Cannondale Say Using Road Bike in a Turbo is Abnormal
ratsbeyfus
Posts: 2,841
A representative of Cannondale has told me that the life time warranty on my 4 year old CAAD9 is invalid as the bike has been used on a turbo trainer. He says this constitutes 'abnormal use'. I believe that using my bike for about 10 hours on a turbo over the last 4 years does not constitute abnormal use as the CAAD9 is designed for racing, and road-racers often use turbo rainers. What do you think?
0
Comments
-
Do you see that piece of lead swinging?0
-
Well, I think most people would agree that the stresses on a frame are at least different when you are riding on a turbo as against riding on the road? Then there's the clamping in and out which could create some stresses that you would not get purely riding on the road.
If you consider the above and then in the context of the consumer being someone who could be ham-fisted or a fat chump, or a ham-fisted fat chump, then I think it's possible that it is fair that this kind of use is not covered.
(Although, as long as you say 'no' if you're asked 'has been used on a turbo?' then it would be up to them to prove it's been mis-used when some sort of warranty claim was then attempted).0 -
True, a ham-fisted chump could break a frame in a variety of ways. But how can using a road bike on a turbo be defined as 'abnormal'? After all, Cannondale Pro Racing use their bikes on turbo trainers? If I used it excessively on a turbo rainer they might have a point, but I didn't. The rep's argument was that it couldn't possibly be a manafacturing default as it would have manifested itself at a much earlier time. In which case, why not restrict the frame and fork guarantee to 1 year, rather than the meaningless Cannondale lifetime warranty?0
-
Is this information publicly available anywhere? if not you may still have a fit for use claim under the consumer protection laws0
-
diy wrote:Is this information publicly available anywhere? if not you may still have a fit for use claim under the consumer protection laws
I'll definitely consider that once Cannondale have put their reasons for not repairing/replacing my frame into writing.0 -
Turbo trainers are abnormal, there's perfectly good roads out there.0
-
ratsbeyfus wrote:diy wrote:Is this information publicly available anywhere? if not you may still have a fit for use claim under the consumer protection laws
I'll definitely consider that once Cannondale have put their reasons for not repairing/replacing my frame into writing.
You could always use your human rights if not :roll:
A turbo trainer seems abnormal to me.
The bike is designed to be ridden on roads unless it is stated otherwise isn't it?
Why do you think its purpose is to be clamped in a turbo? Just because people make/use turbos?
Cannondale should have it written in their warranty though if they are saying turbo use voids it.
If it is in their warranty then just accept that you have voided it.
Not much point in doing a poll on here as lots of people will have turbos (or just feel that the simple fact they exist means it must be ok to use them) and vote accordingly.
Why did you buy a turbo and only use it for 10 hours in 4 years? 8)
Either you have used it more, or you don't like it, or you have only just got it and the frame coincidentally failed at the same time 8)0 -
Carbonator wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:diy wrote:Is this information publicly available anywhere? if not you may still have a fit for use claim under the consumer protection laws
I'll definitely consider that once Cannondale have put their reasons for not repairing/replacing my frame into writing.
You could always use your human rights if not :roll:
A turbo trainer seems abnormal to me.
The bike is designed to be ridden on roads unless it is stated otherwise.
Cannondale should have it written in their warranty though if they are saying turbo use voids it.
If it is in their warranty then just accept that you have voided it.
Not much point in doing a poll on here as lots of people will have turbos (or just feel that the simple fact they exist means it must be ok to use them) and vote accordingly.
Thanks for your comment. It makes sense for me to put the poll on a cycling forum as it is frequented by cyclists - exactly the people that the Cannondale warranty is aimed at. Cannondale have not said anywhere in their warranty that using a turbo trainer constitutes 'abnormal' use. In the manual that came with their bike they state that
" Improperly mounting a bike in a trainer, or using one that is not compatible with your particular bike frame can cause serious damage. This kind of damage is not covered by the Cannondale Limited Warranty."
However, I was told by the Cannondale rep' that 'any' use of a turbo trainer constitutes 'improper' use and therefore my warranty was void. The reason I put the poll up is to point out that I don't believe that using a turbo is 'improper'. You clearly do, however 'carbonator' and I respect your opinion. It seems, however, that at the moment that many others agree with my viewpoint.0 -
Carbonator wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:diy wrote:Is this information publicly available anywhere? if not you may still have a fit for use claim under the consumer protection laws
I'll definitely consider that once Cannondale have put their reasons for not repairing/replacing my frame into writing.
You could always use your human rights if not :roll:
A turbo trainer seems abnormal to me.
The bike is designed to be ridden on roads unless it is stated otherwise isn't it?
Why do you think its purpose is to be clamped in a turbo? Just because people make/use turbos?
Cannondale should have it written in their warranty though if they are saying turbo use voids it.
If it is in their warranty then just accept that you have voided it.
Not much point in doing a poll on here as lots of people will have turbos (or just feel that the simple fact they exist means it must be ok to use them) and vote accordingly.
