Trek Fuel EX 9.8 Carbon Frame failure

johnsav

£200 for a brand new frame?

Bargain.

bails87

johnsav wrote:

£200 for a brand new frame?

Bargain.

Not really, it's £200 for the rear swingarm. The front swingarm is being replaced under warranty because the original failed.

And even if it is a bargain, it's still £200 that the OP didn't expect to have to spend to not end up with a mismatched frankenbike

benpinnick

technically, your bike does not have a swingarm. It has chain stays, a pivot assembly, dropout, seat stays, rocker link and bearings - no swingarm. I would point this out to them when you call. Its pedantic I admit, but the warranty does clearly state that frames are covered, and the above parts are reasonably considered part of the frame, so I think, in absence of legal small print on their site so I cannot verify the definition of 'Swingarm' you are in the right.

surreyxc

Hmmm I would just get the replacement, perhaps getting the rear resprayed would be cheaper. Or as mentioned get the old arm back and sell it. But either way I would just go with the warranty pursuing it as claim sounds like pain and less riding time.

I am not entirely surprised and have heard of quite a few carbon failures, however companies are usually very quick to replace to protect their reputation, and I thought Trek would want to do that. I often look at some 120mm plus carbon rigs, and surprised not to see more seatpost and headtube failures. Carbon is very robust but high end bikes are continually pushing the limits.

Wonder how may carbon bikes will reach their 10th aniversary, do they offer lifetime warranties. my ti frame had a transferable lifetime warranty and even my fs alu has a 10yr warranty.

njee20

120mm plus carbon rigs, and surprised not to see more seatpost and headtube failures.

Why, out of interest? Most frames are massively reinforced around the head tube particularly, far more so than older metal frames.

Wonder how may carbon bikes will reach their 10th aniversary, do they offer lifetime warranties. my ti frame had a transferable lifetime warranty and even my fs alu has a 10yr warranty.

I had a 1994 OCLV road bike, which was still going a couple of years ago, also had a 2001 OCLV hardtail that was still being used recently. My main road bike is a 2002 Madone SL.

Trek and Specialized offer lifetime warranties on their carbon frames.

There's plenty of evidence of all frame materials failing, I'd have no less confidence in carbon than anything else.

surreyxc

It is not a criticism on carbon just seeking peoples experience of it and its durability, as none of us are fortunate enough to test ride or own loads and loads of bikes. So hearing that some bikes are way old and going strong gives people confidence.

Regards seat tube failings many carbon frames seem to lack any substantial reinforcement at this point, stick a long seat post in and you have a massive lever producing stress, my alu frame has two solid struts rising from the top tube to the seat post maybe overkill but it will never fail.

Carbon is great but it is at the leading edge of technology for weight saving on bikes so not surprising they get it wrong sometimes, remember the failings of alu in the early nineties now 20yrs on failings are far rarer, carbon has worked on road bikes, and xc, but it is now being tested out on long travel rigs. It is a bit like long travel 29er's it's early days. But you kill can any frame if you are unlucky or ride hard enough.

surreyxc

Years ago you used to hear of Alu failings, they still happen but less so. In recent years I generally only hear of carbon failings from people you meet riding or on forums. It is because carbon is the technology which is being pushed. If carbon never existed we would be pushing Alu hard and that may see more failings. Year on year the bike consumer expects to see frames and bikes lighter, yet we are riding harder, bigger drops etc.

njee20

In recent years I generally only hear of carbon failings from people you meet riding or on forums.

I think that's what people tend to shout about most because it has a reputation for it, people are also looking for that sort of thing, so it feeds the scare mongerers. If you look at the threads about broken frames and what proportion relate to carbon I'll wager it's very small indeed, smaller than the proportion of folk riding carbon frames.

diy

I have to confess, I have not read the thread in detail, so may have missed some of the debate, but there is a fundamental principle of loss that needs to be addressed.

It would appear to me that the bike would be worth less with a mismatched front and rear. If this is so and it can be reasonably quantified then you are entitled to claim to rectify these damages. It would appear that this might be £200. However, there is a counter claim of betterment that you are fundamentally better off as a result of getting a 2011 frame instead of a 2009 frame.

In the simplest terms, your bike was purchased as a whole and your bike as a whole has failed. They are obliged to rectify this and put you back in to the position that you started. There are many ways to do this:

-Swap your bike for 2009 that they happen to have (new or used).
-Give you a refund less the benefit.
-fix the failure and address any loss that may be attributed to the repair.

In your shoes, I'd put it to them that you require a 2009 frame nothing more, but if they cannot provide that, its their choice to provide a 2011 as an alternative (whole frame) and you would be prepared to pay no more than (£200-XXX) for the betterment.

