thing there's......*



johnnyb said:


> I had just a second to tap the front brake and grabbed a tree limb to keep me from pitching over the edge of a nice singletrack. No scrapes, no pain except in the wallet :eekster:


......plenty of limbs near by on most of the trails anyway, eh? At least it didn't happen while going around WW where there aren't as many?? Glad to hear you're ok and didn't take a tumble jb.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

Has anyone with a failed Mary contacted Brant at On-One? I'd think he would want to look at them and attempt to understand the reason for failure. I was impressed with the testing that went into the carbon 29er fork, or I would not be riding it on my Inbred.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

31.8 is my new attitude now. I put my original Ritchey from my first monocog on last night and now I'm ready to roll. I think I'm getting a Azonic or Titec with a new stem this week.

Abbeytrails, I'm same size and weight as you and I've broken plenty of parts in my 20 years of riding. Just another lesson to be learned here for sure. Clydedales unite!

Its interesting to see I'm not alone with this issue. Everybody keep safe out there!


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

ouch!

with 3 sets of marys on the go, this was a scary post to read!

i wish someone made a heavier duty version of the mary....


----------



## Mallanaga (Jun 30, 2007)

johnnyb said:


> Mary almost sent me to ER!


what a b!tch!! maybe a stronger pimp hand is necessary...

on a side note...
i want a carbon version of the mary...  i'll be putting her on my jabber when it finally gets here. carbon would just be sexy. or maybe even just a 31mm version of her. or... a 31mm carbon version of her!! yes...


----------



## Jerk_Chicken (Oct 13, 2005)

Just exploring an option that the right arm when pulling up on the bar is the dominant one?


----------



## Ryan G. (Aug 13, 2004)

Ouch sorry to hear almost about a close call at Tamarancho? JB.

I was riding with Slide and another buddy who was rocking the mary bars, and I was looking at the bends of the bars thinking....


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

When I used to ride tons and tons (at University, lots o' spare time...) I broke handlebars quite often. I was around 250lbs and having done well at some (ok, one) national level race, I could climb (strong!). I'd tend to agree with you that it is the climbing, not the rattling around downhill that breaks them. Then the Scott thermoplastic came out and they were awesome. I only broke about 1 a year instead of 3-4.

The moral of the story is carefully look over your bars every other ride - look for silvery cracks (always run black bars) or 'marks', especially near the stem but I've had them break inside the grips too so you never know where it's going to happen. Check your frame too - they'll typically break right under the downtube or where the top of the top tube meets the headtube. Also chainstays can crack. It is a serious thing when a part fails and not the fault of the manufacturer most of the time.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Jerk_Chicken said:


> Just exploring an option that the right arm when pulling up on the bar is the dominant one?


My pimp hand is the lefty!


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

baycat said:


> Ouch sorry to hear almost about a close call at Tamarancho? JB.
> 
> I was riding with Slide and another buddy who was rocking the mary bars, and I was looking at the bends of the bars thinking....


Hey Ryan,

I was riding home after doing some trail work on Tamrancho. I think I got a few karma points from that to save my sorry ass! Those bars are flexy.


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

I'm digging the PIG sticker! :thumbsup: _edit_: KPIG radio for the uninitiated. kick azz schtuff. 

At least e-mail the pics to Brant ([email protected]). I'm riding Marys and would like to hear his comments on this.


----------



## jgsatl (Sep 16, 2006)

maybe a nice cromo bar with similar bends might be the ticket.


----------



## abbeytrails (Jan 12, 2006)

I have no doubt that my ride style has a lot to do with the bars failure. I know I pull up and push down on bars while riding....I am currently riding 31.8 Easton EA50`s and replace it after each year. If somebody showed me a stronger handlebar, I would gladly pick it up and try it out....


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

Thus is the nature of aluminum.


----------



## J_T (Dec 8, 2004)

abbeytrails said:


> I have no doubt that my ride style has a lot to do with the bars failure. I know I pull up and push down on bars while riding....I am currently riding 31.8 Easton EA50`s and replace it after each year. If somebody showed me a stronger handlebar, I would gladly pick it up and try it out....


WORD!


----------



## Quercus agrifolia (Jan 30, 2005)

Yikes!

I have Marys on both bikes...I'm not a monster on the ss, but dayum...that would suck.


----------



## anthony.delorenzo (Aug 17, 2006)

Hmmm... I rode Marys all last season, clydesdale on a rigid SS but I actually just replaced them last week, but only so I could rock my Christmas present, a reaper skull stem. Hate to see bars break like that but I would think it could happen to just about any bar.

I went with a set of 31.8 Race Face Diabolous that seem plenty strong.


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

abbeytrails said:


> I have no doubt that my ride style has a lot to do with the bars failure. I know I pull up and push down on bars while riding....I am currently riding 31.8 Easton EA50`s and replace it after each year. If somebody showed me a stronger handlebar, I would gladly pick it up and try it out....


it's probably minimum twice the weight, but i have a megamo bar that is identical that has been in use since 1998 for trials and ss'ing.

http://www.midwestbiketrials.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=2_5&products_id=13


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

*scary.*

I have Mary's and a one bolt Chromoly Salsa stem. I scored them pretty badly getting them on, and I weigh 200 and my arms and shoulders are always sore after a ride. I think I'm going to take them off tonight. YIKES!!!

I ride pretty heavy on the bars too, because my Yo is a bit twitchy. I'm riding rigid...man everything stacking up against an aluminum work-hardening scenario, with the additional issue of having created a stress riser with the scoring of the bar. Catastrophic failure would leave me injured really badly on some of the stuff I've been riding with mine.

Man.. that is just scary.

Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

i would imagine the likelyhood of failure increases drastically if the bars have ever slipped on you as well. i don't know if that's an issue with mary bars, but it seems like it would be.


----------



## cheepnis (Aug 26, 2005)

http://www.eastonbike.com/downloadable_files_unprotected/r&d_files/R&D-06-2Bolts.pdf

A good discussion of 2 vs. 4 bolt bar clamp, worth a read.


----------



## rkj__ (Feb 29, 2004)

Schmucker said:


> Thus is the nature of aluminum.


Simple post, but very accurate.

cyclic loading (climbing probably creates highest loads) + aluminum + many rides = failure

it is hard to justify replacing something that looks fine, and there is no good way of measuring how often you should replace you mary bars. I guess just ride till it fails, and hope for the best?


----------



## Mallanaga (Jun 30, 2007)

not only a good discussion about 2 vs 4, but a good discussion about torque.

makes you wonder...


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

Hmm... Makes you wonder. How much value is there in "spreading" the load out across a broader stem face? And, in my case, I have a "1 bolt" stem. I'm not sure what would be the appropriate way to measure torque on it. I'm thinking about a set of Groovy Love Handles (www.groovycycleworks.com). Chromoly may be a bit heavier, but it will bend before it breaks, and that ... I really like.


----------



## disgustipated (Apr 29, 2006)

jh4rt said:


> Hmm... Makes you wonder. How much value is there in "spreading" the load out across a broader stem face? And, in my case, I have a "1 bolt" stem. I'm not sure what would be the appropriate way to measure torque on it. I'm thinking about a set of Groovy Love Handles (www.groovycycleworks.com). *Chromoly may be a bit heavier, but it will bend before it breaks, and that ... I really like.*




I'm with ya on that, I was using these aznoic bars until the obvious. It was a sudden failure in a climb (i was pulling hard i guess). When it broke the good side was pulled towards my person, which resulted in the front end coming down into the face of said climb with the wheel turned 90 degrees perpendicular to the frame. So i bought bars and a hoop that day. I went from that to the Surly torsion bar, and I feel much MUCH safer.


----------



## explodingtaco (Jul 22, 2006)

These look interesting:

http://groovycycleworks.com/extras.aspx


----------



## ATBScott (Jun 4, 2006)

Hmmmm.... I'm not a Clyde by any means - but still about 185 plus pack. I pull quite a bit when I climb also. I have the Easton EA50's and now think I'll give them the inspecto. Only broken a bar in a crash. Used to run a prototype CF bar years ago for one of the guys who runs Reynolds Composites - but that was only rigid for a year or so, then got a FS fork way back... I wonder if injecting the bars with a structural foam would be of any benefit? Only weigh a few grams, and should give some reinforcement...


----------



## quaffimodo (May 25, 2004)

When Mary snaps my life sucks too.

Interesting photos-I'd say that many of my questions about the wear and tear issues unique to singlespeeding have been answered. I'm running EA70's, on borrowed time possibly, on both SS bikes. Helloooo Universal!


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

The nature of aluminum:

Aluminum work hardens. Meaning: The more you use it, the more you are at risk. Unlike steel, and to some extent titanium, Every time you flex aluminum it gets a little less likely to allow it. IMHO one of the main reasons for the introduction of full suspension bikes was to enable the production of aluminum bikes. The suspension allows aluminum to last. Although there have been improvements in different alloys, ultimately, the nature of aluminum is to work harden. Any stress risers (i.e. stems, scores, scuffs, grips, etc...) further exacerbates this. So... I will continue to run carbon on my (front suspended) full geary (sometimes I sit and spin)... But on my single speed, I pull and I push and ... I go off drops.. and I ride rough technical single track. I'm switching to steel for the bars. End of story.


----------



## Drevil (Dec 31, 2003)

jh4rt said:


> I'm switching to steel for the bars. End of story.


Who makes wide (26"+), good quality steel bars? Although I did find some on Groove's website earlier tonight...


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

*Surly also makes some.*

But I think I'm going with the Groovy Bars.










And remember... Rody Rocks !!!!


----------



## eyefloater (Apr 3, 2006)

jh4rt said:


> The nature of aluminum:
> 
> Aluminum work hardens. Meaning: The more you use it, the more you are at risk. Unlike steel, and to some extent titanium, Every time you flex aluminum it gets a little less likely to allow it. [...]


Take impact damage out of the equation for a minute and someone please school me on how resilient carbon fiber is to repeated stresses. I've put what feels like the whole strength of my body into my bars and cranks on some short/steep climbs. Steel can handle the flexing, aluminum will eventually fail because of it ... but how about carbon?


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

eyefloater said:


> Take impact damage out of the equation for a minute and someone please school me on how resilient carbon fiber is to repeated stresses. I've put what feels like the whole strength of my body into my bars and cranks on some short/steep climbs. Steel can handle the flexing, aluminum will eventually fail because of it ... but how about carbon?


 I don't know about carbon. Theory tells me that it is in between. Having been a boat guy, I get the construction of "fiber" impregnated resin. If the fiber is strong enough and held rigid enough, then the resin will break around it, but the fiber will remain intact. I haven't seen the catastrophic failure of a carbon bar, but I've seen it in boats. It doesn't shear (like aluminum), but it certainly doesn't hold water either.

Bars seem special to me... I use them a great deal, and I know i impart tremendous force on them. For that particular unit (well, and any rigid fork) I think I will just resort to chromoly from now on. It's like wearing your helmet. Probably won't ever really need it, but...umm.. what if you did and didn't have it on.

-j


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

*Put Mary on a bed sheet tonight...*

Wow, thanks for all the comments and pics! I want to go with cro-moly I think. About five years ago, I had a stem snap on me on my road bike crossing the Golden Gate Bridge. That one cracked my Zygomatic arch (cheekbone), no way to avoid the pavement on that one, but of course my helmet saved me from a concussion. I'm learning my lessons the hard way I guess.

I had used the bars for less than a year but put in a lot of climbing miles on them. At least 2,000 feet of climbing, some steep every ride.

So tonight I spread Mary on a bed sheet and took some closeups and flipped her over.  You can see the scoring on the other side. I don't think it was the stem that caused it because I had run some fine grit sand paper over the clamp area to smooth it and the torque value was at 50-inch pounds. I also used the technique of bringing up the torque slowly on the top bolts and then the bottom, I went up about 5-inch pounds at a time and kept the top bolts about 5-10 inch pound tighter as I did it. I keep notes in a binder on all my bikes. I think cause was the bar is flexy and the silvery marks were probably caused by the up and down movement. You can feel the grooves in your fingernail. I think it would have failed on the other side too. Ick. The bar had never slipped in the clamp.

I rode today with a Ritchey 31.8 bar and they barely moved when climbing and then I rode my SS with the Titec H-bars right after for comparison, and they didn't flex nearly as much as the Mary, but they are also 25.4. A little anxiety, but its going to change soon....

Those groove bars look like the ticket if they are cro-moly. Any other steel bars out there? Maybe downhill bars?

First pic is a top view from the front.
Second pic is the bottom.
Third pic is the bottom turned around.


----------



## DiDaDunlop (Oct 22, 2005)

I do not think it has something to do with Mary. All the bars posted are breaking at the intersection between stem and bar. Maybe a wider stem is a bit better. 

Also a lot of the modern stems do not have a full contact area between stem and bar. As you can see in the pictures above. There's a large recessed area (because of weight savings). Maybe if there was a full contact area the stresses would be more evenly spread.


----------



## Dms1818 (May 10, 2006)

I always wondered about snapping my aluminum risers from pulling on them on climbs. I was going to upgrade to carbon. Maybe the Surly 1x1 CrMo is the way to go.


----------



## DiDaDunlop (Oct 22, 2005)

Gotta make this remark:

Mary's a dirtly little whore.. I've been abusing her for a year and a half (and im a clyde at 200LBS) and no worries. Great handling and no wrist fatigue

I'll check her regulary for nasty cracks..


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

4 bolt, 2 bolt, SS, weight, aluminum... WHATEVER. that handlebar is criminal and whoever sells it owes consummers some explanation.
he, we are lucky no one got seriously hurt. yet... 

i have a set of midge bars and i am considering something else.


----------



## agu (Jun 22, 2007)

Has anyone who suffered a broken Mary contacted Brant @ On-One? I'm sure he'd like to hear from you guys so he can address this issue.



colker1 said:


> 4 bolt, 2 bolt, SS, weight, aluminum... WHATEVER. that handlebar is criminal and whoever sells it owes consummers some explanation.
> he, we are lucky no one got seriously hurt. yet...
> 
> i have a set of midge bars and i am considering something else.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

OK - I want to be the squeeky wheel here. You guys are fine running aluminum for the most part. Just check your equipment. The 'shiny' spots on jonnyb's bars (and most likely the others) is where the crack started and as you flex the bars, it rubs the area smooth. This is a very common (nearly the only way) aluminum fails on a bike frame or handlebar. You can see the crack before the bars break and replace them when it starts. Check every couple of rides and or after a crash - yes, at least do a quickie check if you crash during a ride. Check your frame in the areas mentioned. You think having a busted bar is bad, try having the whole front of your bike come off at high speed.

Carbon can have a nearly infinite fatigue life, if it is designed properly. If you stress it to the point of cracking the matrix (thermoset) or crazing it (thermoplastic) that is where you will start to have problems. With thermoset carbon composites you *might* hear a clicking or cracking sound after they have developed a crack. You might not so inspect them. Titanium - great for handlebars and will probably last you a lifetime. Steel - good but as you know, heavy. chromoly bars WILL crack and fail like steel. They may bend, they may break. It really depends on whether they are flexed past a certain point.

So basically - no matter what the material is or the manufacturer is - PLEASE INSPECT YOUR EQUIPMENT. Mary bars are probably good bars and may be made at the same factory as your other favorite brand. Remember - it's not the manufacturers responsibility to inspect your equipment and if your bars fail and there is that telltale 'shiny' spot - it's not their fault you didn't look your bike over before riding.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

gticlay said:


> Remember - it's not the manufacturers responsibility to inspect your equipment and if your bars fail and there is that telltale 'shiny' spot - it's not their fault you didn't look your bike over before riding.


GTI,

You're right on the part of inspecting parts, especially if you ride hard. I do. Every season I inspect, take apart, clean and rebuild the cranks, pedals, hubs, seatpost and EVEN the bars and stem and take records. My only worry is that the Mary bars only had about 1,000 miles/ on them AND less than a year riding time AND swapped them out to a 1X9 where I didn't need to constantly tug on them for climbing.

