Cracked Carbon Frame

themadbiker

Hi All

Just wanted to see if there were a few others who might have had the same problem.

I have a Trek Madone 5.2, had it from new. It's now about 16 months old give or take. My pride and joy until a couple of weeks ago when I noticed whilst cleaning the bike down from a previous wet and dirty ride, the bottom stay on the chain side had cracked vertically about 5 inches away from the wheel mount. I think i only passed out for a few minutes but could have been longer; I realy don't know, everything went blank. The crack is quite severe the chain guard was kind of holding it together.

I phoned my Trek dealer who were realy good, took my bike down to them; their opinion was the frame had suffered from a failure within the frame and duley sent it to Trek for there assessment purely a formality or so they thought. Trek assessment was the frame had suffered an inpact right where the frame had cracked and was the sole reason for the frame failure and was therefore not covered under the carbon life time warranty.

Though they have said I can have a new frame under the crash replacement scheme if I coff up another 1100 quid.

We all know Bonti is owned by Trek and considering I also own a pair of Aeolus 65's I would have thought this might have bought me at least some consideration; considering the bike and wheels are close to 4k not forgetting the carbon stem, bottle cages, extended seat post etc etc. I can only think it was the Ritchey carbon Streem bars that pissed them off, pardon my language!

Getting back to my question, which is; has anyone else suffered this sort of frame failure, and if so what was the outcome when you contacted the manufacturer. I'm particularly interest in Trek but would welcome other manufacturers just as well. Also has anyone managed to overturn the manufacturers decision? if so HOW!

Thanks for reading

Les

Smokin Joe

You need to find out from Trek what evidence they have that the failure was due to impact damage. Under the Sale of Goods Act they have to prove misuse on your part before they can reject your claim, they will have to provide this in any dispute.

Even without their lifetime warranty the goods must be fit for the purpose, and a frame which fails in 16 months clearly is not. Also, your claim would be against the shop who sold you the bike, not Trek.

MajorPayne

Heya mate,

Sounds like a nightmare, you've spent some really hard earned cash, not bashed the bike about.. And they give you that old trout.. It's "suffered an impact".

I honestly cannot help you on the matter because I've never seen a carbon frame in the flesh or would ever have the money to buy one, but to be honest if they said that to me and I knew for a fact it had never been or "suffered an impact" I'd honestly make sure they "suffered an impact" namely with the carbon frame in question!

I do hope you get it sorted out a.s.a.p but if it was me I'd never buy from them again, I could be throwing all my toys out of the basket on this one, but honestly you've spent quite a bit of monies on that bike and your not getting the better part of any customer service, even with the 1.1K for a new frame I'd still be moaning and tuttering like an OAP!

Hope someone else can come along and advise you on this subject as it's way out of my depth, just hope you get something sorted soon it's like loosing an arm and I can kinda understand that.

Kind regards,
MajorPayne

bike_the_planet

themadbiker wrote:

Hi All

Just wanted to see if there were a few others who might have had the same problem.

I have a Trek Madone 5.2, had it from new. It's now about 16 months old give or take. My pride and joy until a couple of weeks ago when I noticed whilst cleaning the bike down from a previous wet and dirty ride, the bottom stay on the chain side had cracked vertically about 5 inches away from the wheel mount. I think i only passed out for a few minutes but could have been longer; I realy don't know, everything went blank. The crack is quite severe the chain guard was kind of holding it together.

I phoned my Trek dealer who were realy good, took my bike down to them; their opinion was the frame had suffered from a failure within the frame and duley sent it to Trek for there assessment purely a formality or so they thought. Trek assessment was the frame had suffered an inpact right where the frame had cracked and was the sole reason for the frame failure and was therefore not covered under the carbon life time warranty.

Though they have said I can have a new frame under the crash replacement scheme if I coff up another 1100 quid.