I personally think its reasonable to kick up a stink about getting an unmatched part on a 3K bike, it would clearly affect the resale value and the enjoyment of the product.

njee20

In recent years I generally only hear of carbon failings from people you meet riding or on forums

So... did a very quick (and thoroughly unscientific) search on the forum for "frame crack" and had a quick look at all the obvious looking threads (about 25 threads in total), the failed frames are:

2 Boardmans
Scale 50
Commencal
Focus
Schwinn Moab
2 EX7s
Anthem
Lappierre Technic FS 700

All of them aluminium, not a single thread relating to a carbon bike.

Now... obviously carbon bikes are far less common, and I literally searched on those terms only, but it certainly shows that the above statement about only hearing of carbon frame failures is just wrong, the overwhelming number of threads about broken frames is still about aluminium.

diy

Sorry for the long post..

I just wanted to point out that there are some holes in the warranty that would probably give sufficient leverage for a consumer to make a claim for the consequential loss (scroll down I will explain how). But in any case the contract is ALWAYS with the retailer. However, I also want to correct some misinformation.

Anyone who suggests (as has been the case here) that the warranty prevails is wrong, it does not. Neither is it acceptable (as is the case here) to create a component warranty which seeks to limit liability for losses and merely add boilerplate to the end that this does not affect your statutory rights, as this may conflict with the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Obviously the contract is always with the retailer, so the terms of the manufacturer warranty are irrelevant. Nevertheless I believe the manufacturer warranty (assuming the published one on the website is the full warranty) conflicts with statutory rights, those being the attempted limitation of liability contrary to the sale of goods act. It clearly and wrongly seeks to limit liability, although there is a vague note about differences between states on the subject.

In my opinion The Sale of Goods Act provides sufficient remedy.

The fault was identified more than 6 months after purchase and after acceptance of the goods. Therefore burden of proof that product is faulty is on the consumer. That might not be that hard to prove given that they have accepted it as a fault from a warranty point of view (note thats not the same thing). Assuming that is agreed fact, then the consumers statutory remedy is as follows:

1) repair/replacement of the faulty component AND a reduction in price due to the cosmetic differences which would make the repair unsatisfactory*

2) rescission of the contract (return to seller of whole bike) less a value for benefit*

*the amount would be for the court to decide.

I think 1, gives you leverage good luck. Additional leverage if the retailer objects, would be to refer the warranty to the office of fair trading with a view to reviewing it against the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999

KitsuneAndy

diy wrote:

In my opinion The Sale of Goods Act provides sufficient remedy.

The fault was identified more than 6 months after purchase and after acceptance of the goods. Therefore burden of proof that product is faulty is on the consumer. That might not be that hard to prove given that they have accepted it as a fault from a warranty point of view (note thats not the same thing). Assuming that is agreed fact, then the consumers statutory remedy is as follows:

1) repair/replacement of the faulty component AND a reduction in price due to the cosmetic differences which would make the repair unsatisfactory*

The bike is over 2 years old, they are offering to replace the faulty component (the front triangle) and provide a replacement swingarm for £200 (reduced). So isn't 1, exactly what they are doing?

While it may not be ideal to have a mismatched bike, and I can understand the OP's frustration. It seems like pretty good service to me.

weeksy59

Funny this... there's an almost exact same thread in roadie section...

They agree he should get the seller to do more becuase the seat and bar tape are the wrong colour...

He should post his thread in there, they'd have a fit with the rear triangle being the wrong colour.

diy

KitsuneAndy wrote:

The bike is over 2 years old, they are offering to replace the faulty component (the front triangle) and provide a replacement swingarm for £200 (reduced). So isn't 1, exactly what they are doing?

How much would full price be?

weeksy59

diy wrote:

KitsuneAndy wrote:

The bike is over 2 years old, they are offering to replace the faulty component (the front triangle) and provide a replacement swingarm for £200 (reduced). So isn't 1, exactly what they are doing?

How much would full price be?

£150 but he was rude to them

flappy8

I'm not sure the OP was rude to Trek?! He just wanted to be treated fairly. I think that DIY's advice is correct here.

Although there may be small print and "this is/or not excluded" the fact is that the OP may well have made the purchasing decision based on the longer warranty offered by Trek - & that would be quite resonable.

The truth is Trek should do the decent thing in a case like this, even if it is just to keep their customers happy. I've had a less that perfect Trek experience and hearing this just makes me think the next time I want to buy a decent bike I would steer well clear.

