lechatnoir Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 I sent them a message on their FB page last week with a link to this thread and asked for a response about the way they are reported to treat their clients - but they did not respond at all. Apparently there's no such thing as bad publicity... who knew? oh wait... OP, I hope you get sorted. And report back please
Hairy Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 Did you buy the bike brand new from the shop in 2016? I know it was a 2015 model but did you buy it as a like new, excellent condition brand new bike? I mean new new. Not just new?do you mean in mint condition? gerriemtb, Pure Savage and dirtypot 3
Jewbacca Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 Pepper?? Or Crisp??Isn't it a race bike? Must be Aero? Hairy and Pure Savage 2
Hairy Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 Pepper?? Or Crisp??does not matter as long as it is fresh Pure Savage 1
ChrisF Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 my question still stands how long did you ride the bike with the "new" crank? I am assuming it was a very short distance? My question is based on an assumption that there could have been damage from your previously fitted BB ovalising the bottom bracket? ..... So bear with the comments and questions, and answer in a honest manner devoid of emotion and you may well garner the support you are looking for. .... Looking forward to hearing more from you and if it has to unfortunately go the complete legal route, it would be interesting to see the final outcome. My "hart" is certainly with the OP .... BUT, most of us have seen enough to KNOW there are three sides to every story (as mentioned earlier in the thread) Surely if it goes the legal route, then the LBS will also get some specialists on their side .... they WILL ask the same questions that Hairy asked, and a LOT more !! We still dont know if the OP is the "original owner" .... No idea of how long it was ridden with the known noise .... and THIS will be a big part of the "apportionment of blame" .... the only thing I am 100% sure of .... the OP is in for a very nasty ride, as these things are never nice when it gets legal ..... "being right", or thinking you are right, hardly makes the process any easier ..... as I said earlier in this thread, I have gone this route before, and only the legal profession will smile at the end of this .... AdamA, Hairy, BigDL and 1 other 4
The Ouzo Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 I see a few questions asking how long he rode the bike with the stuffed BB.From his original post Ride was immediately not smooth and was reported after first weekend. Was informed it all needed to “seat” in. After 2 months of riding, I checked chain wear and needed to change chain (after 320km!). Chose a new GX chain.Moved to another city (different province) and a month later (June 10th) brought bike in to a new local same brand store for a check, due to gear slippage They unearthed the following: my previous LBS failed to epoxy the BB into the shell (this was confirmed as the correct procedure by Brand Head Office) and this caused an ovalisation (lip creation) in the frame shell. The BB was freely rotating in the shell. Also, my wheels were both incorrectly built (as a side note). ChrisF, CdT85, Hairy and 1 other 4
Ashchest Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 (edited) No idea of how long it was ridden with the known noise .... and THIS will be a big part of the "apportionment of blame" .... Just read the original post? "Ride was immediately not smooth and was reported after first weekend. Was informed it all needed to “seat” in. After 2 months of riding, I checked chain wear and needed to change chain (after 320km!). Chose a new GX chain.Moved to another city (different province) and a month later (June 10th) brought bike in to a new local same brand store for a check, due to gear slippage They unearthed the following: my previous LBS failed to epoxy the BB into the shell (this was confirmed as the correct procedure by Brand Head Office) and this caused an ovalisation (lip creation) in the frame shell. The BB was freely rotating in the shell. Also, my wheels were both incorrectly built (as a side note). Edited August 8, 2019 by Ashchest ChrisF and CdT85 2
Skylark Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 Wtf is with everyone flogging a dead horse?? There's no dispute from any side that the bike shop Cycles Direct dropped the ball on a basic fitment and as a result the customers bike was damaged. The problem is now they are trying to backtrack on taking responsibility, let's keep focused on the core issue. Despite a repair being possible(the truth is you can repair literally anything if you choose to), I agree that in that particular location its not advisable nor fair on the bike owner to expect him to accept that as fair compensation. DieselnDust, BikeisLife, Gav1 and 2 others 5
