Cannondale Say Using Road Bike in a Turbo is Abnormal

spankwilder

http://www.myorangemonkey.com/racing11/BMBS/bmbs1-3.jpg

Apparently improper use applies to MTB frames as well, a late memo to the Cannondale Pro Team put an end to their warm up session

Party Weirdo

Quick question ... What does the OP think happened to the frame that it is damaged? I'm guessing it wasn't a gust of wind. From where you said the damage was it seems it's either a pothole or it has taken a knock on the seatstay (have you asked family members?).

I have no idea whether you should expect a repair/replacement but tbh once you admitted turbo use you were goosed (especially as they had already said that's what they considered it to be).

ratsbeyfus

Party Weirdo wrote:

Quick question ... What does the OP think happened to the frame that it is damaged? I'm guessing it wasn't a gust of wind. From where you said the damage was it seems it's either a pothole or it has taken a knock on the seatstay (have you asked family members?).

I have no idea whether you should expect a repair/replacement but tbh once you admitted turbo use you were goosed (especially as they had already said that's what they considered it to be).

I think the frame crack was caused by a fault in the manufacturing process at the weld, which has over the course of time appeared. It hasn't been crashed. Road surfaces are poor, but if Cannondale can't make frames to survive normal use on British roads they are in the wrong business. The wheels were returned to Cannondale (at great hassle to me) so that they could satisfy themselves that it wasn't a pothole which caused the crack.

At first they claimed it was 'excessive' turbo use - the phrase 'excessive use' appears in their warranty as one of the conditions that they won't honour the warranty. Later, it was stated that 'any' turbo use invalidated the warranty as such use was 'abnormal (another word lifted from their warranty).

I also freely admit that I have changed cables and brake-blocks (amongst other things) on the bike. Guess what - their warranty forbids 'alterations' to their bikes so I guess they've can use that as a reason for not repairing/replacing the frame!

darkhairedlord

In the time you've dedicated to moaning about it you could have earned enough get it welded and pay for a hit on mr dale.

ratsbeyfus

darkhairedlord wrote:

In the time you've dedicated to moaning about it you could have earned enough get it welded and pay for a hit on mr dale.

Damn right!

'Working' from home today - got bugger all done!

Their head office is in Poole I believe... pop round there and make 'em see sense.

Joeblack

Iv always been of the thinking that turbos are bad for your bike, I don't know where I first heard this but a couple of friends think the same, rollers are generally thought the safe option.

I feel for the op but fancy telling them that's what you've used the bike on

iron-clover

Hmm.
I must admit after reading the amount of warranty issues people are having with Cannondale, I think I'll scratch them off my purchase list...

ratsbeyfus

iron-clover wrote:

Hmm.
I must admit after reading the amount of warranty issues people are having with Cannondale, I think I'll scratch them off my purchase list...

That's a shame coz I've got a lovely CAAD9 frame and fork for sale - one careful owner!

simonj

I had an EVO red, the front derailleur braze on bracket cracked in one place whilst in the middle of doing the Lionheart, it had literally only done a dozen rides before this due to bike only being a few months old and wet weather. I didn't spot it till back home and was cleaning it, the Frame was fine, so just needed it removing and a new one riveting on, so a 15 minute job. Firstly I was told I'd have to strip it, then pay return postage as the dealer I bought it from (via cycle2work) was not local to me (fully insured postage would be over £130), I was then told it would be assessed and I may be fully liable for all parts, labour and return postage. The whole thing, I did not think, constituted good customer service and it made me feel I was the guilty party from the outset. It was almost like I was being treated as being in the wrong by default and it was up to them to later decide I wasn't. I had no option but to return it to them as I did not want anyone who may invalidate my warrantee to touch it. In the end I found out my local dealer had just become a Cannondale dealer (they weren't when I bought it) so I paid them to return it and sort out the warrantee and all was sorted, but it wasn't a pleasant experience. At the time I had an EVO Red, a Synapse Red, SuperX Red and CaadX. I now no longer own a Cannondale.

ratsbeyfus

I may have to start a support group.

Monty Dog

darkhairedlord wrote:

In the time you've dedicated to moaning about it you could have earned enough get it welded and pay for a hit on mr dale.