My cautionary tale is that it maybe the bending of the tube so close to the stem may have speeded-up the failure process. If you need to thoroughly inspect your bike every time, like taking a stem apart before every ride, or even after every half dozen rides, I don't think people will want to ride a bike anymore.

The manufacturer needs to invest solid engineering into their product and deliver reliable performance rather than weight savings or something "cool" or "fancy". I think my affair with mary is over and my lucky lesson learned here is to use parts that work reliably. I'm not really blaming On-One for this instance, unless if more people show up in ER with blood all over their faces because of a part that detiorates this quickly. I could have had a bar that was defective or that was inadequate for the needs of singlespeeding and the part should be labeled as such. GTI, are you riding with a mary bar or small tube aluminum for a handlebar? Are you willing to take a digger and walk away without an awful feeling?

31.8, cromoly, steel, 4-bolt is starting to be my mantra.

Now, I'm going out for a ride.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

*Steel Bars*

Steel bar options are available from:

Atomlab
DMR
Gusset
NS Bikes
Voodoo

You can check these all out here: http://www.bti-usa.com/public/category/HB/HBBR/all/?page=1

These are all DJ/DH oriented riser bars.


----------



## riderx (Jan 6, 2004)

johnnyb said:


> The manufacturer needs to invest solid engineering into their product and deliver reliable performance rather than weight savings or something "cool" or "fancy".


Have you contacted the manufacturer? I haven't seen anyone answer this question yet. That should be the first step before posting up here. I've broken a lot of bike parts and the first thing I do is contact the manufacturer.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

johnnyb said:


> GTI,
> 
> You're right on the part of inspecting parts, especially if you ride hard. I do. Every season I inspect, take apart, clean and rebuild the cranks, pedals, hubs, seatpost and EVEN the bars and stem and take records. My only worry is that the Mary bars only had about 1,000 miles/ on them AND less than a year riding time AND swapped them out to a 1X9 where I didn't need to constantly tug on them for climbing.
> 
> ...


I don't think you need to take the bars off the bike to inspect it - just look at the edges where the bar and stem interact - that is where they crack, or near-by. Run black bars so the bright silver is easy to spot. You do need to inspect often, not take it apart though 

For ME, I'm running Answer carbon fiber and Easton carbon fiber bars. I've had too many aluminum bars fail on me over the years and on my old KHS, the chromoly ones broke off too. I've had thermoplastic composite bars break under the grip but I have never had a thermoset composite bar break - ever. Of course, I weight a lot less than I used to - I was around 250 for most of my riding years and I'm not down to 219 and I'm GOING to get to 205 or less by this summer. I think a heavy arsed chromoly bar is good but the light ones will snap, IMHO. Happy trails.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

GTI,

The silvery marks showed up when I took the bar off the stem underneath the plate. I do have a carbon Monkey lite on my old VT-1. I'm sure the suspension takes a lot of the pressure off the handlebar. 

I am 220 lbs, so the clydesdale effect comes into play.

Now about that ride I want to do.....


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

riderx said:


> Have you contacted the manufacturer? I haven't seen anyone answer this question yet. That should be the first step before posting up here. I've broken a lot of bike parts and the first thing I do is contact the manufacturer.


Rderx,

I haven't contacted Brandt or On-One yet. I went to the website and didn't easily find an email, but you're right, he has to know about this. I bought the bar through pricepoint and can't find the receipt either. But my posting here is to get a message out to all you SS riders right away because this was kind of a freaky thing considering they were less than a year old.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Steel bar options are available from:
> 
> Atomlab
> DMR
> ...


Mr. Breath,

Thanks for the info! :thumbsup:


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

johnnyb said:


> Rderx,
> 
> I haven't contacted Brandt or On-One yet. I went to the website and didn't easily find an email, but you're right, he has to know about this. I bought the bar through pricepoint and can't find the receipt either. But my posting here is to get a message out to all you SS riders right away because this was kind of a freaky thing considering they were less than a year old.


[email protected]

Also links on this About US page.

Please let us know his response. He used to be very active, but an ex moderator tormented him so much that Brant refuses to log on here again.

_edit_: I had also posted it in message #17 yesterday. You are out of excuses.  Shoot him an e-mail. Also nice PIG sticker on your stand. I'm a long time KPIG fan. :thumbsup:


----------



## anthony.delorenzo (Aug 17, 2006)

colker1 said:


> 4 bolt, 2 bolt, SS, weight, aluminum... WHATEVER. that handlebar is criminal and whoever sells it owes consummers some explanation.
> he, we are lucky no one got seriously hurt. yet...
> i have a set of midge bars and i am considering something else.


On the basis of one case you are ready to say that the product is "criminal?"  This is what some people call a hasty generalization.

Man, people on this thread are posting like no one has ever broken a handlebar before. All bars can break at some point, just because one guy breaks his Mary bars doesn't mean that the entire company is some kind of criminal enterprise out to kill and maim cyclists.


----------



## explodingtaco (Jul 22, 2006)

anthony.delorenzo said:


> just because one guy breaks his Mary bars doesn't mean that the entire company is some kind of criminal enterprise out to kill and maim cyclists.


PROVE IT!


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

anthony.delorenzo said:


> On the basis of one case you are ready to say that the product is "criminal?"  This is what some people call a hasty generalization.
> 
> Man, people on this thread are posting like no one has ever broken a handlebar before. All bars can break at some point, just because one guy breaks his Mary bars doesn't mean that the entire company is some kind of criminal enterprise out to kill and maim cyclists.


"Relax Frances...One of these days, one of these men just might save your life"...."Or then again, might not..."

Colker has been grumpy for a couple of months now. Notice his signature.

But, I began running the Mary's against my better judgement. Having worked with metal in the past, and understanding how aluminum works, the bends of the Mary are better suited for someone with a different riding style and less weight and leverage than I have.

I am going to disagree with some of the posts here in that Chromoly will fail the same way as aluminum. Properly treated tubular steel, without a significant stress riser, will most often deform before failure. It is easy to see the deformation. With a stress riser (stem / overtightening), steel will shear from impact or extreme stress. But... much less likely. Steel does not work-harden.

For those of you with aluminum bikes. Do you think they don't flex because aluminum is stiff? If so, you would be incorrect. (Chicken before the egg). They don't flex because of design. If the aluminum is allowed to flex, it will work-harden and break. So, the frames are over-engineered to compensate.

When I began running the Mary's, I was concerned about the amount I was able to flex them. I was aware that it would eventually be a problem, but was content to stick my head in the sand because they were COOL bars. But, with this evidence (and this is the third set I've seen broken on as many boards), I'm no longer cool with it.

I think there are some aluminum bars out there which are fine. And for the typical 180 lb or less person, running a suspension fork and a 23" wide bar on a geared bike, aluminum is an ideal material from which to make bars. But, for my fat ass, rocking a rigid single speed with 26" wide bars, well... I'm just not comfortable with it.

On-one are not criminals, but they may well not do the level of testing that an Easton would. I think that is all we are saying (most of us except ol Flavio, but he's just trying to stir the pot; must get boring in Rio).

BTW: Just ordered a set of the Groovy bars.


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

I had a handlebar break on me once. It was the stock one on my Bianchi MUSS. It was a riser. Risers are more prone to failure. The left side broke, I'm left handed. The right side had a crack starting. When a bend is put into a bar, it elongates the aluminum. A flat bar doesn't have that problem. A bar with sweep does. A longer bar puts more stress on it (leverage). A Mary bar is more likely to crack than a Midge. Cracking occurs next to the stem as that area receives the most stress/strain. A wider clamp will reduce the effect of the leverage. Make a visual inspection near the clamp.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

anthony.delorenzo said:


> On the basis of one case you are ready to say that the product is "criminal?"  This is what some people call a hasty generalization.
> 
> Man, people on this thread are posting like no one has ever broken a handlebar before. All bars can break at some point, just because one guy breaks his Mary bars doesn't mean that the entire company is some kind of criminal enterprise out to kill and maim cyclists.


did you actually READ the thread? there are OTHER reports of mary bars breaking. 
"all bars can break"... wrong. bars should NOT break under riders. that's why manufacturers are supposed to test them... and then test some more.:madman: :madmax: :eekster:


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

jh4rt said:


> "Relax Frances...One of these days, one of these men just might save your life"...."Or then again, might not..."
> 
> Colker has been grumpy for a couple of months now. Notice his signature.
> 
> ...


i like on one and i hope to see their products coming out in the future. otoh if the mary bars are not supposed to be used in any aggro way the manufacturer has to make sure it's known loud and clear.
on one is lucky that those breakages have been harmless.

think of NItto, easton... have you heard of their bars breaking? they won't risk a lawsuit. bar breakage is a serious threat to mtbers iintegrity. i am not stirring the pot or bored.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Schmucker said:


> I had a handlebar break on me once. It was the stock one on my Bianchi MUSS. It was a riser. Risers are more prone to failure. The left side broke, I'm left handed. The right side had a crack starting. When a bend is put into a bar, it elongates the aluminum. A flat bar doesn't have that problem. A bar with sweep does. A longer bar puts more stress on it (leverage). A Mary bar is more likely to crack than a Midge. Cracking occurs next to the stem as that area receives the most stress/strain. A wider clamp will reduce the effect of the leverage. Make a visual inspection near the clamp.


forks, stems and bars are serious responsability for any manufacturer. i buy on one bars because they are supposed to be good, safe bars. cool products. i don't want to see "risky" as their next label.


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

colker1 said:


> forks, stems and bars are serious responsability for any manufacturer. i buy on one bars because they are supposed to be good, safe bars. cool products. i don't want to see "risky" as their next label.


From their site about the Mary:
"They're made in 6061 for several reasons. Firstly it's a material that doesn't mind being bent all over the place. It's not as tough to bend as other materials either. And for the wall thickness to we wanted to get the stiffness we needed (we could have gone lighter, but didn't want them too flexy) the 6061 was plenty strong enough. The thicker wall also means it will usually bend before snapping. Which we like a lot."

All companies have to make a product that people want and a product that won't get them sued. They could make it out of solid steel but who would want a heavy bar like that?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Schmucker said:


> From their site about the Mary:
> "They're made in 6061 for several reasons. Firstly it's a material that doesn't mind being bent all over the place. It's not as tough to bend as other materials either. And for the wall thickness to we wanted to get the stiffness we needed (we could have gone lighter, but didn't want them too flexy) the 6061 was plenty strong enough. The thicker wall also means it will usually bend before snapping. Which we like a lot."
> 
> All companies have to make a product that people want and a product that won't get them sued. They could make it out of solid steel but who would want a heavy bar like that?


i don't see any problem w/ a steel bar. track bars are made of steel and raced by pros who depend on being fast to make a living. 
even if mtbers want the wrong thing (lightweight handlebars nevermind their strength) it's on one and other companies responsability to give them something better.


----------



## explodingtaco (Jul 22, 2006)

colker1 said:


> even if mtbers want the wrong thing (lightweight handlebars nevermind their strength) it's on one and other companies responsability to give them something better.




So consumer wants "X" -- Manufacturer makes "Y" -- Manufacturer markets "Y" as "X+1" -- Consumers know this and buy "X" from someone else.

Looks like to me you just put said manufacturer out of business, reducing competition by which we loose innovation and lower prices. Good job you just killed an industry! :nono:


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

explodingtaco said:


> So consumer wants "X" -- Manufacturer makes "Y" -- Manufacturer markets "Y" as "X+1" -- Consumers know this and buy "X" from someone else.
> 
> Looks like to me you just put said manufacturer out of business, reducing competition by which we loose innovation and lower prices. Good job you just killed an industry! :nono:


no.. no.. it's when someone suffers an acccident that a manufacturer is put out of businness for selling dangerous stuff.
henry ford: " if i gave what people wanted i would be selling faster horses." quote is slightly different but that's the spirit: good builders give people what they need not what they want. i am pretty sure that's on one ethics btw.. seems like a good company but those bars suddenly became scary.

who is going to bomb downhill on mary bars tomorrow?


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Schmucker said:


> From their site about the Mary:
> "They're made in 6061 for several reasons. Firstly it's a material that doesn't mind being bent all over the place. It's not as tough to bend as other materials either. And for the wall thickness to we wanted to get the stiffness we needed (we could have gone lighter, but didn't want them too flexy) the 6061 was plenty strong enough. The thicker wall also means it will usually bend before snapping. Which we like a lot."
> 
> All companies have to make a product that people want and a product that won't get them sued. They could make it out of solid steel but who would want a heavy bar like that?


This was the statement that gave me confidence that the product would be reliable.

I don't know if I would go with solid steel, but maybe a double-walled steel version. I had a paper route as a kid and rode a Schwinn or something that had the downtube and chainstays double-walled and that was a good thing, because delivering 50 Sunday San Jose Mecury newspapers at 5 in the morning I had the downtube break at the bottom bracket and it revealed a tube on the inside and saved me from dumping myself and about 80 pounds of newsprint on the road.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Steel bar options are available from:
> 
> Atomlab
> DMR
> ...


gack.....unfortunately for some (i'm not the only one) going to a "normal" sweep bar is NOT an option after riding with the mary.
i wish the groovy cycles love handles had a higher sweep....and were cheaper. this thread has really freaked me out, i only ride marys (other than my full DH bike)


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

ferday said:


> gack.....unfortunately for some (i'm not the only one) going to a "normal" sweep bar is NOT an option after riding with the mary.


Nitto? Might be kind of narrow. This is the North Road at 540mm wide. The steel Albatross is 560mm wide.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Nitto? Might be kind of narrow. This is the North Road at 540mm wide. The steel Albatross is 560mm wide.


thanks PBB!

i require at least the marys width (645mm). i could get a custom bar from groovy cycles...but it ain't cheap. guess i gotta decide how much peace of mind is worth.

i ride the marys very hard, i use them on my AM bike and my DJ/park hardtail as well as my SS bikes.


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

*Maybe an alternative.*

Folks.

I don't know anything about these bars, except what I've been looking at on the web.








Misfit Psycles

They have fewer bends than the Mary. One of the other interesting things about the Mary would be the distribution of torque. It would seem to me with those tight bends that close together, well, I know the bar is very strong in the actual bend... so the handles act as a lever against the center of the bar, being held rigid by the stem, and torque the bar. This leverage is exacerbated (i would think) by the rigidity of the tight bend. These seem a bit more lax, and a bit more rigid.

If anyone gives them a try, please write a review. But, if they break, remember that I recommended Chromoly, k?


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

Redline makes or used to make an aluminum BMX bar that was from this really nice extrustion with supports inside the tubing - that is what made them strong enough for BMX. Maybe if they made the Mary from that stuff OR if I did?


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

gticlay said:


> Redline makes or used to make an aluminum BMX bar that was from this really nice extrustion with supports inside the tubing - that is what made them strong enough for BMX. Maybe if they made the Mary from that stuff OR if I did?


he he he

i think there would be a market for a stronger mary type bar....but only if the weight and cost were reasonable, which i'm not sure is possible with the relatively small market

i know i'd buy some...


----------



## Drevil (Dec 31, 2003)

jh4rt said:


> If anyone gives them a try, please write a review. But, if they break, remember that I recommended Chromoly, k?


Here's a review from a regular poster.


----------



## Drevil (Dec 31, 2003)

ferday said:


> he he he
> 
> i think there would be a market for a stronger mary type bar....but only if the weight and cost were reasonable, which i'm not sure is possible with the relatively small market
> 
> i know i'd buy some...


Don't know much about it, but there is the Mary-esque FloWing.