We all know Bonti is owned by Trek and considering I also own a pair of Aeolus 65's I would have thought this might have bought me at least some consideration; considering the bike and wheels are close to 4k not forgetting the carbon stem, bottle cages, extended seat post etc etc. I can only think it was the Ritchey carbon Streem bars that pissed them off, pardon my language!

Getting back to my question, which is; has anyone else suffered this sort of frame failure, and if so what was the outcome when you contacted the manufacturer. I'm particularly interest in Trek but would welcome other manufacturers just as well. Also has anyone managed to overturn the manufacturers decision? if so HOW!

Thanks for reading

Les

I would examine the crack carefully and see whether there is evidence of any compression failure (ie a dent) on the underside.

If there is then it may be that a stick has become trapped in the wheel and rammed up against the chain stay - one of the perils or minimally spoked wheels, I'm afraid. Carbon fibre has very poor strength in compression.

If there isn't then you may have a frame that has just, well, cracked. In which case it would almost certainly be a warranty issue.

A good frame reapirer may be able to examine the frame under UV light. Stress fractures tend to show up clearer under UV because of the shorter wavelength.

A CF repairer might be able to give you his opinion, which might possibly add weight to you rights for a frame replacement if it has failed for no onbvious reason.

Good luck

bhm100

themadbiker wrote:

Hi All

the bottom stay on the chain side had cracked vertically about 5 inches away from the wheel mount. I think i only passed out for a few minutes but could have been longer; I realy don't know, everything went blank. The crack is quite severe the chain guard was kind of holding it together.

Hmm, that sounds tough. However, failure investigation should be based on visual evidence, so it's not unreasonable to ask them why they reach their conclusions and ask to see their results. Considering this is a top range frame then simply saying "impact" isn't good enough, they should be proving it with evidence to your dealer.

First thing is the direction of crack propagation. Assuming the chainstay hadn't completely broken, then you should know if the crack had started at the top/bottom/wheel or outside of the stay. Even if it had completely fractured then it's still possible to determine the direction of fracture.

Next point is that in claiming "impact" then there MUST be external damage to the surface, so this is what I'd be pursuing in your case.

The only damage I could imagine to the top would be from chain whip, and if the frame had the Trek chainstay protector in place then that's not something you should be liable for. Any other damage, something getting caught in the wheel, etc, I'm sure you'd know about because it would most likely have brought you off.

Damage to the underside of the chainstay iis hard to imagine other than during maintenance, although I suppose you could have a stone impact or the chain whipping upwards on a rough road..

Inside the chainstay could be a stone caught by the rim, but you'd see a clear groove in that event. External damage is the most likely, dropping the bike, etc.

The point is that they should be able to photograph and explain the reason. I'm not in the cycle industry but I have done a fair bit of failure investigation and in this sort of case I'd have photographic record of the external surfaces and then have a section through the damaged area to investigate the lay-up, etc.

One downside is that if the chainstay has been flexing for a while, then there might be paint damage in the vicinity of the crack initiation, and that could be put down to impact. Hence you need a cross section to show if the lay-up is as designed, or if it's below thickness/not fully wetted out/ bubbles in the structure, etc.

Best of luck with the case. As a Trek OCLV owner myself I have an interest, so let's know how you get on.

Steveorow

Sorry to here your dilema . I presume you got your bike insured considering its value . If so is it insured through your house contents ? Maybe worth investigating . My insurance "apparently" covers accidental damage either at or away from the house . If Trek says its impact damage then it maybe covered through that route if your insured through your contents insurance .

Maybe a long shot ; never had to try claiming against it though .

GF22

Madbiker,

I had a similar situation a couple of months ago where I spotted a large horizontal crack in my three month old 6.9 Madone on the outside of the rear stay. There was no chip in the pain, simply the crack along which the paint had cracked too. I sent it to Trek via my LBS and had it sent back with exactly the same explanation you had.

I went back to Trek as I was adamant that I would have known of any impact on my bike that would have forced a 1.5 inch crack and asked, assuming there had been an impact, could they tell me what could cause such a crack (my point was, again, that surely it would have had to be something of significant force to create a crack that size).

