Lack of maintenance v warranty

[Whatsup!]

This is a question to get the wise BikeHub opinion.

 

 

I friend recently had a warranty claim on a bike frame.

 

The bike was +- 2 years old and had given no trouble at all. Then a small crack on the rear triangle appeared.

The distributers, to their credit, did warranty the frame. I am not mentioning the bike brand, as it is not about brand bashing.

 

So to the point, when I saw the bike, before the claim, some of the bearings on the rear linkage were old/seized.

 

In my opinion, this is what caused the frame to crack, as the linkage was not moving as it is designed and adding forces in all different directions/ twisting etc.

 

Is it fair to claim due to lack of maintenance? I know that we can argue that it should not have cracked, but the point is that I doubt it would have cracked if the bearing were running smoothly.

 

I would not have been surprised if the warranty claim was rejected.

[Skinnyone]

If I had seen that frame and I was warranties manager at that brand I would have rejected the claim unless the client can prove that the bearings were replaced in the last 6 months.

 

Your assumption about seized bearings is 100% correct even a rough or loose bearing can and will cause havoc.

 

Its not fair to claim for lack of maintenance, but many times the distributor will approve the claim just so that their name doesn't get smeared all over this forum.

 

And that is why when a company sticks to their guns (I can think of one thread right now) and rejects the claim the individual takes to social media to try to strongarm the company into giving them a new frame...

 

So the trend will keep happening because people cannot accept that their light weight racing machine cannot last a year without servicing...

[dirtypot]

Scott Spark by any chance?

[EmptyB]

Why did they warranty the claim, did they elaborate?

[(Deon)]

This is a question to get the wise BikeHub opinion.

 

 

I friend recently had a warranty claim on a bike frame.

 

The bike was +- 2 years old and had given no trouble at all. Then a small crack on the rear triangle appeared.

The distributers, to their credit, did warranty the frame. I am not mentioning the bike brand, as it is not about brand bashing.

 

So to the point, when I saw the bike, before the claim, some of the bearings on the rear linkage were old/seized.

 

In my opinion, this is what caused the frame to crack, as the linkage was not moving as it is designed and adding forces in all different directions/ twisting etc.

 

Is it fair to claim due to lack of maintenance? I know that we can argue that it should not have cracked, but the point is that I doubt it would have cracked if the bearing were running smoothly.

 

I would not have been surprised if the warranty claim was rejected.

 You started out by saying you guys were friends...

 

By the sounds of it, the frame broke after 2 years happy service having "given no trouble at all", then one day, boom... broken.

 

Was there any sign of failing bearings? Doesn't sound like your friend knew the bearings had failed.

 

Also, the most important question, how was the bike looked after? Was it ever serviced?

[Eugene]

The question must be asked. Does the warranty conditions stipulate that maintenance must be carried out? Do the warranty conditions specify that bearings must be replaced every 6 months?

 

The purchaser should be told what his obligations are when a bike is purchased. If there are no maintenance stipulations or guidelines, then I would say they should honour it.

 

If it is a Spark and I suspect it is, the frame was probably replaced because of problems with them. It is well publicised that Sparks from a few years ago were breaking left right and centre.

[madbradd]

Also.... If you tell me I need to replace bearings every 6 months to avoid catastrophic failure, I would call on patent defect. If bearings are failing that often (call it 260 hours to be conservative) you have a design issue, not a maintenance issue.

[Skylark]

Seized bearings definitely can cause frames to crack, not rocket science!

 

Your "friend" got a lucky break when they replaced it under warranty...

[carbon29er]

Also.... If you tell me I need to replace bearings every 6 months to avoid catastrophic failure, I would call on patent defect. If bearings are failing that often (call it 260 hours to be conservative) you have a design issue, not a maintenance issue.

Really? Say the guy buys a new bike and rides the Imana Wild Ride, his bike swims in the sea and or salty rivers. Once the ride is completed he washes the bike but does not change the bearings.  A month later he gets his bike out and the bearings are seized.

 

In what world is this a design issue? Or a patent defect, what ever that is?

[Patchelicious]

Why did they warranty the claim, did they elaborate?

Probably to avoid the **** storm like that Spez thread....

[madbradd]

Really? Say the guy buys a new bike and rides the Imana Wild Ride, his bike swims in the sea and or salty rivers. Once the ride is completed he washes the bike but does not change the bearings. A month later he gets his bike out and the bearings are seized.

 

In what world is this a design issue? Or a patent defect, what ever that is?

Your comment comes from not understanding what a patent defect is. In absolutely no world would the scenario you describe be recoverable under patent defect.