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

Well, how much would you pay for a handlebar that weighed the same as the Mary and wouldn't break? Would you pay the same for a bar like the Mary but it weighed four times as much and wouldn't break? You get what you pay for. It's a cheap bar. It's not too hefty that people won't buy it, but they couldn't make it stronger or the price would be too high. If my Midge bar breaks and I feel it should last longer and I want a bar just like it but more durable I will happily pay up to ~$150 for a better one. Sometimes people go out on a limb to try some of the odd bars, not sure if they'll like them or not, and don't want to invest that much money in a bar they may not like.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

There is also a world of motorcycle bars to explore. . .


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

Drevil said:


> Don't know much about it, but there is the Mary-esque FloWing.


i've been trying without success for some time to contact the makers of that bar. they claim it's stronger than the mary....of course it's far less sweep as well.

if the h-bar was more compatible with geared bikes i'd pick one up in a heartbeat, the cost is not the issue.


----------



## Drevil (Dec 31, 2003)

ferday said:


> i've been trying without success for some time to contact the makers of that bar. they claim it's stronger than the mary....of course it's far less sweep as well.
> 
> if the h-bar was more compatible with geared bikes i'd pick one up in a heartbeat, the cost is not the issue.


If one bar break scares you, don't get the Jones. Three friends and I have all broken one each. That said, I still rock two of them because I love the way they feel and I have found nothing better for hand position. I just inspect a little more closely nowadays.

Which segues me back to the main topic. Stuff breaks. If you are heavier or more aggressive, watch your stuff more closely and replace it more often. Don't necessarily freak out because you saw one case on the interweb. If we all stopped buying stuff that we see broken on the internet, there'd be very little left.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

Drevil said:


> If we all stopped buying stuff that we see broken on the internet, there'd be very little left.


And I would have a lot more money in my checking account.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Schmucker said:


> Well, how much would you pay for a handlebar that weighed the same as the Mary and wouldn't break? Would you pay the same for a bar like the Mary but it weighed four times as much and wouldn't break? You get what you pay for. It's a cheap bar. It's not too hefty that people won't buy it, but they couldn't make it stronger or the price would be too high. If my Midge bar breaks and I feel it should last longer and I want a bar just like it but more durable I will happily pay up to ~$150 for a better one. Sometimes people go out on a limb to try some of the odd bars, not sure if they'll like them or not, and don't want to invest that much money in a bar they may not like.


are you saying the Mary is supposed to break cause it's $50 and some will still ride it cause they are cheap? 
that is another bar... it's the Darwin. 
i doubt on one is going along this route anyway.. they are selling a bar that is not supposed to break under you. i am pretty sure about this. something went wrong though...


----------



## riderx (Jan 6, 2004)

Drevil said:


> Stuff breaks. If you are heavier or more aggressive, watch your stuff more closely and replace it more often. Don't necessarily freak out because you saw one case on the interweb. If we all stopped buying stuff that we see broken on the internet, there'd be very little left.


Stop making sense.


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Who'dah thunk.....*

.....a little 'snap of the bars' would gather 80+ posts, eh jb?

Got me think'n about the scratches in my carbon bars now :skep: , and I'm only 1/2 a Clydedale for cry'n out loud! Glad you got the new bars on.:thumbsup:

JMac


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

JMac47 said:


> .....a little 'snap of the bars' would gather 80+ posts, eh jb?
> 
> Got me think'n about the scratches in my carbon bars now :skep: , and I'm only 1/2 a Clydedale for cry'n out loud! Glad you got the new bars on.:thumbsup:
> 
> JMac


I know, its amazing. I'm at work right now and want to comment on some of these great comments but I got to make some bucks for some steel!


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> are you saying the Mary is supposed to break cause it's $50 and some will still ride it cause they are cheap?
> that is another bar... it's the Darwin.
> i doubt on one is going along this route anyway.. they are selling a bar that is not supposed to break under you. i am pretty sure about this. something went wrong though...


The reality is that any aluminum bar is going to fatigue. IMO, beyond the second year of heavy use on a bar, its done its job and you should be looking to replace it within the next year. Obviously, an Al bar _can_ last much longer, but is the money saved really worth the risk of a failure or the distraction of wondering about it?

If you think that On-One is any different you might be interested in this thread: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=294771


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

colker1 said:


> are you saying the Mary is supposed to break cause it's $50 and some will still ride it cause they are cheap?
> that is another bar... it's the Darwin.
> i doubt on one is going along this route anyway.. they are selling a bar that is not supposed to break under you. i am pretty sure about this. something went wrong though...


They aren't selling a bar that is supposed to break under you, they are selling a bar for $55. You get what you pay for. It's made and priced and sold with economics in mine.


----------



## ferday (Jan 15, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> The reality is that any aluminum bar is going to fatigue. IMO, beyond the second year of heavy use on a bar, its done its job and you should be looking to replace it within the next year. Obviously, an Al bar _can_ last much longer, but is the money saved really worth the risk of a failure or the *distraction of wondering about it*?


it's the distraction, you got that right. at the bare minimum i'll likely have to replace 3 sets this season as they all have at least 1000k of hard riding, some over 3+ and the same bends that i love so much, are likely inherent stress risers..

it's a tradeoff for the oh so sweet bends, nothing is perfect and nobody likes reminders. this is the interweb, after all


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

slocaus said:


> [email protected]
> 
> Also links on this About US page.
> 
> ...


Hey slocaus,

Done deal. I sent the email off to Brant just now and we'll see what he thinks of the sheet-stirring I've done here.

You like the KPIG? do you rememer the KFAT days on FM when they were broadcasting out of Gilroy? Same killer music, Howling Wolf mixing in with Steve Earle then a good ole Cab Calloway to build bikes with. Not a single disco-pop song to ruin the mood. My pal Blue Radish was a DJ back then. :thumbsup:


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

I'll recommend Syntace Bars, in Either 12 or 16 degree sweep.

This one, for instance:

http://www.syntace.com/index.cfm?pid=3&pk=362


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> The reality is that any aluminum bar is going to fatigue. IMO, beyond the second year of heavy use on a bar, its done its job and you should be looking to replace it within the next year. Obviously, an Al bar _can_ last much longer, but is the money saved really worth the risk of a failure or the distraction of wondering about it?
> 
> If you think that On-One is any different you might be interested in this thread: http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?t=294771


hmmm... and how old were those Marys?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Schmucker said:


> They aren't selling a bar that is supposed to break under you, they are selling a bar for $55. You get what you pay for. It's made and priced and sold with economics in mine.


and what does economics mean? if it isn't to supposed to break while riding right... not w/being less than 2 years old... i guess then economics is nice.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

riderx said:


> Stop making sense.


are you riding the mary bar?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

JMac47 said:


> .....a little 'snap of the bars' would gather 80+ posts, eh jb?
> 
> Got me think'n about the scratches in my carbon bars now :skep: , and I'm only 1/2 a Clydedale for cry'n out loud! Glad you got the new bars on.:thumbsup:
> 
> JMac


... and the number of posts eager to justify a handlebar that's snapping under riding is just amazing.


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

colker1 said:


> "all bars can break"... wrong.


Looks like you need to slow down a bit. You are WRONG. All bars CAN break.

Come on. Inject at least a little reason into your rationale. Purse the emotions and tuck your skirt in.

"Criminal"?

Riiiigghhhhtt.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

29Colossus said:


> Looks like you need to slow down a bit. You are WRONG. All bars CAN break.
> 
> Come on. Inject at least a little reason into your rationale. Purse the emotions and tuck your skirt in.
> 
> ...


as long as it breaks under you and not me .

what a moron...


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

29Colossus said:


> Looks like you need to slow down a bit. You are WRONG. All bars CAN break.
> 
> Come on. Inject at least a little reason into your rationale. Purse the emotions and tuck your skirt in.
> 
> ...


that's ridiculous. bars are supposed to be tested and resist torque generated by strong riders. i mean cat1 racers not overweight slow internet aces.
you may be eager to kiss the manufacturer's azz all day long but 99% of consummers demand a safe product. that's the market on one is aiming for and not Darwin awards nominees.


----------



## riderx (Jan 6, 2004)

colker1 said:


> are you riding the mary bar?


No, but I would not hesitate to ride one.

Things break, this is mountain biking after all. I'm no clyde (160# without gear) but I've broken steel, aluminum and titanium bike parts - everything from handlebars to frames to cranks to forks just to name the big items. It happens, it's part of the game and no material is indestructible. Sometimes it's a bad design or poor manufacturing, sometimes it's abuse and sometimes it's using a part way past when it should have been retired given the amount of miles it has on it.

If the Mary bar failed because of a manufacturer issue, fine. But before people sound the alarm they should contact the manufacturer, in this case On-One who has a good reputation for quickly responding to issues (fyi - I have no relation with them and don't own any of their products). There may or may not be an issue that needs to get out to the masses, but at least let the manufacturer have a chance to address the issue before condemning the product.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

riderx said:


> No, but I would not hesitate to ride one.
> 
> Things break, this is mountain biking after all. I'm no clyde (160# without gear) but I've broken steel, aluminum and titanium bike parts - everything from handlebars to frames to cranks to forks just to name the big items. It happens, it's part of the game and no material is indestructible. Sometimes it's a bad design or poor manufacturing, sometimes it's abuse and sometimes it's using a part way past when it should have been retired given the amount of miles it has on it.
> 
> If the Mary bar failed because of a manufacturer issue, fine. But before people sound the alarm they should contact the manufacturer, in this case On-One who has a good reputation for quickly responding to issues (fyi - I have no relation with them and don't own any of their products). There may or may not be an issue that needs to get out to the masses, but at least let the manufacturer have a chance to address the issue before condemning the product.


i wouldn't ride the mary right now. if it was one isolated case we could say it's luck but there are reports of more broken marys.

this is a consummer review board. it's exactly about evaluating products from the consummer point of view. non affiliated w/ the industry... i don't get why any mtbiker would be eager to justify and accept handlebar breakage as normal or condemm any reports on breakage. it's f******g moreonic to say the least.

i ride the midge and love it btw. i like the on one vibe... but a handlebar, being a new product, that is breaking under more than one rider is a bad thing.


----------



## mtroy (Jun 10, 2005)

OK...I have no dog in this hunt, but I am going to be foolish enough to post up anyway,

Yes everything/anything CAN break. However, I would expect that it would/should be nearly impossible that a handlebar would break just because I can pull on it real hard while riding in less than a year. That reminds me of the 90s and the rush to billet chi-chi stuff and other parts that would fold up when it was actually used. The buyer was the tester.

I remember hearing a conversation about how a company tested the h-bars that had been failing. "We had our engineers put the bars over a rafter and hang on them and they did not bend". Kid ya not.

A bar that was old, had the miles and maybe a tumble or two should be replaced under a strong rider. Nothing lasts forever.

But this sounds like...SOUNDS LIKE...no facts here, etc, either the line was crossed to make it lighter, cheaper, etc OR it was not tested sufficiently OR there is a bad run of materials OR? It would be good to hear from the manufacturer once they get a few samples of failed bars in their hands.

A product should have a reasonable expectation of not failing under the use it is expected to see and have a wide enough window of engineering built in to give grace to the heavy, strong, and clumsy. Note: We all have to take the OPs on their word that they were not hucking of their roofs on their rigid SS's Make it heavier or make it better or don't make it. OR it should be clearly marked as to the limitations.

But how many would buy it then? _Caution: Strong riders on SS bikes may exceed the design specifications of this product and cause failure within a undefined period of time resulting in death, dismemberment, internet ridicule, blah blah, etc"_


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

*???*



colker1 said:


> ... and the number of posts eager to justify a handlebar that's snapping under riding is just amazing.


Yah, right. Kinda like the tiger incident @ the zoo. All the finger pointing, but bottom line as the Mayor put it "regardless of who did what, the cat shouldn't have got out, period." But it did......so I agree the bars shouldn't break, but they do......


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> that's ridiculous. bars are supposed to be tested and resist torque generated by strong riders. i mean cat1 racers not overweight slow internet aces.
> you may be eager to kiss the manufacturer's azz all day long but 99% of consummers demand a safe product. that's the market on one is aiming for and not Darwin awards nominees.


Aluminum bars are disposable. Manufacturers are faced with finding a balance between longevity expectations, weight, ride-quality and the constraints of stem and control interface standards. Users demand a "safe" product. But they also demand a light product, and comfortable product and an affordable product. They also demand a product that works with their stem and their controls. There is little to be done as far as spending more and testing more. The bottom line is that aluminuim bars have a lifespan, and it is much shorter than most users want to accept. Further, that lifespan is dependent on use, so there is no way for the manufacturer to put a reliable use-by date on the product other than to drastically lowball it which would probably disuade buyers anyway.

You could spend $10 on a Kalloy bar or many times more on a higher end brand and the reality is that the chintzy Kalloy bar that is heavier and beats you up with the uncomfortable angles and poor dampening will likely last as long or longer than the "better" (i.e. lighter, more ergo, better dampening) handlebar. The only way to be "safe" is to resist the impulse to keep old bars around even if they look okay.

1000 miles does seem like too short a lifespan to me, but again, it is heavily dependent on the actual usage.


----------



## mtroy (Jun 10, 2005)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Aluminum bars are disposable. Manufacturers are faced with finding a balance between longevity expectations, weight, ride-quality and the constraints of stem and control interface standards. Users demand a "safe" product. But they also demand a light product, and comfortable product and an affordable product. They also demand a product that works with their stem and their controls. There is little to be done as far as spending more and testing more. The bottom line is that aluminuim bars have a lifespan, and it is much shorter than most users want to accept. Further, that lifespan is dependent on use, so there is no way for the manufacturer to put a reliable use-by date on the product other than to drastically lowball it which would probably disuade buyers anyway.
> 
> You could spend $10 on a Kalloy bar or many times more on a higher end brand and the reality is that the chintzy Kalloy bar that is heavier and beats you up with the uncomfortable angles and poor dampening will likely last as long or longer than the "better" (i.e. lighter, more ergo, better dampening) handlebar. The only way to be "safe" is to resist the impulse to keep old bars around even if they look okay.
> 
> 1000 miles does seem like too short a lifespan to me, but again, it is heavily dependent on the actual usage.


You make some good points, some I made as well. In the end, it is the failures that will determine the success of the product. If it keeps breaking under the use it is expected to see, then folks will stop buying it...or at least informed ones will. And then it will go away or be improved.

A lot of it is our fault. We look for the 10 gram savings, the better 'ride feel', the $10.00 cheaper price and we get it, perhaps at a high cost in hospital bills.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Aluminum bars are disposable. Manufacturers are faced with finding a balance between longevity expectations, weight, ride-quality and the constraints of stem and control interface standards. Users demand a "safe" product. But they also demand a light product, and comfortable product and an affordable product. They also demand a product that works with their stem and their controls. There is little to be done as far as spending more and testing more. The bottom line is that aluminuim bars have a lifespan, and it is much shorter than most users want to accept. Further, that lifespan is dependent on use, so there is no way for the manufacturer to put a reliable use-by date on the product other than to drastically lowball it which would probably disuade buyers anyway.
> 
> You could spend $10 on a Kalloy bar or many times more on a higher end brand and the reality is that the chintzy Kalloy bar that is heavier and beats you up with the uncomfortable angles and poor dampening will likely last as long or longer than the "better" (i.e. lighter, more ergo, better dampening) handlebar. The only way to be "safe" is to resist the impulse to keep old bars around even if they look okay.
> 
> 1000 miles does seem like too short a lifespan to me, but again, it is heavily dependent on the actual usage.


the Mary bar is a new product. short lifespan or price points have nothing to do w/ a relatively new handlebar breaking while climbing.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mtroy said:


> A lot of it is our fault. We look for the 10 gram savings, the better 'ride feel', the $10.00 cheaper price and we get it, perhaps at a high cost in hospital bills.


our fault? no way. i want light, comfortable and i pay whatever i am billed at the lbs. if it breaks under the conditions it was designed for it's the manufacturer's fault. he knows it.. at least his lawyer knows it.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> the Mary bar is a new product. short lifespan or price points have nothing to do w/ a relatively new handlebar breaking while climbing.