Ther are plenty of people on here who don't like Spesh but they are very good with warranty issues (and I'm sure there are others) and ultimately airing these is a good thing for the whole bike industry.

If you bought a £300 bike I can understand that they may not be able to get it to match 2 years on, but when you spend 3k that's unacceptable.

weeksy59

flappy8 wrote:

The truth is Trek should do the decent thing in a case like this, even if it is just to keep their customers happy.

They gave a 2 year warranty, that's the 'decent thing'

benpinnick

In the UK there is a legal right that goods failing due to manufacturing faults within 6 years (5 years in scotland) of purchase should be repaired if it is reasonable to assume that said goods should last the distance. I think we can all agree that a mountain bike should last that long if treated properly.

So, Trek's warranty aside, the real question is whether the repair of the goods should stretch to the paint work matching the original. There is no clear guidance on this, although as DIY has pointed out, there would also be a reasonable expectation that colour and styling of the bike is an integral part of the bike, and so its not unreasonable to expect that the repair would rectify the product back to its original paint job. If the OP is willing to accept a different one (on the assumption its a full frame that matches) then he is the one doing Trek a favour.

junglist_matty

It doesn't matter if the bike is 2 weeks or 2 years old... a lifetime warranty is a lifetime warranty. Trek cannot state to offer this service if they cannot meet the requirements of such, offering a lifetime warranty is a guaranteed positive selling point potentially drawing customers away from other manufacturers that don't offer such an after-sales service.

However, you really need to read over the small print of your warranty to understand what your rights are. Without seeing that paperwork no member of this forum (unless having seen the terms and conditions of your said warranty) can tell you your rights or where you stand.


Taking into consideration that hard tail frames are "one piece" structures, a frame defect warrants a full replacement of the failing part i.e. the entire frame. However, its slightly more complicated with a full suspension frame as they are actually built up as different parts (like a car) and the warranty more than likely states that they will replace the defected part; the car analogy can be thought of whereby the car manufacturer will only replace the broken car part, not the entire car.

KitsuneAndy

junglist_matty wrote:

It doesn't matter if the bike is 2 weeks or 2 years old... a lifetime warranty is a lifetime warranty. Trek cannot state to offer this service if they cannot meet the requirements of such, offering a lifetime warranty is a guaranteed positive selling point potentially drawing customers away from other manufacturers that don't offer such an after-sales service.

However, you really need to read over the small print of your warranty to understand what your rights are. Without seeing that paperwork no member of this forum (unless having seen the terms and conditions of your said warranty) can tell you your rights or where you stand.


Taking into consideration that hard tail frames are "one piece" structures, a frame defect warrants a full replacement of the failing part i.e. the entire frame. However, its slightly more complicated with a full suspension frame as they are actually built up as different parts (like a car) and the warranty more than likely states that they will replace the defected part; the car analogy can be thought of whereby the car manufacturer will only replace the broken car part, not the entire car.

It does state that only the front triangle is covered by the lifetime warranty and the swingarm has a 2 year warranty. It's not in the small print, it's quite clearly stated on their website:

Lifetime

■Frames for the lifetime of the original owner (except forks, the Session, Scratch and Ticket model frames, and the swing arms on all full suspension bicycles)


Two Years

■All original Bontrager® forks, parts and components (except consumables such as tires and tubes)
■Swing arms on all full suspension bicycles

That's all right at the start of their Warranty page.

It then states:

"This warranty is expressly limited to the repair or replacement of a defective item, and said repair or replacement is the sole remedy of the warranty."

However, I do hope the OP appealing to their CS side does end up with him getting it replaced for free. But I can't see how anyone can suggest Trek aren't holding up their quite clearly stated warranty, or that the OP should resort to legal action.

junglist_matty

KitsuneAndy wrote:

However, I do hope the OP appealing to their CS side does end up with him getting it replaced for free. But I can't see how anyone can suggest Trek aren't holding up their quite clearly stated warranty, or that the OP should resort to legal action.

I do agree to an extent. However, does the warranty small print state something along the lines of "colour and decal's for replacement parts may vary"? If so, he's no leg to stand on, they are meeting the criteria of the warranty stated by replacing the defected part and it doesn't matter what colour part they replace it with.

Considering its an expensive frame for Trek to manufacture, they probably are not going to bother holding back a whole load of stock just for warranty purposes for customers who purchased bikes in that year, hence they don't have the correct colours for the said bike.

diy

benpinnick wrote:

In the UK there is a legal right that goods failing due to manufacturing faults within 6 years (5 years in scotland) of purchase should be repaired if it is reasonable to assume that said goods should last the distance..

