Journal Du Wap

Cycling News & Race Results

CPSC Bicycle Regulation and U.S. and International Bicycle Standards

>>Vince Amodeo: Hi, I’m Vince
Amodeo, mechanical engineer at Consumer Product Safety Commission. Today I’m going to go over the CPSC bicycle
regulation and compare that to the U.S. and International Bicycle Standards. This is an overview of what we’re
going to be discussing today. Again that’s CPSC bicycle regulations, bicycle
voluntary standards, and I’m going to go over bicycle usage conditions and
a comparison of test requirements in CPSC bicycle regulation
compared to the voluntary standards. We’re going to then go over
a selected bicycle recalls. The CPSC bicycle regulation
is found at 16 CFR part 1512. This is the mandatory standard for
bicycles sold in the United States and it was originally codified in 1978. The purpose of the CPSC bicycle regulation is
to reduce the risk of injury from bicycles sold to consumers in the United States. All bicycles that are sold in the United States
must be certified to CPSC bicycle regulation. Certification of all bicycles designed or
intended primarily for children of 12 years of age or younger must be
based on testing conducted by a third party conformity assessment
body whose accreditation has been accepted by the CPSC. Since 1978 when the CPSC bicycle
regulation was first established, there has only been minor changes. The CPSC bicycle regulation does not
address bicycle usage conditions. Bicycle usage conditions are usage based
on intended terrain and type of riding. It does also not address technical
improvement in bicycle design since 1978. This includes disk brakes, electric motor
assist, integrated shift brake levers. It also does not address use of modern
materials such as composite fiber. The CPSC bicycle regulation set
basic requirements for mechanical and safety systems found on all
bicycles regardless of intended use. It does include specific requirements
for sidewalk bicycles which are bicycles with a maximum saddle height
of less than 635 millimeters. It also includes requirements for two or three
wheeled bicycles with electric assist motors that are less than 750 watts, 1 horsepower,
with functioning pedals and a maximum speed of 20 miles per hour when
operated solely on electric power. Here’s an overview of the requirements that
are in the CPSC bicycle regulation part 1512. It includes all the major systems for bicycles. There are other organizations
that have bicycle standards. These are U.S. organizations and
international organizations such as ISO and CEN. ASTM is the major U.S. standards
organization body that has bicycle standards. ASTM F2043-13 is the standard
classification for bicycle usage. This defines usage conditions
for design of bicycles. It includes graphical icons for placement
on bicycles, aftermarket components, and instructional material to provide
retailers and consumers with an indication of the intended usage condition of
bicycles or after market components. ASTM F2043-13 defines six usage
conditions that I will be going over. There are other usage conditions as BMX, young
adult, and electrically powered assisted cycles. There are quite a few of ASTM bicycle standards. There are several general standards
such as the one I had just mentioned. Standard classification for bicycle usage. There’s also standards for manually operated
front wheel retention systems for bicycles. Standard bicycle serial numbers. Standard specification for bicycle grips. There are several standards for bicycle forks. There is a test method and there
are also test specifications. The difference is the test method
goes over the procedure for the test. The test specifications going over the
requirements for that specific use condition. F2273 sets the test methods for bicycle forks. Similarly with frames for bicycles,
there’s a test method, F2711-08, and there are several standard specifications
for various conditions for bicycle frames. The European Bicycle Community has a few
bicycle standards established under CEN. These are EN 15194 for electric powered
assisted cycles and EN 16054 for BMX bicycles. ISO is the major International
Standards Organization for bicycles sold in Europe
and across the world. ISO 8098 covers cycles for young children which
are saddle heights less than 635 millimeters which is similar to ASTM Condition 0. ISO 4210 is a rather new and
expanded bicycle standard which goes into a lot more depth than the old 4210. I’m not going to cover what ASTM 2043 talks
about sets up for usage conditions for bicycles. Condition 0 is similar to sidewalk bicycles
which are intended for children age 3 and up under 80 pounds that are intended
to be used with parental supervision. This slide shows the icon that ASTM F2043
established for use on Condition 0 bicycles. Generally, this icon will be shown on
user’s manuals for children’s bicycles. It can also be included as a sticker
that is placed on the bicycle so that you know the intended usage. Condition 1 is generally for road bikes,
also considered as racing bicycles. And this is the icon that ASTM 2043 has setup. Condition 1 bicycles are generally
used on paved surfaces and are intended to maintain contact with the ground. Condition 2 is for hybrid or gravel
type bicycles where it may lose contact with the ground on some occasion but
it is not intended for very high jumps. Condition 3 is generally for mountain bicycles
that can do jumps and drops of about 24 inches. Condition 4 is for downhill bicycles and
bicycles intended to be used on rough trails where you may encounter jumps
of up to four feet. Condition 5 is for very extreme
mountain bicycles and downhill grades of over 40 kilometers per
hour with extreme jumping. EN 16054 also has a standard
