Cannondale 'lifetime' warranty nonsense

ratsbeyfus

Hi

Just to let any potential Cannondale buyers know my experience with Cannondale's lifetime warranty.

I own a CAAD 9 (aluminium) frame which developed a crack at one of the welds at the rear brake stay after just under 4 years. The frame had never been crashed and had done about 11,000 miles, on the road and about 10 hours on a turbo (a couple of sessions a year before I remember how much I hate turbo training).

I contacted Cannondale and took it to the nearest dealer, who sent the frame off to Cannondale for assessment. The verdict from Cannondale is that the crack was caused by 'excessive use of the turbo' based upon the fact that other frames which they have received with similar cracks had been also assessed as being damaged by 'excessive use of the turbo'. As a result they will not honour the warranty, regardless of my assertion that they are wrong.

Basically, be very wary of the Cannondale 'lifetime warranty' - it is, in my experience, a sham.

drlodge

Did they explain how 'excessive use of the turbo' contributed to the failure of the frame? I can kind of see where they are coming from...using the turbo doesn't perhaps allow the frame to flex in the usual way, but honestly!!

A warranty is often not worth the paper its written on, since its up to the manufacture whether they will honour it or not. A guarantee is a different animal.

gabriel959

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Hi

Just to let any potential Cannondale buyers know my experience with Cannondale's lifetime warranty.

I own a CAAD 9 (aluminium) frame which developed a crack at one of the welds at the rear brake stay after just under 4 years. The frame had never been crashed and had done about 11,000 miles, on the road and about 10 hours on a turbo (a couple of sessions a year before I remember how much I hate turbo training).

I contacted Cannondale and took it to the nearest dealer, who sent the frame off to Cannondale for assessment. The verdict from Cannondale is that the crack was caused by 'excessive use of the turbo' based upon the fact that other frames which they have received with similar cracks had been also assessed as being damaged by 'excessive use of the turbo'. As a result they will not honour the warranty, regardless of my assertion that they are wrong.

Basically, be very wary of the Cannondale 'lifetime warranty' - it is, in my experience, a sham.

Nasty, but have they got anything in their warranty that says that they will not warrant frames who have made excessive use of the turbo? It is indeed, not very good at all.

10 hours on the turbo hardly qualifies as excessive doesn't it!! - 100 hours and they might have a point.

slowbike

gabriel959 wrote:

10 hours on the turbo hardly qualifies as excessive doesn't it!! - 100 hours and they might have a point.

Not unless they've specifically excluded that in their warranty terms ....

Bozman

Let this be a note to Cannondale owners wishing to make a warranty claim, don't mention turbo use and deny that the frame has been near one.

matt-h

Bozman wrote:

Let this be a note to Cannondale owners wishing to make a warranty claim, don't mention turbo use and deny that the frame has been near one.

agree!

Matt

DiscoBoy

Bozman wrote:

Let this be a note to Cannondale owners wishing to make a warranty claim, don't mention turbo use and deny that the frame has been near one.

Exactly. I don't know why the OP felt the need to volunteer it...

ratsbeyfus

Well, I've got the original manual and in the warranty section it states:

"This limited warranty is void if the bicycle is subjected to abuse, neglect, improper repair, improper maintenace, alteration, modification, an accident or other abnormal, excessive, or improper use."

Nothing about using a turbo trainer as far as I can see. Think I might have to call trading standards to get some advice as Cannondale don't want to talk to me directly, but via their dealer who is stuck in the middle!

drlodge

I would be quite firm in that you have abided by the terms of warranty. No where does it state anything about turbo use and you will be taking the matter to trading standards.

Cannondale might try and squeee out of their responsibilities by quoting this part of the warranty conditions:

"Damage resulting from normal wear and tear, including the results of fatigue, is not covered. Fatigue damage is a symptom of the frame being worn out through normal use. It is one kind of normal wear and tear, and it is the owner's responsibility to inspect his/her bicycle." i.e. a crack through use on a turbo is fatigue and hence normal wear and tear.

This seems to be their get out of jail clause :evil:

ratsbeyfus

DiscoBoy wrote:

Bozman wrote:

Let this be a note to Cannondale owners wishing to make a warranty claim, don't mention turbo use and deny that the frame has been near one.

Exactly. I don't know why the OP felt the need to volunteer it...

I agree that anyone making a claim in the future should deny riding the bike on a turbo trainer, however I didn't feel the need to lie as the reason stated by Cannondale was blatantly not true in my case.

diamonddog

I have an alu framed bike permanently attached to the turbo, it has been on there for about 2 years and used regularly year through with no problems whatsoever. Naughty Cannondale for fobbing the OP off.

ratsbeyfus

OK - here's an update.

