Shimano Ultegra Hollowtech Crankset Failure - Shimano refusing to help
Comments
-
Any creaks, squeaks, etc it all gets taken off, replaced snd sent back to yhe factory for either crushing or R&D
Plus isn't it made out of different materials from that Ultegea tat? I could be wrong on that though.....The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
I imagine the forged part is more heavily machined on DA, but it'll be the same glue and the same materials.MattFalle said:Any creaks, squeaks, etc it all gets taken off, replaced snd sent back to yhe factory for either crushing or R&D
Plus isn't it made out of different materials from that Ultegea tat? I could be wrong on that though....
Fugly anyway. There are fat nicer options available.0 -
Agree on all points.
Why anyone would buy one out of choice as aftermarket is frankly beyond all of the MFs.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
I had not seen this. Very interesting. I'm not a big fan of lawyers, but I think Shimano is playing a very dangerous game by not warning its customers of a potentially dangerous flaw, so I may have no other recourse than to get together with others affected and bring a class action.pblakeney said:PS - The Americans have the right idea, a class action.
https://chimicles.com/shimano-bike-crank-class-action-investigation/0 -
This is true. It's not Canyon's problem. I've acknowledged as much with Canyon in my correspondence with them.MattFalle said:Its not Canyon's problem - the parts are out of warranty.
That said, since this incident I've really soured on Canyon. Canyon are of course more affordable because they don't have any physical stores. The absence of physical stores means they don't have to deal with customers directly. I'm quite confident that if I had bought this bike at my LBS, my LBS would be a lot more sympathetic and would try to do more than what Canyon has done. (FWIW, I did try to get my last road bike at my LBS, but I need at 60cm frame, which are very difficult to find in Japan. So LBS said I would be better off trying somewhere else.)
Canyon is also a huge customer for Shimano, and they could very easily pressurize Shimano to do something by threatening to take their business - even just a fraction of it - elsewhere. If I were a bike manufacturer and I had found out one of my suppliers had been sending me substandard components, I would not be pleased. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't heard of any bike manufacturers demanding corrective action from Shimano.
And yes - it is out of warranty. But Shimano have acknowledged that there is a fault with this line (the Canyon rep I'm dealing with has said that Shimano has admitted as much in their correspondence with him), and have not - to the best of my knowledge - actively alerted consumers. This is why I think I'm entitled to some sort of compensation beyond the warranty period.
0 -
They wouldn't ride a crank for thousands of KM they get new stuff oftenwebboo said:
Would we not be seeing examples of Dura Ace failure in the pro peloton given the stick they get.First.Aspect said:105 is forged. Ultegra and DA made the same way - with a shell glued on.
So presumably the same issues, but a smaller number of sales and examples, so you don't hear as much about DA.0 -
What you think and what is reality are two completely different things.UnhappyPappy said:
This is true. It's not Canyon's problem. I've acknowledged as much with Canyon in my correspondence with them.MattFalle said:Its not Canyon's problem - the parts are out of warranty.
That said, since this incident I've really soured on Canyon. Canyon are of course more affordable because they don't have any physical stores. The absence of physical stores means they don't have to deal with customers directly. I'm quite confident that if I had bought this bike at my LBS, my LBS would be a lot more sympathetic and would try to do more than what Canyon has done. (FWIW, I did try to get my last road bike at my LBS, but I need at 60cm frame, which are very difficult to find in Japan. So LBS said I would be better off trying somewhere else.)
Canyon is also a huge customer for Shimano, and they could very easily pressurize Shimano to do something by threatening to take their business - even just a fraction of it - elsewhere. If I were a bike manufacturer and I had found out one of my suppliers had been sending me substandard components, I would not be pleased. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't heard of any bike manufacturers demanding corrective action from Shimano.
And yes - it is out of warranty. But Shimano have acknowledged that there is a fault with this line (the Canyon rep I'm dealing with has said that Shimano has admitted as much in their correspondence with him), and have not - to the best of my knowledge - actively alerted consumers. This is why I think I'm entitled to some sort of compensation beyond the warranty period..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
No you're not. Its out of warranty.UnhappyPappy said:
This is true. It's not Canyon's problem. I've acknowledged as much with Canyon in my correspondence with them.MattFalle said:Its not Canyon's problem - the parts are out of warranty.
