Cannondale Say Using Road Bike in a Turbo is Abnormal

ratsbeyfus

ravenvrider wrote:

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.

I don't doubt that they believe what they are saying. But, for the sake of argument, if my turbo usage did cause the frame to crack as they say, then there would be hundreds of cracked Cannondales. My frame must have been faulty/weak to crack under such circumstances. It also doesn't explain why Cannondale doesn't state in their warranty that any use of a turbo nullifies the warranty. If the crack had appeared whilst on my turbo, I would be equally cheesed off, as it doesn't forbid the use of turbo in the warranty, and suggests that the frame is weak and dangerous.

Perhaps I should find out how many Cannondale owners have used their bikes on a turbo and not had them crack. 100's if not 1000s I imagine.

ravenvrider

I have to admit that as you say if it is not made clear in their warranty terms (although i have not read them for a very long time), it is difficult to argue against their use on trainers even though their arguments make perfect sense it should be made clear that their bikes are not for use on turbos.

Really stupid question but have you read the warranty paperwork and is their any comment about trainers. I only ask because i have not seen them for so long i would not know if there is anything in them now.

This thread has been really useful as i now know if i want to use a trainer to buy and old steel junker to go with it. So thanks for bringing it to our attention.

ratsbeyfus

ravenvrider wrote:

I have to admit that as you say if it is not made clear in their warranty terms (although i have not read them for a very long time), it is difficult to argue against their use on trainers even though their arguments make perfect sense it should be made clear that their bikes are not for use on turbos.

Really stupid question but have you read the warranty paperwork and is their any comment about trainers. I only ask because i have not seen them for so long i would not know if there is anything in them now.

This thread has been really useful as i now know if i want to use a trainer to buy and old steel junker to go with it. So thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Hey - I died to save you all! I can't wait to get my cracked frame back from those beasts at Cannondale so I can stick it on my dusty turbo and impress all the ladies with my awesome frame cracking power! In fact, I think Cannondale have actually done methe world a huge favour by pointing out how outrageously 'abnormal' it is for otherwise normal lycra clad suffer-freaks to ride on a turbo.

To answer your question, I have got the original green Cannondale Owner's Booklet which I confess to not having read before going on my first ride. (I know, I'm just craaaaaaaaaaazy!) I think I may have actually invalidated the warranty as I didn't heed the advice on p44 which states that:

RIDING AT NIGHT/DUSK OR AT DAWN IS VERY HAZARDOUS. Avoid riding at night.

(Their capitals.)
On page 94 (Appendix F, Part 2) they have another warning:

CAUTION
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.

Who can blame them? I don't. They then go on however to tell you how to use a turbo trainer, to make sure that you do the quick releases up tight, make sure you use the quick release lever that comes with the turbo, and to be particularly cautious with a carbon frame and fork as they are relatively soft (and melt in the rain :twisted: ). They are also considerate enough to point out that if you ride a trainer a lot consider using an old bike, and that sweat can cause corrosion.

They go to great pains to point out that children should be kept away from turbos as the little freaky feckers like to put their bendy limbs into the spinning wheel bits.

It really is a very comprehensive piece of work written by, I imagine, a whole army of lawyers, but nowhere does it say that you shouldn't use your bike on a turbo, nor suggest that such use is 'abnormal'.

Iamnot Wiggins

Joeblack wrote:

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?

Still a cracked frame though.

And yes, I used to work for a Cannondale dealer. More frames came back than any other. Caused the shop to cancel the agency agreement.

But thanks for your interest.

ratsbeyfus

Here's the warranty page from the manual:

P1290998 by ratsbeyfus, on Flickr

and here's the page about using a turbo:

P1290997 by ratsbeyfus, on Flickr

and here's the crack (finally worked out how to embed pictures with new flickr)
crack by ratsbeyfus, on Flickr

ratsbeyfus

Just to point out that I scraped the paint off to expose the crack...

Joeblack

Iamnot Wiggins wrote:

Joeblack wrote:

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?

Still a cracked frame though.

And yes, I used to work for a Cannondale dealer. More frames came back than any other. Caused the shop to cancel the agency agreement.

But thanks for your interest.

I stand corrected....thanks for the conclusive evidence :roll:

patrickf

dilatory wrote:

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

Lifetime guarantee covers manufacturing faults. Check.
Manufacturing faults are expected to manifest themselves much earlier (as per their letter)

Remind me why there's a need for a lifetime warranty when they a) don't expect the frame to last a "lifetime" and most importantly b) they expect manufacturing faults to show up much sooner than 4 years.