Cannondale use a heat-treated alloy - welding creates heat-stress, so unless the frame is then heat-soaked and re-tempered after the welding, it will simply fail rapidly. Also, frame tubes are pretty thin and more likely that a regular welder would simply blow a hole in the tubes. Finally, even if welding was successful, it would still need repainting +£££

ratsbeyfus

Monty Dog wrote:

darkhairedlord wrote:

In the time you've dedicated to moaning about it you could have earned enough get it welded and pay for a hit on mr dale.

Cannondale use a heat-treated alloy - welding creates heat-stress, so unless the frame is then heat-soaked and re-tempered after the welding, it will simply fail rapidly. Also, frame tubes are pretty thin and more likely that a regular welder would simply blow a hole in the tubes. Finally, even if welding was successful, it would still need repainting +£££

Bloke at Cannondale said he'd never seen a crack at the weld on the rear brake bridge which wasn't caused by turbo use - i.e. that there no faults ever identified with the weld at that joint which he was aware of. They must have the best damn welders on the planet to never over-stress the joint. Or, they just make bold assertions and stick by it come hell or high water.

cougie

It seems they're going back to their old nickname of Crack n' fail...

Sounds like they are just trying to wriggle out of it. Which out of the ten hours was it that broke their bike ? In 4 years you could easily have put thousands of hours of hitting potholes on the bike.

And as their teams use bikes on turbos to warm up - how can they possibly claim that a turbo is improper use ? Are they saying they build bikes that won't cope with the awesome power an average joe can out out ?
You'd think someone like Sagan would never finish a race on their bikes.

And a turbo is essential for any half serious cyclist to train on.

IShaggy

Just send the rep this image -

Joeblack

cougie wrote:

It seems they're going back to their old nickname of Crack n' fail...

Sounds like they are just trying to wriggle out of it. Which out of the ten hours was it that broke their bike ? In 4 years you could easily have put thousands of hours of hitting potholes on the bike.

And as their teams use bikes on turbos to warm up - how can they possibly claim that a turbo is improper use ? Are they saying they build bikes that won't cope with the awesome power an average joe can out out ?
You'd think someone like Sagan would never finish a race on their bikes.

And a turbo is essential for any half serious cyclist to train on.

Hahahahhahaha

Because one frame has cracked and a mech snapped?!!

We'd better all sell our Dales' then and get Cervelos! Oh wait there customer service is crap also!!

Bottom line is everyone knows Turbos can put undue strain on a bike, yes the pro teams use them but then aren't concerned with replacing frames as they are sponsored.

There are quiet a few dale owners on here that are 100% happy but as with most brands people hear 1 or 2 bad stories and jump on the hate wagon.

Iamnot Wiggins

Joeblack wrote:

cougie wrote:

It seems they're going back to their old nickname of Crack n' fail...

Sounds like they are just trying to wriggle out of it. Which out of the ten hours was it that broke their bike ? In 4 years you could easily have put thousands of hours of hitting potholes on the bike.

And as their teams use bikes on turbos to warm up - how can they possibly claim that a turbo is improper use ? Are they saying they build bikes that won't cope with the awesome power an average joe can out out ?
You'd think someone like Sagan would never finish a race on their bikes.

And a turbo is essential for any half serious cyclist to train on.

Hahahahhahaha

Because one frame has cracked and a mech snapped?!!

Erm, Crack n' Fail was a common term for Cannondale years ago. Both by the general public and the industry types. Seems nothing has changed!

Joeblack

Iamnot Wiggins wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

cougie wrote:

It seems they're going back to their old nickname of Crack n' fail...

Sounds like they are just trying to wriggle out of it. Which out of the ten hours was it that broke their bike ? In 4 years you could easily have put thousands of hours of hitting potholes on the bike.

And as their teams use bikes on turbos to warm up - how can they possibly claim that a turbo is improper use ? Are they saying they build bikes that won't cope with the awesome power an average joe can out out ?
You'd think someone like Sagan would never finish a race on their bikes.

And a turbo is essential for any half serious cyclist to train on.

Hahahahhahaha

Because one frame has cracked and a mech snapped?!!

Erm, Crack n' Fail was a common term for Cannondale years ago. Both by the general public and the industry types. Seems nothing has changed!

'Years ago' being the relevant words here... Are we going back to that way of thinking because of one cracked frame that may or may not have been caused by use on a turbo?

