Wake Up Bike Brands - TITAN IS DOING IT RIGHT!

[Grease_Monkey]

Again, the point I am trying to make is that most people wouldn't hesitate to spend R50k - R100k on a car with no warranty that could cost them a fortune to fix, but complain when they spend R30k on a bike that has no warranty but is cheaper to fix.

Nope, not happy to spend anything on a car without a warranty. But I get what you are saying, however I think you are missing the point.

 

No one is complaining that a there is no warranty transfer on a bike already out of warranty. It's ridiculous that you spend 30k on a bike IN warranty, and then it falls away simply because of a change of ownership.

 

But I guess that's just me. I'm the oke that will buy the cheaper new bike, and cheaper new car with a warranty rather than the fancy seecond hand item with no warranty.

[Cat2forLife]

1st point ... chill a little with the "whinging" comments and tone.

2nd point .... my bicycle is my "car" that gets me to work and back on a daily basis, and also to sites in order earn a living.

 

1st point: It is true.

 

2nd point: That's good for you. But I am sure it costs you a lot less to maintain and run on a daily basis. If you are financially able to afford to purchase and run a car but choose not to, I applaud you for using your bike instead and I wish I was in a position to do the same. But then I am sure you are able to afford a Makro bike to do your daily commute with which will come at almost no financial risk to you and the argument of warranty is negligible.

 

If you are of a financial position that you can only afford a bicycle as transport, I sincerely think that spending the amounts on a second hand bicycle that justifies it being compared to a car is perhaps not the best way to prioritise your life. So again this makes the warranty argument useless.

[love the ride]

This is a great sales pitch but in reality means almost nothing(see original spec clause). Also comparing this to other companies is silly. The occasional warranty passed on an allu frame whose original manufacturing cost is less than a 100$ is very different in implication to warranties passed on frames that cost in excess of a 1000$

[Cat2forLife]

Nope, not happy to spend anything on a car without a warranty. But I get what you are saying, however I think you are missing the point.

 

No one is complaining that a there is no warranty transfer on a bike already out of warranty. It's ridiculous that you spend 30k on a bike IN warranty, and then it falls away simply because of a change of ownership.

 

But I guess that's just me. I'm the oke that will buy the cheaper new bike, and cheaper new car with a warranty rather than the fancy seecond hand item with no warranty.

 

I hear you. No one has complained on this thread in as many words just yet, but it has been discussed and moaned about to no end in other threads and the stance people are taking on this news from Titan (which is not really such a great warranty when you read the fine print) reinforces that point.

[Cat2forLife]

i see Friday has come early to you    

 

I wish

[Grease_Monkey]

Because he is getting a great deal on a new bike. That is why. You cannot have your cake and eat it.

 

...snip

 

A manufacturing detail does not show up after 5 years. It show up within the first few weeks. In that time, the original owner would've already replaced the frame under his rightful warranty.

Spending a crap ton of money on a toy and then expecting a warranty backup is not having your cake and eating it, it's paying for a service and receiving it.

 

I have had a frame develop a crack after 2 years as a manufacturing fault, so you latter statement is not true. Also had other items have warranty issues well after a few weeks.

 

Warranty for me isn't a stupid little thing as you say - especially when you buy a frame that costs 60-70k to replace (because of a manufafturing fault) as with your S-Works exmaple. If a brand is willing to slap an X year warranty on a frame then they should back it up no matter who the owner is.

[Cat2forLife]

Ok so point of this entire story before everyone hates me:

 

Warranty on bikes is what it is. It's up to you to take it or leave it.

 

If you don't like it, leave it.

 

Having read through this Titan warranty, it's not all that great considering all the fine print which many manufacturers don't have.

 

Bike manufacturers are under no obligation to offer transferrable warranties. This is merely a sales pitch from Titan. And I get the feeling that people buying Scalpels, Epics, Anthems, etc etc are STILL going to buy those bikes and not Titans simply because the offer a transferrable warranty.

[Hairy]

my point still stands.

 

if a company manufactures a bicycle and feel they are happy to warranty the frame for a certain period of time, then why should they not honour any valid claims from a second or third owner?

 

no matter if the origional purchase price was R1 or R100 000.00

 

 

1st point: It is true.

 

2nd point: That's good for you. But I am sure it costs you a lot less to maintain and run on a daily basis. If you are financially able to afford to purchase and run a car but choose not to, I applaud you for using your bike instead and I wish I was in a position to do the same. But then I am sure you are able to afford a Makro bike to do your daily commute with which will come at almost no financial risk to you and the argument of warranty is negligible.

 

If you are of a financial position that you can only afford a bicycle as transport, I sincerely think that spending the amounts on a second hand bicycle that justifies it being compared to a car is perhaps not the best way to prioritise your life. So again this makes the warranty argument useless.

[Cat2forLife]

Spending a crap ton of money on a toy and then expecting a warranty backup is not having your cake and eating it, it's paying for a service and receiving it.

