Stone Chips that crack your frame,who is responsible?

[1Rowdy1]

Stone chips on roads to paintwork are an every day occurrence, any road going vehicle sold that fails structurally from this type of stone chip incident is not fit for purpose and will be a very easy win threw the ACCC

[human909]

Warranty does not work that way. Even law/ACCC doesn't work that way. The same with paint fading on your bike. Oh you left your white bike on your apartment balcony everyday for a year and the left side has started to turn yellow overtime? That's not a manufacturing warranty.

Warranty might not work that way but the law certainly does. And the law is the law, a manufacturing warranty is not the law.

Just because the accc says one thing it doesn’t mean that you can use it as a blanket cover for everything. It’s to cover customers from businesses/retailers but also to protect businesses/retailers from customers.

Why are businesses needing protection from customers? And exactly what are these protections you are refering too?

As I mentioned earlier the pothole excuse is very difficult to actually get any compo on.
And some of the crap I have seen people trying to claim warranty/citing acc on.

Compo? (As in compensation for negligence) Warranty? Neither of these things matter when it comes to consumer statutory rights. You seem to be missing consumer rights completely.

I would suggest you try reading the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. We are all consumers and this is the rulebook that can refer to.

Here is a laymans guide:
https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Co ... mers_0.pdf

Probably the strongest requirement of consumer goods is the requirement that the item be fit for purpose. A road bike that cannot be ridden on the roads without structural damage doesn't sound fit for purpose.


(Of course like the road rules enforcement of the actual law isn't always complete and easy to achieve. Though GOOD retailers should recognise the rights of consumers and act accordingly. I would hope people who sell to consumers are aware of this. But from this thread it seems not to be always the case.)

[ColinOldnCranky]

I would assume (and hope) a bike is strong enough to not crack with rocks thrown up from the road, especially since I ride on gravel every now and then. If it is a crack not a paint chip then I think it should be replaced under the frame warranty.

If its just a paint chip I would personally think thats wear and tear.

Agree. I replaced my windscreen about a month ago, with many cracks and chips from outback roads but also many from normal highway driving. My Landcruiser is tool acquired to carry out it's purpose. Yeah, it has respectable but aging bodywork. Wear and tear an appearance that changes with use and age is to be expected.

If by "crack" the OP meant structural damage and all it takes to defeat it's integrity is a piece of flying gravel that will come your way several times a year, then the bikes that are being ridden are not fit for purpose.

If it's cosmetic and it bothers the owner then it would equally bother me to have my tax dollars paying out. Bikes are a utility product that mega-budget marketing has cynically transformed into an industry giant selling symbolism, fantasy, status and who knows what where once a bike was a serious utilitarian form of transport that was subject to wear and tear and a gradual deterioration in appearance. Much as anything that is used and ages.

Directly addressing No Body's specific question, I doubt that any court or authority would treat a claim for such damage seriously (unless there were extenuating circumstances not described by No Body).

[Dreams V Reallity]

I've seen my bike flipping down the road at 55kph and only had a scuff mark on the saddle. Hanger wasn't even bent.

You got lucky, Punk.

The bike was lucky. I ended up in the ER getting free doses of X-rays

I was only going to ask "Did you end up with only a scuff mark on your saddle?"
Don't need to now.

[MichaelB]

Love these one post wonders. Ask a question and when they don't like the answers, that's it ....

[find_bruce]

Love these one post wonders. Ask a question and when they don't like the answers, that's it ....

How do you know he is not dropping by to read the thread ? Given the debate he may be reluctant to post

[MichaelB]

I don't.

But then again, most users will post something and respond to followup questions & statements (ala this lively discussion re stop signs).

Either way, hope he is informed and not confused are there are conflicting opinions presented.

[Bunged Knee]

Love these one post wonders. Ask a question and when they don't like the answers, that's it ....

How do you know he is not dropping by to read the thread ? Given the debate he may be reluctant to post

Yes, he did come by to read this thread last Sat 18/11 at 2.17pm and don`t post it up.

[warthog1]

Warranty will not cover riding incidents. This is a riding incident.

I disagree. A crash would be a riding incident. I would class riding over gravel as ordinary use, and if the bike cracks during ordinary use, then it should be replaceable by warranty (by law, even if the warranty says otherwise, in my non-lawyer opinion).

This is my argument. Should a frame be able to be damaged by a stone chip? Falling over at a cafe? A gumby stack? Being mounted in a trainer? All of these things could reasonably be expected if you own and use a bike.

Yet the bikes that we are buying aren't up to this "punishment". Maybe you'll get away with it - maybe you won't. In years gone by bikes stood up to these kind of incidents and generally lived long lives. Not so much these days.