They agreed to a second opinion but came back with the same conclusion and said there was a dent in the stay to prove it.

I didn't feel I could pursue it any further as, taking them at their word, if there was a dent, then there was impact but, I maintain I have never been aware of any impact whilst riding the bike nor is it stored in any way where it could be knocked or banged by anything else.

So, a £2k frame for three months and then written off as unrideable, so I know how you feel!

GF

giant_man

Carbon fibre frames are not that fragile! Of course it can happen and I've seen it on any make of cf frame.

That's what warranties are for. However it doesn't surprise me about Trek's 'policies' at all. They're not going to believe that it wasn't an impact that led to the chainstay cracking. And your comment about having Bontrager stuff on there isn't going to cut much ice either I wouldn't have thought.

Good luck with it.

sturmey

That sounds like an appalling response from the manufacturer. Surely if the frame had taken an impact sufficient to cause the crack there would be a dent or some paint missing or some other evidence of this happening?
It doesn't sound like they have subjected the frame to any kind of failure analysis-merely a visual inspection seems inadequate under the circumstances. I would say have it inspected by a third party with some expertise in the field. It might be worth paying for this service.
Your experience has put me off any thoughts of buying one of their carbon bikes- I thought the whole point of buying one was the supposedly reliable manufacturer warranty. I guess you did too.

Wappygixer

Get in touch with the citizens advise bureau they can really help you with all your rights and how to go about things in the proper way.
If it all goes well then I certainly wouldn't be buying a Trek again.

maddog 2

just because you don't like the idea of an impact being the cause doesn't make it less likely!

The truth is, an impact may well be the most likely explanation for the crack, in which case Trek are perfectly reasonable in their position and certainly shouldn't be slagged off for it.

The owner would clearly prefer it to be a manufacturing issue, so they get a new shiny frame fro free and don't have to fork out a grand. However, what should happen is the judgement should be based on evidence, not emotion.

slunker

or get fibre-lyte.co.uk to fix it.

They did mine which had multiple cracks on the frame and 2k miles later its still perfect

bazbadger

CF won't dent - not without a big crack to go with it. If there is dent, but no crack then it's likely that it was there at point of manufacture as CF frames are laid up by hand.

bhm100

maddog 2 wrote:

just because you don't like the idea of an impact being the cause doesn't make it less likely!

The truth is, an impact may well be the most likely explanation for the crack, in which case Trek are perfectly reasonable in their position and certainly shouldn't be slagged off for it.

The owner would clearly prefer it to be a manufacturing issue, so they get a new shiny frame fro free and don't have to fork out a grand. However, what should happen is the judgement should be based on evidence, not emotion.

Yep, I'd agree 100% with that. On the other hand, neither of these guys appear to be able to see any impact damage, and from my very limited knowledge of GRP construction then I'd certainly expect to see some evidence. And if both posters are savvy enough to spot a fine crack, then I'd assume they're equally capable of noting external impacts. In addition, both posters appear to have gone back via their LBS where I would have expected any decent mechanic to rule out mis-use or damage before sending it back to Trek.

In the latter case (GF22) then I'm struggling to think of the type of impact which could have caused such a crack without significant damage to the paintwork. And as another poster has said, CF doesn't "dent", and such a comment would immediately give me concerns about the technical knowledge behind the failure report.

In both cases I would insist on seeing the written lab report on their findings, and if still unsatisfied would ask them to return the frame so that I could have an independent inspection. If it comes back with more damage than when you sent it, then both you and your LBS will know exactly what's going on.

3 months for a £2k frame that fails without being crashed or maltreated is just silly.

themadbiker

Hi all thanks for all your comments. I'm going to see the guy's at the bike shop at the weekend to ask for the inspection report. I don't think there will be one to see but you never know. Based on the veiws recieved I think this might be worth pushing a little further!

I'll let you all know how I get on next week.