 

What you're talking about a once off event that is most certainly not considered "normal use". A patent defect is considered a design/manufacturing defect that may only show itself sometime within expected life of the product, but may not be recognisable at the time of manufacture and routine testing. Bearings can seize because they have been specified incorrectly. Any part can. And this might not be visible at the time of testing where on suspension you only test up/down instead of up/down plus side to side (as would be experienced in a corner). In this instance the Scott Spark has been brought up, whether it is the bike in question is irrelevant. The Sparks seemed to repeatedly suffer from the same failure. Are you saying Scott owners are generally worse at maintaining their pivots than Giant owners because their chainstays cracked more often than their Maestro counterparts? Or maybe that riders of early Giant Anthem X's were particularly good at breaking top tube to seat tube welds? I suspect not, and that a again it comes from not understanding my comment.

 

There are things in design that are not picked up until later on in product life. Maybe the spark suspension bearings suffered a higher lateral load then expected for whatever reason. But in this particular instance the owner may have been incorrect in that his bearings were seized, but due to a known history (when a patent defect is discovered it becomes a latent defect btw) of similar failures, the manufacturer wouldn't bother with it as they knew their product had a fault anyway.

 

On cars they do a recall, on bikes they seem to only fix it under warranty.

 

Edit. It appears that I've misplaced patent and latent. Latent defect is not easily discovered, patent defect is one that should be detectable through reasonable inspection (or testing)

[Matchstix]

if the bearing seizes it's more likely in my opinion the pivot bolts will take up the strain and movement at the bearing. So instead of the 2 parts of th bearing moving, it will move around the pivot bolt. If they frame cracked/broke at the bearing placement, I will think lack of maintenance. If not it should be a warranty.

[raptor-22]

Seized bearings definitely can cause frames to crack, not rocket science!

 

Your "friend" got a lucky break when they replaced it under warranty...

 

 

So locked out rear shocks also cause frames to crack?

 

or poor design/construction?

[Skinnyone]

Let me put it another way, have you ever seen how small the pivot bearings are on any bike? now you think about the loads that an average 80kg rider puts those through, in between the bike gets washed and ridden thru rivers etc....and you expect them to last how long exactly? It bugs me every time says "but why do I have to replace bearings so often? Must be a design flaw"

 

Bottom line is this....they can make a bicycle that will last 100 000km easily BUT it would probably weigh 25kg plus due to the heavy duty parts required to do so...The main factor in designing a car is to save weight (easy) but to make a strong enough system to last 200 000km or more....

 

So now if you have a warranty/ service plan on a car, does it still stand if you never take your car in for a service - no it won't! It's the same deal here - lack of servicing constitutes abuse and abuse results in voiding of warranties - simple.  

 

Riding with a shock locked out can and will cause premature failure...remember you buy a full suspension bike for the suspension - The market demands a lock out for whatever reason (because that is what sells the bike you know) but the designers create a suspension to pivot - not a hardtail - so they design the pivots as pivots that rotate.

 

It is all about compromise - strong, light and cheap pick two.

[Skinnyone]

So locked out rear shocks also cause frames to crack?

 

or poor design/construction?

So Raptor, I know you fly models, if you "lock out" a control surface and try to move the servo, chances are something will break - yes or no?

 

poor design/construction?

[madbradd]

Let me put it another way, have you ever seen how small the pivot bearings are on any bike? now you think about the loads that an average 80kg rider puts those through, in between the bike gets washed and ridden thru rivers etc....and you expect them to last how long exactly? It bugs me every time says "but why do I have to replace bearings so often? Must be a design flaw"

 

Bottom line is this....they can make a bicycle that will last 100 000km easily BUT it would probably weigh 25kg plus due to the heavy duty parts required to do so...The main factor in designing a car is to save weight (easy) but to make a strong enough system to last 200 000km or more....

 

So now if you have a warranty/ service plan on a car, does it still stand if you never take your car in for a service - no it won't! It's the same deal here - lack of servicing constitutes abuse and abuse results in voiding of warranties - simple.  

 

Riding with a shock locked out can and will cause premature failure...remember you buy a full suspension bike for the suspension - The market demands a lock out for whatever reason (because that is what sells the bike you know) but the designers create a suspension to pivot - not a hardtail - so they design the pivots as pivots that rotate.

 

It is all about compromise - strong, light and cheap pick two.

I'm pretty sure the rider didn't select the bearing size. Also if the tough conditions are such an issue, why not put a grease port on the pivot?

 

The number "every 6 months" was bandied about. This mentions nothing of abnormal use (riding in rivers and such), so only assume "normal" riding which on an XC bike in SA consists of jeep track, dirt road and dry single track (see the OP is from Gauteng) If you ride your bike 10 hours a week (which is quite alot for the average person and guys riding more than this will often have more than 1 bike), 6 months amounts to 260 hours of use.

 

I can't believe that 260 hours is considered normal lifespan. If it is failing after this sort of period then it's being used incorrectly (ie incorrect component spec, or blatant misuse like putting your bike in the sea)