I am coming around to your way of thinking.
I don't have the money to drop on a frameset that you have but neither do I have the money to drop on a plastic frame that is what amounts to a disposable item.
The soft rear dropouts on my S5 have pissed me off such that I no longer ride it.
It will enentually be replaced with a cheaper ti frame.
The S5 I have is a 2012 model. Most of the blokes I ride with have gone through 2 or more plastic bikes in the time I have owned the Cervelo.
That is a mugs game imo.

[biker jk]

Still waiting for a photo of the damage. Crickets.

[AUbicycles]

Would love to see a photo or link to photo.

If a brand (bike brand) truely had to replace or fix their products which suffer some sort of cosmetic damage... eg a MTB can’t suffer scuffing after sliding across a rock because it is a normal riding scenario... imagine how bikes would really have to be built and how much they would cost.

I still think this case it may be cosmetic damage but if it is structural, then the question is whether it is a structural failure (should have been able to withstand the stone and was going to fail anyway) or if the stone was a rock or a boulder.

[Comedian]

Would love to see a photo or link to photo.

If a brand (bike brand) truely had to replace or fix their products which suffer some sort of cosmetic damage... eg a MTB can’t suffer scuffing after sliding across a rock because it is a normal riding scenario... imagine how bikes would really have to be built and how much they would cost.

I still think this case it may be cosmetic damage but if it is structural, then the question is whether it is a structural failure (should have been able to withstand the stone and was going to fail anyway) or if the stone was a rock or a boulder.

That's my point. Modern bikes in general aren't durable enough for being bikes. if your bike falls over at the cafe and lands on something and pops a seat stay or head tube? Is that covered?

I'm darn sure they would say no. Should a bike be durable enough to take that without being damaged and requiring repair? I say yes however people are voting no with their feet.

[Lukeyboy]

Warranty does not work that way. Even law/ACCC doesn't work that way. The same with paint fading on your bike. Oh you left your white bike on your apartment balcony everyday for a year and the left side has started to turn yellow overtime? That's not a manufacturing warranty.

Warranty might not work that way but the law certainly does. And the law is the law, a manufacturing warranty is not the law.

Just because the accc says one thing it doesn’t mean that you can use it as a blanket cover for everything. It’s to cover customers from businesses/retailers but also to protect businesses/retailers from customers.

Why are businesses needing protection from customers? And exactly what are these protections you are refering too?

As I mentioned earlier the pothole excuse is very difficult to actually get any compo on.
And some of the crap I have seen people trying to claim warranty/citing acc on.

Compo? (As in compensation for negligence) Warranty? Neither of these things matter when it comes to consumer statutory rights. You seem to be missing consumer rights completely.

I would suggest you try reading the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. We are all consumers and this is the rulebook that can refer to.

Here is a laymans guide:
https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Co ... mers_0.pdf

Probably the strongest requirement of consumer goods is the requirement that the item be fit for purpose. A road bike that cannot be ridden on the roads without structural damage doesn't sound fit for purpose.


(Of course like the road rules enforcement of the actual law isn't always complete and easy to achieve. Though GOOD retailers should recognise the rights of consumers and act accordingly. I would hope people who sell to consumers are aware of this. But from this thread it seems not to be always the case.)

Stone chips are not a warranty or manufacturing issue. Its a wear and tear problem that the rider has the cop. You getting a paint chip riding your bike on the road or your mtb off the road does not meet any of those standards for a claim.

Work in retail and you will see exactly why business need to be protected from consumers. As I mentioned I've seen my fair share of shotty excuses and damage done to bikes/components and accessories in which consumers have cited rules from the ACCC about 'manufacturing defects' and 'not fit for purpose' from a cheap light right up to items in the 5k+ area. Bike damage from obviously riding in salt water. Seized bearings in a hub thats done thousands of kms in various conditions without being looked after or serviced since purchase. Even had someone try to claim rusty spokes as a manufacturing defect having been left outside in the elements for a year. A Fox fork that had oil leaking and groves on the stauntions after riding them for close to 2 years before servicing since it was purchased - wasn't a happy boy when I told him the cost of new forks. I've even had a customer go off at me citing all this ACCC stuff because his usb light wasn't recharging. Saying its been nothing but a pain in the ass. When I finally managed to calm him down and got some details/did our own tests which showed nothing wrong it with it turned out that it was because he was plugging it into the usb port on his keyboard which had very low power hence why it wasn't charging - which I've seen quite a lot with products that say "usb rechargeable".

As i mentioned the ACCC is not a blanket excuse to claim all your miss fortunes, wear and tear or abuse on. Especially when there is nothing wrong with the product.

[MichaelB]

....
As i mentioned the ACCC is not a blanket excuse to claim all your miss fortunes, wear and tear or abuse on. Especially when there is nothing wrong with the product.

Amen to that.

[eeksll]

...

Stone chips are not a warranty or manufacturing issue. Its a wear and tear problem that the rider has the cop. You getting a paint chip riding your bike on the road or your mtb off the road does not meet any of those standards for a claim.