Why did you buy a turbo and only use it for 10 hours in 4 years? 8)
Either you have used it more, or you don't like it, or you have only just got it and the frame coincidentally failed at the same time 8)
What he said.0 -
or the OP has another bike that he uses most of the time in the Turbo trainer.WyndyMilla Massive Attack | Rourke 953 | Condor Italia 531 Pro | Boardman CX Pro | DT Swiss RR440 Tubeless Wheels
Find me on Strava0 -
Have you actually damaged/broken the frame?
surely there must be some reason why you have contacted the cannondale warranty department.
if it has been damaged because you used it for such a short period of time on a turbo trainer, you could have said no and just left it to them to prove otherwise. it's not like they have been looking over your shoulder every time you have used the bike.0 -
"Improperly mounting a bike in a trainer, or using one that is not compatible with your particular bike frame can cause serious damage. This kind of damage is not covered by the Cannondale Limited Warranty."
By this logic then, had you mounted the bike in the proper fashion and ensured that it was secured properly, it'd be covered under warranty.0 -
My F3X has a "do not clamp this frame in a turbo" sticker on the frame itself. Presumably there has been a rash of trainer-related warranty claims and this is the manufacturers starting to push back. The point being, I assume, that it's pretty difficult to put the rear triangle into lateral torsion on the road, as the bike will just fall over, whereas on the trainer its anchored so I suppose you could twist the bike until it snapped, if you tried hard enough. I guess it's also possible to put more compression into the rear dropouts on a turbo than you could manage with a normal QR, although you'd think the turbo skewer would take those forces.0
-
The manufacturers are in a difficult position on turbos so I do not really blame them for trying to get out of replacing a frame if it has been used in a turbo.
They should just ban turbo use but that would hit bike sales I guess.
Are all carbon frame warranties voided by turbo use?
Loads of people must fcuk their frames in a turbo and then make an unfair claim.
Not sure how you can use a bike in a turbo and not suspect it was a factor in a frame failing personally.
OP should get a new frame if its not completely excluded though.0 -
OK - to get things clear.
I discovered a crack where the at the weld where the rear brake bridge joins the seat stay on the underside. It had never been crashed. It had barely been used on a turbo-trainer coz I bleeding well hate using my turbo trainer but can't quite bring myself round to selling it. I returned the frame to Cannondale through Evans as it has a lifetime warranty, and Evans are my nearest Cannondale dealer. The guy in Evans told me that Cannondale told him that they wouldn't repair or replace the frame as they believed the crack was consistent with excessive use on a turbo trainer. I explained that I had barely used a turbo trainer, and, feeling disgruntled, contacted the warranty department at Cannondale directly. The Cannondale rep said that because I had admitted using the bike on a turbo trainer the warranty was 'void' as such use constitutes 'improper' use.
Clear?0 -
Iamnot Wiggins wrote:"Improperly mounting a bike in a trainer, or using one that is not compatible with your particular bike frame can cause serious damage. This kind of damage is not covered by the Cannondale Limited Warranty."
By this logic then, had you mounted the bike in the proper fashion and ensured that it was secured properly, it'd be covered under warranty.
Yep, I agree. I guess it'll come down to my word against Cannondales in a small claims court.0 -
Stay clear of cannondale in future.
also never admit fault.0 -
downhill paul wrote:Stay clear of cannondale in future.
also never admit fault.
Agree... I should've pretended I only used the bike to ride to church on Sundays.
0 -
I wouldn't quite go that far. I'm sure to get out of paying for frame repairs or replacements, they have staff who can tell exactly how much a bike has been used and what it has been used for.
you should have just said it hasn't been on a turbo. it's up to them to prove you wrong.0 -
downhill paul wrote:I wouldn't quite go that far. I'm sure to get out of paying for frame repairs or replacements, they have staff who can tell exactly how much a bike has been used and what it has been used for.
you should have just said it hasn't been on a turbo. it's up to them to prove you wrong.
I didn't see the need to lie. I was really peed off to be told at first that it was 'excessive' turbo use that caused the crack as I knew that was blatently wrong. I didn't see a problem admiting it had been on a turbo, but then had those words turned against me. I understand that things break, I understand that things wear out, I have 3 bikes (track, cyclo-cross, and CAAD9) and never expected any of them to last forever, as I know hat frames break or get dented when you crash them. Like all cyclists I was always dreaming of what the 'next' bike would be when the CAAD 'died' which expected to be in a crash of some kind... but to discover a crack with no obvious cause, and then to be told by an expert it was caused in a way that I knew was not true is pretty damn depressing! My CAAD9 was the first road bike I bought since I was a kid. I used to have a Saturday job in a bike shop which imported and sold Cannondales in the late 80's (Bike UK) and always coveted one... I loved riding my CAAD9, and kept in great nick... now, I'm just heartily cheesed off with the company and their representatives.
Cue violins...0 -
downhill paul wrote:I wouldn't quite go that far. I'm sure to get out of paying for frame repairs or replacements, they have staff who can tell exactly how much a bike has been used and what it has been used for.
you should have just said it hasn't been on a turbo. it's up to them to prove you wrong.