Its got 1000 miles of use from a rider who describes himself as a Clyde who has broken many parts. Basically, I do not consider the bar in question to have been relatively new when it broke.

The fact that he found the bar to be flexy is another red flag, IMO. I doubt it was designed to be flexy, and so I'm not sure it was being used under the conditions it was designed for. Just to clarify, I am not blaming the failure on OP. He says he has broken many parts, and seems to accept this as a fact of life as a Clyde in a market driven by weight-weenie-ism.


----------



## mtroy (Jun 10, 2005)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Its got 1000 miles of use from a rider who describes himself as a Clyde who has broken many parts. Basically, I do not consider the bar in question to have been relatively new when it broke.
> 
> The fact that he found the bar to be flexy is another red flag, IMO. I doubt it was designed to be flexy, and so I'm not sure it was being used under the conditions it was designed for. Just to clarify, I am not blaming the failure on OP. He says he has broken many parts, and seems to accept this as a fact of life as a Clyde in a market driven by weight-weenie-ism.


It still seems that a part like a handle bar should be designed to be past the point of ANYONE, clyde or not being able to break it by just pulling on it a lot. Is 1000 miles past 'a lot'? Maybe it is.

Perhaps that is unreasonable to demand and still get something other than .25 wall cro mo. I don't know. I doubt it though.

But a Mary bar is pretty much lauded by the SS crowd more than others, yes? At least that is my take. It kinda goes without saying that it will be used hard as a lever compared to the average bears sit and spin bike. If it was designed for commuters or cruisers that just want alternative hand positions, then it should be marketed that way with limitations to the user. But unless I am taking a product way out of its element and expecting it to not break, then I better not be holding two pieces of handlebar when they bury me.

Perhaps replacing the bars once a year is just good Ju-Ju.

Heck, I am waaaay farther into this than I wanted to be.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

Allright you guys,

I had a very late night email session with Brant. He responded very quickly with a message to send in the bar and stem for a look through and sending the bar to a metallurgist for testing. I responded right back and it took a curious turn.

I've reversed the email path with the first message first to the last to make sound like a conversation. I've taken some of my personal information out and paraphrased the comments to just the pertinent facts.

Brant: 
Thanks for your mail John

Wed like to investigate your handlebar breakage - could you send us
the broken bar, and well also like to see the stem it was fitted with.

Well gladly cover your postage and send you a replacement stem for use
in the meantime, then send you your stem back to you after analysis.

We have very few problems with Mary bars, we would like to look
into your cae - send your broken bars to an independant metallurgical
lab first then back to manufacturer.

jb:
Originally, I had the bar mounted to an original Redline monocog stem that came with my '06 model and then fitted it onto my Redline Flight frame with a Sette stem. Most of the miles were with the Redline stem.

Brant:
The bar is scored?

jb:
Yes, some sort of silvery marks. But the crack was next to the mark, about 2mm beside it, on the outside. The marks, aren't very deep but you can feel it by running your fingernail over it and it was hidden by the stem.
I checked my stem again and I'm mistaken, it wasn't the original Redline stem that was a 31.8, but a Nashbar 4-bolt stem.

I measured the face plates at the bolts of both of them just now with a caliper and they are both 28mm.

The design is similar. I'm looking at it more carefully now and on the other unbroken side there is a mark that lines up with the edge of the stem itself and not the faceplate. The broken side is fairly obliterated so maybe the current stem (Sette) created the mark/score. The Mary bar had a bit of flex to it and now I'm thinking the two part rubbed each other and caused it fail from friction. You still want the bar to look at?

Brant:
the bar doesn't flex *AT THAT POINT* any more than any other bar of similar width.
the actual deflection at the bar tip will be more as the length of tubing used to get to that point is greater than a straight bar.
sounds like a case of a stem damaging the bar?

jb:
Hmm, maybe I can agree with that but my steel
moustache bars and my aluminum Titec H-bar don't flex
nearly as much as the Mary and they are all 25.4s. The
stem edges are smooth, I sanded the edge lightly
before installing, but maybe not enough. This voids
any kind of warranty?

Brant:
The steel bars are steel - so they will flex less.
The H bars - are oversize?

Sounds like an admission to me 

jb:
The Titec H-bar is a 25.4. 

In my dreams a steel Mary would probably be the
ticket, but I'll pass on the warranty if the prognosis
is the stem right? And I'll go with another bar,
probably a steel BMX or trials bar. But on the thread
there have been a few SS riders that have said their
bars (not Marys) have failed and I'm not the only one
that considers the flexing of the Mary to be
worrisome. 

Did you look at the photos on MTBR? On page 2 of the
thread I have photos of the top and bottom and you
will see the marks. I have tight closeups of the break
and plate areas. It could just be only deep enough for
the paint to be taken off and some material, but
remember the bar had less than a 1,000 miles on them.
I'm a big guy and fairly strong and with the tugging
you need for climbing on a single speed maybe it
exacerbated the work-hardening of the tubing and
caused it to fail.

Maybe I didn't sand the plate enough but if you look
you at the photos you can see how much I had taken off
the stem. I'm a diligent guy and care about my bike
building.

Brant:
I have put in an enquiry this morning for pricing/availability/ 
samples for a steel Mary bar - it's an avenue worth exploring for sure.

Notches cause stress risers. Big guys on singlespeeds cause lots of 
stress.

Bar design is horrible in some respects as you have to rely on the 
stem being good. Another option (used by Bontrager when he designed 
bars for titec) is to use an undersize bar, with a delrin shim. He 
used 22mm bar, and a shim to take it to 25.4mm. I can see the logic 
in offering 25.4mm bars, with a delrin shim to go to 31.8mm. I think 
31.8mm themselves are reasonably bogus as the larger diameter tempts 
the designer to use a thinner wall, which is then itself MORE notch 
sensitive.

The only thing I would say is that, in my opinion, your thread title 
has now proved to be inaccurate. The stem seems to be at fault, but 
the bar broke, such is the way of things.

Thats the emails so far.

I like the fact he is looking into a steel version. But aren't the Mary bars a new design? Did they just come into the market? I remember I had to be put on a month long waiting list for the handlebar. Have you guys been riding with Mary for longer than a year?

The disturbing part is that he calls the marks notches. They aren't that deep, in the photos you can tell that they have just rubbed past the paint and have only taken a tiny bit of metal at best.

I have to stand on my statement that Mary almost sent me to the ER, because the bar failed and not the stem. The bar could have been out of round and caused it to squirm around in the stem and the flexing, admitted by Brant is greater than the other bars I use. :skep: 

So my two cents are spent here. Take it for what its worth.

jb


----------



## riderx (Jan 6, 2004)

johnnyb said:


> But aren't the Mary bars a new design? Did they just come into the market? I remember I had to be put on a month long waiting list for the handlebar. Have you guys been riding with Mary for longer than a year?


I don't know where this idea of Mary bars being new keeps coming from, they've been available for sale for over 2.5 years.

The rest of your post tells the story. Doesn't sound like a reason to condemn the bars. My $.02


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

riderx said:


> I don't know where this idea of Mary bars being new keeps coming from, they've been available for sale for over 2.5 years.
> 
> The rest of your post tells the story. Doesn't sound like a reason to condemn the bars. My $.02


I never condemned them, in fact I like the bars. I was just saying to check your bar, and I was curious about the flexing of them and if that could have helped cause the failure.

by the way, 2.5 years isn't a long time. I guess I bought them when they were only about a year on the market.


----------



## screehater (Nov 28, 2007)

I think we also need to take into account that this is a VERY popular handlebar. Secondly, alot of the purchases are by rigid singlespeeders.

If you ride rigid, you should prolly not worry about how light your handlebar is.


----------



## Schmucker (Aug 23, 2007)

colker1 said:


> and what does economics mean? if it isn't to supposed to break while riding right... not w/being less than 2 years old... i guess then economics is nice.


My latter point explains economics. Marketing/Accounting wants economics, engineering wants strength and reliability. The two have to come together to get the product to the market.


colker1 said:


> 99% of consummers demand a safe product. that's the market on one is aiming for and not Darwin awards nominees.


No, most consumers want their **** cheap. That's why Wal-Mart is in business. Safety is not their concern, it's the manufacturers so they don't get sued. People want cheap and light. Handlebars can be made cheap, light, or strong, but you can only pick two.


----------



## riderx (Jan 6, 2004)

johnnyb said:


> I never condemned them, in fact I like the bars. I was just saying to check your bar, and I was curious about the flexing of them and if that could have helped cause the failure.
> 
> by the way, 2.5 years isn't a long time. I guess I bought them when they were only about a year on the market.


I'm just saying, when you say material is gone from the bar (meaning it is damaged), blaming the bar for failure isn't exactly fair. Maybe the thread title should read: *Scored handlebar fails at stress riser* 

Agreed that you should check you equipment, I know I don't do it nearly as much as I should considering my string of broken parts and riding style.

2.5 years may not be a long time, but it doesn't qualify as new either. I also remember when those bars were getting developed, people were chomping at the bit but as I recall Brant was doing testing and didn't exactly rush them to market.

Bontrager used to have a cro-mo riser bar with a cross bar, I see NOS ones at bike swaps, maybe something like that will give you peace of mind. I had an old Profile riser that had a removable bolt on cross bar, not sure if they make them anymore, but you might want to check something like that out too. The redundancy should prevent catastrophic failure in most conditions.


----------



## quaffimodo (May 25, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Its got 1000 miles of use from a rider who describes himself as a Clyde who has broken many parts. Basically, I do not consider the bar in question to have been relatively new when it broke.
> 
> The fact that he found the bar to be flexy is another red flag, IMO. I doubt it was designed to be flexy, and so I'm not sure it was being used under the conditions it was designed for. Just to clarify, I am not blaming the failure on OP. He says he has broken many parts, and seems to accept this as a fact of life as a Clyde in a market driven by weight-weenie-ism.


Yep, noticeable flex + aluminum would be a big red flag for this overweight Internet ace, but I certainly can't find fault with anyone not versed in the metallurgy of aluminum handlebars either. I think it's a reasonable assumption that any product that makes it to market is "safe."

A few pedantic rants from an obviously troubled individual aside, I think that this might well be one of the best threads I've read here over the years. The big question I have come away with is this: In this litigious world, why haven't bar manufacturers taken it upon themselves to educate their consumer base about the inherent limitations of aluminum bars, specifically that the molecular structure of the material is analogous to a whole bunch of moving parts that can and do wear out over time? I'm guessing that it's because nobody's ever been sued in to oblivion over this issue yet, but why not be proactive, sell more units, and maybe keep someone from seriously hurting himself? I've replaced road bars over the years out of a vague sense of discomfort that "wow, that's been on there for 10 years, hasn't it?" and immediately replaced dirt bars that have been biffed hard, but I'm thinking that an even more conservative approach is in order now.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

riderx said:


> I'm just saying, when you say material is gone from the bar (meaning it is damaged), blaming the bar for failure isn't exactly fair. Maybe the thread title should read: *Scored handlebar fails at stress riser*


Yeah, the title got everyones attention. But the amount of material gone was caused by what? I torqued it to 55-inch pounds, this is in the spec range for a four bolt stem. I lightly sanded the edge for burrs. So my conclusion, and I'm not an engineering metallurgist by any means, is that MAYBE the flexing could have exacerbated the scoring effect? Maybe the bar was ever so slightly out of round. I never crashed on those bars either.


----------



## justridnalong (Nov 1, 2004)

I ride mary bars on a rigid SS. I've had them for a couple of years and I would probably keep using them but I just bought a pair of groovy cycles 4130 steel bars"love handles" so whoever posted the info about them, thanks.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

quaffimodo said:


> The big question I have come away with is this: In this litigious world, why haven't bar manufacturers taken it upon themselves to educate their consumer base about the inherent limitations of aluminum bars, specifically that the molecular structure of the material is analogous to a whole bunch of moving parts that can and do wear out over time? I'm guessing that it's because nobody's ever been sued in to oblivion over this issue yet, but why not be proactive, sell more units, and maybe keep someone from seriously hurting himself?


I agree, but its a tricky proposition for manufacturers. They will be stuck with the admission that their bar may last as little as a year under conditions that they can't actually specify. That may scare away as many potential buyers as it attracts buyers who appreciate the candor. And the honest manufacturer will have to contend with the people who will say "Gee, that no-name bar on my bike form 1990 hasn't broken yet", and conclude that any bar rated for only two years is under-designed.

If you consider crash damage, installation error, riders who (for better or worse) accept these incidences based on a self-evaluation of their weight and riding style and there is a huge gray area obscuring the line between adequate and inadequate design. That may be the reason there are no lawsuits.



quaffimodo said:


> I've replaced road bars over the years out of a vague sense of discomfort that "wow, that's been on there for 10 years, hasn't it?" and immediately replaced dirt bars that have been biffed hard, but I'm thinking that an even more conservative approach is in order now.


Even though I know better, I have bars that should have been swapped out years ago :nonod: This thread finally convinced me to replace some Al Nitto Albatross bars that I have been commuting on regularly for several years. It also got me off the fence with 2 sets of Midge bars that are questionable. I am so fickle with my MTB set-ups that I doubt I have put 1000 miles or 2 years on any one bar.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

johnnyb said:


> Yeah, the title got everyones attention. But the amount of material gone was caused by what? I torqued it to 55-inch pounds, this is in the spec range for a four bolt stem. I lightly sanded the edge for burrs. So my conclusion, and I'm not an engineering metallurgist by any means, is that MAYBE the flexing could have exacerbated the scoring effect? Maybe the bar was ever so slightly out of round. I never crashed on those bars either.


It looks like your stem was chewing into the bar. Since the bar is anodized black, if you see silver you are already missing metal. I would chalk the whole thing up to an unfortunate combination of bar, stem and usage. But it was the bar that broke. If the bar manufacturer hasn't posted guidelines about appropriate stems and/or the stem isn't obviously faulty they are passing the buck by blaming the stem, IMO.

If I were you I would not use that bar or any other aluminum bar that feels flexy.

If I were On-One I would look into providing (or updating) a spec. for appropriate stems to use with their handlebars.

I were any handlebar manufacturer I would state clearly that all aluminum bars have a finite amount of use that they can be expected to handle safely, and that any scoring, discoloration, bending, excessive flex or flex induced creaks are signs that the bar should be discarded immediately, whether or not they were involved in a crash. Within a certain time period I would look into refunding money to a rider who managed to fatigue a bar.

But I am just me so I will continue to ride at my own risk and follow best practices as closesly as I can.


----------



## quaffimodo (May 25, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Even though I know better, I have bars that should have been swapped out years ago :nonod:


Yep, I had a hard time letting go of my old Modolo bars just because I thought the stem (non-standard clamp size) was so darn beautiful.


----------



## Ron (Jan 13, 2004)

could it be that maybe the more sweep a bar has the more twisting flex at the stem could cause these types of bars to be more prone to an early failure.....even the Jones bars have failed


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

*Were I 165#...*

I'd ride the Mary's all day long. But, I'm not... I'm 200#, and I pull hard on both my bars and my cranks. I will make reasonable effort, on my own account, to make best decisions for myself.

I feel bad for Brandt @ on-one, in that this is a rather reactive thread, and his product is getting some serious criticism. It puts him in a generally defensive position, and he is probably concerned about any admission in that someone would use it against him. He certainly had no intent to injure, right? And, his bars have made a lot of people happy. Hell, just two weeks ago I was raving about them.

I love my Mary bars. I will likely save them and put them on a cruiser restoration or something else cool, where I don't ride quite so hard. My concern is about when they would break. I ride some pretty rough stuff, and like to do it fast... and when I'm doing it fast, I'm pretty heavy on the bars. I am willing to take a great deal of precaution to ensure that I don't end up getting hurt because of equipment failure.

