Kudos to Cervelo to initiating the recall. I have beat the living daylights out of my SL fork and have not had any issues whatsoever, 1 out of 500 is not bad and any breaks could have indeed been caused by installation error. But i'll take the new 3T just to be safe. 

if you're whining about it just sell your bike on ebay (it will sell FAST) & buy a Trek.

maxz:

Cycleboy, companies do "upgrades" just to avoid getting FDA or similar bodies up their a** (I do work for a company developing heart surgery device) As for "volunteered recall" equals to "good customer service", I don't agree. Companies do "volunteered recalls" because they have to. If they don't do them, they're gonna run into deeper problems. It's simple risk mitigation. However, I'm worried by the time frame between the first user reports and the action now beeing taken. If you search the forum, threads about Wolf SL failure appeared a long time ago. Apparently, Cervelo discovered the problem and tried to solve the issue with the insert. All in all, it's sad that Cervelo is affected by a product which they do not produce. But it's taken a long time to solve the issue. I'm not really impressed.

I know what you mean, but in my experience it usually is still a marketing/customer service decision whether to make it a recall or not.  I've seen cases where the governing bodies like the FDA are given the same information whether it is a recall or "upgrade program" - problem description, root cause, danger to the customer, and mitigation steps.  Maybe if it is a recall, they get different paperwork with a giant "R" at the top, I don't know, but the information is still the same.  The decision not to call it a recall comes from marketing not wanting to lose sales because the company is remembered as the one that had the recall for the (insert issue here).  The first question the sales reps will get when they show the new product will be, "Is this going to have issue X like the other product did?" 

Did anyone notice the note on the CPSC recall notice that showed the affected forks where sold (not manufactured) from Nov 05 to July 07....I got my bike/fork in Nov 07, and it had the 125mm insert preglued.  I guess I wonder if this problem is associated with the 80mm inserts only.

I really love the Wolf SL fork....but, I like the 3T Funda also....with insert & star nut my Wolf SL weighed 371....I'm as big a WW as anyone, but I have ridden the Easton SLX fork and it is a huge noodle.  Forks are not a place you want to get super light, as it will completely ruin the ride....a stiff bike like the R3SL needs a stiff, sharp handling fork.  I was disappointed to see Cervelo ship bikes with the Easton fork during the transition, but I guess they had to do something...but, I think the 3T Funda forks like good...you can tell the fork blade profile is very similiar to the Wolf SL, except the fork is closer to the wheel at the top...you can tell they took their Wolf SL design, and said "let's make it evern more aero"...so, I say good job to that....I think a 371G fork, including a starnut & aluminum insert, is light enough...remember, those nice FSA headset compression devices are about 50g...that goes away, and you only need a bolt and top cap with a starnut equipped fork....I believe the 3T pro funda is about that same weight.

 I'll take the 3T fork anyday, as I'm quite certain it's made to Cervelo's specs...a nice bike should have a fork designed for the bike...not a generic fork.

My 3T is only 8 grams heavier than th SL I had. And much better !  :)

 This was pulled from another forum and authored by Gerard.  I wouldnt be suprised if he responds the same way in this thread at some point.  The general gist of it is that the United States process of issuing a recall is very time consuming, especially if the manufacturer (True Temper) does not assist in the recall.  I believe this is the best summary of the situation available:

1) The structural fork design and the manufacturing is done by TrueTemper Sports, not by us.
2) We flagged the issue, they did not consider it a problem.
3) We disagreed, and went to work to do something about it as soon as possible. Unfortunately, within CPSC rules, that's not very fast. And ignoring the CPSC rules is just not an option, it won't get anything accomplished in the end either.
4) To recall a product, you have to show the CPSC that the replacement doesn't have the same issue. With the manufacturer True Temper saying the current fork has no issue, this is a big problem. So Cervelo was forced to figure out what the problem was on a fork we did not design, and we did not even get the lay-up schedules as True Temper considered them proprietary. Then we had to replicate that failure in the lab, then proof a replacement fork would not have the same problem.
5) This is a tall order if you are the fork designer and maker, it becomes doubly difficult if you are not, and if you don't get support from the fork maker because they don't see a problem.
6) We did this as fast as we could, as our priority was to get this recall started, but unfortunately the laws in the US are such that you have to jump through these hoops first before you can do anything, and you also can't really do a recall elsewhere before that.
7) Once there is a problem, the CPSC rules kick in. If you don't like the fact that something takes a long time, or that a company (Cervelo) is not allowed to say anything about a product (a True Temper fork) from another manufacturer, I fully understand that. This upsets me to no end as well, but those are the laws. My wife, my brother and I (on one of my two bikes) still ride on a Wolf SL fork to this day as well, so I know how people feel. Those are the rules, I honestly suggest you contact your lawmakers and get these rules changed.

Finally, just like you I am disappointed. I am mostly disappointed about two things. First, that things can't go faster under the rules, and second that after we specifically chose a US company for these forks because we thought they would have the same views as us, we found that they could not be convinced to see a problem where we felt there was one. But I am also proud of two things. First of all of our engineers who were able to replicate this issue in the lab so we could finally commence the recall, as this was like finding a needle in a hay stack. So for them to figure out under what circumstances exactly this occurs (not straightforward at all) was amazing. And I am proud that we are doing a multi-million dollar recall on something that is really firstly somebody else's responsiblity. I'm proud that Phil agreed immediately without blinking when I suggested that if TrueTemper didn't want to do the recall, we should.

