mtbDobby Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 HI, So I bought a new road bike last year - purchase price around 50k. 2 weeks ago while out riding I hit a cat eye in the road that almost caused me to crash but managed to save my bike and myself from hitting the tar....feeling very relieved or so I thought - that my bike and I had managed to escape unscathed, I noticed when putting the bike in the car that the cross bar (between seat post and stem) had a nice big crack in it....this happened from my thigh hitting the top tube in the act of not falling off. So the question is - is this a valid warranty claim? should I get upset if the warranty claim is not honoured. I am trying to be as objective as possible. my view is I didn't hit the deck so therefore it should be even taking into account that my chunky thigh hot the top tube rather forcefully.....
Patchelicious Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 Hi, It was damage caused by an incident/event (hitting the cat eye), so should not be a warranty claim, but an insurance claim.
JA-Q001 Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 TBH, its not warranty worthy, as its not a manufacturing fault. The manufacturer cannot pay because you were unable to look where you are riding. This will be seen as abuse or as an incident. This is why you insure your bike. (Sorry not trying to sound blunt)
Joe Low Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 Two things to look at - Terms and conditions of your warranty;Discretion by the LBS / distributor / manufacturer If you're not covered on the 1st, be clever about how you negotiate the 2nd - no toy throwing. Otherwise the Hub loves these threads so you are onto a winner in terms of responses. A good proportion will spell it "warrantee" but I try not to get suicidal about it or loose my cool. Good luck.
Schnavel Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 This will be seen as abuse or as an incident. But by the same token, the bike wasn't crashed or damaged in any other way. I have crashed several times and not once was my frame damaged (expect for paint damage), even after some pretty heavy falls. It may well have been a manufacturing flaw that caused the frame to crack, as there was a weak point or flaw in the carbon layup. *Edit: Spelling
ZakAttak Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 I'm no expert, but I agree with Patch... on this one.... This would be regarded as negligence rather than factory issue...
Spock Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 A good proportion will spell it "warrantee" but I try not to get suicidal about it or loose my cool. Only Helmut results in that..
Patchelicious Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 But by the same token, the bike wasn't crashed or damaged in any other way. I have crashed several times and not once was my frame damaged (expect for pain damage), even after some pretty heavy falls. It may well have been a manufacturing flaw that caused the frame to crack, as there was a weak point or flaw in the carbon layup. *Edit: SpellingIf that's the case then the insurance will need to recover the costs from the manufacturer, which they might do. But the damage was caused by a specific event, therefore insurance.
ZakAttak Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 But by the same token, the bike wasn't crashed or damaged in any other way. I have crashed several times and not once was my frame damaged (expect for paint damage), even after some pretty heavy falls. It may well have been a manufacturing flaw that caused the frame to crack, as there was a weak point or flaw in the carbon layup. *Edit: Spelling Eish, you might have a point here....
pista Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 I noticed when putting the bike in the car that the cross bar (between seat post and stem) had a nice big crack in it....this happened from my thigh hitting the top tube in the act of not falling off. Please load a photo of the crack and your leg. What bike is this?
Skylark Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 May be a case of screwed if you do, screwed if you don't. It's probably not a warranty claim but it may be but if you claim from Insurance they will want evidence of the incident, of which you have none, ie no accident damage scratched up bike/body, just your word that "hey I hit a cats eye which knocked my thigh into the cross bar which then broke". Granted that may have happened but knowing how suspicious insurance assessors are due to claimants trying to milk their insurance and possibly how thick the bike shop that is contracted to process their claims/check the damage, it may be an uphill battle. Good luck and post those pics of the crack!
Eugene Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 In my opinion, a frame should not crack by hitting a cat eye and I doubt that by saving yourself from a fall there would be sufficient force to crack a normal frame. What I'm saying is that a frame should easily withstand such an incident. I think there is grounds for a warranty claim. Take it in and see what they say, they'll look for evidence of a crash and unless your wheel is damaged (which I Doubt), they may accept it.
UltraRunner_ZA Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 If you hit a cat eye or any bump in the road and the frame cracks....i would say warranty.
Capricorn Posted January 12, 2017 Posted January 12, 2017 If you hit a cat eye or any bump in the road and the frame cracks....i would say warranty. In my opinion, a frame should not crack by hitting a cat eye and I doubt that by saving yourself from a fall there would be sufficient force to crack a normal frame. What I'm saying is that a frame should easily withstand such an incident. I think there is grounds for a warranty claim. Take it in and see what they say, they'll look for evidence of a crash and unless your wheel is damaged (which I Doubt), they may accept it. I'm curious to the basis for these assertions? Where does one find information to say a frame is cat-eye strike proof? Where do you find the testing data against which to measure the assertion? Also, the assertion has to be backed up by numbers, not feelings. So how does the OP prove that the stated incident fell within acceptable impacting load to the frame, and thus should not have caused the damaged noted by the OP? How we feel about something, and how that something actually is can be vastly different. I feel those two assertions are more emotive than factual, and thus baseless in their current forms. Since the OP doesn't have the data to back up any emotional responses, i'd go with an insurance claim as the burden of proof is much reduced.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.