So, for what it is worth. Aluminum isn't used because it is better, it is used because it is cheaper. Cheaper to weld, hydroform, forge, cast, etc... When designing with aluminum, one should take all precautions to prevent flexing. Where aluminum flexes, it is only a matter of time before it work-hardens and breaks. That said, there has been a great deal of work done in alloying aluminum with other metals to produce either more rigidity, or more resistance to fatigue. Some great stuff has been produced, but... same goes with steel. Some of the newer steel alloys are amazingly strong and light.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> If I were On-One I would look into providing (or updating) a spec. for appropriate stems to use with their handlebars.
> 
> I were any handlebar manufacturer I would state clearly that all aluminum bars have a finite amount of use that they can be expected to handle safely, and that any scoring, discoloration, bending, excessive flex or flex induced creaks are signs that the bar should be discarded immediately, whether or not they were involved in a crash. Within a certain time period I would look into refunding money to a rider who managed to fatigue a bar.


Brant did mention he was looking into a steel version of the Mary bar. And your right about notifying the consumer. When I got the bar from Pricepoint, it came in a plastic bag with only a little card with a barcode and pricing info.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

quaffimodo said:


> I'm guessing that it's because nobody's ever been sued in to oblivion over this issue yet, but why not be proactive, sell more units, and maybe keep someone from seriously hurting himself?


you are guessing wrong.

you don't know what you are talking about... there have been lawsuits regarding 3t and a broken handlebar. a rider was seriously injured.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

jh4rt said:


> I'd ride the Mary's all day long. But, I'm not... I'm 200#, and I pull hard on both my bars and my cranks. I will make reasonable effort, on my own account, to make best decisions for myself.
> 
> I feel bad for Brandt @ on-one, in that this is a rather reactive thread, and his product is getting some serious criticism. It puts him in a generally defensive position, and he is probably concerned about any admission in that someone would use it against him. He certainly had no intent to injure, right? And, his bars have made a lot of people happy. Hell, just two weeks ago I was raving about them.
> 
> ...


on one is a very cool company w/ bright ideas and loads of personality. we love those guys... but broken handlebars are serious businness.

it's not the shape or the material... it's the engineering that's at fault. you can make aluminum as strong as it needs to.. we fly on boeing jets made of aluminum and those wings flex a lot.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

quaffimodo said:


> Yep, noticeable flex + aluminum would be a big red flag for this overweight Internet ace, but I certainly can't find fault with anyone not versed in the metallurgy of aluminum handlebars either. I think it's a reasonable assumption that any product that makes it to market is "safe."
> 
> A few pedantic rants from an obviously troubled individual aside, I think that this might well be one of the best threads I've read here over the years. The big question I have come away with is this: In this litigious world, why haven't bar manufacturers taken it upon themselves to educate their consumer base about the inherent limitations of aluminum bars, specifically that the molecular structure of the material is analogous to a whole bunch of moving parts that can and do wear out over time? I'm guessing that it's because nobody's ever been sued in to oblivion over this issue yet, but why not be proactive, sell more units, and maybe keep someone from seriously hurting himself? I've replaced road bars over the years out of a vague sense of discomfort that "wow, that's been on there for 10 years, hasn't it?" and immediately replaced dirt bars that have been biffed hard, but I'm thinking that an even more conservative approach is in order now.


there are no "inherent limitations of aluminum"... there is only bad engineering. boeing jets are made of aluminum, not steel, and their wings flex a lot.

i would say it's quite pedantic to discuss molecular structures.. we are f******g mtbers. that's all. unless one is an expert on the subject like jh4 or a manufacturer.
it looks like a lot of guys are burying their heads in the sand. it's obvious: it's the manufacturer responsability here.

know your rights. don't be ignorant.


----------



## mtroy (Jun 10, 2005)

colker1 said:


> there are no "inherent limitations of aluminum"... there is only bad engineering. boeing jets are made of aluminum, not of steel, and their wings flex a lot.
> 
> i would say it's quite pedantic to discuss molecular structures here... we are f******g mtbers. that's all. unless one is an expert on the subject or a manufacturer it's quite pathethic.


Some truth here. I really don't want to be a structural engineer. I just want to know that the parts I use are ready to survive the intended use.

I bet a h-bar could be built that is light, flexes, and if it failed, it would do so in a controlled manner. I am just talking about stuff I don't know, but composite honeycombed etc. Whatever. Call NASA if we need to.

But would we want to pay for what it would cost to make it happen? Not the average Joe.

What do the moto guys do? Do they replace bars all the time? I really have no idea.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mtroy said:


> Some truth here. I really don't want to be a structural engineer. I just want to know that the parts I use are ready to survive the intended use.
> 
> I bet a h-bar could be built that is light, flexes, and if it failed, it would do so in a controlled manner. I am just talking about stuff I don't know, but composite honeycombed etc. Whatever. Call NASA if we need to.
> 
> ...


light cheap strong... chose 2. not me or you but the manufacturer... 
if someone sells you a $12 150gr hbar and it breaks, it's the manufacturer's responsability. he is selling you dangerous apparel. it's wrong and criminal. that's not opinion but legal fact. not your fault cause you bought it and should have known better. this is ludicrous.
you don't have to know sh!t. if it's supposed to a one year product than say it OUT LOUD.
will it hurt sales? better than killing the company w/ bad accidents and their consequences.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> there are no "inherent limitations of aluminum"... there is only bad engineering. boeing jets are made of aluminum, not steel, and their wings flex a lot.
> 
> i would say it's quite pedantic to discuss molecular structures.. we are f******g mtbers. that's all. unless one is an expert on the subject like jh4 or a manufacturer.
> it looks like a lot of guys are burying their heads in the sand. it's obvious: it's the manufacturer responsability here.
> ...


Do we also have a right to tires that ride well and never wear out? You can believe what you want but material properties are not a matter of faith. Tires wear. Nobody gets bent out of shape about it because everybody knows that. Evidently, not everybody knows that handlebars wear too. The answer it to spread awareness of that, not _bury your head in the sand_ and promote false expectations rooted in ignorance.

Comparing a handlebar to an airplane is not useful.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Do we also have a right to tires that ride well and never wear out? You can believe what you want but material properties are not a matter of faith. Tires wear. Nobody gets bent out of shape about it because everybody knows that. Evidently, not everybody knows that handlebars wear too. The answer it to spread awareness of that, not _bury your head in the sand_ and promote false expectations rooted in ignorance.
> 
> Comparing a handlebar to an airplane is not useful.


you can see your tires wear out. not your handlebar, it's common sense they will wear out. not w/ handlebars. if there is catastrophic failure from tire wear out you can be pretty sure the manufacturer will recall as wtb did w/ 29er tires.
if handlebars wear out in 2 yrs then make them stronger. stop justifying. i thought ssers dissed weightweenism.. has the fashion changed?

you can spread awareness towards 200 guys on mtbr but bicycles are sold to millions of people.... not only to singlespeeders who know brant is a cool guy. a handle bar which collapses under a 200 lbs person in 2yrs is big trouble. bad news. not acceptable. i am surprised you can't understand this simple fact.

i brought up airplanes cause someone here was calling others pedantic while sayin aluminum was inherently limited. it's not. it was a dumb statement.


----------



## mtroy (Jun 10, 2005)

colker1 said:


> light cheap strong... chose 2. not me or you but the manufacturer...
> if someone sells you a $12 150gr hbar and it breaks, it's the manufacturer's responsability. he is selling you dangerous apparel. it's wrong and criminal. that's not opinion but legal fact. not your fault cause you bought it and should have known better. this is ludicrous.
> you don't have to know sh!t. if it's supposed to a one year product than say it OUT LOUD.
> will it hurt sales? better than killing the company w/ bad accidents and their consequences.


You are legally correct I suppose, about the onus being on the guy who makes it. But I know that if I can buy a Thomson post for 100.00 or whatever and a China ripoff on ebay for 25.00, if it breaks, shame on me for expecting the same product.

That does not help John Q Public who does not know better.

But this is a stand up company who, I would bet, is looking at this pretty carefully and would be crazy to admit anything on the net.

I think we agree somewhere here...maybe, hard to tell, in one thing. If it needs to be heavier or it needs to be made better or it needs to cost more or it needs to come with a warning label/expiration date.....so be it. Fatigue cycles be darned. I should not be able to break it just cuz I pull on it hard for a year IMO.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mtroy said:


> You are legally correct I suppose, about the onus being on the guy who makes it. But I know that if I can buy a Thomson post for 100.00 or whatever and a China ripoff on ebay for 25.00, if it breaks, shame on me for expecting the same product.
> 
> That does not help John Q Public who does not know better.
> 
> ...


i love on one. no one got hurt. it's all cool..
it's the BS here that gets on my nerves. someone cannot post a legitimate breakage story without getting jumped by riders who are cool w/ the company usually calling the owner by his first name.yawwwn... morons. can't anyone question product integrity on a freaking consummer forum?


----------



## screehater (Nov 28, 2007)

colker1 said:


> you can see your tires wear out. not your handlebar, it's common sense they will wear out. not w/ handlebars. if there is catastrophic failure from tire wear out you can be pretty sure the manufacturer will recall as wtb did w/ 29er tires.
> if handlebars wear out in 2 yrs then make them stronger. stop justifying. i thought ssers dissed weightweenism.. has the fashion changed?
> 
> you can spread awareness towards 200 guys on mtbr but bicycles are sold to millions of people.... not only to singlespeeders who know brant is a cool guy. a handle bar which collapses under a 200 lbs person in 2yrs is big trouble. bad news. not acceptable. i am surprised you can't understand this simple fact.
> ...


Why not just accept the fact that handlebars wear out and should in fact be changed every couple of years? This was long ago accepted by most. I don't want my singlespeed to weigh more than my geared bike.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

mtroy said:


> You are legally correct I suppose, about the onus being on the guy who makes it. But I know that if I can buy a Thomson post for 100.00 or whatever and a China ripoff on ebay for 25.00, if it breaks, shame on me for expecting the same product.
> 
> That does not help John Q Public who does not know better.
> 
> ...


thomson warrants their posts. and so does kalloy... 
we know brands and stuff. we like chi chi. most of the people don't. bicycles are popular. you can't sc#w around w/ the buying public.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

screehater said:


> Why not just accept the fact that handlebars wear out and should in fact be changed every couple of years? This was long ago accepted by most. I don't want my singlespeed to weigh more than my geared bike.


that may not even be the problem here. it shouldn't brake catastrophically in 2.5yrs. 
it should be better. either it's the stem or bar but not the rider fault. safety is more important than lightweight.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> light cheap strong... chose 2. not me or you but the manufacturer...
> if someone sells you a $12 150gr hbar and it breaks, it's the manufacturer's responsability. he is selling you dangerous apparel. it's wrong and criminal. that's not opinion but legal fact. not your fault cause you bought it and should have known better. this is ludicrous.
> you don't have to know sh!t. if it's supposed to a one year product than say it OUT LOUD.
> will it hurt sales? better than killing the company w/ bad accidents and their consequences.


Flawed argument. The manufacturer rarely has the opportunity to evaluate the rider or the intended use. You could probably build a 150g $12 bar that would be fine for a child's bike. If an adult used it and it broke, is that the manufacturer's fault? No. It is up to the consumer to determine whether their intended use falls within the limitations of the product's design. In the case of the broken Mary bar, the rider stated that the bar was noticeably flexy. _It is not supposed to be flexy._ That treads into the "should have known better" realm.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Flawed argument. The manufacturer rarely has the opportunity to evaluate the rider or the intended use. You could probably build a 150g $12 bar that would be fine for a child's bike. If an adult used it and it broke, is that the manufacturer's fault? No. It is up to the consumer to determine whether their intended use falls within the limitations of the product's design. In the case of the broken Mary bar, the rider stated that the bar was noticeably flexy. _It is not supposed to be flexy._ That treads into the "should have known better" realm.


it's not an argument; i just described the Law and how it treats the matter...


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Flawed argument. The manufacturer rarely has the opportunity to evaluate the rider or the intended use. You could probably build a 150g $12 bar that would be fine for a child's bike. If an adult used it and it broke, is that the manufacturer's fault? No. It is up to the consumer to determine whether their intended use falls within the limitations of the product's design. In the case of the broken Mary bar, the rider stated that the bar was noticeably flexy. _It is not supposed to be flexy._ That treads into the "should have known better" realm.


this post is absurd. 
a child's bike has to be uberstrong. even more than an adult's bike.



edit: let's hope you don't sell bikes for a living.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> it's not an argument; i just described the Law and how it treats the matter...


I think they make arguments in the legal world. I'm not sure which Law you are referring to that guarantees that I can use any product I want, any way I want and expect 100% satisfaction.

Edit: and also that the physical properties of the product should conform to my self-defined sense of what my rights as a consumer are.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> this post is absurd.
> a child's bike has to be uberstrong. even more than an adult's bike.
> 
> 
> ...


I hate to further intrude on the magical world you live in, but you are incorrect. I hope I didn't rile up the unicorns too much. :ciappa:


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I think they make arguments in the legal world. I'm not sure which Law you are referring to that guarantees that I can use any product I want, any way I want and expect 100% satisfaction..


we are talking mountain bike handlebars breakage. satisfaction is a psychological need. there is nothing about satisfaction in this thread. i am talking legal matters around handlebar breakage. bars made for mountain biking are expected to perform under the sport's strenuous efforts. got it?

it's not about kid's bikes as well.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I hate to further intrude on the magical world you live in, but you are incorrect. I hope I didn't rile up the unicorns too much. :ciappa:


yaaawn.. my internet p***s is bigger than yours!


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath
Edit: and also that the physical properties of the product should conform to my self-defined sense of what my rights as a consumer are.[/QUOTE said:


> you are wrong. it's not subjective. it's not about your expectations but legal expectations.
> i conclude you neither sell bikes and you are not a lawyer.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> you are wrong. it's not subjective. it's not about your expectations but legal expectations.
> i conclude you neither sell bikes and you are not a lawyer.


I conclude that you are as confused about the law as you are about handlebars


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> yaaawn.. my internet p***s is bigger than yours!


Well, at least you have one thing going for you. :thumbsup:


----------



## explodingtaco (Jul 22, 2006)

I cant believe I keep reading this thread . . . But I do.

Does every mary bar fail in 2-3 years? What % of their bars fail? Are the failures a design defect of manufacturing anomaly? If one could construct a relativity inexpensive part that is indestructible in int intended use don't you think someone would? Even the most over engineered part could fail. 

If I buy a carbon weight weenie bar and put it under my 240lbs and it brakes who's fault is it?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

explodingtaco said:


> I cant believe I keep reading this thread . . . But I do.
> 
> Does every mary bar fail in 2-3 years? What % of their bars fail? Are the failures a design defect of manufacturing anomaly? If one could construct a relativity inexpensive part that is indestructible in int intended use don't you think someone would? Even the most over engineered part could fail.
> 
> If I buy a carbon weight weenie bar and put it under my 240lbs and it brakes who's fault is it?


what is the weight limit on the mary? how many miles before it's dangerous? how long before i should swap it ofr a new?
most important: where is it written on the bars or package?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I conclude that you are as confused about the law as you are about handlebars


and how did you reach this conclusion? tell us where am i confused? 
it's easy to come up w/ "you this and you that".. and then go all ironic and use emoticons. it's girly..


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Well, at least you have one thing going for you. :thumbsup:


"at least"... and as a last resource you climb on the internet high horse. .. so original.

girly.

edit: wait! i did it first. LOL. we are both pathethic.


----------



## yossarian (May 24, 2006)

Not what I wanted to read after coming back from a night ride with Marys on rigid SS, but whatever.
Any relatively light guys like me (170lbs) ever break Mary's?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> what is the weight limit on the mary? how many miles before it's dangerous? how long before i should swap it ofr a new?
> most important: where is it written on the bars or package?