...and another thing... the people at Citizens Advice consumer service said that it is up to me to prove that the warranty department is wrong. Basically, they can say what they like, and hope that people can't be bothered to pursue them through the courts.0 -
I hope you manage to prove them wrong then, and get your bike repaired.
there is nothing worse than a company who will do anything to avoid honoring a warranty.0 -
So how much do you think the turbo was to blame with the frame cracking?
Do you think it would be cracked now if it had never been on a turbo?
I don't know what you have done to it and do not want to seem to be against you by the way.0 -
Surely the stresses on a rear triangle are way higher when clamped in a turbo?
Either the stresses are no higher, or people are riding around on bikes that are double over engineered, or you would expect problems when in a turbo.
Thats just when used properly. I certainly make mistakes with my bike and I am sure I would be as likely to if I bolted it in a turbo, which is one of the main reasons I do not have one.
The other reason is that I perceive them to be boring, something the OP has agreed with.0 -
Carbonator wrote:So how much do you think the turbo was to blame with the frame cracking?
Do you think it would be cracked now if it had never been on a turbo?
I don't know what you have done to it and do not want to seem to be against you by the way.
Personally, because I used the turbo so little I don't believe the turbo had anything to do with the frame cracking. I believe the crack which is at a weld is the result of a manufacturing defect as the bike hasn't been crashed and protected somewhat as I use my cyclo-x bike when riding in poor conditions (e.g. in the Paris-Roubaix sportive this year). I don't think you are against me, and respect the fact that it might just seem like I'm a whinging chancer! :-)
I'm not, I'm cheesed off, and confused by the mixed messages I've received throughout the day from Cannondale. I'm also annoyed about how much energy I'm expending on this issue and I could just go out tomorrow and buy a nice new frame (e.g. Kinesis Aithein) but I can't stand the idea of being 'cheated' by a big company, or falsely accused of something - no matter how minor.
A picture of the crack is at https://flic.kr/p/nJDYnP - Originally I spotted a hairline crack in the paint a few months back which I kept an eye on - thinking it was just the paint. Then, a few weeks ago after a clubmate had an issue with a cracked fork, I decided to take a closer look by scratching some paint off - thats when I discovered the crack was in the aluminium at the weld.0 -
Carbonator wrote:Surely the stresses on a rear triangle are way higher when clamped in a turbo?
Either the stresses are no higher, or people are riding around on bikes that are double over engineered, or you would expect problems when in a turbo.
Thats just when used properly. I certainly make mistakes with my bike and I am sure I would be as likely to if I bolted it in a turbo, which is one of the main reasons I do not have one.
The other reason is that I perceive them to be boring, something the OP has agreed with.
I agree the stresses may well be higher when clamped in a turbo. Everyone makes mistakes with their bikes, but I don't believe I ever have when clamping my bike in the turbo. FWIW I carry out almost all my own repairs, volunteer as a mechanic for the local children's track cycling club at Preston park on Saturdays, and previously worked in a bike shop as a teenager so I wouldn't describe myself as ham-fisted (although I am no 'expert' mechanic).
When I asked the Cannondale rep why he believed the crack wasn't a manufacturing fault he said it would've appeared earlier. I'd be interested to hear from other aluminium frame owners if they've ever had cracks appear after a few years of use.0 -
I wouldn't agree with 'excessive turbo use' statement surely you either can or cannot use the bike on a turbo. Interested though, what is the difference? guessing you can over clamp the QR, stressing the bearings or axle. And is the frame stress different to road riding? the pivot point of the tyre is central when on road resulting in a downward force at both dropouts, where as the turbo would put an upward force at one dropout and a downward at the other which would alternate with pedal stroke?0
-
Turbos seem a bit of a minefield for all involved and I think you take a bit of a risk bolting a bike in one.
Completely understand what you mean about feeling cheated. Its a tough one.
Have you asked for a new frame at cost price? That would seem a fair outcome.
Get some rollers for the new frame however you get it.
Much more fun, less time needed on them, better/more realistic work out and zero frame stress.0 -
Carbonator wrote:Turbos seem a bit of a minefield for all involved and I think you take a bit of a risk bolting a bike in one.
Completely understand what you mean about feeling cheated. Its a tough one.
Have you asked for a new frame at cost price? That would seem a fair outcome.
Get some rollers for the new frame however you get it.
Much more fun, less time needed on them, better/more realistic work out and zero frame stress.
Rollers are on my to buy list... they've got to be more fun than turbos!
But does the use of rollers potentially invalidate a Cannondale warranty? Are they also viewed as improper? I did pose this question to Cannondale earlier when I requested their written response:I would ask you to consider getting the wording of the Cannondale warranty re-worded so that it lists the range of activities that a road-bike user often undertake which Cannondale considers 'abnormal' (e.g. Riding on rollers? Riding on a gravelly path? Riding off a kerb? Riding with clipless pedals? Riding on salted roads?).
They're yet to reply.0