 

I have had a frame develop a crack after 2 years as a manufacturing fault, so you latter statement is not true. Also had other items have warranty issues well after 5 weeks.

 

Warranty for me isn't a stupid little thing as you say - especially when you buy a frame that costs 60-70k to replace (because of a manufafturing fault) as with your S-Works exmaple. If a brand is willing to slap an X year warranty on a frame then they should back it up no matter who the owner is.

 

When you purchase a new bike from a shop, regardless of how much you spend on it, you are well aware of the warranty agreement. And as the first owner, you do receive the service you are paying for. That's why you are "spending a crap ton of money".

 

Then expecting to get the same product AND service for half the price when buying it second hand? That is what doesn't sit well with me.

 

And don't get me wrong, warranty is not a stupid little thing for me. I have had many issues with shoes etc that manufacturers have gladly replaced for me. But that is because I paid for the warranty service when I purchased the item new, from an official dealer. It is not a service I got when I bought someones vrot shoes on the Hub for R500.

[Cat2forLife]

my point still stands.

 

if a company manufactures a bicycle and feel they are happy to warranty the frame for a certain period of time, then why should they not honour any valid claims from a second or third owner?

 

no matter if the origional purchase price was R1 or R100 000.00

 

Well, having worked in the bicycle industry for many years (I don't anymore) I can tell you straight from the horses mouth that it is to encourage sales of new bikes. If you want the warranty, buy a new bike. If you want a cheap bike, you'll have to settle for no warranty.

 

Bike manufacturers make money by selling new bikes. Not by selling parts to maintain the bikes etc like car manufacturers could.

 

So if you want the latest and greatest research and development each year, that costs money and to make that money they need to sell bikes. That's just the reality.

 

An added bonus to buying a new bike is the "extended" warranty. As I mentioned earlier, the 5 year warranty offered by most brand is ABOVE and BEYOND what is required by law. They only have to give you 7 days. Just like cellphones. The warranty is a privilege to the first owner, because he bought new.

[Grease_Monkey]

An added bonus to buying a new bike is the "extended" warranty. As I mentioned earlier, the 5 year warranty offered by most brand is ABOVE and BEYOND what is required by law. They only have to give you 7 days. Just like cellphones. The warranty is a privilege to the first owner, because he bought new.

Your argument does not make sense re: the carrying over of the warranty. Owner 1 has paid for that warranty (however long it may be) as a part of the purchase of the bike. When he sells it the remainder of that warranty should carry over to owner 2 - it has already been paid for, why does it now fall away.

 

Oh, and yes, 5 years is above an beyond what is required by law - but that law is not 7 days. You should go read the CPA again... besides what it the law is besides the point. We are speaking about (theoretically) why brands do not carry over the warranty.

 

Yes... I know we are aware of it when I buy the bike new or second hand amd don't expect brands to change policies on bikes already sold. I just think this is a good move from Titan (in principle, I haven't read the fine print) seeing as bike prices are VERY high - and warranty is a big thing.

 

Let's forget for a second it's Titan (stigma around riding a Titan in comparison to something like Spaz or Trek). If brand XYZ gives a good warranty that carries over to second owner I would be more inclined to pay a bit more for said second hand bike, thus pushing up second hand value of that brand. Because of this new buyers may be mkre inclined to buy brand XYZ as they know in a year or two they may get more back for their bike when selling it.

 

Besides from it being the right thing to do, it's good for business.

 

Lastly, the minimum required by law does not mean much to me - I don't buy from brands/stores that apply that "minimum required by law" principle - the law is there to protect people from scumbags (both ient and shop/brand), so that doesn't really factor in for me. I go back to the brands that give the value added options and go out of their way to service customers - and that is what Titan is doing here.

 

I may not be in the market for a Titan, but their approach to warranty does make me see them in a new light, and I would be inclined to reccommend this brand to someone in the market for a new bike in that class.

[Pure Savage]

Makes auditing them easier

 

Think this is a good step in the right direction, if this becomes industry norm, this may have the unintended consequence of jumping up the prices of 2nd hand bikes as the value of the warranty can now be sold, no more 6 month old bargains.

[Joe Soap]

Never ever in my entire life have I seen people so lus for arguing...

This forum never disappoints 

 

Back on topic: 

Good for Titan and I'll take a Giant above a Cherry (not the fruit) any day of the week

[Ettas]

Not really the point, but ok.

 Oh sorry, I thought missing the point was what we were doing 

[Cat2forLife]

 Oh sorry, I thought missing the point was what we were doing 

 

I see what you did there

[Jase619]

my point still stands.

 

if a company manufactures a bicycle and feel they are happy to warranty the frame for a certain period of time, then why should they not honour any valid claims from a second or third owner?

 

no matter if the origional purchase price was R1 or R100 000.00

 

Simply answer is, because they don't have to. Morality aside and good customer service aside, they don't have to transfer the warranty, so they don't. You didn't buy 1st hand from them directly and pay full price so they presumably couldn't be bothered to transfer it to someone who has not dealt with their brand directly.