That said, since this incident I've really soured on Canyon. Canyon are of course more affordable because they don't have any physical stores. The absence of physical stores means they don't have to deal with customers directly. I'm quite confident that if I had bought this bike at my LBS, my LBS would be a lot more sympathetic and would try to do more than what Canyon has done. (FWIW, I did try to get my last road bike at my LBS, but I need at 60cm frame, which are very difficult to find in Japan. So LBS said I would be better off trying somewhere else.)
Canyon is also a huge customer for Shimano, and they could very easily pressurize Shimano to do something by threatening to take their business - even just a fraction of it - elsewhere. If I were a bike manufacturer and I had found out one of my suppliers had been sending me substandard components, I would not be pleased. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't heard of any bike manufacturers demanding corrective action from Shimano.
And yes - it is out of warranty. But Shimano have acknowledged that there is a fault with this line (the Canyon rep I'm dealing with has said that Shimano has admitted as much in their correspondence with him), and have not - to the best of my knowledge - actively alerted consumers. This is why I think I'm entitled to some sort of compensation beyond the warranty period.
You can bang on all you want about Canyon but its not their problem.
They are not going to withdraw any parts purchases over your crankset.
No bike manufacturer is going to do that over one model of an Ultegra crankset that a) isn't very good b) is a disposable item c) is now out of date anyway.
Your LBS would have done exactly the same as Canyon - the parts are out of warranty.
Take what remains of it off, sling it in the bin and buy something decent..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
1 -
Yes life's too short.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1
-
Tbh, the time he's taken to write his posts he could have sourced and fitted a new crankset thatisn't made i
Of cheeseand gone for a ride.
As is his broken bike is still sitting there as he sources Counsel to proceed with his legal action.
#bizarre
#crankgate
#waftycrank.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
UK consumer protection law isn't quite that clear cut. The reasonable working lifetime of he product in question is also relevant, regardless of warranty period. You'd expect a new house or car to last more than 12 months, for example. Quick googling puts the bar at 6 years, for some products.MattFalle said:
No you're not. Its out of warranty.UnhappyPappy said:
This is true. It's not Canyon's problem. I've acknowledged as much with Canyon in my correspondence with them.MattFalle said:Its not Canyon's problem - the parts are out of warranty.
That said, since this incident I've really soured on Canyon. Canyon are of course more affordable because they don't have any physical stores. The absence of physical stores means they don't have to deal with customers directly. I'm quite confident that if I had bought this bike at my LBS, my LBS would be a lot more sympathetic and would try to do more than what Canyon has done. (FWIW, I did try to get my last road bike at my LBS, but I need at 60cm frame, which are very difficult to find in Japan. So LBS said I would be better off trying somewhere else.)
Canyon is also a huge customer for Shimano, and they could very easily pressurize Shimano to do something by threatening to take their business - even just a fraction of it - elsewhere. If I were a bike manufacturer and I had found out one of my suppliers had been sending me substandard components, I would not be pleased. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't heard of any bike manufacturers demanding corrective action from Shimano.
And yes - it is out of warranty. But Shimano have acknowledged that there is a fault with this line (the Canyon rep I'm dealing with has said that Shimano has admitted as much in their correspondence with him), and have not - to the best of my knowledge - actively alerted consumers. This is why I think I'm entitled to some sort of compensation beyond the warranty period.
You can bang on all you want about Canyon but its not their problem.
They are not going to withdraw any parts purchases over your crankset.
No bike manufacturer is going to do that over one model of an Ultegra crankset that a) isn't very good b) is a disposable item c) is now out of date anyway.
Your LBS would have done exactly the same as Canyon - the parts are out of warranty.
Take what remains of it off, sling it in the bin and buy something decent.
In practice, not a chance.0 -
Plus he's not in the UK, so UK law doesn't matter.First.Aspect said:
UK consumer protection law isn't quite that clear cut. The reasonable working lifetime of he product in question is also relevant, regardless of warranty period. You'd expect a new house or car to last more than 12 months, for example. Quick googling puts the bar at 6 years, for some products.MattFalle said:
No you're not. Its out of warranty.UnhappyPappy said:
This is true. It's not Canyon's problem. I've acknowledged as much with Canyon in my correspondence with them.MattFalle said:Its not Canyon's problem - the parts are out of warranty.
