Cannondale Lifetime warranty doesn't cover breakages

[Nobody]

bike's lifetime with Al or C have a lot to do with fatigue due to number of stress cycles .

I don't think you can narrow it down to any frame material.

But that wasn't my point. Do Cannondale sell anything but Al and C? I don't think they do, so mentioning other materials was pointless.

I'd be surprised if I didn't get 20 years out of my steel frameset.

[warthog1]

Oh well, just repetitively defending carbon and aluminium then.

[singlespeedscott]

I think it's sad thing that people have even think of a warranty for their bike. If I was forced to shell out $4000-$12000 for a pushie I would have an expectation that it should last a very long time. Regardless of the fact I used it for racing. They are after all sold as racing bikes.

I certainly would be doing my nut if I bought an $18000 BMW S 1000 RR and it developed a fatal crack in the chassis from riding a few twisties. And there is a hell of a lot more technology bang for the buck in a moto than any pushie.

[toolonglegs]

But your $18000 BMW would be over engineered to the max... saving weight isn't really a priority in any motos apart from those in the racing classes... and even then they are over engineered. Hence you rarely see a crack in a motorcycle frame, proper suspension helps I expect. If they wanted to build carbon fibre roadies to outlast everything out there including steel I am sure they could... but the market doesn't want it.
Steel ... I don't think I would be expecting 20 years out of any steel race frame if I rode it hard... none of my steel frames have lasted all that long . But yes I know for some people they do .

[Alien27]

The s1000rr is about as race as you can buy. They are not over engineered per say and a lot of finite analysis goes into weight reduction of every component. There has been a few cases of cracked frames in them but sports bikes have been capable of 250kmph for a while and the current crop are nudging 300kmph. I guess a crack is a much bigger deal at that those speeds so the bike manufacturers are very sensitive to the issue and are all over any potential cracking quick smart.

People are still getting new frames when cracks appear on Suzuki tls's 14 years after they manufactured. The manufacturers just won't risk their reputation.

It's still a little off putting to me when I hear a bicycle is only expected to last 4-5 years. I had also assumed they just shouldn't crack unless in a big crash.

[toolonglegs]

Ok... "over engineered to the max" might be a bit over the top, but they are built to last... unlike 750 gram racing frames.
TLs ( and r's )... well the casting was pretty poor on those to start with so I am not surprised, didn't realize they failed so often. But then I haven't worked on moto since 2000 and I don't pay much attention to the motorcycle world to tell the truth.
The s1000rr does look rather nice though!.

[Nobody]

Steel ... I don't think I would be expecting 20 years out of any steel race frame if I rode it hard... none of my steel frames have lasted all that long . But yes I know for some people they do .

I wouldn't expect anything to last if I was Captain Wrecker. But since I'm not and I'm using a Surly CX bike for a road application, I'm pretty confident actually. I've already got a Giant CrMo frameset more than 21 years old that I bought new.

[Marty Moose]

Ok... "over engineered to the max" might be a bit over the top, but they are built to last... unlike 750 gram racing frames.
TLs ( and r's )... well the casting was pretty poor on those to start with so I am not surprised, didn't realize they failed so often. But then I haven't worked on moto since 2000 and I don't pay much attention to the motorcycle world to tell the truth.
The s1000rr does look rather nice though!.

The Std suspension set up is puss on the 1000r bit of valving fixes that

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2

[toolonglegs]

Wheres the full carbon frames on motos though?... I remember racing with someone in the national circuit in NZ back in the 80's who was on a carbon fibre frame... come on, alloy casting is pretty oldschool over engineering in my books these days .

[Nobody]

Just happened to find a guy who wrecks more stuff than TLL. Yes, hard to believe I know, but you'll see why.
http://thegoldenwrench.blogspot.com.au/ ... ts_13.html

[singlespeedscott]

Why is it acceptable for a person to lay out a serious amount of money for a bicycle and manufacturers think that it's a short item. Its a poor attitude that an expensive race bike is a throw away item. The other question is, are they really that expensive to produce. Is the consumer being seriously duped.

[Nobody]

I can understand with race equipment that long-term reliability isn't part of the race equation. But it doesn't explain having the same attitude to everything they sell.

The deceptive way the warranties have been worded, which appear to feed assumptions about the way some frames used to be warranted, while actually offering little real commitment, is poor form IMO. Surly's warranty might not offer much/any more than the ones cited previously, but at least they don't appear to be pretending otherwise with clever wording.

