Madone 5.2 Chainstay Crack

red_eye5

My madone now has a crack in the chainstay. Its is vertical about 1inch from the bottom bracket on the outside of the chain stay and about an inch long. Took it to the LBS and they said it does not look good and will get Trek to look at it. It looks like the frame is coming apart from where its been put together. I have never crashed the bike.

I wont hold my breath on this one as after my recent dealings with Trek (crushed seatmast which I have now got repaired)

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=16322378

They did not entertain that claim and put it down to over tightening on the mast clamp. Whats the odd they will make up another excuse on this.

Anyone else had this problem?

Will keep you posted.

prawny

Please do, I after a new bike and the lifetime warranty of treks is a selling point but not if they don't honour it. :?

red_eye5

Trek said they wont look at my bike anymore since I have had the seatmast repaired it invalidates any warranty on the bike even though the chainstay crack has nothing to do with the seatmast.

If I did not get it repaired and went back to them they would have rejected it for the same reason saying the seatmast has been damaged so there is no warranty on the frame. You cannot win with them either way.

zanes

*crosses Trek off list of best bike candidates*

moonshine

zanes wrote:

*crosses Trek off list of best bike candidates*

yip.... ditto.... :roll:

Trek seem to be weaseling their way out of the majority of there CF frame warranties....

not good customer relations or PR

Leesykoi

If Trek do not honour your warranty try this guy.

http://www.carboncyclerepairs.co.uk/index.php

Based in the Leicestershire area, he can work wonders and fixed a small issue with my Pinarello that is 100% un-noticable and for a very economical price.

giant_man

zanes wrote:

*crosses Trek off list of best bike candidates*

Did that about eight years ago mate! lol

porker33

red_eye5 wrote:

Trek said they wont look at my bike anymore since I have had the seatmast repaired it invalidates any warranty on the bike even though the chainstay crack has nothing to do with the seatmast.

If I did not get it repaired and went back to them they would have rejected it for the same reason saying the seatmast has been damaged so there is no warranty on the frame. You cannot win with them either way.

Is it worth seeking legal advice?

I have a 5.2 and part of the reason i went for it was confidence in the lifetime frame warranty.
If they do not honour this for a legitimate claim, i would have no hesitation initiating legal action.

Weejie54

s it worth seeking legal advice?

I have a 5.2 and part of the reason i went for it was confidence in the lifetime frame warranty.
If they do not honour this for a legitimate claim, i would have no hesitation initiating legal action.

Trek say in their warranty:

This warranty is void in its entirety by any modification of the frame, fork, or components...

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/support/limited_warranty

The seat mast has been repaired - arguably modified. They have a get out clause.
It is patently obvious that the repaired seat mast has nothing to do with failure of the chainstay, but their lawyers would point out the wording of the warranty.

chriskempton

red_eye5 wrote:

Trek said they wont look at my bike anymore since I have had the seatmast repaired it invalidates any warranty on the bike even though the chainstay crack has nothing to do with the seatmast.

If I did not get it repaired and went back to them they would have rejected it for the same reason saying the seatmast has been damaged so there is no warranty on the frame. You cannot win with them either way.

Does the warranty actually say this or are they just trying to put you off? Worth checking.

Weejie54

Does the warranty actually say this or are they just trying to put you off? Worth checking.

See above.

chriskempton

Well that's timing isn't it

antikythera

Leesykoi wrote:

If Trek do not honour your warranty try this guy.

http://www.carboncyclerepairs.co.uk/index.php

Based in the Leicestershire area, he can work wonders and fixed a small issue with my Pinarello that is 100% un-noticable and for a very economical price.

+1 for these guys, they did a great job on my resurection project

zanes

Weejie54 wrote:

s it worth seeking legal advice?

I have a 5.2 and part of the reason i went for it was confidence in the lifetime frame warranty.
If they do not honour this for a legitimate claim, i would have no hesitation initiating legal action.

Trek say in their warranty:

This warranty is void in its entirety by any modification of the frame, fork, or components...