Les

gkerr4

GF22 wrote:

Madbiker,

I had a similar situation a couple of months ago where I spotted a large horizontal crack in my three month old 6.9 Madone on the outside of the rear stay. There was no chip in the pain, simply the crack along which the paint had cracked too. I sent it to Trek via my LBS and had it sent back with exactly the same explanation you had.

I went back to Trek as I was adamant that I would have known of any impact on my bike that would have forced a 1.5 inch crack and asked, assuming there had been an impact, could they tell me what could cause such a crack (my point was, again, that surely it would have had to be something of significant force to create a crack that size).

They agreed to a second opinion but came back with the same conclusion and said there was a dent in the stay to prove it.

I didn't feel I could pursue it any further as, taking them at their word, if there was a dent, then there was impact but, I maintain I have never been aware of any impact whilst riding the bike nor is it stored in any way where it could be knocked or banged by anything else.

So, a £2k frame for three months and then written off as unrideable, so I know how you feel!

GF

thats not good is it! - just 3 months!

I damaged a specialized S-Works roubaix frame last year buy putting a 13-26 campag cassette on - the 13 tooth sprocket caused the chain to foul the chainstay - I took pictures and sent it to Specialized UK to ask is this meant to happen - thinking I had ruined a new frame (the chain had made a nice groove!) - the responded to say that the frame wasn't designed to accept 13-26 cassettes but that they feel they should make this known - so they replaced my (bought in the sale) 2007 frame with a new 2008 one and sent me an S-Works 2D helmet for "my trouble"!
they offered a "new" design BB (which I now know was a BB30 std!) and an S-Works carbon chainset with it - but I declined and went for the standard threaded BB instead.

What interests me in this is that Trek make a big point of their "lifetime carbon warranty" - but clearly don;t actually want to honour it!

Slow Downcp

If no joy with Trek, are you insured? When my chain unshipped on my Kuota, it got stuck between stay and chainset, which left a small groove in the carbon. I phoned my insurers (normal house insurance with accidental damage included for contents), told them exectly what happened and how much a new frame would be, and they said that if my LBS thought it was scrap, just get a written statement from them along with a quote and they would arrange replacement. Luckily the damage was just superficial so didn't have to claim.

bhm100

themadbiker wrote:

Hi all thanks for all your comments. I'm going to see the guy's at the bike shop at the weekend to ask for the inspection report. I don't think there will be one to see but you never know. Based on the veiws recieved I think this might be worth pushing a little further!

I'll let you all know how I get on next week.


Les

Excellent news, you should take this one to the top. I also doubt there will have been anything in writing but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a documented report to a warranty claim. Having done these sort of things I'd expect to see

1. photos as received, general shot plus close up of the damaged area. Possibly a photo marked up to show crack initiation point and direction of travel.
2. A cross section of the damaged area to prove that it was within design specification. Layers of fibres & resin used, etc.
3. Written comments supporting the final verdict.

A bit of background info which might help you to get the LBS on your side, and understand why you want to see the report. Then they can go back to Trek saying "I've got a problem customer here who seems to know something" and thus not appear to be a whinging dealer and risk souring their own relationship with Trek.

It is possible to take a piece of GRP (ie your chainstay) and determine if it has been properly fabricated by taking sections for examination. Apart from the obvious one of checking to see if it is the correct thickness, one possible failure mode is the resin not fully "wetting out" the glass or carbon fibres, creating an internal dry spot which is obviously weaker. There are other things that a lab can do as well, such as determining the number of fibre layers used and the amount of resin in the original construction. They can also check to see if the resin was cured properly, but at 16months old this shouldn't be an issue - poor curing would have been an early failure.

You mentioned the failure was 5-6" from the wheel mount. Now if an impact was the original cause, then that could be due to chain whip if the crack initiation was either at the top or bottom of the chainstay.

In this case I'd suggest that potential impact from the chain should be well within the design remit and I would expect the drive-side chainstay to be thicker to handle this. They fit a guard to the top and if the impact was from underneath, then I'd ask why they didn't consider this area, because it does happen.