So why not call it a 2 year warranty?

This is like "unlimited*" phone/internet packages.





* fair use policy applies. We won't tell you what but well cut you off when we feel like it.

rolf_f

patrickf wrote:

dilatory wrote:

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

Lifetime guarantee covers manufacturing faults. Check.
Manufacturing faults are expected to manifest themselves much earlier (as per their letter)

Remind me why there's a need for a lifetime warranty when they a) don't expect the frame to last a "lifetime" and most importantly b) they expect manufacturing faults to show up much sooner than 4 years.

So why not call it a 2 year warranty?

This is like "unlimited*" phone/internet packages.

Got it in one! You could argue that a lifetime warranty implies a lack of confidence of the manufacturer in its product on the basis that it still expects manufacturing defects to show themselves years after purchase! Of course, it does mean you have less to worry about if you don't put many miles into your bike.....

ratsbeyfus

Our hamster come with a lifetime guarantee. He was guaranteed to be alive right up until the moment he popped his little clogs.

nathancom

Turbo use is abnormal whatever you use in it...

Bad luck on the frame, sounds like they are tough to deal with.

dabber

A lifetime warranty is just a marketing term. Like many marketing claims it is meaningless.
The interpretation seems pretty subjective and can be applied in a way that is favourable to the customer/claimant or, as in this case, the manufacturer appears to be applying an interpretation that absolves them of any responsibility.

Whether this is a good move on Cannondale's part is for them to decide. There is clearly a possibility of damage to their brand and future potential purchasers voting with their credit card.

ratsbeyfus

nathancom wrote:

Turbo use is abnormal whatever you use in it...

Bad luck on the frame, sounds like they are tough to deal with.

Thanks nathancom... they certainly seem sure of their case. The poll was started to see whether other cyclists agree with Cannondale's definition of 'abnormal' use, and most disagree so far. It's not scientific but hey-ho.

ratsbeyfus

Dabber wrote:

A lifetime warranty is just a marketing term. Like many marketing claims it is meaningless.
The interpretation seems pretty subjective and can be applied in a way that is favourable to the customer/claimant or, as in this case, the manufacturer appears to be applying an interpretation that absolves them of any responsibility.

Whether this is a good move on Cannondale's part is for them to decide. There is clearly a possibility of damage to their brand and future potential purchasers voting with their credit card.

Yep - I've discovered that warranty is not the same as guarantee in this process.

I genuinely don't think Cannondale UK cares about the effect of this forum however, as I was pretty much laughed at when I told the rep' I'd start a poll to prove my point that his use of the word 'abnormal' was disingenuous. It has, however, made me feel a lot better about the situation knowing that many other cyclists out there are sympathetic.

As we speak, some cy7cling journalists are probably whizzing around the Tuscan hills on press-junket supplied CAAD11's and formulating some kind of erudite new way of saying how 'light, stiff, smooth and responsive' the frame is compared to the CAAD10. (Can you tell that I am a wee bit jealous of cycling journalists?)

DavidJB

Seems to me that this is a fantastic excuse for a new bike! Win win!

ratsbeyfus

DavidJB wrote:

Seems to me that this is a fantastic excuse for a new bike! Win win!

ratsbeyfus

Thanks Luke. I might get a steel-frame as a replacement so that it cane be repaired regardless of warranty. I'm just worried they might be too heavy in the price bracket I can afford. I'm 78kg and struggle with the Downs as it is, and would also want to use the frame for the occasional crit race. I'll look at Parley - thanks.

ratsbeyfus

Just watched a piece about turbo training on RCUK ( http://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/how-to-make-the-most-of-indoor-training-for-year-round-fitness.html )in which the writer demonstrates turbo and roller training using a cannondale.

Googled the author Mike Cotty ( @Cottydale ) and discovered he is a brand ambassador for Cannondale through his company( http://media-24.co.uk/)! He produces journalist puff-pieces, amongst other things, as far as I can tell to promote the brand! I've given him the link to this thread to see if he can clear up whether or not Cannondale view turbo training as abnormal.

diamonddog

As I said in the other thread, my turbo bike has a cheap alu frame with at least 3-4 hours use a week and has never been off the turbo in nearly 2 years - no cracks or damage so I must be really weak on the power front .