for BMX type bicycles but there’s no icons associated with this. And they also have 4210 for
young adult bicycles. EN 15194 has requirements for
electric power assisted bicycles. I’m going to now talk about
a little bit of a comparison between bicycle standard requirements. Again, the CPSC bicycle regulation 16 CFR
1512 is mandatory requirements for bicycles, sidewalk bicycles, and electric
bicycles but it does not set requirements for various use conditions for bicycles. Again these are the minimum test requirements that all bicycles sold in
the United States must meet. ASTM, CEN, and ISO has a
voluntary bicycle standards. And these are generally set on
— based on bicycle components. And they also established the requirements
based on intended usage for the bicycle. These requirements established in in ASTM and
the CEN and the ISO may be more appropriate than CPSC general test requirements
to ensure that the bicycles and bicycle components meet
the demands of the user. I’m going to go — cover a couple of examples
of the differences between CPSC’s regulation and the International or voluntary regulations. Here’s an example of CPSC’s test
requirement for handlebar strength. The CPSC test requirement is 2,000 Newtons
or 450 pounds for bicycles and 1,000 Newtons and 225 pounds for sidewalk bicycles. In comparison, EN and ISO establish
requirements based on usage conditions that may be different than
what CPSC requirements are. For example, for use Condition 1,
CPSC requirement is 2000 Newtons and 450 pounds regardless of use condition
whereas ISO establishes different test requirements for different usage
conditions which can range from 500 Newtons for use condition 0 to 1600 Newtons or
higher based on the usage condition. Example two is a test requirement
for fork bending fatigue. We can see that CPSC does not have a requirement for fork bending fatigue whereas International
Voluntary Standards do have a fork bending fatigue test. This table shows that CPSC does not have a
requirement for fork bending fatigue while ASTM, EN, and ISO have various test
requirements for fork bending fatigue. So as you can see if you’re designing a
fork, it may be appropriate to use an ASTM or ISO test requirement to make sure that your
bicycle meets the intended usage condition. Example three is fork and frame
assembly test requirements. CPSC’s test requires that the fork and frame
assembly be tested for strength by application of a load of 890 Newtons or at least
39.5 joules of energy whichever results in the greater force, in
accordance with the frame test. The fork and frame assembly static load
test is only done for CPSC requirements. ASTM, CEN, and ISO have fork and frame assembly
horizontal loading fatigue test and fork and frame assembly falling
mass impact test requirements that CPSC’s testing does not require. This table shows the fork and frame assembly
horizontal fatigue test requirements. Again you can see here that CPSC does not have
this test but if you’re designing a bicycle for sale in the U.S. or anywhere in the
world, you should considered using ASTM, EN, or ISO test requirements to design
your bicycle, forks, and frames. The following table has a list of
bicycle recalls conducted by CPSC and manufacturers from 2012 to 2017. Again, you can see some of the components that
have shown up as — in CPSC bicycle recalls. For example, CPSC recall 17-140
in April of 2017 was a stem that had been recalled for clamp bolts breaking. Various other recalls are for disk
brakes, forks, shocks, wheels, seat posts. We’ve also seen frames fail. Typically these are carbon fiber frames
that may not have been designed adequately. Bicycle recalls are one of
the most common CPSC recalls. There has been some bicycle recalls for
battery issues such as 15-124 in April of 2015. In this case, a battery was
recalled for overheating. Again, CPSC does not have
any requirements itself. You should consider using an international
standard for bicycle batteries. We’re looking at various recalls. Again going back to 2012. And as you can see, there has been quite a few. Pedals are one of the components that
we’ve seen a lot of issues with recalls. Just to wrap up what we’ve been talking about. We’ve covered the CPSC bicycle
test requirements and International and U.S. Voluntary Standard requirements. And as you can see, there’s
several differences in how — what CPSC requires for sale
and what voluntary standards and international standards require for testing. In many cases, those differences
may mean that a bicycle may fail under its intended use condition
if it’s not designed appropriately. So you should seriously look at
whether just designing your bike to meet CPSC requirements will be enough. Perhaps you can consider using an ASTM or
ISO test requirement to design your bicycle to make sure that it meets
the intended usage condition. Thank you and now I’d like to present
Caroleen Paul who will give a talk on CPSC bicycle instant data and case studies.>>Caroleen Paul: Thank you. As Vince mentioned, my name is Caroleen Paul
and I am a mechanical engineer here at the CPSC. This presentation will talk about how
CPSC gathers data on bicycle accidents and give examples of a few of
case studies of actual incidence. CPSC gathers information on bicycle
accidents by two main methods. The first is the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System also known as NEISS. And the second are in-depth investigations
conducted by our own investigators. NEISS collects injury data from emergency
departments across the United States. About 100 hospitals participate and
they code actual incidents that come into the emergency department
with a specific product code. For example, the product code for