Monty Dog

It would be pretty difficult to make a definite opinion on whether the damage was due to impact without an ultrasound or cutting the chainstay in two. If you're not happy with the report, take it to a composites expert for a 2nd opinion - you may find one at a university engineering facility too. Having a 2nd expert opinion might help in your claim and if necessary making a court claim. Many people on here attribute too high a value on warranty and find out the hard way that warranties are 'limited' - if the first reason for choosing a brand is their warranty, then I'd suggest that is the one to avoid! Finally, Specialized seem to understand the value of customer service and loyalty whereas clearly Trek don't!

paulorg

Unfortunately warranty providers go a long way to get out of honouring their agreements. Wasn't that long a go that a number of big name insurers were throwing out genuine cases on first claim just to see if the customer would go quietly cos it doesn't help their profits to pay out. I'd be genuine shocked to see a carbon frame break so early in it's life if, as you say, it's not suffered a serious impact so keep at em.

bhm100

A slightly off topic post, but you may find it interesting.

About a month ago a guy on Pistonheads (petrol head forum but they have a biking section) broke his Marin MTB frame at the bottom bracket shell. Now this is a well used frame, 1998 vintage and yet he submitted the frame under it's "lifetime warranty".

And they replaced the frame..... 11yrs old and they still honoured the warranty. Impressive I think, if you want to check out the damage & result, here's the thread

http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/to ... ..%20again!

SteppenHerring

As somebody mentioned earlier: Sale of Goods act. Regardless of any warranties, the item must be fit for purpose - and that purpose is being ridden along the road - with all the bumps and crap that you have to put up with.

I'm assuming that you'd remember being hit by a car, dropping the bike or slamming the chainstay in the car boot. If all it has been subject to is being ridden along the road then the onus is on the retailer/manufacturer.

I am assuming that the warranty is insured and basically they are try to get you to go quietly. If they can lose even a few claims by fobbing people off, it will save them money. They clearly don't realise what effect it has on their public image though.

O/T but the Sale of Good act mean that a lot of the "extended warranties" that the likes of Currys try to sell you are pointless. If you buy a TV or a washing machine and it breaks down after 3 years, it's not fit for purpose and they must refund you or replace it.

Slow Downcp

SteppenHerring wrote:

O/T but the Sale of Good act mean that a lot of the "extended warranties" that the likes of Currys try to sell you are pointless. If you buy a TV or a washing machine and it breaks down after 3 years, it's not fit for purpose and they must refund you or replace it.

Have you tested this theory? Goods wear out, which is why manufacturers offer warranties in the first please. If a fridge breaks down after 3 years use, then it was fit for purpose when sold.

It's like taking your car back to Kwik Fit saying the tyres you bought 30,000 miles before weren't fit for purpose as they had no tread left. :roll:

freehub

On the club run I do the group leader has a Madone, I think it might be a 5.5, dont know if there is any difference between all the 5 numbers and the frames or if it's just specs, but he's about to be on frame number 4, he's had it cracked I think twice near where the seat post goes in and now his BB area is playing up. Cant believe that many frames go wrong he must either be unlucky or these frames have some design flaws.

SteppenHerring

Slow Downcp: It's not reasonable to expect tyres to last 30,000 miles. It is reasonable to expect a TV to last more than the 12 months that the shops say you're entitled to. I haven't personally tested it with anything expensive (no need) but there have been plenty of instances.

pinno

I'm just a bystander here - but if I was to buy a 2k frame, I would expect it to take the sort of impacts that have been mentioned.
Lets face it, a bike can get some serious abuse from crashing, boot lids, chain whip etc. okay, so shutting a boot lid on our bike is your fault but it would be easy to ascertain an impact like that. However, bike manufacturers should know and expect that wear, tear and normal use abuse is going to happen. and the bike should be fit for purpose.
From what has been said so far, its A) put me off Trek completely and even dare I say it, pushed me towards Specialised even though I always verge towards the Italian stuff and made me think twice about buying a carbon frame which is the ultimate step up for me.
Whatever some people may think with their not too generous comments ('whinging' etc). I really hope you get your money back. Good luck and keep us posted on how you get on.
Cheers
Rob

giropaul

Fitness for purpose - the more expensive carbon (or other) frames are the more specialised the task they are meant for.