So according to them expensive Cannondale frames are not up to this so called 'abnormal' usage, poor customer service IMO.

foggymike

Cannondale's approach is clearly nonsense and I'm sure they'll see sense eventually so keep going. My 7 year old Cannondale frame has done literally hundreds of hours on the turbo with no ill effect (and I know of one even older that is going strong after similar use) so what that says about the manufacturing quality of yours you can decide for yourself. If they don't stand by their product I'll not be getting another either.

Personally at this stage I'd be after a refund from the original retailer under the sale of goods act as it's clearly not fit for for purpose. Alternatively you could explore a section 75 claim via the credit card company - I've had to do this before and it was very straightforward and quick.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/ ... goes-wrong

ratsbeyfus

foggymike wrote:

Cannondale's approach is clearly nonsense and I'm sure they'll see sense eventually so keep going. My 7 year old Cannondale frame has done literally hundreds of hours on the turbo with no ill effect (and I know of one even older that is going strong after similar use) so what that says about the manufacturing quality of yours you can decide for yourself. If they don't stand by their product I'll not be getting another either.

Personally at this stage I'd be after a refund from the original retailer under the sale of goods act as it's clearly not fit for for purpose. Alternatively you could explore a section 75 claim via the credit card company - I've had to do this before and it was very straightforward and quick.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/ ... goes-wrong

Thanks Mike, I appreciate your advice. At the moment I don't really want to go after the shop, as it is a smallish LBS in Essex, and feel that my issue is with Cannondale. If they were a larger retailer I'd be keener to go down that route. I can't do the credit card thing as it was purchased through Cyclescheme... and, yes, I did use the bike substantially to cycle to work on! I believe I can pursue Cannondale through the small claims court. I'd also like Cannondale to re-word their warranty so it is no longer misleading.

adamfo

foggymike wrote:

Personally at this stage I'd be after a refund from the original retailer under the sale of goods act as it's clearly not fit for for purpose.

Good luck with that the OP's bike is 4 years old !

foggymike

adamfo wrote:

foggymike wrote:

Personally at this stage I'd be after a refund from the original retailer under the sale of goods act as it's clearly not fit for for purpose.

Good luck with that the OP's bike is 4 years old !

The law gives you up to 6 years to get a replacement or repair on faulty goods. It's about a month (can't remember exactly) for a refund.

Mike Cotty

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Just watched a piece about turbo training on RCUK ( http://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/how-to-make-the-most-of-indoor-training-for-year-round-fitness.html )in which the writer demonstrates turbo and roller training using a cannondale.

Googled the author Mike Cotty ( @Cottydale ) and discovered he is a brand ambassador for Cannondale through his company( http://media-24.co.uk/)! He produces journalist puff-pieces, amongst other things, as far as I can tell to promote the brand! I've given him the link to this thread to see if he can clear up whether or not Cannondale view turbo training as abnormal.

.....and there's me wondering why my ears were burning hot earlier on!

I'm very sorry to hear about your current situation. Unfortunately I'm not in a position where I can call the shots on what is deemed normal and abnormal on behalf of Cannondale, that's down to their interpretation of any given situation.

From a personal perspective, I believe that turbo training is a normal activity for cyclists to undertake - just look at how many turbo manufacturers are out there and how many people do it. However, road bikes themselves aren't specifically designed and engineered to be clamped and ridden on a static trainer which may put stress on areas of the frame that they wouldn't otherwise be subject to when used on the road (their intended use). Thinking about it, I really can't remember any literature that I've read from any bike manufacturer that states that they have specifically engineered a road bike with the intention of it being used on a turbo. I think it's a case of turbo manufacturers making the activity 'normal' in the eyes of the rider whereas from a bike manufacturers perspective anything that deviates from the intended purpose that the product was designed for (in this case road riding) could be deemed as abnormal. Once again, this is just my personal perspective.

I have to admit, this is a massively grey area open to interpretation, and I wish I had the power to make black, black, and white, white, for you. I'm sorry that I can't do that.

I do however have one question that would certainly help put a sparkle back into my day. How many journalist puff-pieces would I need to do to make it to "puff-daddy" status? We've all got to have goals in life and that could be something for me to work towards......

Kindest regards,

Mike Cotty

ratsbeyfus

Mike Cotty wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Just watched a piece about turbo training on RCUK ( http://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/how-to-make-the-most-of-indoor-training-for-year-round-fitness.html )in which the writer demonstrates turbo and roller training using a cannondale.

Googled the author Mike Cotty ( @Cottydale ) and discovered he is a brand ambassador for Cannondale through his company( http://media-24.co.uk/)! He produces journalist puff-pieces, amongst other things, as far as I can tell to promote the brand! I've given him the link to this thread to see if he can clear up whether or not Cannondale view turbo training as abnormal.