Crimeny. The answers to your questions are unknowable. It is totally dependent on the usage. _How can you not understand this?_

The most a manufacturer can do is reiterate that the bar should be inspected regularly for indications that it is being over-stressed. Finding a rigid object to be particularly flexy is an indication. Scoring at the handlebar/stem interface is an indication. Note that I said _reiterate_ -- thus is because this is knowledge that every mountain biker should know.

Based on the OP's posts, it seems that he had some misconceptions about how to identify a weakened handlebar. Whether you want to blame the weakening on over-use or under-design, the signs were there for anyone to predict that this situation could occur. The breakage was preventable.

You can rehash this argument as many times as you want -- until you accept some basic facts of life re. mountain biking and the materials from whish the equipment is made for you will be confused and needlessly angry.


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Who's angry?*



PeanutButterBreath said:


> Crimeny. The answers to your questions are unknowable. It is totally dependent on the usage. _How can you not understand this?_
> 
> The most a manufacturer can do is reiterate that the bar should be inspected regularly for indications that it is being over-stressed. Finding a rigid object to be particularly flexy is an indication. Scoring at the handlebar/stem interface is an indication. Note that I said _reiterate_ -- thus is because this is knowledge that every mountain biker should know.
> 
> ...


You're seem to be the only one with the hostile inflections, and well, maybe you and colker1.  It's just a broken bar thread for :cryin: out loud :incazzato:


----------



## tool addict (Jul 6, 2006)

Using a 31.8mm stem and a spacer is a good way to spread out the stress caused at the stem and prevent clamp damage on any light weight 24mm bar be it a mary, an h-bar or any other bar. An easy fix and much nicer than bending your own piece of schedual 80 pipe to get the bend you want.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Based on the OP's posts, it seems that he had some misconceptions about how to identify a weakened handlebar. Whether you want to blame the weakening on over-use or under-design, the signs were there for anyone to predict that this situation could occur. The breakage was preventable.
> 
> You can rehash this argument as many times as you want -- until you accept some basic facts of life re. mountain biking and the materials from whish the equipment is made for you will be confused and needlessly angry.


Guys, guys, guys, I'm over it all ready! I can still ride my bike, I have a handlebar on my bike. I learned a hard lesson without any pain. I just want everybody to learn from my break. PBB, The signs of the wear though were hidden underneath the stem and though preventable it would have shown up when I did my maintenance in the coming months.

Stop the madness!


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

JMac47 said:


> You're seem to be the only one with the hostile inflections, and well, maybe you and colker1.  It's just a broken bar thread for :cryin: out loud :incazzato:


I am very angry at colker1. His incisive critisism of my qualification to sell bicycles cut to the quick 

Seriously, my only stake in this is to remind folks of the realities of the equipment they are dealing with, the inherent risks involved and what they should know to minimize their chance of getting hurt.

If somebody wants to jump down my throat for that, well, it is annoying. What can I say? :mad2:


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

johnnyb said:


> PBB, The signs of the wear though were hidden underneath the stem and though preventable it would have shown up when I did my maintenance in the coming months.


Some may think it shouldn't be necessary, but its a rare month of regular riding that goes by that I don't have my handlebar removed from my stem for one reason or another. If for not other reason than because dust and/or mud get in there which can both cause problems and mask the symptoms of bigger problems.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Crimeny. The answers to your questions are unknowable. It is totally dependent on the usage. _How can you not understand this?_
> 
> The most a manufacturer can do is reiterate that the bar should be inspected regularly for indications that it is being over-stressed. Finding a rigid object to be particularly flexy is an indication. Scoring at the handlebar/stem interface is an indication. Note that I said _reiterate_ -- thus is because this is knowledge that every mountain biker should know.
> 
> ...


you turned this into a p!ssing match.. what's new?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I am very angry at colker1. His incisive critisism of my qualification to sell bicycles cut to the quick
> 
> Seriously, my only stake in this is to remind folks of the realities of the equipment they are dealing with, the inherent risks involved and what they should know to minimize their chance of getting hurt.
> 
> If somebody wants to jump down my throat for that, well, it is annoying. What can I say? :mad2:


i say it's a bad handlebar. 
if you disagree w/ my "argument" and think i am full of it then you should ride the mary downhill on rocky gardens. let's say... for 3 months and disprove me. on a rigid fork. go ahead....

btw, i ride on one bars. do you? either you ride a mary or it's just a stupid p!ssing match on your part.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> btw, i ride on one bars. do you? either you ride a mary or it's just a stupid p!ssing match on your part.


Two sets of Midge bars - can I have an opinion now? Somewhere in here I linked to a thread where On-One volunteered to replace a two year old Midge for no apparent reason other than that it was well used. Not by a clyde. Not for bombing rock gardens. Just because a lot of miles were put on it. If the manufacturer is willing replace a bar after two years of normal use. . .:idea:


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> you turned this into a p!ssing match.. what's new?


How so? I can't figure out what your damage is, but it is you who started with the ad hominem.


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

colker1 said:


> as long as it breaks under you and not me .
> 
> what a moron...


And you are an idiot. 

Bars break. ALL bars CAN break. If you believe otherwise, you are wasting precious oxygen on this finite planet.

What kind of dope comes in here and says that, "all bars can break" is an incorrect statement?

:skep:


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

colker1 said:


> that's ridiculous.[


What? In your huffiness you just couldn't get it all out in one reply?



What is "ridiculous"? Does the concept of any handlebar being able to be broken just end your small little world or something?

Like I said. Purse the emotions and tuck the skirt in.



> bars are supposed to be tested and resist torque generated by strong riders. i mean cat1 racers not overweight slow internet aces.


Blah, blah, internet tough guy, blah, bleh... yawn.



> you may be eager to kiss the manufacturer's azz all day long but 99% of consummers demand a safe product. that's the market on one is aiming for and not Darwin awards nominees.


I haven't said ONE word about the bar or the manufacturer. You have to make it up to have ANY point with me whatsoever. Where do you come up with this crap to fly off the handle like you do?

This is the FACT. Pay CLOSE attention.

ANY handlebar can break from some use, or a lot of use.

You want to argue that? Jeeeeezzzz.... qualify it all you freakin' want, but you can't argue it.

What a dolt.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

29Colossus said:


> And you are an idiot.
> 
> Bars break. ALL bars CAN break. If you believe otherwise, you are wasting precious oxygen on this finite planet.
> 
> ...


seems like a handlebar broke and you fell on your head. i am an optimist and rather believe no one is born that stupid. you don't show a basic human ability which is recognize the fact that others can be different. 
let's try again: bars "should not" brake under riders because bicycles are not a highly specialized niche vehicle but sold to millions who don't race, are not mechanics and don't spend hrs on mtb websites or doing maintenance. 
mary bars will be ridden by anyone who just enters a shop, buysa bike and rides it hard as they can.
does it make sense now?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

29Colossus said:


> What? In your huffiness you just couldn't get it all out in one reply?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


a colossus of stupidity!

all bars can brake but they are supposed not to when ridden under conditions they were designed for..

you can't understand that. good thing you are not a manufacturer or you would have gone out of business and social security would have another burden on it's shoulders.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> How so? I can't figure out what your damage is, but it is you who started with the ad hominem.


since i made it clear that under legal reasoning those bars are not supposed to brake like they did. it wasn't even directed towards you but somehow the logic and clarity p!ssed you off and "winning on the internet" became the issue.

then you say kids bikes can be weaker in strength since kids are lighter. on the contrary: kids bikes are made heavy and bombproof. that's when i lost it and said you could not sell bikes.


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

*Fun .... sit back and watch>>>*


----------



## riderx (Jan 6, 2004)

Forget the popcorn, I'll have some tacos.


----------



## nogearshere (Mar 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> i say it's a bad handlebar.


This is an OPINION not an argument (an argument is REASON given in PROOF). 
No, simply 'arguing' with people does not lend validity to an opinion. While you are entitled to your opinion I think much of whats been posted here (not just by you) borders on libel...particularly since there seems to be an admission (or at least reasonable doubt established) that the BAR did not fail as a result of a manufacturers defect or design flaw.

A manufacturers defect occurs when the product fails to meet the criteria and specifications set forth by the manufacturer as it was designed and intended...it is not based on purchasers expectations, opinions or internet declarations of how it SHOULD function or fail if other products are at fault or faulty.

The thought that liability/onus lies with a manufacturer to establish parameters for product longevity (something NOT required of any other component on your bike) in the detail that you expect is absurd. Mountain biking is DANGEROUS - as such ALL components should maybe come with a warning that they NEVER be ridden off paved paths and limestone trails. Seriously this kind of information is not easily established (if possible at all) and would be highly subjective. In fact I would suggest that On-One would be MORE liable if they ever made a claim or statement that a bar WILL last XXXX miles - what if it didn't (for one reason or another)?

I busted my balls when my chain gave out last summer...why didn't KMC tell me specifically and frequently that I was being stupid not checking it for wear?


----------



## slocaus (Jul 21, 2005)

You guys decided _THIS_ is the thread to _guarantee_ your places in the *Grimy Awards*, huh?  :madman:

Which one do you really want 9, 20, 21, 26?!? :madmax:   :nono:


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> since i made it clear that under legal reasoning those bars are not supposed to brake like they did. it wasn't even directed towards you but somehow the logic and clarity p!ssed you off and "winning on the internet" became the issue.


I have no personal issue with your legal assertion. I just happen to think that it is false for some pretty obvious reasons. But even more to the point, no rider should rely on their percieved rights as a consumer or even the legal obligations of a manufacturer to protect them from a broken handlebar. They should understand the limitations and failure mode of their equipment and verse themselves in how to monitor the safety of their equipment. That seems like pretty common sense to me.



colker1 said:


> then you say kids bikes can be weaker in strength since kids are lighter. on the contrary: kids bikes are made heavy and bombproof. that's when i lost it and said you could not sell bikes.


It just isn't true that children's bikes are made to be heavy and bombproof. It certainly isn't true that they are built to be more sturdy than adult bikes to protect our precious children. If children's bikes are heavy, it coincidental to the low-cost construction methods -- sloppy tolerances and cheap materials. This is driven by the fact that parents don't want to spend much money on a bike that their kid will out-grow, not by greedy manufacturers.

However pithy the "cheap, light, strong -- choose two" line may be, it is a fallacy to assume that because something is cheap and heavy, it must be strong.

On the other hand, if you look at Jr. BMX racing components -- a market that does support better design and materials, you will find parts (frames, forks and handlebars especially) that take advantage of the fact that their intended users are small children. These components are not appropriate for adults.

There is really nothing controversial here.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> Two sets of Midge bars - can I have an opinion now? Somewhere in here I linked to a thread where On-One volunteered to replace a two year old Midge for no apparent reason other than that it was well used. Not by a clyde. Not for bombing rock gardens. Just because a lot of miles were put on it. If the manufacturer is willing replace a bar after two years of normal use. . .:idea:


I want to say that Brant isn't willing to replace my Mary bar or offer something stronger, and he is placing the blame on my stem without even looking at in person. He first offered to look at it, but after some honest testimony and pictures, he turned his position around by not offering me to send it in after I asked him again. Go figure.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

nogearshere said:


> This is an OPINION not an argument (an argument is REASON given in PROOF).
> No, simply 'arguing' with people does not lend validity to an opinion. While you are entitled to your opinion I think much of whats been posted here (not just by you) borders on libel...particularly since there seems to be an admission (or at least reasonable doubt established) that the BAR did not fail as a result of a manufacturers defect or design flaw.


yeah right... maybe that's why some of the regulars here are looking for alternatives or have already switched their marys for other bars.

libel? sue me.. please.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

johnnyb said:


> I want to say that Brant isn't willing to replace my Mary bar or offer something stronger, and he is placing the blame on my stem without even looking at in person. He first offered to look at it, but after some honest testimony and pictures, he turned his position around by not offering me to send it in after I asked him again. Go figure.


mary is innocent. it's your fault and your mid finger will be cut as punishment. so you cannot type anymore breakage reports.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I have no personal issue with your legal assertion. I just happen to think that it is false for some pretty obvious reasons. But even more to the point, no rider should rely on their percieved rights as a consumer or even the legal obligations of a manufacturer to protect them from a broken handlebar. They should understand the limitations and failure mode of their equipment and verse themselves in how to monitor the safety of their equipment. That seems like pretty common sense to me.
> It just isn't true that children's bikes are made to be heavy and bombproof. It certainly isn't true that they are built to be more sturdy than adult bikes to protect our precious children. If children's bikes are heavy, it coincidental to the low-cost construction methods -- sloppy tolerances and cheap materials. This is driven by the fact that parents don't want to spend much money on a bike that their kid will out-grow, not by greedy manufacturers.
> 
> However pithy the "cheap, light, strong -- choose two" line may be, it is a fallacy to assume that because something is cheap and heavy, it must be strong.
> ...


you are saying kid's bikes are weak not because kids are light but those bikes are crappy. that contradicts your previous statement. you said they were planned for kids. seems they were not planned at all... otoh, bmx bikes which were planned and well designed to be ridden by kids are bombproof. i absolutely aggree.

what's the failure mode of those marys? their 2yr planned usage expired? do you believe that? since when bike equipment explodes after 2yrs? 
the mary is not a pro only equipment. it's not sold to guys who rely on a mechanic to inspect their equipment weekly. it's sold to people who know sh!t about metallurgy and rely on tests done by the manufacturer according to regulations yadda yadda yadda. it's sold to the general public. that's why i said those breakages were criminal(i admit i was a bit hyperbolic)... bars, pedals, stems are dangerous when breaking.

there is a cause for those breakages.... either stem/ bar interface or bar itself. not an expiring date whatever.if on one is not interested in finding what happened i will can my bars and look for an alternative.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

colker1 said:


> mary is innocent. it's your fault and your mid finger will be cut as punishment. so you cannot type anymore breakage reports.


What I guess I'm saying is that he doesn't care why the bar broke, whether the cause was the stem or poor installation (which I don't think I did). You think you can decide by looking at a picture on the internet what the cause was?


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

colker1 said:


> you are saying kid's bikes are weak not because kids are light but those bikes are crappy. that contradicts your previous statement. you said they were planned for kids. seems they were not planned at all... otoh, bmx bikes which were planned and well designed to be ridden by kids are bombproof. i absolutely aggree.
> 
> what's the failure mode of those marys? their 2yr planned usage expired? do you believe that? since when bike equipment explodes after 2yrs?
> the mary is not a pro only equipment. it's not sold to guys who rely on a mechanic to inspect their equipment weekly. it's sold to people who know sh!t about metallurgy and rely on tests done by the manufacturer according to regulations yadda yadda yadda. it's sold to the general public. that's why i said those breakages were criminal(i admit i was a bit hyperbolic)... bars, pedals, stems are dangerous when breaking.
> ...


I don't think you understand a fair portion of what I have explained several times. Now you have somehow managed to missaprehend my point about Jr. BMX race bikes, which much different to the heavy duty freestyle bikes you are talking about. You also don't seem to understand the term "failure mode". It is clearly beyond my pitifully limited abilities to educate you on any of these concepts. All I can say is that for your own sake you should try to better inform yourself. The Law can't protect you or your children from your own ignorance and false sense of security. Maybe it can get you compensated if you get hurt. Maybe you can "protect" everyone else by suing the industry out of business. But that is cold comfort if you are dead or permanently disabled because you refused to be educated out of some misguided sense of entitlement.


----------



## PeanutButterBreath (Oct 7, 2005)

johnnyb said:


> What I guess I'm saying is that he doesn't care why the bar broke, whether the cause was the stem or poor installation (which I don't think I did). You think you can decide by looking at a picture on the internet what the cause was?