i24 Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 Hairy, would you be happy to ride a frame repaired at the BB?Not being snarfy, legitimately want to know. From what I have read, almost every one says damage at the BB is irreparable and a write off...... Personally, I don't think there would be an issue repairing a frame in the bottom bracket area, such that it is safe to ride. The concerns would be that the repaired frame might be a few grams heavier than the original, that the repair might be visible, or that it may wear and fail again. Bearing in mind that the frame is 4 years old, and that the repair offered is by one of the most respected repairers in the industry, this does not sound like a bad offer. Fair restitution of the damages suffered by the OP would put him back in the situation that he was in before the bike shop worked on the bike. That was a 4 year old frame with "last generation" components. If the solution put the OP in a significantly better position than he was before, it is fair to ask him to contribute a proportionate amount to the costs. For example, if you buy a car tire and drive it for a 6 months, then it suffers a failure due to a manufacturing defect, the tire company is likely to measure the remaining tread depth on the damaged tire and offer a replacement tire, with the owner paying a pro-rata amount towards the cost of the replacement, based on the remaining tread depth verses the new tread depth. The fairest compensation to both parties might be for the bike shop to pay out the OP the 2nd hand value of the bike and keep it. They might then repair it and resell it. (Less legal fees for both parties) AdamA and Hairy 2
EmptyB Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 As someone said, the lawyers are smiling. Curious on the outcome which wont be soon... Pure Savage and ChrisF 2
Hairy Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 Personally, I don't think there would be an issue repairing a frame in the bottom bracket area, such that it is safe to ride. The concerns would be that the repaired frame might be a few grams heavier than the original, that the repair might be visible, or that it may wear and fail again. Bearing in mind that the frame is 4 years old, and that the repair offered is by one of the most respected repairers in the industry, this does not sound like a bad offer. Fair restitution of the damages suffered by the OP would put him back in the situation that he was in before the bike shop worked on the bike. That was a 4 year old frame with "last generation" components. If the solution put the OP in a significantly better position than he was before, it is fair to ask him to contribute a proportionate amount to the costs. For example, if you buy a car tire and drive it for a 6 months, then it suffers a failure due to a manufacturing defect, the tire company is likely to measure the remaining tread depth on the damaged tire and offer a replacement tire, with the owner paying a pro-rata amount towards the cost of the replacement, based on the remaining tread depth verses the new tread depth. The fairest compensation to both parties might be for the bike shop to pay out the OP the 2nd hand value of the bike and keep it. They might then repair it and resell it. (Less legal fees for both parties) Or at worst repair it for the op to the origional state and cover the cost of the labour of fitting a BB and crank ... don't think you would have to fully disassemble the bike for the BB repair?
Pure Savage Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 How was the bike ridden 3 odd years before CD got to it? Surely the original BB should have been installed with Epoxy and you can’t remove the epoxy, you just replace the cups?
Hairy Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 How was the bike ridden 3 odd years before CD got to it? Surely the original BB should have been installed with Epoxy and you can’t remove the epoxy, you just replace the cups?A very basic and simple fact F.A.C.T I would think..unless the DUB BB has a smaller dia. shell?
Quagga Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 A very basic and simple fact F.A.C.T I would think..unless the DUB BB has a smaller dia. shell?Dub is ONLY spindle that is smaller shell is the same Hairy 1
Hairy Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 Dub is ONLY spindle that is smaller shell is the sameshotto ... thanks that is what it was, same dia. shell, smaller spindle and bigger balls ball bearings. Quagga 1
Veebee Posted August 8, 2019 Posted August 8, 2019 Yes I would as this is not a structural failure, just a "filling" of a void issue....especially if the workmanship comes with a warranty. Edit: if it was a structural failure I would mostlikely not be so easily swayed to repair the frame without having the work scanned / exrayed, etc afterwards. "warranty" only means that the product will last for that amount of time... so 6 months means after 6months and 1 day the BB will explode leaving carbon pieces stuck in your legs and @$$
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now