.....and there's me wondering why my ears were burning hot earlier on!

I'm very sorry to hear about your current situation. Unfortunately I'm not in a position where I can call the shots on what is deemed normal and abnormal on behalf of Cannondale, that's down to their interpretation of any given situation.

From a personal perspective, I believe that turbo training is a normal activity for cyclists to undertake - just look at how many turbo manufacturers are out there and how many people do it. However, road bikes themselves aren't specifically designed and engineered to be clamped and ridden on a static trainer which may put stress on areas of the frame that they wouldn't otherwise be subject to when used on the road (their intended use). Thinking about it, I really can't remember any literature that I've read from any bike manufacturer that states that they have specifically engineered a road bike with the intention of it being used on a turbo. I think it's a case of turbo manufacturers making the activity 'normal' in the eyes of the rider whereas from a bike manufacturers perspective anything that deviates from the intended purpose that the product was designed for (in this case road riding) could be deemed as abnormal. Once again, this is just my personal perspective.

I have to admit, this is a massively grey area open to interpretation, and I wish I had the power to make black, black, and white, white, for you. I'm sorry that I can't do that.

I do however have one question that would certainly help put a sparkle back into my day. How many journalist puff-pieces would I need to do to make it to "puff-daddy" status? We've all got to have goals in life and that could be something for me to work towards......

Kindest regards,

Mike Cotty

Thanks Mike/Puff Daddy for the very clear answer. I appreciate you taking the time to post on here. I didn't want to post on RCUK as I've never contributed to the forums there and don't think it would be right to.

It is indeed a very grey area, which is why I found it so annoying when the Cannondale rep' used it against my claim. It's the same feeling I had about 10 years ago when I got given a parking ticket for a violation I KNEW I hadn't committed. I've had plenty of parking tickets living in Brighton, most I have just paid and felt rotten about being 'caught' some I have appealed in the 'cheeky hope' that I'd get off (sometimes it has worked, sometimes it didn't), but when I got this particular parking ticket 10 years ago I KNEW I hadn't committed the offence and was damned if I was going to pay the fine... it's pathetic, and I wasted a lot of time doing it, but I had to fight it! This is how I feel about this... I won't go over my arguments again, and I'm sure that there are many out there who feel that I'm probably just kicking up a fuss / throwing my toys out of the pram in a cycnical attempt / 'cheeky hope' to get something I don't deserve... there'll be nothing I can say to those doubters (which may well include the Cannondale rep') to prove that I'm not a chancer. But I know how much I've used my turbo, that I used it carefully, and well over a year ago. The frame shouldn't break under the circumstances I used it. I would be happy to send my turbo trainer away for some technically minded person to look at it, to see whether a fault in it caused the frame to break, for all the good that will do.

Much as I'd love Cannondale to contact me tomorrow and say they'll give me the benefit of the doubt and honour the warranty by giving me a replacement frame, I'd only really be happy if they really genuinely took on board some of the criticisms here and thought about re-wording their warranty. Cannondale should stand by their products and be proud of them... they could even even go further and build in the possible use of a turbo trainer into future designs and use it as a selling point. 'Cannondale - the only big brand whose frames are guaranteed to work on the road and in the bedroom'. (<< Tell 'em they can have that one for free.)

LET MY PEOPLE TURBO!

scottishgeek

My understanding, rightly or wrongly, or a lifetime warranty has always been that it is the, somewhat arbitrary, lifetime of the product in question and not that of the purchaser / owner. Whatever that lifetime in deemed to be will, I have no doubt, vary hugely across brands.

I do own a turbo that get used occasionally in the winter evenings. These is no way on earth that either of my two Cannondales nor my wife's Lapierre would get used on it through. Instead we choose to use a 9 year old Claude Butler that spends the summer months in the garden shed.

ratsbeyfus

ScottishGeek wrote:

My understanding, rightly or wrongly, or a lifetime warranty has always been that it is the, somewhat arbitrary, lifetime of the product in question and not that of the purchaser / owner. Whatever that lifetime in deemed to be will, I have no doubt, vary hugely across brands.

I do own a turbo that get used occasionally in the winter evenings. These is no way on earth that either of my two Cannondales nor my wife's Lapierre would get used on it through. Instead we choose to use a 9 year old Claude Butler that spends the summer months in the garden shed.