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/support/limited_warranty

The seat mast has been repaired - arguably modified. They have a get out clause.
It is patently obvious that the repaired seat mast has nothing to do with failure of the chainstay, but their lawyers would point out the wording of the warranty.

Ah, but I would expect a company to apply common sense with this rather than the exact wording of their warranty. For example, in the OPs case whilst yes, the frame has *technically* been modified it's in an area unrelated to the new failure. Had he hacked bits off the chainstay to lighten it then yes, Trek would be right to fall back on that clause.

As it is, refusing to even *look* at the frame smacks of a company that won't be getting my custom in future. Shame, as I rather fancied a project one.

unixnerd

I'd try trading standards.

fuelex

How old is the bike?, is it worth pursuing that the bike is 'unfit for purpose' if you've been riding it and not crashing/jumping/hitting it with hammers.

Monty Dog

You have no rights under warranty in law, it is merely goodwill - the maker typically retains the right to make any decision as they see fit. It gets brought up here regularly and I've been saying for years that selecting a bike for it's warranty is a recipe for disaster - IME those that make a bid deal of their warranty are using it as a 'smoke screen' for previous poor reputation / problems.

softlad

Monty Dog wrote:

You have no rights under warranty in law, it is merely goodwill - the maker typically retains the right to make any decision as they see fit.

The warranty forms part of the contract of sale - of course you have rights under it. Warranties wouldn't include so many disclaimers if they had no value in the first place.....

The only question is whether this constitutes a breach of warranty, or not..

Weejie54

Ah, but I would expect a company to apply common sense with this rather than the exact wording of their warranty.

I would hope that this would be the case, however, I've come to expect it less and less over the years.

Monty Dog wrote:

You have no rights under warranty in law, it is merely goodwill - the maker typically retains the right to make any decision as they see fit.

A warranty is a contractual obligation under UK law. If this 'warranty' was not paid for, it is arguably a consumer guarantee rather than an extended warranty:-

"consumer guarantee" means any undertaking to a consumer by a person acting in the course of his business, given without extra charge, to reimburse the price paid or to replace, repair or handle consumer goods in any way if they do not meet the specifications set out in the guarantee statement or in the relevant advertising;

The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002



This legislation renders such a guarantee legally binding. A warranty differs in that it is normally paid for in addition to the sale price of the goods.
Section 15 (1):

Consumer guarantees
15. - (1) Where goods are sold or otherwise supplied to a consumer which are offered with a consumer guarantee, the consumer guarantee takes effect at the time the goods are delivered as a contractual obligation owed by the guarantor under the conditions set out in the guarantee statement and the associated advertising.

How old is the bike?, is it worth pursuing that the bike is 'unfit for purpose' if you've been riding it and not crashing/jumping/hitting it with hammers.

That would be something between the consumer and the retailer.

red_eye5

I purchased the bike in April 2009 although it’s a 2008 model. None the less I don’t expect a “Trek Madone“ frame to fail in such a way.

Madones have seatmasts problems galore. They often keep slipping. If you adjust the height the paint get scratched on the seatmast. They crush even by using a torque wrench to the correct settings (http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15720577). Lucky for this guy he had a replacement frame.

Trek look for excuses not to honour a warranty claim. They wanted £950 for a replacement frame. I was not comfortable with buying another Madone so decided to get it repaired. I didn’t realise at the time it would invalidate any future warranty. However I question if Trek would have honoured any other warranty given the damage to the frame.

I did get the seatmast repaired by CBR based in Coalville. Credit to him he did a great job. He cut the cap of the seatmast to reinforce it from the inside and said he was shocked that the seatmast is not uniform in its thickness inside (possibly another reason why it’s perhaps failed).

I was not surprised when Trek were not interested in my bike when I took it to them the second time. They could have at least looked at it but didn’t even do that. The seatmast repair has nothing to do with the chainstay crack. They have washed their hands of this.