Also can you point to any specific evidence (not just a generalised statement) that 'years ago' cannondale frames failed more than any other brand?

Anonymous

ratsbeyfus wrote:

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?

All their pro teams use them on turbos...

cougie

Joe -dig for yourself. That's what their nickname was.

It's stupid of them to say thAt a couple of hours on a turbo could crack their frame. If that's the case then it's a pretty poor frame ?

Joeblack

madasahattersley wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

Because one frame has cracked and a mech snapped?!!

We'd better all sell our Dales' then and get Cervelos! Oh wait there customer service is crap also!!

Bottom line is everyone knows Turbos can put undue strain on a bike, yes the pro teams use them but then aren't concerned with replacing frames as they are sponsored.

There are quiet a few dale owners on here that are 100% happy but as with most brands people hear 1 or 2 bad stories and jump on the hate wagon.

Since when has Cervélo customer service been 'crap'? I don't have any Cervelos anymore but the shop that I worked in has never, ever, ever failed to get a Cervelo frame warrantied with no questions asked. This includes a customer who had put 50000km over the course of 10 years on an old RS which was replaced with a brand new R5 because it had a tiny hairline crack near the BB. It also includes somebody whose rear mech got caught up in his wheel (his fault entirely) which damaged the frame, wheel and rear mech and Cervelo offered to replace everything at cost price.

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against cannondales and I'm sure they're nice (I've been tempted myself) but slating Cervelo is irrelevant and unfair.

This is just what iv heard (and on this very forum) your point is fair though, it's unfair to slate a bikes manufactures reputation....

Which is my point.... 'Going back to Crack and fail' on the strength of just the op's argument when no one (not even the op) knows why this frame has failed is unfair, no?

slowbike

Joeblack wrote:

madasahattersley wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

Because one frame has cracked and a mech snapped?!!

We'd better all sell our Dales' then and get Cervelos! Oh wait there customer service is crap also!!

Bottom line is everyone knows Turbos can put undue strain on a bike, yes the pro teams use them but then aren't concerned with replacing frames as they are sponsored.

There are quiet a few dale owners on here that are 100% happy but as with most brands people hear 1 or 2 bad stories and jump on the hate wagon.

Since when has Cervélo customer service been 'crap'? I don't have any Cervelos anymore but the shop that I worked in has never, ever, ever failed to get a Cervelo frame warrantied with no questions asked. This includes a customer who had put 50000km over the course of 10 years on an old RS which was replaced with a brand new R5 because it had a tiny hairline crack near the BB. It also includes somebody whose rear mech got caught up in his wheel (his fault entirely) which damaged the frame, wheel and rear mech and Cervelo offered to replace everything at cost price.

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against cannondales and I'm sure they're nice (I've been tempted myself) but slating Cervelo is irrelevant and unfair.

This is just what iv heard (and on this very forum) your point is fair though, it's unfair to slate a bikes manufactures reputation....

Which is my point.... 'Going back to Crack and fail' on the strength of just the op's argument when no one (not even the op) knows why this frame has failed is unfair, no?

and perhaps it's unfair for a manufacturer to offer lifetime warranty on frames and then rescind it because the owner has used the bicycle in a perfectly normal way - as demonstrated by the professionals who are sponsored by the manufacturer.

and perhaps the term Crack'n'Fail is now being directed more to the manufacturers brush-off response to what would appear to be a perfectly normal warranty claim.

Undoubtedly, a frame experiences different forces whilst using a turbo, but it's not usual for a frame to fail whilst using one otherwise there would be widespread stories of this ..

Joeblack

Slowbike wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

madasahattersley wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

Because one frame has cracked and a mech snapped?!!

We'd better all sell our Dales' then and get Cervelos! Oh wait there customer service is crap also!!

Bottom line is everyone knows Turbos can put undue strain on a bike, yes the pro teams use them but then aren't concerned with replacing frames as they are sponsored.

There are quiet a few dale owners on here that are 100% happy but as with most brands people hear 1 or 2 bad stories and jump on the hate wagon.