A very light carbon frame has been designed for competative events, sometimes for specific purposes like climbing. It hasn't been designed for a mixture of commuting, club runs etc. with the accompanying low level trauma.

If you look at the frames the pros use for e.g. Flanders, or Paris Roubaix, they aren't the same as those for the climbing days on the Tour.

There seems to be a trend to buy the "best" (i.e. the lightest) frame, and to then use it for everything, and expect it to last like a steel winter frame of old.

gkerr4

giropaul wrote:

Fitness for purpose - the more expensive carbon (or other) frames are the more specialised the task they are meant for.

A very light carbon frame has been designed for competative events, sometimes for specific purposes like climbing. It hasn't been designed for a mixture of commuting, club runs etc. with the accompanying low level trauma.

If you look at the frames the pros use for e.g. Flanders, or Paris Roubaix, they aren't the same as those for the climbing days on the Tour.

There seems to be a trend to buy the "best" (i.e. the lightest) frame, and to then use it for everything, and expect it to last like a steel winter frame of old.

I'm sorry but I disagree - when you go to buy a Madone or a tarmac or an addict or whatever it doesn't come with a tag saying "warning - race use only! - not designed for everyday use" - it's just a bike - a posh bike, but still a bike and it should stand up to being sold to the public and "used" on the road.

I agree there are bikes "better suited" to commuting etc and I think your average Madone 6.9 buyer knows this too (and probably has a garage full of bikes to pick for his / her commute!) but to find a crack in the chainstay when the owner has no recollection of any impact needs to be investigated fully by the manufacturer.

Smokin Joe

A frame designed for racing will have far more stresses through it than one used for commuting. Lightness does no come from making frames weaker, but through better design and build.

And it is only the specialist climbers and GC contenders who get extra lightweight frames for the mountains, the rest get the same as they ride in every other race through the year.

fnegroni

I do think though that lighter is also linked to 'weaker': it might break if subject to stressed it was not designed to sustain.
That does not mean it should not be replaced under warranty. It just means the manufacturers should be more honest and publish test results.

Coach H

Slightly off-topic but connected to the OP, there is a lot of talk in this thread about fit for purpose and cost of items but I agree to some extent with giropaul. Paying more for a product will normally get you ‘better’ performance. However YOU the buyer may not actually want better performance from the product, but want the best performance for your intended use. Pro level bikes will compromise aspects of reliability in the quest to go faster, which is not something the vast majority of posters on these forums will want who do not expect the failure rate that pro teams will absorb as a matter of course. Do you expect top of the range chains and cables, for example, to last more than a few weeks? I know I would but pro teams wouldn’t and factor in the cost of replacing them to these frequencies.

Take cars. F1 car more expensive? Yes. Better? Not if you are doing the school run.

Take cricket bats. £250 cricket bats will fall apart after 1 season. £150 cricket bats will last 5 seasons. Which is most fit for purpose or ‘better’? That depends on if you are a pro are an average club player. Plenty of club cricketers have bought expensive bats only to be disappionted that they have cracked after only a couple of uses despite that fact that this is what they should be expecting along with a more responsive bat.

Take ski boots. Please if you are contemplating buying pro level boots after 1 weeks skiing because they must be ‘better’ and you have the money DON’T. You will not be able to ski in them and you will fall! Spent £200 not £500 you will enjoy it far more.

I could go on but wont as you'll get bored. I agree that the OP has probably been treated a bit shabbily and may have had a bit of shonky customer service, based on the information given., and I sincerely hope they reach a satisfactory conclusion. Do not confuse this, please just for me, with notions of expensive means ‘better’ or ‘fit for purpose’ as this is dependent on the design criteria of any product NOT customer expectation.