I have contacted Consumer Direct and they have advised me if I don’t get any joy with Trek then the retailer has a legal obligation to replace the bike under the sale of goods act. However the bikeshop is not interested either. My last option which I am currently pursuing is to claim it back on my credit card under section 75 from the credit card company. Reading around forums this is a long process and the CC company drag their heels over it. They have written to me asking me if they can contact the bike shop. I guess the bikeshop will say it my own fault by getting the bike repaired I have invalidated any warranty.

I think people should be more aware of what Trek’s lifetime warranty actually means in practice. A lot of people buy Trek for peace of mind due to the lifetime warranty which in reality means nothing.

Reading around on internet forums most people that have had problems with their madones and Trek have done something about it have usually purchased their bike from a big retailer such as Evans.

I will never buy a Trek again.

keef66

Vauxhall are in the process of introducing a "lifetime warranty". Would that really persuade you to buy a Vauxhall next if you're happy with your Ford / Skoda / Audi / BMW / Seat / VW etc etc??

I imagine they include plenty of get out of jail free clauses in the warranty T&C's.

I'd rather go for a brand / retailer with a good reputation for reliability and good customer service if things go wrong.

Monty Dog

To the OP, I would take the bike frame back to the shop, who has the legal obligation to remedy the problem - not Trek - and give them written instructions that you want them to fix the problem or seek redress. Given them a resonable timescale - say 4 weeks to respond. Plenty of info available on Trading Standards. If they reject your request or fail to give a satisfactory answer then consult with your credit card with your 'evidence'. Happened to me a few years ago - once my card company got involved, a refund was quickly forthcoming.

keef66

Good advice. The mere threat of getting Barclaycard involved was enough to prompt a refund from an otherwise unresponsive Ebay seller last year.

red_eye5

The bikeshop (Freewheel Nottighnam) feel that they have done all they can to help me. They negotiated a discount for me with Trek to get the replacement cost of the frame down by 50% instead of the standard 30% that Trek give. There is nothing else they can do.

I have explained to them it was not fit for purpose but they are not interested. I will fill in the section 75 claim form and send it to Virgin Money. See what comes of it.

Weejie54

Good advice.

Not if the retailer gets legal advice. The OP bought a bike in April 2009. Credit card companies have a time limit on chargeback claims - typically 120 or 180 days. The retailer will not be too worried about a chargeback. As more than six months have lapsed since the transaction date, the onus is on the buyer to prove that the goods failed due to them being defective, rather than through misuse etc. It would likely end up like peeing in the wind as far as a Section 75 claim goes.
Certainly, the retailer is the agent regarding any manufacturer's warranty, and to avoid any further ambiguity as to whether manufacturers' warranties are legally binding, it clearly states that they are so on the government website:

A free guarantee or warranty offered by a manufacturer or trader is legally binding (with effect from March 2003). It should be written clearly and must be made available for viewing on request. It must also state that it does not affect your legal rights.

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_ ... guarantee/

Trek are using the clause that the purchaser 'modified' the bike and therefore the warranty is void. It will be very difficult to turn this around.

porker33

As it has come this far, can you get an independent engineers report that the seat mast was not overtightened?

If it has been overtightened then that would obviously prove difficult as subsequent repair would in effect be a modification.

I would try to get a report that the bottom bracket frame failure is not due to a crash, but only through regular use. This should back up any claims you have.

I assume what you want is a new replacement frame fitted, in light of the extra hassle to establish if the seat mast has been modified, what would you be happy to settle on?

Somewhere between 50% cost and a free new frame.....I am not taking sides here, but to save hassle it may be easier to aim for a middle ground?

galette

I have encountered a similar problem with a Madone 5.2 (18 months old). I have not had any modifications performed but they say the warranty does not cover the damage. They state it is due to 'chain suck'. Has anyone encountered this problem?

If as Trek state such a recognisable problem why have they not adapted their frames to avoid catastrophic failure? Is it worth involving Which?? I for some unknown reason pay for Which? legal.

red_eye5

can you post some pics ?