Specialized bad after sale service.

[needleshy]

I am sure a repair is exactly what Spaz is hoping the OP does, which would nullify and void any remainder warranty left. So if the frame is weakened at the point of the defect they could just reject the claim again and yet again wipe their hands clean.

 

Seems that the OP got the **** end of the stick here.

Edited April 22, 2016 by Nick

[Skinnyone]

I am sure a repair is exactly what Spaz is hoping the OP does, which would nullify and void any remainder warranty left. So if the frame is weakened at the point of the defect they could just reject the claim again and yet again wipe their hands clean.

 

Seems that the OP got the **** end of the stick here.

Does everyone here really honestly believe that Specialized has not considered the safety factor here relating to this claim? 

 

So lets say they have the frame, inspect it and say "warranty claim declined - off you go" without thinking that if the structure of said frame is compromised and a potential failure may occur and lawsuits ensue...Specialized do not want this, so like I said if there was any doubt as to the structural integrity of this frame in question they would have replaced in under their 5 year structural warranty. Even if the frame could potentially fail outside the warranty period it is still a factor they would have considered because even then the OP may have a legal claim...

 

This is not a case of "screw the OP just because we can".

[Skinnyone]

Also please list all the manufacturers that have an unlimited Lifetime warranty.

[SwissVan]

Does everyone here really honestly believe that Specialized has not considered the safety factor here relating to this claim? 

 

So lets say they have the frame, inspect it and say "warranty claim declined - off you go" without thinking that if the structure of said frame is compromised and a potential failure may occur and lawsuits ensue...Specialized do not want this, so like I said if there was any doubt as to the structural integrity of this frame in question they would have replaced in under their 5 year structural warranty. Even if the frame could potentially fail outside the warranty period it is still a factor they would have considered because even then the OP may have a legal claim...

 

This is not a case of "screw the OP just because we can".

 

What people want to see is Specialized put it in writing that at the time of inspection the area under investigation is safe for further use, not leave it to assumption.

 

To be honest i very much doubt that Specialized would make a statement saying the frame is safe for continued use, the nature of corrosion on aluminium is that it gets worse as time goes on until one day the structural integrity will be compromised.

 

The safest option for them would be to make a recommendation that the frame should be replaced, and provide some form of warranty. If i was Specialized (the factory, not some dealer in dark Africa) I would want to investigate and use the information to try reduce the likelihood of it repeating on future frames. This would be an all win situation and better than the current situation.  

[Iwan Kemp]

What people want to see is Specialized put it in writing that at the time of inspection the area under investigation is safe for further use, not leave it to assumption.

 

To be honest i very much doubt that Specialized would make a statement saying the frame is safe for continued use, the nature of corrosion on aluminium is that it gets worse as time goes on until one day the structural integrity will be compromised.

 

The safest option for them would be to make a recommendation that the frame should be replaced, and provide some form of warranty. If i was Specialized (the factory, not some dealer in dark Africa) I would want to investigate and use the information to try reduce the likelihood of it repeating on future frames. This would be an all win situation and better than the current situation.  

 

Why do they need to do that? Lets say

 

1. My car's gearbox is stuffed

2. Take it to the dealer. "Yes, its not what it needs to be, but out of warranty"

3. What I then do with it is my choice. The fact that they don't want to repair it does not mean they say NOTHING will happen. If I CHOOSE to ride / drive it as is then that's MY risk not theirs.

 

Somewhere in the 90's the world lost common sense and grew a "I will just sue them for my negligence" attitude.

 

ALL of this would, and most likely could, have been avoided had he taken his bike in within the warranty period which is when he first noticed it. Easy. 

 

Again

1. My car's gearbox is making a noise

2. I drive it to the point where NOW its a major issue and not just some noise. 

3. I first heard it while under warranty, but now its out of warranty.

 

Where does that leave the manufacturer? Maybe the early noise could have been an easy and relatively cheap fix, but now that it is stuffed and out of warranty I demand a replacement on their tab. Does that make sense?

 

Op should've followed what was reasonably expected. He didn't. Lets move on.

[Iwan Kemp]

Also please list all the manufacturers that have an unlimited Lifetime warranty.

 

 

1. 

[Skinnyone]

Don't disagree there Swiss, But they would probably state that any structural compromise will be replaced under the 5 year frame warranty, there after it will not be covered...as it has surpassed what is termed the "safe and usable" lifespan of the frame - it's in their warranty policy...

 

As for the "dark Africa" thing I can assure you that HQ has already received their report as all reports and claims are done thru a global online portal, and the declined claim has to come from the US and not just some oke in SA. To be fair I agree that they need to know about this sort of thing and they do according to my above comment, however if they have 10 frames with this issue worldwide out of 10 000 made then that is an above acceptable "failure" rate.

[edgarblount]

Also please list all the manufacturers that have an unlimited Lifetime warranty.

 

 

1. 

 

2.

[Skinnyone]

A point as well...for both dropouts to experience corrosion to this point means there may be more to this story...meaning that the dropouts are made and placed in a bin ready to be bonded into the frames, perhaps made in different batches and therefore one is older than the other. Now they are on opposite sides of the frame so one dropout starting to corrode cannot cause the other side to start corroding.

 

My point is - one dropout corroding - bad luck (could have been sorted in time) but both corroding to this point means this frame has gone thru more than is being let on.

[nathrix]

Also please list all the manufacturers that have an unlimited Lifetime warranty.

 

 

1. 

 

 

2.

 

3.

[KarlvN]

Can we kill the fred now?

[Patchelicious]

Can we kill the fred now?

NO!! It's still under limited warranty!

[KarlvN]

wait, I know...post a pic of a semi naked lady...