bicycles and accessories is 5040. And the product code for
mountain bicycles is 5033. Now from this information, these
hospitals are specifically chosen to be a national probability sample. So that this data when it comes to us we can
then use it to calculate national estimates for how many instances occurred
across the United States. We also get information of bicycle accidents
that are reported to us and then we send out our investigators to
ask the victims questions. The investigator then writes up a detailed
report called an in-depth investigation incident report. Now IDIs provide very good specific
information on the incident that occurred but they cannot be used to
make national estimates. So between these two, we get ideas
of what’s happening nationally and then we also get specific
information on what actually occurred. We also have a report from our epidemology — epi department on bicycle injury seen in
hospital emergency departments in 2013. Now this report goes over
how many injuries there were. For instance, in 2013, there were
531,000 injuries associated with bicycles and accessories seen in emergency departments. Over 90% of these resulted from the
person riding the bicycle and more than half were described as falls from the bike. In terms of in-depth investigations, they
provide, like I said, detailed information on incidents and there were 302 IDIs
from January 2007 to January 2017. There are many components
to a bicycle and any one of these can fail to cause a bicycle incident. For example, the top component failures based on
the IDIs that we’ve investigated include pedals, wheels, the frame of the bicycle, forks,
brakes and that includes everything in the brake system, stems,
crank arms, and handlebars. As I mentioned before the IDIs provide specific
information on the bicycle incidents and many of the same descriptions
come up in the investigations with the likely failure type of the bicycle. These type descriptions include words
like something detached or loosened. And the likely failure type associated with that
is usually something related to the assembly of the bicycle or the maintenance
of the bicycle. Now others include descriptions
such as something cracked, came apart, deformed, or fractured. And the likely failure type there is structural. And this is very important to us because a structural failure is usually
related to the design of the bicycle. And this is important because
that’s usually something that can be addressed through
voluntary standards. And then an overall malfunctioned. That comes up quite often and
that’s an unknown failure type. So in terms of bicycle, you know,
incidents that involve pedal failures, here are some actual IDIs that were conducted. And one IDI 050211CCC1472, this is a number that
allows us to reference the actual investigation. We can go back and look at
what the investigator found. In this case, it was a 25-year-old
female who flipped over the handlebars because
her left pedal detached. And you know these — this
was serious enough for her to be taken to the hospital via ambulance. Another IDI 090521CNE4429 involved a
19-year-old male where the right clipless pedal of his bicycle — now this was a race bike. So he was actually in a competition. And the pedal axle fractured. Again, this caused — you know this bit of
a catastrophic failure and the victim fell to the pavement with lacerations
and contusions to his right knee. We also have wheel related incidents. Here are two typical IDIs. One — both involve the front wheel
that separated from the suspension fork. One was a 16-year-old male. He was just riding his bike. I believe this one was first time use. He had just bought it from the store. And for reasons unknown, the
wheel just detached from the fork and the victim flew over the handlebars. The other one, same thing was 11-year-old male. He had been riding this bike for a while. He was riding over a speed bump and the
front wheel detached and wedged in the bike. And that caused the bike to stop suddenly
and the victim to flip over the handlebars. Next we have some frame related incidents. Now in these, these are two sample IDIs. I’m not going to repeat the numbers because
you can look them up but in both cases. In the first one, the aluminum
frame literally broke in half. An 8-year-old male was riding
this bicycle and he was thrown over the handlebar and onto a gravel driveway. And this other incident, it was a 20-year-old
male on a bicycle and this frame right at the head tube actually
fractured in half and again, thrown over the handlebar
and multiple lacerations. That particular IDI, the one that ends in 2105,
the bicycle actually was one that was recalled. Recall number 00-030. So sometimes, like I said before,
when you have a structural problem, it ends up usually being part of the design
and in this case, it can lead to recalls. These next IDIs have to do
with fork related incidents. In the first IDI, the fork came apart. As you could see in the picture, it
came apart pretty catastrophically. Twenty year old male was
riding the bicycle at the time. He was thrown over the handlebars. Hit the pavement. Had some serious injuries there. On the second IDI, the fork on the bike broke. And it was a 14-year-old
male, and actually, you know, his head and face struck the
pavement when this happened. And resulted in a broken jaw. These next IDIs relate to
the brakes on the bicycle. In the first one, the front wheel
locked up when applying the brakes. A 17-year-old female was riding
the bike at the time and — anything that locks up the wheel of a
bicycle, the bicycle stops suddenly. And in this case, she was thrown off
the bike onto a concrete picnic table and fractured both her arms and