FRAMESET WARRANTY
Surly™ frames and forks are guaranteed to be free from manufacturing defects for three
years from the original date of purchase. If we screwed up something in the manufacturing
process that resulted in the premature failure of the product, we’ll fix or replace it at our
discretion. This warranty is for the original buyer of the product and is not transferable. It
should go without saying that we won’t even consider your warranty problem without a
dated proof-of-purchase.
This warranty doesn’t cover damage resulting from any sort of riding other than “normal”
riding, and the inevitable wear and tear resulting from “normal” use. Surly
products are built to be used vigorously, and we wouldn’t expect you to treat them gently.
However, we can’t be responsible for the inherent danger to body and property you face
each time you throw your leg over the top tube. We’re hip to the “just riding along” phenomenon
- and frankly, we’re just not having it.
Sorry, the paintjob isn’t covered, nor is any damage that happens to you or your other
components as a result of any failure of one of our products. Lastly, if you modify or
neglect our products, we can’t be responsible for them or what might happen to you while
you’re using them. We hate to spell it out, but hey, it’s the 21st Century. We’re known to
back up our products, but we’ve seen too many peoples’ parts come back to us that were
not defective and did not meet our warranty guidelines. Save yourself some time and
shipping money by reading this and making a decision for yourself. If you and your shop
think your Surly product is worthy of a warranty inspection, please return the
product to the original place of purchase, accompanied by a sales receipt. In the unlikely
event that this is not possible, call or email us and we’ll do our best to get you riding again.

http://surlybikes.com/uploads/downloads ... rranty.pdf

[Alien27]

TLL, the TLR is pretty much bullet proof but the TLS develops cracks up near the headstock.

Being new to bicycling I was a bit surprised when I found out the life expectancy of frames. I assumed a lifetime warrantee was for the lifetime of the person that bought it. Silly assumption I guess but I just thought they would last pretty much last for ever.

[toolonglegs]

When I was building these the frames would seriously have a lifespan of less than 24 hours ... I could swap out a frame pretty quickly, wasn't too keen on riding them after that.

[Marty Moose]

What the hell is that.

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2

[toolonglegs]

The cruiser version of this

[Marty Moose]

Is that the v8 locally developed bike?? hundwick Hallam or something I think it was called.

Sent from my MB526 using Tapatalk 2

[Alien27]

TLL the new Ducati Panigale has a CF frame.

http://image.sportrider.com/f/bikes/146_1206_2012_ducati_panigale_s/41776104+pinline_block/146-1206-09-z+2012-ducati-1199-panigale-s+stripped-chassis.jpg

http://techtoys360.com/wordpress/assets/Ducati_Panigale_1199_S_Finish_Line.jpeg

Motorbikes frames obviously have to handle a lot more power than bicycle frames and seem to wit a lot longer life expectancy. I would imaging that not just the power, but also the power handling to weight ratio of a motorbike frame, would be grater than that of a bike frame. So I Wonder if it has something to do with the amount of flex. I would imagine bicycle frames flex a great deal more than motorbike frames. This is the only thing i can think of that would explain the vastly different expected life spans. It may just be that bicycles need a lot more flex built in to preform their function yet this is what costs them life expectancy.

[damhooligan]

Buy a frame and it cracks 5 years down the line due to normal stresses of riding... not due to defects in materials and workmanship etc etc. Basically the same as Cannondale's limited warranty says. I had 3 Gary Fisher ( Trek ) frames replaced in one year due to bad design so I am not complaining. Just saying don't kid yourself that if 10 years down the track your Trek cracks that it will be an automatic replacement.

A frame that cracks within 5 years of normal use, I would not call normal.
I cant see that happening from 'normal' stresses of riding.
And if this would be normal, I would say that the material is not strong enough for normal use.
and therefore the material or construction would be flawed.
Its fair to expect a frame to last a lifetime under normal use.

I can understand that warranty can not cover everything.
But a frame should be able to withstand normal stress of riding, as that's its job.

[toolonglegs]

Buy a frame and it cracks 5 years down the line due to normal stresses of riding... not due to defects in materials and workmanship etc etc. Basically the same as Cannondale's limited warranty says. I had 3 Gary Fisher ( Trek ) frames replaced in one year due to bad design so I am not complaining. Just saying don't kid yourself that if 10 years down the track your Trek cracks that it will be an automatic replacement.

A frame that cracks within 5 years of normal use, I would not call normal.
I cant see that happening from 'normal' stresses of riding.
And if this would be normal, I would say that the material is not strong enough for normal use.
and therefore the material or construction would be flawed.
Its fair to expect a frame to last a lifetime under normal use.

I can understand that warranty can not cover everything.
But a frame should be able to withstand normal stress of riding, as that's its job.

That wasn't actually my point... my point was that Trek's warranty is much the same as Cannondale's.
I would expect Cannondale to replace a frame that cracked within a 5 year time period just like I would expect Trek to. Maybe 8 or 9 years is a different story like the bike that originally sparked this thread. Considering I have never had a frame last more than 2 or 3 years from normal stress I am glad they do replace them no problems ( talking personal experience here with Cannondale and Trek, neither of which I have had problems with when it comes to replacements ).
In my case...Anyone who rides a XL frame knows we flex frames much more the small and medium frames... would be nice if they took this into account when building the bigger sizes though .