 

 

Admin??? (LOL - that "other" fred was getting long in the tooth. Kudos for letting it make it till today)

[KarlvN]

[raptor-22]

To be fair, as do you.

You seem to have used this platform have a go at Spez and on several occasions mentioned that there are alternatives. Even stating that you "cancelled" an order from Spez based on this thread and rather opting for a Colnago or Look, I think it was. If I send you similar threads about those two brands, would you cancel those orders too?

So the very argument of being argumentative and biased can be turned right around.

Fact is that this frame/paint issue should not have occurred. Agreed.

However no manufacturer can guarantee that all of their frames will be absolutely perfect, hence them offering warranties, this is so that if you spot a mistake on their behalf that you can point it out and they will rectify it. If you fail to act and don't point out their mistake within the agreed period, then you really cannot be angry at them.

Let's be honest here, Spez is known for many things bad things, but *** product quality is not one of them, so let's not be irrational about a fringe case where the purchaser never acted when he should have.

 

Hmmmm I see we're still stuck on my about turn on the venge. This thread has served as part of my due diligence. I've been looking around for a while and had my arm twisted on the venge. Naturally the dealers said one thing and non dealers said another.

YEs I researched other brands too and spoke to owners who have had frames warranteed. The anecdotal evidence seems to suggest that one brand in particular is very difficult to deal with in terms of warranty. Should that brand even be having as many claims as ex owners and ex dealers claim? Maybe there's sour grapes but when you want to spend hard earned savings on a new frame surely you want to stack the odds in your favor and buy from people who look at a potential issue with objectivity? Hence I am where I am and not buying the venge. Simple really. Not even sure why this keeps coming up. There will be others reading this thread and thinking " ya I don't want to have a hassle with a warranty maybe I'll look at something else". Human nature. Move to a place of less stress.

 

The overwhelming majority or argument around warranty on the hub seems to be in favor of the manufacturers. Seems brand defending is a popular activity which is a bit strange because unless people are being paid to defend those brands I would expect some objectivity. The report posted reveals no reason to reject warranty except on paint grounds and in that case the frame would likely have just been repaired anyway. Yet there's a potential structural fault developing and developing within the warranty period and supposedly objective disinterested parties can do nothing better than to defend a brand? Wow, so much for community supporting each other to fight the good fight . Skinny himself paints the scenario where the frame could have been assembled with defective dropouts but then blames the op for not pointing it out?!!! Come on! What's the bigger issue here? A defective product or the OPs lack of drive to sort out a warranty timeously.

 

It pretty sad that people have to bash people to defend a brand. We'll forever be stuck with sub standard goods at high prices if this is the path we' re on.

If the OP came on here with a JRA and frame snapped I'd be pretty suspicious as I don't believe in JRA. But this oke seems to be pretty diligent and probably thought nothing of the little bubble at first . - I have an old pinarello with a little bubble in the paint. It never got worse so I've never bothered it again. I'm of the opinion the OP behavior is reasons of any consumer so why the crucifixion ?

Is the brand more important than a community supporting a fellow member with reasonable considered thought on ways forward?

[SwissVan]

Why do they need to do that? Lets say

 

1. My car's gearbox is stuffed

2. Take it to the dealer. "Yes, its not what it needs to be, but out of warranty"

3. What I then do with it is my choice. The fact that they don't want to repair it does not mean they say NOTHING will happen. If I CHOOSE to ride / drive it as is then that's MY risk not theirs.

 

Somewhere in the 90's the world lost common sense and grew a "I will just sue them for my negligence" attitude.

 

ALL of this would, and most likely could, have been avoided had he taken his bike in within the warranty period which is when he first noticed it. Easy. 

 

Again

1. My car's gearbox is making a noise

2. I drive it to the point where NOW its a major issue and not just some noise. 

3. I first heard it while under warranty, but now its out of warranty.

 

Where does that leave the manufacturer? Maybe the early noise could have been an easy and relatively cheap fix, but now that it is stuffed and out of warranty I demand a replacement on their tab. Does that make sense?

 

Op should've followed what was reasonably expected. He didn't. Lets move on.

 

My post was in response to Skinnyone's comment about Specialized considering the safety factor....imo they did not address that and left it open to assumption. If you are a normal person who knows very little about corrosion and that was your frame would you be satisfied that it is safe for continued use based on the information in the Specialized report?

 

IMO, Specialized should have made an obvious recommendation regarding the continued use of the frame. instead of that because they did not replace the frame or scrap it, assume that it is safe for continued use.

 

Does everyone here really honestly believe that Specialized has not considered the safety factor here relating to this claim? 

 

So lets say they have the frame, inspect it and say "warranty claim declined - off you go" without thinking that if the structure of said frame is compromised and a potential failure may occur and lawsuits ensue...Specialized do not want this, so like I said if there was any doubt as to the structural integrity of this frame in question they would have replaced in under their 5 year structural warranty. Even if the frame could potentially fail outside the warranty period it is still a factor they would have considered because even then the OP may have a legal claim...

 

This is not a case of "screw the OP just because we can".

 

 

 

 

WRT the warranty, there are 2 warranty periods involved here, 2 years for the paint and 5 years for the frame material and manufacturing defects. It's not unrealistic for a owner in this situation to believe that the problems might be related to the frame material (carbon and aluminium combined) and a faulty manufacturing process (insufficient sealing / isolation between the lugs and carbon fibres).

 

Specialized have judged that the corrosion is due to the owners negligence, although they don't quite say it like that the final page of the report contains this statement. I'm not quite sure how they reached this conclusion (that its the owners fault).

 

"warra warra...... you are advised to clean your product regularly to avoid such corrosion"