Does your 'understanding' of Cannondale's lifetime warranty come from reading the wording in their booklet? Why use the word 'lifetime' at all if its meaning doesn't relate to the commonly accepted definition of the word? Surely it's misleading. Is 4 years a lifetime of a Cannondale frame? Are we to start viewing factory frames as sghort-term almost disposable items like a pair of factory wheels? No wonder there is a real movement back to steel frames and handbuilt wheels. Sounds like you'll be handing the Claude Butler down to the grandchildren long after your cannondales have failed.

scottishgeek

My 'understanding' is based upon many years of dealing with warranty claims in relation to my work and having had lengthy debates with numerous suppliers on the subject. As a result we now ask suppliers to specify a product life at the pre-purchase stage.

Answers varied from 'as long as the item is required to remain in use' through 'as long as the item remains in the companies portfolio' to 'x years as this was accertained to be the natural life of that particular product as determined by the design team". When I make any warranty claims as a home consumer I always therefore expect the manufacturer to come out with something to void the claim

Of course Cannondale write in their own documentation that:- 'Cannondale frames (except frames for Freeride, and Dirt Jumping bikes, see below) are warranted by Cannondale Bicycle Corporation, 16 Trowbridge Drive, Bethel, CT 06801 against manufacturing defects in materials and/or workmanship for the lifetime of the original owner.'

But prefix this with:- 'The specific warranty covering your Cannondale bicycle is governed by the law of the state or country in which it was purchased, and applies only to bicycles purchased from Authorized Cannondale Retailers.' which may or may not give them some wiggle room dependent on their interpretation of laws outside of their home state.

You will also need to compare the text currently online to that written into the copy you got with your bike 4 or so years ago as that will be the definition that applies to your warranty claim.
I wish you the best of luck in getting this resolved to your own satisfaction.

paultheparaglider

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Why use the word 'lifetime' at all if its meaning doesn't relate to the commonly accepted definition of the word? Surely it's misleading

As said before by others, it is a marketing term aimed at increasing sales. It is misleading, because the more you use and the longer you own your bike, the more likely it is that any damage is caused by ownership rather than manufacture.

However, such marketing terms are a double edged sword. They raise expectations to increase sales, but that raised expectation carries a cost. In my opinion, it is always better to under promise and over deliver rather than the other way around. When things like this happen, customers form a view as to the fairness of the manufacturer's actions as against the owner. In this case, there must be many people, and I include myself in that number, that think that there is enough uncertainty here that Cannondale would be wise to step up to the plate and replace the frame. I doubt many here question the honesty of the statements of ratsbeyfus that he has only done under 4 hours on his turbo, and unless there are signs of major damage to the drop outs indicating bad fitment to the turbo, then the conclusion many of us are going to draw is that either Cannondale are building sub standard bikes or they should be more open in being totally clear that their bikes cannot take turbo use and this is categorically and expressly excluded from their warranty. Either way, this is going to hurt Cannondale sales, when a straight replacement would probably have won them sales and goodwill.

Personally, I blame a lot of these type of problems on the current fashion for saving every last gram when really most of us just want a good lightweight bike, but not at the expense of robustness. BB30 is another similar, if much more minor, issue that springs to mind - marketing over substance.

I own a Cannondale mountain bike and a Trek road bike. Next time I replace either I'm going to think very carefully about what I buy because, good as they have both been, I'm very cynical about how the US manufacturers treat their customers when things go wrong. It isn't like this is the first similar thread about lifetime warranties that are almost totally reliant on manufacturer goodwill.

As I say, marketing statements are a double edged sword. Good luck to ratsbeyfus. I hope Cannondale have a change of heart here. Or they might find that double edged sword will cut deep.

Iamnot Wiggins

ratsbeyfus wrote:

foggymike wrote:

Cannondale's approach is clearly nonsense and I'm sure they'll see sense eventually so keep going. My 7 year old Cannondale frame has done literally hundreds of hours on the turbo with no ill effect (and I know of one even older that is going strong after similar use) so what that says about the manufacturing quality of yours you can decide for yourself. If they don't stand by their product I'll not be getting another either.

Personally at this stage I'd be after a refund from the original retailer under the sale of goods act as it's clearly not fit for for purpose. Alternatively you could explore a section 75 claim via the credit card company - I've had to do this before and it was very straightforward and quick.

http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/ ... goes-wrong

Thanks Mike, I appreciate your advice. At the moment I don't really want to go after the shop, as it is a smallish LBS in Essex,

So why have Cannondale returned the frame & parts to Evans as per their reply to you? Neither a small LBS nor in Essex!