...

As i mentioned the ACCC is not a blanket excuse to claim all your miss fortunes, wear and tear or abuse on. Especially when there is nothing wrong with the product.

Thought I would point out that both posters (Adelaidepeter and H909) you had previously quoted are referring to structural damage (not merely paint damage). Yet you only refer to paint damage. Are we all arguing the same thing or is there something to add regarding structural damage due to stones one rides over?

[Bunged Knee]

Hey No Body,

Please don`t be scared of the poster`s comments in here. We wanted to see the photo of the crack or chipped frame so they can help you to ease your fears.

If you have problems of uploading the pic, there`s How to post images in forums. No need to join up and post it in here from your computer or phone.

Someone will help you, especially Duck in here is an expert after seeing the picture that you`ve submitted.

[human909]

Stone chips are not a warranty or manufacturing issue. Its a wear and tear problem that the rider has the cop.

Like eeksll mentioned you seem to be moving the goal posts here....

Work in retail and you will see exactly why business need to be protected from consumers.

Been there done that and I do don't see why retailers need protection from consumers. Nor is there is there anything in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 protecting businesses from consumers. It is about giving consumers statutory CONTRACTUAL rights.

As I mentioned I've seen my fair share of shotty excuses and damage done to bikes/components and accessories in which consumers have cited rules from the ACCC about 'manufacturing defects' and 'not fit for purpose' from a cheap light right up to items in the 5k+ area. Bike damage from obviously riding in salt water. Seized bearings in a hub thats done thousands of kms in various conditions without being looked after or serviced since purchase. Even had someone try to claim rusty spokes as a manufacturing defect having been left outside in the elements for a year. A Fox fork that had oil leaking and groves on the stauntions after riding them for close to 2 years before servicing since it was purchased - wasn't a happy boy when I told him the cost of new forks. I've even had a customer go off at me citing all this ACCC stuff because his usb light wasn't recharging. Saying its been nothing but a pain in the ass. When I finally managed to calm him down and got some details/did our own tests which showed nothing wrong it with it turned out that it was because he was plugging it into the usb port on his keyboard which had very low power hence why it wasn't charging - which I've seen quite a lot with products that say "usb rechargeable".

What relevance does any of this have?

Nothing in the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 protects retailers from consumers complaining. Which is exactly all you are talking about here. It does give consumers certain rights which are quite generous. It doesn't 'protect' retailers from consumers.

As i mentioned the ACCC is not a blanket excuse to claim all your miss fortunes

Nobody said it was. In fact the ACCC is not an' excuse' or a 'claim' at all. It is a regulatory body.

What you and your consumers should be refering to is the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. But you don't seem to even know that which just show the lack of knowledge at the retailer level.


A little bit of law here. (Forgive my brevity.) Whenever you buy or sell something that is a contract between parties. Consumers rarely have a comprehensive written contracts when buying an ice cream or even a bicycle. The CCA2010 is about ensuring that consumers have certain CONTRACTUAL rights in the contract between the retailer and the consumer.

Even had someone try to claim rusty spokes as a manufacturing defect having been left outside in the elements for a year.

Quite arguable about that one if it is a high end bike. A decent bike shouldn't have rusted spokes. They should be STAINLESS STEEL, which of decent quality shouldn't rust. My 18 year old bike has seen 18 years of wet weather use including several years of external storage. No rust on the original spokes on the front wheel. Are you suggesting that bicycles are not made to be exposed to the elements?

[Lukeyboy]

Oh look human909 is off on another triad about how he knows everything. Kudos for you mate. Go buy and leave some Zipp 404s outside for a year and see what happens. Or leave a carbon frame out in the elements and see what happens. Then see how your accc rights will fair.

[baabaa]

and it may well be a second hand bike, so.....

[Tim]

Anyhow, I think it's a bit inconsiderate if not rude to post a question, have multiple replies and opinions from people with a sincere desire to help and then not bother to acknowledge or thank anyone.
So there.
Maybe he's the shy and retiring sort? I feel hurt and unappreciated.

[MichaelB]

Regardless of what the law is (and what people think they know it is or isn’t) I cannot comprehend how you could argue that per the OP meagre description and lack of visual evidence, it could even be remotely considered a defect in the bicycle itself.

I really mean that, just how ?

I’d love to see a comparable case that was successful, I really would.

[human909]

Then see how your accc rights will fair.

What ACCC rights? Haven't we been through this?

When somebody who works in retail continues to fail to understand his contractual obligations to consumers he serves it is a worry. And you wonder why so many people start to shun cycling retailers in Australia.

Go buy and leave some Zipp 404s outside for a year and see what happens. Or leave a carbon frame out in the elements and see what happens.