Just looking at the picture it looks like the handlebar was damaged at the stem/bar interface. You said that you de-burred this area of the stem. Taking these things at face value, it would seem that the handlbar and stem were incompatible. Whether fault for that lies with the stem or the bar, it is impossible to say without much more analysis.

It is also possible that the handlebar was defective.

It is also possible that the usage you described accelerated the failure.

I don't see any problem with your post, or even the wording of the title. The handlebar broke!


----------



## used2Bhard (Dec 22, 2005)

*Syntace*



abbeytrails said:


> I have no doubt that my ride style has a lot to do with the bars failure. I know I pull up and push down on bars while riding....I am currently riding 31.8 Easton EA50`s and replace it after each year. If somebody showed me a stronger handlebar, I would gladly pick it up and try it out....


Syntace bars have the highest test rating of the Carbons. They also have a ti mesh that covers the stem clamp area to reinforce. I run the Vector 31.8.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

johnnyb said:


> You think you can decide by looking at a picture on the internet what the cause was?


i don't...do you? buy another mary.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

PeanutButterBreath said:


> I don't think you understand a fair portion of what I have explained several times. Now you have somehow managed to missaprehend my point about Jr. BMX race bikes, which much different to the heavy duty freestyle bikes you are talking about. You also don't seem to understand the term "failure mode". It is clearly beyond my pitifully limited abilities to educate you on any of these concepts. All I can say is that for your own sake you should try to better inform yourself. The Law can't protect you or your children from your own ignorance and false sense of security. Maybe it can get you compensated if you get hurt. Maybe you can "protect" everyone else by suing the industry out of business. But that is cold comfort if you are dead or permanently disabled because you refused to be educated out of some misguided sense of entitlement.


don't worry about educating me nor worry about me suing... otoh if you are a bike dealer for your own sake don't count on your customers "common sense" to inspect every so often badly engineered products as any insurance against liability.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

used2Bhard said:


> Syntace bars have the highest test rating of the Carbons. They also have a ti mesh that covers the stem clamp area to reinforce. I run the Vector 31.8.


why not the mary?


----------



## Mallanaga (Jun 30, 2007)

wow... triple post for the lose.


----------



## Treybiker (Jan 6, 2004)

Holy crap. I was wandering why this thread got so long. A few handle bars broke. Some people will use them, some people won't. As long as we want things to be light weight, and then go out and abuse them, they will sometimes fail. I can accept that.


----------



## quaffimodo (May 25, 2004)

riderx said:


> Forget the popcorn, I'll have some tacos.


Thanks for that. A blow to the head incurred in the act of falling off a cliff explains a lot of what I've read here.


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)




----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

colker1 said:


> a colossus of stupidity!


Hmmm... the only "stupidity" here is yours. I suppose if you have to be good at something, and stupidity is all you have, then it is all good, right?

:rofl:



> all bars can brake


What? Bars can't brake... they are handlebars and are not designed to be a brake for anything. Now if you hit a tree, and the bar hits it and stops you, then sure, your handlebars can brake you to a stop, but they are not designed to be brakes.



But I think you meant, "break", but how could that be? All bars can't break. That is what YOU asserted. Now you have stated the EXACT opposite. Someone said that all bars could break. You said: "WRONG".

Well, chippy cake, YOU ARE WRONG. You have SAID that you are WRONG by contradicting yourself in a frenzied and irrational emotional state.

That is precisely why I told you to tuck the skirt in. You needed a reality check due to your argument suffering on behalf of your irrational and childish behavior.



> but they are supposed not to when ridden under conditions they were designed for..


So what? All bars can break.



> you can't understand that.


Doesn't matter. All bars can break. You don't even disagree with that so I have no idea what you are on about.



> good thing you are not a manufacturer or you would have gone out of business and social security would have another burden on it's shoulders.


Whaaaaa? Again. That doesn't matter. All bars can break.

Why don't you try starting with a rational perspective instead of engaging in hyperbole for drama's sake?

All bars can break.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

29Colossus said:


> Hmmm... the only "stupidity" here is yours. I suppose if you have to be good at something, and stupidity is all you have, then it is all good, right?
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> ...


could you say all that again please? brake, break, broke.... brrrraaaaapp. ooops i farted.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

Mallanaga said:


> wow... triple post for the lose.


wow... cool.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

how many 29ers in this thread?  . bwaaaaaaaaaahhhh.


----------



## JMac47 (Apr 23, 2004)

*Pete?*



colker1 said:


> could you say all that again please? brake, break, broke.... brrrraaaaapp. ooops i farted.


.......is really you? :skep: :nono:


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

Finally got a quote worth including in my signature....

Hot Dog anyone?


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

29Colossus said:


> What? Bars can't brake... they are handlebars and are not designed to be a brake for anything. Now if you hit a tree, and the bar hits it and stops you, then sure, your handlebars can brake you to a stop, but they are not designed to be brakes.


if i stuck a handlebar in your front wheel, that would be a brake.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

sean salach said:


> if i stuck a handlebar in your front wheel, that would be a brake.


unless it has the inherent limitations of aluminum and it breaks but then ALL bars can brake.


----------



## slide mon (Jul 18, 2005)

Dude, sorry to hear the latest in the johnnyb bad luck saga! 

-slide

p.s. I kinda liked that bridge with the rise in it. It's going away?


----------



## brant (Jan 6, 2004)

johnnyb said:


> I want to say that Brant isn't willing to replace my Mary bar or offer something stronger, and he is placing the blame on my stem without even looking at in person. He first offered to look at it, but after some honest testimony and pictures, he turned his position around by not offering me to send it in after I asked him again. Go figure.


I'm sorry - but that's absolute nonsense.

YOU said in your mail to me:-

>In my dreams a steel Mary would probably be the
>ticket, but *I'll pass on the warranty* if the prognosis
>is the stem right? And I'll go with another bar,
>probably a steel BMX or trials bar.

To clarify - this "I'll pass on the warranty" means "No thanks".

Regarding the damage, you wrote:-

>It seems there were hidden
>scoring marks that were covered by the face plate and
>stem itself. I'm not sure which stem had made those
>marks.

And regarding your stems - which we wanted to look at -as the failure was at the stem/bar interface YOU said - you declined sending them:-

>Originally, I had the bar mounted to an original
>Redline monocog stem that came with my '06 model and
>then fitted it onto my Redline Flight frame with a
>Sette stem.* I don't want to really send both stems*
>over at the same time because it would leave me
>without a ride, but I could send one out and then the
>other. Most of the miles were with the Redline stem.

We originally suggested sending over a spare stem, bar, whatever... I did not (in my initial reply) suggest sending 2 stems as I did not imagine that you would have used 2 stems.

I will not be commenting on this thread, other than to correct information.


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> I'm sorry - but that's absolute nonsense.
> 
> YOU said in your mail to me:-
> 
> ...


Hey Brant.

Don't know you, but will throw my 2 quid in anyhow.

I'm a Clyde. I was loving your Mary's. I am now swapping them out and I will likely keep this set for a cruiser or something. But, this response (directly above) will cause me to forego purchasing any more on-one products.

You could have just won this entire board over by, rather than defending yourself, offering to make it up to the consumer by standing behind your product. I have been a manufacturer, and I have engineered/constructed products which failed. In many cases, they failed because of abuse. HOWEVER, my customers came to me because I was known for creating product (Trailer Hitches in this case) which would withstand more than that for which they were rated. In these cases I repaired/replaced the product free of charge.

You see, not only did I know that would earn me a customer for life, but also knew that said customer would tell 10 of his colleagues what great service I performed.

At the end of the day, I have to say I'm really disappointed in your response. I expected you to come on and offer anyone worried about it a creative idea to replace a bar, get it tested, something... other than defense of your "words".

--humbly

Jim.

P.S. Can't wait to see Flav's response to Brant's post...


----------



## eyefloater (Apr 3, 2006)

It really made Brant look like an ******* once he let the facts get in the way of a good story.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

i still want to know why those bars are breaking... because i am about to buy another on one midge. now i will step back.
if it's the stem... which stems are safe w/ on one bars and which ones are not?:eekster:


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

i think brant was completely justified in what he posted. if someone was online spouting missinformation in an effort to slander me or my company, you bet your arse i would defend myself, not coddle him and give him free sh!t.


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

colker1 said:


> could you say all that again please? brake, break, broke.... brrrraaaaapp. ooops i farted.


I thought so.


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

colker1 said:


> unless it has the inherent limitations of aluminum and it breaks but then ALL bars can brake.


No kidding? All bars can _brake_ now?

:skep:

If you would have settled down in the first place, you would have never came to the wrong conclusion on that one.... that all bars can BREAK.

Just remember. YOU were wrong.

B
R
E
A
K

Look those letters up, and try to copy them a few times. If you have to trace the first few times, that is OK. After you get good at the letters, you can move up to whole words.

:thumbsup:


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

sean salach said:


> if i stuck a handlebar in your front wheel, that would be a brake.


What if it was a Mary bar?


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

that would depend on how many stems and what bolt pattern they had that one had previously mounted that mary bar in... it would also be dependant on wether it was inserted into the wheel in the pull-up position or not.


----------



## agu (Jun 22, 2007)

sean salach said:


> that would depend on how many stems and what bolt pattern they had that one had previously mounted that mary bar in... it would also be dependant on wether it was inserted into the wheel in the pull-up position or not.


and if bar-tape, or lock-on grips were used?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

29Colossus said:


> No kidding? All bars can _brake_ now?
> 
> :skep:
> 
> ...


here is to you:
BRAAAAAAAPPP..

got it?


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

sean salach said:


> that would depend on how many stems and what bolt pattern they had that one had previously mounted that mary bar in... it would also be dependant on wether it was inserted into the wheel in the pull-up position or not.


Sean, if you read my posts it says a Sette 4-bolt and an OEM Redline 4-bolt stem. And I don't under stan what the "pull-up position or not" is. Thats it. Its not slander, its a consumer to consumer warning. My only response to Brant, and if you read my emails posted, that he went from concern to basically backing away from his product warranty in about three emails.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

*umm, I am in support of this.*



[email protected] said:


> I'm sorry - but that's absolute nonsense.
> 
> YOU said in your mail to me:-
> 
> ...


In an often contentious arena there are always 2 sides to a story. I noticed the highlighted phrases in the OPers account too. He did say that he was passing on the warranty if the prognosis was the stem then they both seemed to settle on the stem as the culprit.

Then some of you said that this was the wrong tact by On-One. That they should jump up and give him a new bar and a make every effort to placate the customer. This makes sense if the bar failure was due to the bar but the OP admitted that it was probably from one or both of the stems that he ran. Why should On-One cover a manufacturing error from another company. I would frankly be all rankled up too if an internet community of users was suggesting that I cover someone because a component I didn't make caused a product that I did make to fail and readily admitted it.

Honestly. Mountain biking is inherently dangerous. Bikes break, wheels break and components break, and when you spend $45 on a handlebar you should replace it every year anyway just to be safe. It is only $45, one Kenda tire, two IRC tires and one helluva good price for piece of mind.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> I'm sorry - but that's absolute nonsense.
> 
> YOU said in your mail to me:-
> 
> ...


Okay Brant,

On my third email after initially contacting you and discussing this matter I said:

"I'm not sure, without taking the other stem off. The
design is similar. I'm looking at it more carefully
now and on the other unbroken side there is a mark
that lines up with the edge of the stem itself and not
the faceplate. The broken side is fairly obliterated
so maybe the current stem (Sette) created the
mark/score. The Mary bar had a bit of flex to it and
now I'm thinking the two part rubbed each other and
caused it from friction. You still want the bar to
look at?

jb"

Then you replied;

"the bar doesn't flex *AT THAT POINT* any more than any other bar of 
similar width.

the actual deflection at the bar tip will be more as the length of 
tubing used to get to that point is greater than a straight bar.

sounds like a case of a stem damaging the bar?

You didn't answer my question about sending the parts in. Come on, I read my emails and take them for what they are, am I supposed to think that if I did send in my stems to you with the handlebar all the way to the UK after your defensive remarks that I would get prompt action. Customer service?


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

rockcrusher said:


> In an often contentious arena there are always 2 sides to a story. I noticed the highlighted phrases in the OPers account too. He did say that he was passing on the warranty if the prognosis was the stem then they both seemed to settle on the stem as the culprit.
> 
> Then some of you said that this was the wrong tact by On-One. That they should jump up and give him a new bar and a make every effort to placate the customer. This makes sense if the bar failure was due to the bar but the OP admitted that it was probably from one or both of the stems that he ran. Why should On-One cover a manufacturing error from another company. I would frankly be all rankled up too if an internet community of users was suggesting that I cover someone because a component I didn't make caused a product that I did make to fail and readily admitted it.
> 
> Honestly. Mountain biking is inherently dangerous. Bikes break, wheels break and components break, and when you spend $45 on a handlebar you should replace it every year anyway just to be safe. It is only $45, one Kenda tire, two IRC tires and one helluva good price for piece of mind.


what does "mountain biking is inherently dangerous" has to do w/ a bar breaking while climbing?
driving is dangerous as well. it could kill you! does that mean a car steering wheel "can break"?
$45 is money. on one is not giving away handlebars. if 45 bucks is not enough to build safe bars then charge more.


----------



## Mallanaga (Jun 30, 2007)

he was wrong to say that they flex just as much everywhere else on the bar. the stresses in the bar are going to all be the same, but the shear force is concentrated directly at the stem edge.

i could draw a picture, it's pretty simple though.

one way or another, it would be terrible if Mary got a bad rap for this. she's a good girl. if this was the first bar this ever happened to, then i would understand the commotion, but most people that come here are only going to read the first few posts and shy right away from the beautiful girl.

my opinion, for what it's worth, is to let this thread go to the grave, and die with dignity. 9 pages? yes, things could have been handled differently on all ends, presumably, but what's done is done. feel me?

cheers, and i'm glad you're OK johnnyB. it could have been a lot worse, eh?


----------



## sean salach (Sep 15, 2007)

johnnyb said:


> Sean, if you read my posts it says a Sette 4-bolt and an OEM Redline 4-bolt stem. And I don't under stan what the "pull-up position or not" is. Thats it. Its not slander, its a consumer to consumer warning. My only response to Brant, and if you read my emails posted, that he went from concern to basically backing away from his product warranty in about three emails.


that particular post that you quoted wasn't directed to or in reference to you specifically. it was intended entirely to be humorous. humorous the adjective, not the noun.

i still think he was right to come on here and defend himself. slander or no, you did say in that one quoted email to forget the warranty. it's obviously some miscommunication between the two of you, and probably doesn't belong on a public forum for further missinterpretation, but you are the one who brought it here.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

colker1 said:


> what does "mountain biking is inherently dangerous" has to do w/ a bar breaking while climbing?
> driving is dangerous as well. it could kill you! does that mean a car steering wheel "can break"?


So you never change your tires then do you and when you finally cut a tread on your bald tires you expect the tire company to give you a free tire? Things happen unexpectedly, hence dangerous.



colker1 said:


> $45 is money. on one is not giving away handlebars. if 45 bucks is not enough to build safe bars then charge more.


or spend more. Have Jeff jones bend you a custom one. Don't complain cause you spent $45 on a part that was made and shipped across the atlantic and then shipped to a distributer then shipped to pricepoint then marked up then sold to you. You accepted that it was a cheap price when you bought it but you expect it to perform like it was an easton CNT bar. It like buying a subaru impreza and being pissed that it didn't perform like your friends STI.

You guys probably complain when one of these online discount retailers gives you bad service too.


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

*Hmm...*



rockcrusher said:


> Don't complain cause you spent $45 on a part that was made and shipped across the atlantic and then shipped to a distributer then shipped to pricepoint then marked up then sold to you. You accepted that it was a cheap price when you bought it but you expect it to perform like it was an easton CNT bar.