[im_no_pro]

I think it's sad thing that people have even think of a warranty for their bike. If I was forced to shell out $4000-$12000 for a pushie I would have an expectation that it should last a very long time. Regardless of the fact I used it for racing. They are after all sold as racing bikes.

This is where statutory warranty comes into play, not Manufacturer warranty (manu. has nothing to do with statutory - contractual relationship is between the purchaser and seller, i.e. LBS) Statutory warranty is even more grey than most manufacturer warranties.

A frame that cracks within 5 years of normal use, I would not call normal.

I dont understand how time becomes the primary consideration for most people - wear and tear is governed by use, not a timespan. My bike after 10 years will have seen less use than other bikes which are 1-2 years old.

[Nobody]

I dont understand how time becomes the primary consideration for most people - wear and tear is governed by use, not a timespan. My bike after 10 years will have seen less use than other bikes which are 1-2 years old.

Since bikes don't have mandatory odometers, it's the only measure they have. The manufacturers therefore can only play the averages game.

[im_no_pro]

I dont understand how time becomes the primary consideration for most people - wear and tear is governed by use, not a timespan. My bike after 10 years will have seen less use than other bikes which are 1-2 years old.

Since bikes don't have mandatory odometers, it's the only measure they have. The manufacturers therefore can only play the averages game.

Agree, its far from an exact science but assessment can give a better indication than simply working on averages.

[ironhanglider]

I haven't been part of this discussion for a while but just for an update.
The final response from CSG (Switzerland) was no, outside the average lifespan in age. (not forgetting that Jon claimed that the bike had only been ridden approx. 100 times and not at all for the last 4 years)
Jon was disillusioned and sold the bike for parts value to my vision impaired friend John. John will be getting the frame repaired by Gripsport and probably repainted with custom decals so that it no longer bears the name Cannondale.

im_no_pro wrote that the warranty was for the lifetime of the bike not of the person, however that is not the case with Cannondale. Their warranty states that it is for the "lifetime of the original owner" as per the first post. It is only later that they introduce the concept of fatigue as wear and tear which is not covered. Since they did not choose to address Jon's claim of limited use and simply reverted to a formula of 5 years is an expected life for the bike it would seem that the statement of 'lifetime of the original owner' should be at least followed by an asterisk and a footnote to make it clear that this is only if the original owner dies within 5 years. It is still unsatisfactory for a bike that is intended for touring use to fail after so little use.

I dont understand how time becomes the primary consideration for most people - wear and tear is governed by use, not a timespan. My bike after 10 years will have seen less use than other bikes which are 1-2 years old.

Since bikes don't have mandatory odometers, it's the only measure they have. The manufacturers therefore can only play the averages game.

Agree, its far from an exact science but assessment can give a better indication than simply working on averages.

This is certainly part of the issue, yes in the photos they could have determined that some parts had been replaced (Dura-Ace chainrings don't come standard) but tandems do wear running gear out quickly though. If we take Jon's 100 ride estimate and suggest that each ride was 100km (not unbelievable he was a high level racer) that would be 10,000km. In that time you'd expect to go through several drive chains, 4 or 5 rear tyres, a couple of cassettes and at least one set of rims as well as chainrings.

If the company had disputed Jon's claim of usage directly and used service history, riding logs etc as evidence they would have been on stronger grounds to say that this failure was due to wear. But to reject it on time alone was the disappointment.

If the warranty stated from the outset that the bike was designed to withstand 5 years of regular use, with the usual escape clauses for excessive and unusual use, crash, sale etc I don't think that Jon would have even attempted to claim warranty. However the wording led him to believe that he did have a reasonable claim despite the age of the bike. Now all he is left with is a bad opinion of Cannondale which he will continue to voice. Will that cost Cannondale more than the $500 that a new frame or repair would have cost them, particularly since that could have turned this story into songs of praise for the brand.

Cheers,

Cameron

[AUbicycles]

Thank you for the followup.

After reading this thread through it is all about what the customer believes they are getting when we buy. Experienced riders realise there is a lifespan and I take on the feedback about being realistic as a customer after 10 or 15 years.

BUT if we, as a customer have been sold a bike due to it's lifetime warranty - it is fair to define what that actually means. A lifetime warranty on workmanship is a little better but still a grey area, for example tubing with a slight flaw that eventually fractures - shouldn't this have been picked up during manufacture?

For marketeers and sales people it is nice to package the benefits up into neat packages - so I can't think of a way to easily define it and make it a simple and positive sales argument. If a customer walks away believing that their bike will last 50 years with regular and normal riding, then this is a problem - speaking for myself, I would appreciate a 'note to the new customer' that outlines when a warrant does and does not apply "Thanks you for purchasing your new Cannondale, we hope you enjoy riding but first there are a few things you should know". While a salesperson should be perfectly clear what the lifetime warranty is if they use it as a sales argument, providing a plainspeak overview would help. It shouldn't be packed as a small piece of paper in the terms but becomes part of the 'shopper experience' when buying a bike and receiving a small kit with info.