Sorry but that is wrong, this is the period of time that you have to bring a claim against the retailer. You do not get a 5/6 year warranty. You are required to prove that the fault existed at the point of sale.

junglist_matty wrote:

It doesn't matter if the bike is 2 weeks or 2 years old... a lifetime warranty is a lifetime warranty. Trek cannot state to offer this service if they cannot meet the requirements of such, offering a lifetime warranty is a guaranteed positive selling point potentially drawing customers away from other manufacturers that don't offer such an after-sales service.

Again the lifetime warranty extends to original defects only. Its a component, inclusive warranty, designed to look better than it is. It also carefully selects words to limit liabilities that are protected in statute. It cannot do this.

The key time point in any purchase is 6 months. Less than 6 months and the obligation is on the retailer to prove it is not faulty. More than 6 months its down to the consumer.

junglist_matty wrote:

I do agree to an extent. However, does the warranty small print state something along the lines of "colour and decal's for replacement parts may vary"? If so, he's no leg to stand on, they are meeting the criteria of the warranty stated by replacing the defected part and it doesn't matter what colour part they replace it with.

It may say that, but his legs remain firm as the warranty (assuming the retailer was relying on it) cannot limit the sellers liability in this way. his statutory rights protect him from this limitation and they enable him to seek compensation for an unsatisfactory repair.

KitsuneAndy wrote:

But I can't see how anyone can suggest Trek aren't holding up their quite clearly stated warranty,

The warranty clearly seeks to limit their liability - These limitations do not stand up in law, there are statutory rights which exceed these terms. In summary it is the warranty that is on unstable ground not the OP. It is entirely designed to make consumers put up with remedies that are less than their rights. Its common, but I very much doubt that warranty would be used as defence to a claim.

italianshoppingbike

can anyone tell me where this frame has cracked???

i too have a 9.8 frame 2009 that has cracked on the swing arm which is ally and above and below the seat post which is carbon. the bike was bought in the u.k but i now live in brisbane so trek australia are dealing with the claim, the rep from trek has been and inspected the frame took photos and filled in the claim form which is now with the main guys down in canberrra will be interesting to see the outcome down here compared to trek u.k

pioneer68

Owned a 9.8 carbon Remedy 2011. Developed a 1.5cm crack in the paintwork, within the 12 month warranty on paintwork, Trek UK offered immediate replacement, on the strength of photos alone. I was offered the choice of Remedy 9.9 2011 frame, or waiting for the 2012 frame, whilst still riding the original frame.
I can't speak highly enough, of the support I received from Trek UK, and I'm not sure other manufacturers would be as obliging, but having said that, the devil, is always in the (warranty) detail, whether it's 2 years, or a lifetime warranty.

Stu Coops

I'm in a similar position as I dinged my frame on my Lapierre Zesty 514 only had it 18 months,took it in to Sunset Cylces in Cardiff and Lapierre have said they will replace the frame for around £300 so no gripes there as it was my fault and not a frame fault but they may only have a 314 or a 214 as a replacement so the colour scheme will be completely different which is a bit of gripe and as the OP says if you pay £3000 for a bike you want it to look nice.

Also it does affect resale as a potential buyer will be suspicious as to why you had a replacement frame and how severe the crash was as mine was a really pathetic crash totally rider error as i'm crap on techy stuff i bounced on a rock and dinged the down tube not bad and doesn't affect the structure as it's been checked but it looks shite to me and i payed close on £3000 for it aswell so want it looking perfect but i am going to have to put up with a different colour frame but i'd rather that than a dinged frame.

italianshoppingbike

just heard back from trek australia and guess what no replacement frame. In their opion after looking at the photos they think the cracks are down to crash damage which is crap.To cause that amount of damage to a frame in an accident the rest of the bike would be a write off which it clearly is not. The bike is 3 yrs old and a new frame costs $3,000 so it seems a case of our life time frame warranties only apply to cheaper lesser specced bikes If you push the boat out a buy one of our high end models dont expect us to stay true to our warranties which was a big reason for me buying trek in the first place.

when i said i would take the matter further the reply was go for it we are not bothered. This was an option but at the end of the day if they stick to their guns and keep with the accident damage respone i dont stand much chance against a big corporation so i'm off to buy a new bike from anyone but trek bollocks to them. oh by the way they had the front to offer to sell me a new swing arm or a new complete frame for 20% discount!!!!

King_Pin_Rich

I'd be curios in seeing some pictures of these cracked frames.

supersonic

If you think you have a genuine claim, and they reject, get an independent composite/frame expert to do a report, then threaten to take them to court.

italianshoppingbike

thanks supersonic for the advice will looks into finding someone to take a look for me