I bought it strictly because of its shape. I realized there was a bit of risk in the design and shape itself, but was willing to take the risk, given the evidence I had at the time. After a few rides, and some pretty serious flexing, I was beginning to wonder. That was right about the time JB came on and posted this thread, which confirmed my suspicion and sent me on the path to spend some more $$$ on a better bar. I've done that. (BTW, I would suspect there is a reason Easton doesn't make a bar this shape, right?)

I wouldn't mind Brant defending his product. He could give us the test specs used to qualify the bar, and help us understand and analyze how this one broke. He wasn't defending his product, he was (imho) worried about liability and defending his company. To me, that is a bit Chickensh*t, so I have decided for myself not to purchase any more of his product (vote with my $$$).

As to the rest of it, well, this is just one guys opinion...and as you know, those are like *ssholes; everybody has one!


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

sean salach said:


> that particular post that you quoted wasn't directed to or in reference to you specifically. it was intended entirely to be humorous. humorous the adjective, not the noun.
> 
> i still think he was right to come on here and defend himself. slander or no, you did say in that one quoted email to forget the warranty. it's obviously some miscommunication between the two of you, and probably doesn't belong on a public forum for further missinterpretation, but you are the one who brought it here.


Sean,
The reason why I wanted to forget the warranty because in MY opinion, the Mary bar isn't strong enough for MY riding style and that a replacement bar MIGHT fail in exactly the same way.

I told Brant to look at the closeup pictures and see that the break occurred not at any "scoring" point and that it failed next to it, 2mm away. In my opinion I think the flexiness of the bar PROBABLY contributed to the failure. The stem might have been incompatible, or the bar may have been out of round.

The bar came from Pricepoint in a plain bag with no instruction or specifications as to how to install it properly.

In twenty years of mountain biking (I'm 48 y.o.) I've had all sorts of parts and things break; toptubes, chainstays, hubs, rims, saddles, seatposts, STEMS and nearly evertime I take the part back to have it warrantied, I'm told that I've either worn out the part or something else caused it. I'll accept wearing out the part if I have a certain amount of miles on it and let it go. But if the part is fairly new, I get skeptical and wonder about the manufacturing process of the item.

I'm trying to state my case clearly, but this whole thread is becoming silly and I'm an NOT trying to slander the company because my handlebar broke.


----------



## DiDaDunlop (Oct 22, 2005)

Okay.

I would like to know about others who have broken Mary?

All I know it that the OP broke his bar and in the nine pages after that fact therés a lot of talk about "all those broken Mary's". 

Hand's up everybody who has broken or can give me the direct email of a guy/gal who has broken one. 

Also everybody that has broken any bar of can give the e-mail of a guy/gal he knows that has broken any bar hand's up and also give the type of bar broken. 

I doubt that Mary will be any percentage more than the rest. 

Wide bars put more stress on the stem/bar interface (basic fysics). So if there's a slight imperfection at that interface it will pose a bigger threat. One clamp that is not completely tight (altough the torquekey says they are all the same a piece of sand inside the bolt/stem contact area can screw up the reading), piece of sand between stem/bar, ovalised stem (manufacturer error). 

There's a lot of Mary bashing here while every broken bar that is posted is broken on the stem/bar interface. That has nothing to do with mary but with the way bars are connected to the frame. Motorcycles use two wide clamps. Maybe an idea for a foolproof stem?

Brant's reaction was indeed a bit to "business like" but how can you defend yourself after that amount of crap in the previous 6 pages? The OP shoud have contacted the manufacturer before posting here and if the manufacturer was an arse he could complain or give praise when quick action was taken. Brant alone cannot undo what others have messed up.


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

rockcrusher said:


> So you never change your tires then do you and when you finally cut a tread on your bald tires you expect the tire company to give you a free tire? Things happen unexpectedly, hence dangerous.
> 
> or spend more. Have Jeff jones bend you a custom one. Don't complain cause you spent $45 on a part that was made and shipped across the atlantic and then shipped to a distributer then shipped to pricepoint then marked up then sold to you. You accepted that it was a cheap price when you bought it but you expect it to perform like it was an easton CNT bar. It like buying a subaru impreza and being pissed that it didn't perform like your friends STI.
> 
> You guys probably complain when one of these online discount retailers gives you bad service too.


tires show pretty clearly when they are worn out. unlike those mary handlebars. 
so everyone who wants to be safe should spend more and buy elsewhere...
is that what you are saying? 
[email protected] poor brant.

try to understand: no one is complaining cause the mary has no magical ability to absorb shock or does not look like jewellry. it broke. iwe should not accept a mountain bike handlebar breaking while climbing just because it does not cost $150...


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

DiDaDunlop said:


> Okay.
> 
> I would like to know about others who have broken Mary?
> 
> ...


there is no bashing... the amount of posts is due to some wanting to know why the bar broke while others saying it's perfectly normal due to it's cheap price.
there isn't a single post bashing on one.


----------



## 29Colossus (Jun 4, 2006)

colker1 said:


> here is to you:
> BRAAAAAAAPPP..
> 
> got it?


Sure do. I ride a AFCR500 in Grand Junction, CO several times a week 8 months out of the year so I certainly, "got it".

2 Stroke rulz your azz.

Do Pro Tapers brake or break?


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

I personally believe that On One Mary bars are JUST FINE. Buy one, and ride it. Get a black one and if it gets any sort of silver on it, replace the thing.


----------



## gticlay (Dec 13, 2007)

If On One would like me to put one on my bike to test it for them (I'm 220lbs) I will do so.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

cokler1 said:


> tires show pretty clearly when they are worn out. unlike those mary handlebars.
> so everyone who wants to be safe should spend more and buy elsewhere...
> is that what you are saying?
> [email protected] poor brant.
> ...


yeah I understand and I have mary's and love them or loved them...dammit.


----------



## Velobike (Jun 23, 2007)

I think it's fair to give a warning on the forum immediately something like this breaks - it could have very serious consequences.

On-One are an honourable company - I have had several dealings with them and they are always quick to do the right thing, so let's not slag them off. 

Part of the problem is that mountain biking has several disciplines and parts intended for one use may not be suited to another. There's a huge difference in the requirements for a downhill bar and an XC, and sometimes it is hard to tell where the boundaries should be.

Almost every part on a mountainbike is a consumable. Strong, light, cheap - pick any 2 (an old but very true cliche)
If you are big heavy and strong you shouldn't be using aluminium alloy products that flex!


----------



## colker1 (Jan 6, 2004)

29Colossus said:


> Sure do. I ride a AFCR500 in Grand Junction, CO several times a week 8 months out of the year so I certainly, "got it".
> 
> 2 Stroke rulz your azz.
> 
> Do Pro Tapers brake or break?


you rock!


----------



## brant (Jan 6, 2004)

johnnyb said:


> Brant did mention he was looking into a steel version of the Mary bar.


Now in stock.


----------



## Doggity (Mar 27, 2007)

jgsatl said:


> maybe a nice cromo bar with similar bends might be the ticket.


Word! I've got a nice, heat treated aluminum Nitto Dove bar on my RM Blizzard. Maybe I oughta switch it out for the chromoly *steel *Albatross bar, of the same persuasion. On a side note, never had any probs with the 31.8mm Ritchey Rizer that came on my original Monocog.


----------



## anthony.delorenzo (Aug 17, 2006)

*Steel Mary*



[email protected] said:


> Now in stock.


Sweet, I just grabbed two! Site said there were only 4 left so if anyone else wants one, act fast...


----------



## momentum... (Dec 14, 2007)

Well on-one have made some cro-mo Marys now (although they've already sold out so there must be a bunch of heavy people who wanted them) http://www.on-one-shop.co.uk/?p=807


----------



## dgaddis1 (Jul 1, 2007)

jh4rt said:


> "I am going to disagree with some of the posts here in that Chromoly will fail the same way as aluminum. Properly treated tubular steel, without a significant stress riser, will most often deform before failure. It is easy to see the deformation. With a stress riser (stem / overtightening), steel will shear from impact or extreme stress. But... much less likely. Steel does not work-harden.


You're a bit off here...

Steel does work harden. And a bit on work hardening: it happens when a material is stressed beyond it's yeild point (yeild point is where a material flexes and then does not return to it's original shape). Now, another thing to take note off, we're talking about fatigue here, so it's all happening on a microscopic level.

Basically, your bars aren't smooth on a microscopic level; there's cracks, pits, ect. These cause stress risers. So, when you pull on the bars the stress at these points is very high (even though the stress across the entire cross section of the bar is small - remember, we're talking about stuff you can't see here). So, these stress risers are stressed beyond yield; so the material work hardens and becomes harder and more brittle.

This is where the difference in aluminum and steel is important, and it's all about ductility and failure modes. Steel is more ductile than aluminum; you can bend a steel rod more than an aluminum one w/o causing permanent deflection. Steel = ductile, Aluminum = brittle. When steel fails it will typically yeild, or bend, first. Aluminum however, once stressed beyond yeild will usually have catostrophic failure (aka snaping in two). So, back to our microscopic stress risers; in an aluminum bar, these hardened areas will typically crack, or, let an already present crack continue to grow. You eventually get enough of these microscopic cracks, and well, see the picture posted by the OP!

Crack's don't grow as easily in steel as in aluminum because steel is more ductile, so steel has a longer fatigue life.

Also, some of you might find this interesting...

A friend of mine back in college recieved a grant to research on fatiuge in aluminum samples, to see how surface finish affects fatigue life. He compared cold rolled (no surface prep) vs. anodized vs. polished.

The cold rolled and anodized samples had basically the same life; the polished samples on the other hand, had about a 20% higher fatigue life! The reason being, polishing the samples removed some of the microscopic cracks and pits I mentioned earlier.

Sorry for such a long post...but I did a lot fatigue analysis stuff in college, so I like to spread what I learned!


----------



## jh4rt (Sep 5, 2007)

dgaddis1 said:


> You're a bit off here...
> 
> Steel does work harden. And a bit on work hardening: it happens when a material is stressed beyond it's yeild point (yeild point is where a material flexes and then does not return to it's original shape). Now, another thing to take note off, we're talking about fatigue here, so it's all happening on a microscopic level.
> 
> ...


We are in violent agreement; I over simplified. The same type of result (as polishing aluminum) can be achieved in some alloys through bead-blasting or other surface-unification techniques.

Meanwhile, I'd be interested in giving On-One another go if Brandt would be willing to give me something in trade on a Chromoly Mary for my Aluminum Mary. Right now it is just sitting in my garage gathering dust.


----------



## elrancho66 (May 31, 2007)

*Latest update for On One bars*



johnnyb said:


> Just wanting to show all the Mary bar enthusiasts what can happen when you are JRA.
> 
> I'm posting this here because of all the rave reviews of the Mary bar and singlespeeding. I have been using the Mary bar much to my enjoyment on my single speed for about six months and transferred it over to my 1X9 because of an ankle sprain for the past few months and it failed by snapping off at the stem on a downhill section, I had just a second to tap the front brake and grabbed a tree limb to keep me from pitching over the edge of a nice singletrack. No scrapes, no pain except in the wallet since I'm going to a new downhill-type bar (31.8mm). Any suggestions for a strong bar?
> 
> The stem was torqued to spec, so it probably was due to fatigue from pulling on it when climbing. Only 1,000 miles on it so I'm now suspicious with all the fancy tube bending. The bar is kind of flexy so this is the result. So if you're a big guy and kind of strong and riding with Mary, you better check it! I've got a Titec Jones bar on the SS now and its giving me the hee-be jee-bees now. :eekster:


I have a set of On One Mungos and Midge bars that are brand new and had planned on mounting them to a SS mt bike and a townie urban bike. I had a pair of Mary's mounted one of my SS's for about 2 months and then swapped them out for a Groovy Luv Handle,,,,,,,,,what's the latest on the breakage issues for the Mary? Any riders also have issues with the Mungo and the Midge bars breaking? I'm not concerned as much with the bars on a my townie bike, although this bike will be a SS and it's hilly in these parts. But I am worried about using the On Ones out on the trails if more cases of broken Mary's are still being reported. I believe all three of these bars are made from the same material. Should i be concerned? thanks:thumbsup:


----------



## mdb1974 (Dec 12, 2007)

*Probably on here somewhere already*

But I did not see it...they come in steel as well

http://www.on-one-shop.co.uk/acatalog/Online_Catalogue_Mountainbike_378.html


----------



## larryo108 (Nov 17, 2008)

goldencalf said:


> [/SIZE][/B]
> 
> I'm with ya on that, I was using these aznoic bars until the obvious. It was a sudden failure in a climb (i was pulling hard i guess). When it broke the good side was pulled towards my person, which resulted in the front end coming down into the face of said climb with the wheel turned 90 degrees perpendicular to the frame. So i bought bars and a hoop that day. I went from that to the Surly torsion bar, and I feel much MUCH safer.


Ooooof. I did not want to see that one. I have that exact bar on it's way to me. I will have to be careful with it, if I even throw it on at all. Damn.


----------



## johnnyb (Jan 21, 2004)

elrancho66 said:


> I have a set of On One Mungos and Midge bars that are brand new and had planned on mounting them to a SS mt bike and a townie urban bike. I had a pair of Mary's mounted one of my SS's for about 2 months and then swapped them out for a Groovy Luv Handle,,,,,,,,,what's the latest on the breakage issues for the Mary? Any riders also have issues with the Mungo and the Midge bars breaking? I'm not concerned as much with the bars on a my townie bike, although this bike will be a SS and it's hilly in these parts. But I am worried about using the On Ones out on the trails if more cases of broken Mary's are still being reported. I believe all three of these bars are made from the same material. Should i be concerned? thanks:thumbsup:


'rancho,

I bought the Mary for all the good reasons; ergonomics and style. I never thought they would break even when I could actually see and feel flex, but after a lot of reflection of what happened and comparing them with my steel moustache bars, here are my two comments/impressions.

First, if a handlebar flexes and its aluminum that isn't good. Period. I have 8 bikes with all different types of handlebars. I have the Titec H and J bars both are aluminum and the J bar (25.7) doesn't flex nearly as much as the Mary did. The H bar (31.8) doesn't flex. I have a steel moustache bar (25.7) and it doesn't flex. I have aluminum straight and downhill bars. I have drop bars on my road bike. None have snapped over the many years of riding all these bikes.

Secondly, the bend of the Mary is so close to the stem that I feel it causes a "lever" effect enhancing the flexing which probably caused this failure. The steel moustache bar's bend is almost an inch farther away from the stem.

If your Mungo or Midge flexes noticeably I would think about the causes and what the result might be.

I haven't heard or read about anymore breakage issues recently and I know there are a lot of happy owners out there. I could have had a bad one. Don't know, don't care, I've moved on and really like my Titecs on my singlespeeds. The Groovy is my next bar on the list to buy. I still get out on the road and trail for 125 miles or so a week.


----------



## nuck_chorris (Jun 6, 2008)

i think the problem was those gears you got there


----------



## maxtheheathen (Feb 27, 2007)

Hmm, my Origin8 bars are a little scored from the stem,

Can't decide, steel mary bars, or another cheap aluminum bar with a plastic shim to a 31.8 stem.

edit: I think for the time being I'll fill the center section of the bar with an epoxy glass mix. should stiffen things up and make the failure mode safer.


----------



## Tubedriver (Sep 19, 2008)

I have a Mary bar on both my bikes (SS and a 1x9). Love em, they are great. No issues so far either. But all this talk of breaking is making me wonder? I ride on the east coast and although I am a light weight, more of a finesse than smash through it type of rider (don't usually break things), a broken bar on...lets say a 2' drop off surrounded by rocks would not be fun.


Is there a vender in the US that sells the cromo version?


----------



## jmadams13 (Sep 28, 2008)

Here is the bar and stem on my DH/DS/DJ rig. Very strong, and not a ounce of flex


----------

