Yup…each country / region has their own standards for how to handle issues like this…this affects a number of things, including what it is called, how claims are handled and even the timing of announcement sometimes.
- Because it is actually 2 separate pieces of formed aluminum that are bonded (glued) together. The bonded joint can fail leading to separation and total failure if not caught soon enough.
From 2017 - 2020 I went through 3 sets of Ultegra cranksets ( I have pictures for two of them).
I sweat heavily, and I’m sure the corrosion got into the crank to have this failure, so I’m glad Shimano is owning up to this issue.
I will say my LBS was great in dealing with this and I never had to pay for a replacement. I do recommend riders that sweat profusely running Shimano cranks, have the inspection done, or do it yourself.
Not directly related to the Shimano crank recall, but the new episode of Geek Warning talks about some other product recalls, and a bit about recalls in general, including a bit about regional differences.
Thank you for bringing data to this discussion. 
So funny…I honestly don’t remember that recall and I definitely would have spec’d some of the cranks in question. Then again, it was a few years ago, and lord knows my memory ain’t what it once was, so…
Looks like updated recall as of today covers more models and is up to 2.8 million cranksets
https://www.bikeradar.com/features/opinion/shimano-crankset-recall-analysis/
I don’t think it is more models, but just including the EU now…hence the increased number affected cranks.
I guess next week’s episode will be called ‘But wait, there’s even more recalls…’
I had a catastrophic failure of a Campagnolo Gran Sport crankset back in the day (80’s) that resulted in a bad crash (was sprinting, ouch). I’m getting my Ultegra cranks inspected.
To clear the air regarding recalls in the US, a recall is an official recognition of a defect. At the time of sorting the recall the mandatory might not even have a remedy, but will warn the customers about the defect, who may be affected and how. Sometimes they tell you not to use the product until it has been remedied. The remedy does not have to include replacement of the defective parts.
The remedy might only be to reimburse anyone that had to replace the defective part (I had this on a water pump defect on my car). The remedy could be to have a dealer inspect and repair only parts that show symptoms. It could be to replace the part or to destroy the product and refund the consumer. Most consumer products use that last option because it’s the simplest and cheapest for lower cost products.
Regarding failure rates, most people are overlooking inherent flaws in the data. All warranty data is incomplete.
*Some people will experience the failure and never report it to CPSC nor Shimano.
*Some people have owned the product longer than others: time factor
*Some people will use the product more often per unit of time: mileage factor
*Some people will use it more severely than others: severity factor
*Some products will take more or less time to fail due to different strength due to part-to-part variation: quality factor
So the 0.59% failure rate stated is only for complaints recorded in the system, only for customers that knew about and used the system, only customers that used the product long/severe enough to experience and observe the failure so far.
There’s going to be many, many more defective parts found. And more injuries reported as people realize this is a known issue and decide to contact a lawyer.
Speaking as a consumer, having a 1 in 20 chance of failure for a part that has an impact on safety is completely unacceptable to me. Unfortunately, too many manufacturers in any given industry don’t feel the same way.
Your math is off.
- 1 / 20 = 0.5 = 5%
The numbers above are discussing 0.5% which I believe comes from the reported failures vs production marked as potentially bad:
4,500 / 760,000 = 0.005 = 0.5%
And thats more like 1 / 169, I think.
Someone make sure I have that right.
Sorry, yes. Make that one in 200. Still not great, because honestly I would expect that parts like cranks, handlebars, steerers, forks, etc. do not self disintegrate in all but the rarest cases.
Why is anybody defending Shimano in this?
It’s blatantly obvious they were aware it was a significant issue. This was just math. Money vs accident risk, recall cost etc.
Their hand was forced.
What if you were one of the riders that ended up in hospital? Actually think about it. Imagine it. You’re in hospital with broken bones because your cranks exploded in a sprint. Ridiculous.
Perspective.
Who is defending Shimano?
Nice…
I have 2 bikes that have had the cranks recalled then. One has Stages L/R too. People will luck out as the factory install option is currently $530 (US). That crankset looks contagious, and apparently IS! A couple of years of sweat and yuck…
(Can we just pocket the rebate for the power meter? Maybe I can sell the new crankset and get a Quark, etc)
I don’t have a shimano crankset, so apologies for the stupid question: can you not re-use the existing left-side crank (4iiii/stages)? It’s the spindel that is faulty, right? Or have they changed the interface?
Does anyone know why Shimano‘s mountain bike cranks are not part of the recall? AFAIK they use the same Hollowtech II construction.