Since when has Cervélo customer service been 'crap'? I don't have any Cervelos anymore but the shop that I worked in has never, ever, ever failed to get a Cervelo frame warrantied with no questions asked. This includes a customer who had put 50000km over the course of 10 years on an old RS which was replaced with a brand new R5 because it had a tiny hairline crack near the BB. It also includes somebody whose rear mech got caught up in his wheel (his fault entirely) which damaged the frame, wheel and rear mech and Cervelo offered to replace everything at cost price.

Don't get me wrong I have nothing against cannondales and I'm sure they're nice (I've been tempted myself) but slating Cervelo is irrelevant and unfair.

This is just what iv heard (and on this very forum) your point is fair though, it's unfair to slate a bikes manufactures reputation....

Which is my point.... 'Going back to Crack and fail' on the strength of just the op's argument when no one (not even the op) knows why this frame has failed is unfair, no?

and perhaps it's unfair for a manufacturer to offer lifetime warranty on frames and then rescind it because the owner has used the bicycle in a perfectly normal way - as demonstrated by the professionals who are sponsored by the manufacturer.

and perhaps the term Crack'n'Fail is now being directed more to the manufacturers brush-off response to what would appear to be a perfectly normal warranty claim.

Undoubtedly, a frame experiences different forces whilst using a turbo, but it's not usual for a frame to fail whilst using one otherwise there would be widespread stories of this ..

I'm sure lots of people have taken advantage of cannodales lifetime warranty without issue, the problem is you won't hear about that because people are happy and they rarely voice it when they are happy with service.

The fact that pro teams use trainers means nothing, they don't keep their frames nearly as long as we do and won't worry when they break one because it will just be replaced. I doubt pro teams have to go through the same process we do to get a warranty replacement.

ratsbeyfus

Hi.

To be fair to Cannondale I'll post the reply to me they sent today, when I asked them to clarify what I had been told verbally yesterday:

Mr Beyfus,

Whilst I appreciate that you may not be happy with our decision, I can assure you that we have not targets or figures to reach and, as such, our decision is purely based on the evidence we have received and our knowledge and experience of the frame platform.

Whilst our frames come with a lifetime warranty, this does not in turn imply that it will last forever, or indeed that any damage/ breakage is automatically warrantable. As with any other aluminium frame, your CAAD 9 has a finite lifespan, over time and with repeated usage, the frame build material will unavoidably fatigue and weaken. Just like your tyres, brake pads and drive train wear out with use, so does your frame. Whether this is 5, 10, 15 or even 20 years after purchase will be completely dictated by the amount and type of use and maintenance that a bike receives As is explained in your owner’s manual:

‘Material use is optimized to deliver both light weight and specific performance. You must understand that (1) these types of bikes are intended to give an aggressive racer or competitive cyclist a performance advantage over a relatively short product life, (2) a less aggressive rider will enjoy longer frame life, (3) you are choosing light weight (shorter frame life) over more frame weight and a longer frame life, (4) you are choosing light weight over more dent resistant or rugged frames that weigh more. They are not designed to take abuse or be a rugged workhorse’.

With all due respect I feel that you are getting too caught up on whether your turbo trainer usage is ‘excessive’ or ‘abnormal’ and missing the overriding fact that the damage has been caused by using a turbo trainer full stop. By nature of the design of a turbo trainer, it will constrain a frame in a way that is completely unnatural and unlike the ‘normal usage’ that your frame is intended for. With the rear wheel and frame locked in place the frame with not be allowed to move and flex underneath the rider as it would if it were being used on the road, unconstrained. It is the unnatural torsional stress which using a bike in a turbo trainer will cause that has unfortunately resulted in your frame breaking where it has.

In further validation of our decision, it is also worth being aware that, if there was a fault with the welding of the brake bridge to the frame you would expect to have seen failure far earlier in your ownership than now. The nature of the crack itself too is I’m afraid, not symptomatic of a manufacturing fault. Had the crack been running through the weld, as opposed to alongside it, this would tend to indicate that the weld had been overheated or that there are impurities in the material, both of which would make it unnaturally weak and therefore prone to premature failure. However this is not the case with your frame. It has cracked in the area proximal to the weld which, given the processes involved, will always naturally be the weakest point of a frame and where excessive or unusual, un-designed for stress forces will evidence themselves first. Whilst you have said that the crack had been present since you purchased the bike, all the physical evidence on the frame, and why you are only addressing the matter now, would suggest that this is not the case. Had it been there from production, you would see substantial evidence of aluminium oxidisation and lifting of the paint around this area, where environmental factors (moisture and dirt) had been able to get into the crack and under the surrounding paintwork during the past 4 years. On your frame there is none of this evident to support that claim.