I've just spoken directly to Ed Thomas at Cycling Sports Group who are the UK importers for Cannondale. I explained the above and he is stating that as the bicycle has been used on a turbo trainer that constitutes 'abnormal use'. I pointed out that about 10 hours over four years was not abnormal use, but basically he is saying it is! He said if it was a manufacturing defect the crack would have appeared earlier.

I explained that were you to ask a cross-section of cyclists whether or not using a road-bike designed for racing on a turbo trainer constitutes abnormal use, they would probably disagree with him rather than me. I also offered him the opportunity to join in with this forum so he can state his reasons why Cannondale do not list using a turbo-trainer as abnormal but he declined.

So I'm stuck. I have no racing bike, and I have to somehow prove that Cannondale's wording in their warranty is wrong at best and disingenuous at worst. Citizens Advice Consumer Standards say that I should take legal action, but I guess Cannondale know that very few of their customers are going to be prepared to do that because of the cost.

Any suggestions?

gabriel959

You have up to 6 years to claim under the Sales of the Goods Act

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shoppi ... s-exchange

I reckon you have a good case IMO.

gabriel959

gabriel959 wrote:

You have up to 6 years to claim under the Sales of the Goods Act

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/shoppi ... s-exchange

I reckon you have a good case IMO.

And also as a current Cannondale owner, and clearly unimpressed with this, I will take my business to another manufacturer for my next race bike. You can tell Ed that.

drlodge

So the Cannondale warranty isn't worth the paper its written on.

marcusjb

It is very weaselly of them - but equally, you've been sold a bicycle that is designed to be ridden on the roads rather than clamped into a static piece of equipment where the stresses on the rear triangle of the bike are going to be considerably different to those on a bike being ridden on the road.

I can see their point, but it's a poor show overall.

gabriel959

ratsbeyfus wrote:

OK - here's an update.

I've just spoken directly to Ed Thomas at Cycling Sports Group who are the UK importers for Cannondale. I explained the above and he is stating that as the bicycle has been used on a turbo trainer that constitutes 'abnormal use'. I pointed out that about 10 hours over two years was not abnormal use, but basically he is saying it is! He said if it was a manafacturing defect the crack would have appeared earlier.

I explained that were you to ask a cross-section of cyclists whether or not using a road-bike designed for racing on a turbo trainer constitutes abnormal use, they would probably disagree with him rather than me. I also offered him the opportunity to join in with this forum so he can state his reasons why Cannondale do not list using a turbo-trainer as abnormal but he declined.

So I'm stuck. I have no racing bike, and I have to somehow prove that Cannondale's wording in their waranty is wrong at best and disingenuous at worst. Citizens Advice Consumer Standards say that I should take legal action, but I guess Cannondale know that very few of their customers are going to be prepared to do that because of the cost.

Any suggestions?

Going by this website - http://www.cyclingsportsgroup.co.uk/about/

I would say Ed is the most junior member of the warranty team and would ask to speak to James Horton or Ben Winter.

drlodge

I would probably sleep on it over night and then do two things:
- look out for a decent second hand frame so you can get back on the road quickly; its important you can continue to cycle!
- get some proper legal advice and write to these people formally staing your situation, issue, and suggest a resolution otherwise...some consequence will follow (hence why you need some legal advice).

Advice might not be cheap, so weigh up what its going to cost you to take this issue up vs. just going and buying another [non-cannondale] frame and putting this nasty episode down to experience.

TommyEss

Send him these as well...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxNSvOIoZJA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkwafQAMw1k

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pho ... ers/221657

http://www.roadbikeaction.com/contentim ... ainers.jpg

http://cdn.media.cyclingnews.com/2012/0 ... 27_600.jpg

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4020/4659 ... 3b4d_o.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nuILviKRHkE/0.jpg

andyrr

As turbo trainer use is pretty common these days Cannondale know that bikes, theirs included, WILL be used, and used potentially quite frequently, in these.
I'd think that unless they have a disclaimer in their warranty documentation then they cannot claim that your use can legitimately be abnormal.

ratsbeyfus

Thanks guys/gals... I feel like I'm going bonkers! I told the chap at Cannondale / Cycling Sports Group that they really need to change the wording of their warranty to give some clear examples of what constitutes 'abnormal' use. I will be seeking a new frame from someone else (e.g. Kinesis) and asking Cannondale to consider re-wording their warranty. I don't know if I can afford legal action but I'll pursue every avenue possible such as stating the facts of the case to Cyclescheme (who the bike was bought through) and Evans Cycles (who are dealing with the warranty claim) so they can decide for themselves whether or not Cannondale have been reasonable or disingeuous.