I'm not sure. But if as you suggest they cannot stand the elements for a year then I would have no desire to own such a product.
Thankfully there are plenty of well made bicycles on the market than can withstand the elements for decades. I'll stick with them.

I don't own a carbon frame. But if they are so easily damaged by the "elements" that they can't last a year outside then I'll pass. But I don't have such low expectation of carbon fibre. They build planes out of the stuff and you know they are pretty much out in the elements their entire life.

[Lukeyboy]

Carbon frames have a lifetime warranty but that lifetime is usually defined as a 3-7 year period depending on the manufacture. The same with wheels. Most manufactures will go into frame lifetimes be it colour, sun exposure, lifetime use period etc etc. Some carbon bikes and components have rider weight limits. Look at some of the new lightweight carbon bikes. You can snap the rear seat stays with your hands and there is a max weight limit (rider + rider accessories ie phone, helmet, shoes, wallet, gels etc etc). Cheaper bikes use a different clear coat which the uv can change over time. Different bikes use different carbon. Bikes use a different carbon weave. People still insist using tubeless wheels with alloy nipples and everyone knows how much alloy nipples love tire sealant. It all varies. It all has a purpose. Want a frame that lasts a long time then buy a ti or alloy frame. Same with wheels. Just look at Zipps and see how UV and cleaning the rims can affect the colour. Want carbon rims but can't afford good quality ones then buy a disc version as the big issue with most chinese rims are the heat transfer on the resins (look how popular they are in mtb). You don't buy tubs for an everyday wheel and then abuse staff that you keep getting punctures on them.

I know the obligations but I've worked in the bicycle industry long enough to see the same over exaggerated bs that customers think that they cleverly come up with to try and get out of their errors/faults, their misjudgements or change of mind with some even stating ACCC examples for issues that does not fall under the anything that entitles them to a refund or replacement. Just like when you were in school and you tell the teacher your brilliant excuse for your assignment being late like they've never heard that one before. If you work in the industry you've heard it all before.

Anyone that knows me personally knows I will go well out of my way to help out a customer and I even tell customers about their ACCC rights but at the same time I've come across damaged bikes, wheels, components and accessories that do not at all meet up with the story that accompanies it. I can rattle off so many stories and excuses where people have come in and in cases used the ACCC example printouts thinking they can pull a swift one over myself and the store (which costs us our time when we could be working on servicing bikes/building wheels or dealing with other customers) to cover their ass for their stuff up/wanting a refund/change of mind.

I was JRA and my rim exploded.


But i only ran over a small rock.... piece if concrete.... the size of two tennis balls taped together.... at about 50kph.


Is that rim fit for purpose? Can i use my australian consumer rights to a refund or a replacement rim? Or am I !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! out of luck because I hit a piece of concrete at 50kph.

One of the best ones involved a customer bringing in ACCC printouts, receipts and a long changing story with an aggressive attitude. He was not expecting us to notice the water damage upon inspecting the bike closer (hearing the sloshing of water still in the frame and wheel was the second red flag) and for us to search his strava profile to find photos of his mtb submerged in a creek, another photo of him riding the bike in above lowers flood water and a couple other not so good looking photos which caused the issues he was trying to claim. Never saw him again after he sprinted out the door with his bike. And I'm sure the store that sold him the bike or head office never heard him again either after my email

The ACCC does protect the consumer but it also does encourage quite a lot of abuse and misunderstanding at times as consumers interrupt it differently for whatever reason. There are good consumers and then there are bad consumers. And you are naive if you think that isn't the case.

[fat and old]

The ACCC does protect the consumer but it also does encourage quite a lot of abuse and misunderstanding at times as consumers interrupt it differently for whatever reason. There are good consumers and then there are bad consumers. And you are naive if you think that isn't the case.

Never a truer word spoken. And i'd actually say that it's not the ACC that encourages it; it's sites like this. Whether it's cycling, fishing, motor vehicles or whatever. There are a lot of people who have issues then look for ways to fix them via these sites. There are a lot of people who for whatever reason think that the world owes them a free ride. The amount of disinformation, incorrect interpretations of statutes, laws and regs and sheer stupidity can be a morass for the average man on the street.

Anyway, were there Roadwork signs out? Maybe you can sue the poor dumb traffic management people. I'm surprised nobody's thought of that? Or maybe take them to Worksafe? The company obviously failed in their duty of care. What about Safe Passing laws? The rock was within a meter of the poor sap. And so on and on and on.....

Stuff this, it's all too hard. Ima gonna take up rock climbing. Those boys know their shizzle.

[human909]

A bicycle frame with a lifetime of only 3 years!?

I hope you are making this very clear to customers otherwise that warranty clause isn't worth the paper it is written on.

Consumer Law trump the manufacturer warranty and you the retailer have the responsibility.

I have never disputed that there are consumers that will try for refunds into the most absurd circumstances. But I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.