That's just my 2 cents,
Gerard
Cervélo SA

Props to cervelo for stepping up to the plate when their supplier wouldn't. I highly commend the owners for looking after customer safety rather than the bottom line. What many other companies don't realize is that this wins customer loyalty and repeat business, and it's the right thing to do....this is yet another reason for me to continue to buy cervelo bikes - why would I even shop another brand when they have arguably the best product line up in the business, and their customer value is second to none.

And for all of you who "knew" this fork would fail....try designing & engineering something sometime, it's easy to be a critic, not so easy to push the limits and be on the cutting edge of engineering - especially when it comes to composites. Any good engineering group will strive to replicate real-world testing but it's not always possible to consider all failure modes, the real world is an extrememly varied environment!

Well, like I said, I think this decision will win further loyalty among existing customers, and likely win over some new customers when they read how supportive this company is of their products. I know I had a warranty issue with a certain Japanese car company that is supposedly known for leading the industry in quality - they did not honor their warranty and I'm now driving their competitor's vehicle and I won't ever go back!

Good move guys!

cycleboy:

Working for a manufacturing company, the negative comments so far in this thread are exactly why companies will do almost anything to avoid using the "R' word.  The company does what they think is the right thing, and people tear them a new one.  Cervelo isn't the manufacturer of the fork, yet they volunteered to do the recall - that's good customer service.  I think they probably didn't even weigh the cost versus the lawsuits (those are unlikely to be many and probably unlikely to succeed) but rather the cost in dollars and people's complaining about the recall versus the cost in losing face by having a failed part associated with the brand.

My company makes products used in surgery and I know we do anything we can to avoid recalls - included painting them as voluntary "upgrades".  That doesn't say our products are dangerous - they are not and are considered the highest quality and technology in the marketplace.  It does say every manufacturing company runs across quality issues and rare is the one with the sack to volunteer to do a recall, especially of a supplier's part.

I'm not affected, but kudos to Cervelo for going through with it.

To the guy complaining about 61 grams, your 20 oz. water bottle weighs 591.61875 grams at 4 degrees C.  Fill it to 18 oz. and there's your 61 gram

No one can be perfect, no company can be perfect, but at least this company has the nuts to say so and support a product recall...and in that regard for those who are complaining about the extra weight of the replacement fork - is your physique that dialed that you couldn't possibly lose another 61 grams of bodyfat? I like light parts as much as the next guy, but come on, put it in perspective, it's 61 grams. Would you rather take the risk of crashing for 61 grams? Look at Cancellara's crankset next time you're worried about weight. He's a pro, could pick any ultralight crank he wanted within sponsors prodcut lines and he's running a FSA's lower-end heavier crank - does he care about 61 grams? Doesn't seem like it.

For those who are ripping this company for stepping up to the plate, just be happy your product is being supported - and all of us on this thread can only speculate on the motivation for the recall, we wouldn't know the real reason unless we worked their and were with Phil and Gerard when they discussed this - so stop speculating already, you're guessing!

The end result is that they are replacing a defective product - something their supplier is not doing...and the customer is taken care of so who cares if they did it for litigation or moral reasons - all owners of the SL fork will soon be riding a safe replacement at no cost to them.

 +1

Great job Cervelo in taking the bull by the horns, figuring out the solution and doing the right thing. 

 They just keep earnign my business.

I agree, every thing in Gerards post and his attitude in general sums up why i will continue to buy Cervélo,

Allen.

Rouleur:

maxz:

Also, I'd like to see what the company developing and producing the Wolf SL has to say about this issue... Bad design, defective production, defective QA or un-intended use?

 

Without a doubt un-intended use. The the main reason the Wolf SL is being recalled is that there is too much of a risk of people installing it incorrectly, many of the accidents involving this fork have featured people using it with an inappropriate stack height with respect to insert length, over torquing the stem bolts or in one alarming case, using a start nut directly instead of the insert.

All Alpha Q forks use exactly the same steerer wall thickness and insert as the Wolf SL range. CSC rode these forks in Paris Roubaix and the TdF this year without failure. Perhaps it is the competence of their mechanics which makes the difference.

The real issue is not that the forks can't handle the loads we put on them but the fact that the original info in the owner's manual and the dealer trainning on how to install the forks was lacking from day one not to mention the supplied 80mm insert was to short for most setups. The addendum instructions on how to properly install the forks came out a year after the release of all the frames. Everyone here loves the SL fork for its performance and weight but if I had known how crucial it was to install the insert correctly I would have watched my LBS more carefully and avoided all this. I think Cervelo is doing a great service for all of us here and thats why I bought three of their frames. If my fork was installed correctly for my setup I would just keep my SL fork since its so good.

Thanks to the entire Cervelo organization for taking care of us on this, you guys kick A#$

maybe you will be notified by mail and or email.... posting to the web is obviuosly the fastest avenue.  you still might be notified 'officially'

Remeber... the fork meets 'industry standards", Cervelo did not feel this 'standard' was good enough.  You should all be happy they take this attitude.  like their ad states 'you would rather read an ad designed by engineers than a bike designed by the marketing team'.   i dont think other bike manufatures would be taking this same stance.  i stand by my R3 SL as the best bike ive ever ridden and the company.

Well, I would agree, good on Cervelo for taking this on by themselves.  It would interesting to know if any failures ocurred on forks that were properly installed either in the lab or of the 12 of 5,800 on the street.