Please note that Cycling Sports Group are also the distributor for the following brands:
Cannondale
Mongoose
Schwinn
Charge

So if you've got one of those products or are thinking of buying one you may also want to take a very very close look at the warranty wording.

drlodge

I would certainly write to Cannondale and Evans telling them your thoughts on the whole debacle...and providing some constructive suggestions on changing their warranty wording. For example, I would expect Evans to tell customers not to use it on a turbo, otherwise the warranty is void. Did Evans tell you that at the time? I bet not...

ratsbeyfus

Thanks. I'm now waiting for Cannondale's distributors Cycling Sports Group to clarify their position in writing. Assuming that their position does not change I will indeed contact Evans and other Cannondale dealers, as well as their US head office to get them to clearly state that even 1 minute's use on a turbo constitutes 'abnormal' use and nullifies their 'lifetime' warranty.

jordan_217

Just buy an Argon 18. I asked them about warranty validity with my E112. They said if I could produce enough power to break the frame, they'd probably offer me sponsorship :-)

ratsbeyfus

jordan_217 wrote:

Just buy an Argon 18. I asked them about warranty validity with my E112. They said if I could produce enough power to break the frame, they'd probably offer me sponsorship :-)

:-) I may well have to go carbon next... or get a Kinesis Aithein.

The Mechanic

I bought a Felt Z4 in November last year. It came with numerous stickers one of which says that the frame should not be clamped in a workstand, turbo trainer or anything else. I guess they are ahead of Cannondale in terms of clarity.

ratsbeyfus

The Mechanic wrote:

I bought a Felt Z4 in November last year. It came with numerous stickers one of which says that the frame should not be clamped in a workstand, turbo trainer or anything else. I guess they are ahead of Cannondale in terms of clarity.

Good for them. I've just read through the whole booklet which came with the bike (oh joy), and in the section under turbo trainers it doesn't state that the frame can't be used with one. So clearly there is a mismatch between what Cannondale say in their literature, and what their representatives say on their behalf. The plot gets thicker...

luv2ride

There was a post on here recently where a forum member bought a Supersix frame in Hong Kong, but it failed near the BB after he returned to the UK. Whilst it didn't initially look promising (Cannondale Uk were under no obligation to sort it given it was bought oversees) both the LBS, Cannondale Uk and Cannondale HK worked it out and replaced the frame under warranty in the end. The OP's claim certainly looks legit and in many ways more straightforward, so why aren't Cannondale UK resolving this one? You also can't knock the guy for his honesty about his using the bike on a turbo trainer, especially since there are no specific exclusions in their warranty documentation. Good luck, hope it gets sorted but certainly puts me off going to a 'dale in the future...

patrickf

At the end of the day, if none of the documentation states that the bike was not to be used in a turbo then I'd keep firm with Evans. Don't forget, your contract is with them not the manufacturer or their distributor so it is for Evans to sort out with you.

You could always claim under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 that the bike was not for for purpose or was not of sufficient quality. The fact that even their pro team use the bikes on turbos would suggest to the unsuspecting public that this is an acceptable thing to do on a bike.

ratsbeyfus

Thanks luv2ride . I feel like a kid whose been told off for something they didn't do. Really feelin cheesed off with the whole thing...

ratsbeyfus

patrickf wrote:

At the end of the day, if none of the documentation states that the bike was not to be used in a turbo then I'd keep firm with Evans. Don't forget, your contract is with them not the manufacturer or their distributor so it is for Evans to sort out with you.

You could always claim under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 that the bike was not for for purpose or was not of sufficient quality. The fact that even their pro team use the bikes on turbos would suggest to the unsuspecting public that this is an acceptable thing to do on a bike.

I agree... BUT Evans have been great actually! I bought the bike from a Cannondale dealer in Essex (as I bought i through Cyclescheme) but was told by the Cannondale warranty department to return it to my nearest dealer rather than the shop I bought it from... as i live in Brighton, I took it to Evans. The staff there have been great, particularly 'Oli' who has been sympathetic to my case and had to be the 'middle' man in this whole sorry saga. So please don't let this put anyone off shopping in Evans. In fact Oli asked Cannondale which turbo they would recommend to customers and was told 'none', which again goes against the advice given in the Cannondale manual.