Lack of maintenance v warranty

[madbradd]

Again I will refer to my example of a 20kg bike....And I am not saying that all 10 bearings will need to seize but 1 seized bearing will influence the system as a whole and create a less than ideal situation.

 

Your machines have redundancy built in so that they can run on 3 bearings less, but a bicycle has less chance (not saying no chance) of a full on redundancy system to be designed in.

 

Not mechanical machines - I work on electrical systems. But it's a design consideration across all disciplines that I work with. If your system cannot work with a failed component, and that component it maintenance heavy, then you put in a way to maintain it. Grease ports will not add 10kgs to a bike.

 

You're not going to convince me that bearings are consumables and need to be replaced more often than brake pads.

[Skylark]

Not mechanical machines - I work on electrical systems. But it's a design consideration across all disciplines that I work with. If your system cannot work with a failed component, and that component it maintenance heavy, then you put in a way to maintain it. Grease ports will not add 10kgs to a bike.

 

You're not going to convince me that bearings are consumables and need to be replaced more often than brake pads.

You are talking about Santa Cruz bikes, one of thee best, have grease nipples and lifetime bearing warranty(free bearing for life) on their frames.

[(Deon)]

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...

Smear. Really? What happened in that thread was some dude posted about his frame warranty rejection and was immediately told off that it was his fault. There we only a few willing to make the distinction between the TWO warranties, one of which would have no concern to him except the cost to touch up the paint 3 years later. The question of frame integrity caused by something out of his control however? 

 

Where manufacturing techniques come into this thread could be anyone's guess. It's a simple fact that if several bearings on the same side were to lock up, the twisting in the frame would be forces the bike has not been designed to withstand.

 

Why the agent warrantied in this case comes down to questions about the warranty itself, and I personally am interested to see how that part of the discussion goes... that OTHER thread showed something interesting that gives *that* manufacturer an escape clause for basically every situation. 

 

Nobody is smearing anyone here, we can objectively discuss the matter right? Smearing generally not tolerated.

[raptor-22]

Even if the bearings on one side were so bad that they locked up (this I have to see to believe)  the twisting forces would need to be evaluated in relation to the normal twisting the frame is subjected to during normal riding, cornering jumping etc Land slightly skew and the frame experiences far greater twisting than a seized bearing would exert on the frame. 

 

Just my experience in structures tells me the bearing is not going to exert that much force and the bearing shaft would likely snap before the sub-frame starts to fail. Good engineering design dictates that the designer engineer some parts to be sacrificial.

 

When I spoke with some manufacturers at Eurobike a few years back ,all said they test many frames to destruction to understand every failure mode they can think of. So when a customer comes along with a JRA they know how to distinguish BS from plausible reality.

 

Where a manufacturer can deny warranty due to maintenance is essentially when we  try to  claim for parts. Areas on a frame where a manufacturer can reasonably deny warranty is if the pivot bolts are overtightened as that induces excessive compression into the bearings holder. But all agreed generally this won't lead to failure elsewhere.

Headtube or frame cracks if a fork thats outside of the recommended spec since this in effect is a larger lever on the headtube than the frame was designed for,

seat tube cracks due to too short a seat post or insufficient insertion depth.

[Skylark]

No. If a bearing seizes and the rider carries on riding, (typically for months after that fact and only once the frame cracks finally noticing the bearings are seized) the failure is a direct result of failed bearings. There's only so much a frame can take/can be designed to take and still be stiff and lightweight, that's the facts, if you think otherwise you are smoking your socks.

 

Can't have your cake and eat it!

[Rocket-Boy]

No. If a bearing seizes and the rider carries on riding, (typically for months after that fact and only once the frame cracks finally noticing the bearings are seized) the failure is a direct result of failed bearings. There's only so much a frame can take/can be designed to take and still be stiff and lightweight, that's the facts, if you think otherwise you are smoking your socks.

 

Can't have your cake and eat it!

I was too lazy to read through the whole thread so forgive me if this has been covered before.

Wouldnt a frame that comes manufacturer specced with a lockout rear be subjected to the same stresses? like for instance someone with a Scott spark with twinlock who feels that 99% of the time a locked out rear shock is the way to go and only when it gets properly steep decides to unlock it?

 

Again just playing devils advocate here.

[raptor-22]

No. If a bearing seizes and the rider carries on riding, (typically for months after that fact and only once the frame cracks finally noticing the bearings are seized) the failure is a direct result of failed bearings. There's only so much a frame can take/can be designed to take and still be stiff and lightweight, that's the facts, if you think otherwise you are smoking your socks.

Can't have your cake and eat it!

 

But who rides a bike for months with seized bearings? At least come up with realistic bs.

Btw if the a bearing us seized and the rear subframe does not articulate and it's designed well I.e stuff, the rear won't articulate and will act as a lock out no different than if the shock locked it out.

[raptor-22]

I hear you on the grease port - the general consensus is tho that it adds weight...so no good. Also grease ports cause grease to ooze out of the bearing and into the surrounds - this attracts dust which grease + dust = grinding paste for all surrounding components...

 

Look every 6 months is a lot but I always say pivot bearings should be inspected every 6 months and replaced at least once a year. How often do you replace or service your wheel bearings in your hubs then? 

 

Yes the riders do select the bearings because like I say do YOU want to ride a 20kg bike that will never need a service? 99.9% of the answers will be "no I want a 10kg mtb" so the designers spec the bikes with smaller bearings to make the weight cut but need replacement once a year.

 

 

Bearings ooze grease to push dirt out. The seals are designed to allow that. grease ports just make it easier to top up that grease to keep the bearing lubricated.

 

Do you work for a bike company in the warranty department?

[Matchstix]

Bike companies Don't like warranties it cost them money.

 

[raptor-22]

Bike companies Don't like warranties it cost them money.

 

 

cost of warranty is built into the selling price of every product you buy from them. They have a pretty good idea of how many failures and blemished goods they will send to market. If not the marketing people need to get replaced

[Skylark]

I was too lazy to read through the whole thread so forgive me if this has been covered before.

Wouldnt a frame that comes manufacturer specced with a lockout rear be subjected to the same stresses? like for instance someone with a Scott spark with twinlock who feels that 99% of the time a locked out rear shock is the way to go and only when it gets properly steep decides to unlock it?

 

Again just playing devils advocate here.

You right but that's only a good analogy if all the bearings seized to an equal degree and at the exact same time, what happens if one seizes, there's going to be some serious overloading on that pivot point and certain parts of the frame to compensate.

 

But who rides a bike for months with seized bearings? At least come up with realistic bs.

Btw if the a bearing us seized and the rear subframe does not articulate and it's designed well I.e stuff, the rear won't articulate and will act as a lock out no different than if the shock locked it out.

Come on bru, you must have more imagination or experience than that?

 

I'm talking about the same guys who only service their suspension once a year yet ride the bike like a bat out of hell every weekend or the guy that does zero diy and is so rushed at work he doesn't manage to get the bike serviced for 6 months.

 

Bearings typically seize gradually and not all at once, so things can still feel more or less like they should(or perhaps the rider just thinks he needs to put some more air in the shock or adjust the rebound because its feeling a little sluggish), meanwhile the frame is having to deal with some radically unbalanced forces that eventually fatigues the frame and results in cracks. Or the rider takes a big hit and the seized bearings means stress gets transfered to one point of the frame that is not designed to take it and it cracks.