was hospitalized for three days. And second IDI, a 25-year-old
male was riding the bicycle and he lost control attempting
to apply the brakes. And he ended up falling onto the pavement
with head lacerations and road rash. These next IDIs are related
to the stem of the bike. This is where the handlebars
attach and in the first IDI, a 13-year-old male was riding the
bicycle and the stem fractured. As you can see in the picture, that’s
again a pretty bad failure there. A material failure. And you know, you lose control of the
bicycle and this victim fell to the ground. Minor abrasions to the hands and arms. The second IDI — actually there are three here. The second one, the victim, a 52-year-old
male, was turning the handlebars and the wheel did not turn and if the
bike doesn’t respond, crashes can happen. And she severely fractured her leg. And the last one it was an 18-year-old
male riding a bicycle and the stem cracked. And fell to the pavement and with
the wrist and elbow fracture. Next we have a crankarm. These are the parts that pedals
attach to on your bicycle. So this is where you’re transferring
torque and power to the bicycle. And in this first IDI, 15-year-old male was
riding the bicycle and the crankarm fractured. Again, this is some type of material
failure and that caused the victim to fall and had head injury and a broken arm. The other IDI was a left crankarm fractured. Again some type of material failure and
a 35-year-old victim fell to the pavement and had abrasions and a laceration. And then we also now we have
handlebar related incidents. Now these are, again, actual
investigations of actual incidents. The first one was a 57-year-old
female was riding a handlebar and her handlebar just sudden collapsed. So you lose control of your bicycle since
you control your bicycle with the handlebars. And so that caused her to fall and she
needed surgery to treat a broken ankle. Another incident, an 11-year-old
male was riding a bicycle and again, his handlebars became loose. And lost control of the bicycle. Fell over and had injuries to the face. So those were all, you know,
just examples of actual IDIs. As I said earlier, we have, you know,
hundreds of them and next, we’re going to look at specific case studies of failures of —
specific failures and examples of, I think, what the manufacturers can do to correct that. Our first case here is we have a fork failure. And this particular product was
a road bike with a carbon fork. Again as Vince mentioned, this is a material
that’s not even covered in the CPSC regulations. This is all through voluntary
standards but you know, innovations in bicycle design are areas
where, you know, a lot of problems can arise. And in this case, it was a road bike
with a carbon fork and the issue was that the disk brake mount was fracturing. Now the corrective action to
rectify the material failure, the manufacturer redesigned the aluminum disk
brake as well as the carbon fibers lay ups in the fork that where the dismount is attached. And all of this was done to
reduce the stress in that area. And to validate the design,
the manufacturer had — the redesign fork was tested to the
fork test requirements in EN 14764. That’s 14764 which is for
city and trekking bikes. And again this is, you know, a case where the voluntary standards
can really help in manufacturing. Making sure that they design a bicycle safely. Our second case is a frame failure and needless
to say, it’s very bad if a frame fails. In this case, this was a folding bicycle. And the aluminum frame could
fracture at the frame hinge. And as you can see in these photos, that’s a
catastrophic failure there in the material. Now in this case, to rectify
the material failure, the manufacturer modified the welding
process at the subject area essentially to increase the thickness, increase the
strength where the fractures occurred. In addition, the manufacturer
improve the quality control process to ensure the frames meet specifications
before the bike is assembled and put together. And lastly to validate that the
design change addressed the problem, the manufacturer tested the
frame to the frame fatigue and impact test requirements in EN 14764. And lastly, seat post failure. I’ve ridden mountain and road bicycles. And I can tell you that it’s very,
very bad if your seat post fails. This particular product is a mountain bicycle. It’s called a 29er because the
wheels are 29 inches in diameter. And the issue, in this case, was a
carbon seat post that can fracture. Now the manufacturer to rectify,
again, a material failure, was to modify the carbon fiber layering to
cover the transition area that was failing. Essentially this is to strength that area. And to validate that the design change addressed
the problem, the redesigned seat post was tested to the seat post fatigue test
requirements in EN 14766. In addition, the manufacturer
conducted in-house static load testing to ensure the strength of the product. So here you have a manufacturer
that recognizes a failure and then not only do they find the
requirement in the voluntary standard that actually addresses this problem,
they did their own in-house testing. So these are all just good
practices to make sure that you’re manufacturing a
bike to be as safe as possible. So in conclusion, I mean these are
just examples of the many components that can — and have failed on bicycles. And we at the CPSC, we encourage
all manufacturers to learn from the recalls and the corrective actions. And to really look at all the
different standards out there, mandatory and voluntary standards,
and apply all of them and best practices to prevent future incidence. Thank you.

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.