Please understand that we take our warranty promise very seriously, and do not, have not and will not abuse it. To these ends we do not make any such judgements lightly or without sufficient physical evidence to back them up. Whilst, I appreciate that our decision on this occasion has not been in your favour, I hope that you can at least see that it is one based on the specific physical evidence of your frame rather than mere conjecture or any cynical attempt to avoid our responsibilities in such instances. As discussed, your frame and parts will be returned to Evans Cycles in Brighton along with a report of our findings. As we have no desire or need to profit from this unfortunate situation, to try and get you back on a bike, whilst we have declined your warranty claim, we have offered Evans several goodwill replacement frame options at cost price. In the end, whilst unfortunate, the damage to your frame is categorically not the result of a manufacturing fault or defect and is purely the result of your personal usage choices. As such the decision taken and resolution offered is firm final and not open to further negotiation or discussion.


Regards

Ed Thomas
Warranty, Technical and Customer Support

The letter contains a factual error - I didn't say that the crack had been there since I bought the frame, I said it 'could' have been, as the area it was in was not one that was easily seen, and I was only aware of the extent of the crack when I scraped off the paint in the around a hairline crack.

I have a banging headache and have to feed some hungry kids, so really am not up for debating all this now on here or with Cannondale, but thought it is only fair to publish their response in full without paraphrasing them.

ratsbeyfus

BTW - I agree that this forum should contain the opinions of Cannondale users who've had good experiences with the company and their warranty, and would welcome any input from them.

Joeblack

Reading that doesn't change the original points iv made it does however make me ask the question how can a company have a lifetime warranty on a product and then say it has a shelf life, obviously it makes sense it has a shelf life like any material but then why would you offer a lifetime warranty?!!

At least they are offering you half a solution by way of a cost price frame but I still don't understand their wording.

dilatory

It's a lifetime warranty against manufacturing defects tho. I see their point that shit wears out. Just because something has been used beyond the point of intention doesn't mean it was poorly manufactured, it means the opposite.

Joeblack

Ahhh I see, reading their explanation it does make it hard to argue the point that it's a manufacturers defect

ravenvrider

Frankly when i started reading this thread i was concerned having 2 currently and several over the years, but after reading their detailed report i understand their decision and can see it is fair, although not what you would want from a "lifetime" warranty you have to consider a company such as Cannondale has vast experience at looking at damaged frames and determining exactly how it happened.

I should say at this point they replaced one of my frames after i took it in for a routine service and the mechanic found a very small crack that i had not noticed and even when he showed it to me i would not have said it was a crack, but Cannondale replaced it immediately without question.

ratsbeyfus

ravenvrider wrote:

Frankly when i started reading this thread i was concerned having 2 currently and several over the years, but after reading their detailed report i understand their decision and can see it is fair, although not what you would want from a "lifetime" warranty you have to consider a company such as Cannondale has vast experience at looking at damaged frames and determining exactly how it happened.

I should say at this point they replaced one of my frames after i took it in for a routine service and the mechanic found a very small crack that i had not noticed and even when he showed it to me i would not have said it was a crack, but Cannondale replaced it immediately without question.

Hi ravenrider. Just out of interest how old was your Cannondale when they replaced it? I'm interested in knowing what the oldest frame is that Cannondale UK has ever replaced under warranty.

Thanks for your input by the way - I genuinely want this to be an open discussion about Cannondale. Indeed, it would be good to know about what other warranty issues (good or bad) others have experienced with different brands. That way I could get an idea whether Cannondale's stance is normal, generous or mean-spirited.

I also appreciate that people are probably sick of reading about all this... sorry!

ravenvrider

The bike was 2 years old and this was back in 2002. It was a Mk 2 Raven mtb, i still have it.

Whilst i understand their decision is not what you want it has to be said that due to the amount of litigation in the states Cannondale go to great lengths to fully understand every frame failure and have done so ever since their inception, their statements have a certain amount of weight behind them, its not just an off the cuff statement from a mechanic.