That said, since this incident I've really soured on Canyon. Canyon are of course more affordable because they don't have any physical stores. The absence of physical stores means they don't have to deal with customers directly. I'm quite confident that if I had bought this bike at my LBS, my LBS would be a lot more sympathetic and would try to do more than what Canyon has done. (FWIW, I did try to get my last road bike at my LBS, but I need at 60cm frame, which are very difficult to find in Japan. So LBS said I would be better off trying somewhere else.)
Canyon is also a huge customer for Shimano, and they could very easily pressurize Shimano to do something by threatening to take their business - even just a fraction of it - elsewhere. If I were a bike manufacturer and I had found out one of my suppliers had been sending me substandard components, I would not be pleased. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't heard of any bike manufacturers demanding corrective action from Shimano.
And yes - it is out of warranty. But Shimano have acknowledged that there is a fault with this line (the Canyon rep I'm dealing with has said that Shimano has admitted as much in their correspondence with him), and have not - to the best of my knowledge - actively alerted consumers. This is why I think I'm entitled to some sort of compensation beyond the warranty period.
You can bang on all you want about Canyon but its not their problem.
They are not going to withdraw any parts purchases over your crankset.
No bike manufacturer is going to do that over one model of an Ultegra crankset that a) isn't very good b) is a disposable item c) is now out of date anyway.
Your LBS would have done exactly the same as Canyon - the parts are out of warranty.
Take what remains of it off, sling it in the bin and buy something decent.
In practice, not a chance..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Ah, Japan. Buried in paragraph 234 of his complaint.1
-
Ftfy - hope you don't mind.First.Aspect said:Ah, Japan. Buried in paragraph 234 of his whinge
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Had the crank repaired some time ago. And what I choose to do in my free time is my concern, thank you.MattFalle said:Tbh, the time he's taken to write his posts he could have sourced and fitted a new crankset thatisn't made i
Of cheeseand gone for a ride.
As is his broken bike is still sitting there as he sources Counsel to proceed with his legal action.
#bizarre
#crankgate
#waftycrank
You're right on some points. On others I would respectfully disagree.
It's out of warranty. I can't argue with anyone on this point.
However, I would argue that Shimano knew one of its more expensive parts had a much higher-than-usual failure rate and did nothing to alert its consumers. While this may not be strictly illegal, it's at the very least unethical and irresponsible.
I've been a customer of Shimano's for over twenty years. I could have used other makers' parts, but chose instead to spend a chunk of cash on theirs. And how do they thank me? By letting me ride on part they knew was unreliable.
You're entirely welcome to your opinions on what a local retailer would do in this situation. One of my reasons for posting on this forum was to get a feel for this situation, since there aren't many roadies in my area for me to ask. You're perfectly welcome to tell me that I'm being unreasonable here. But if a Canyon rep does the same, then I'm going to take my business elsewhere. The only thing I initially asked for from Canyon was help in getting in touch with Shimano directly. They've refused to do even that. Should I respond by buying another bike from them?
The money's not the issue. With one exception, I've always paid for replacement parts out of my own pocket. When things wear out over time, I replace them. If I do something stupid - like forget to use a torque wrench - then I have no one to blame but myself. But if a company sells me something it knows is unreliable, then I get peeved.
I still feel this is a crappy way of treating customers. If you feel it's reasonable, well, I probably won't be doing business with you in the future.0 -
You had that repaired? Seriously? Like deffo serious?
What did they do? How much did it cost? You still happy to ride on it?
Its not Canyon's problem. Its between you and Shimano. All you have to do is Google Shimano and le voila. The same as the rest of us would do.
Tbh, you say you're in Japan, Shimano is in Japan, if this is such sn emotive subject to you why don't you just go to the head office and state your case?
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
I don't use Google. Can you Google it for me and post it here? I don't seem to have the wads of free time you do.MattFalle said:You had that repaired? Seriously? Like deffo serious?
What did they do? How much did it cost? You still happy to ride on it?
Its not Canyon's problem. Its between you and Shimano. All you have to do is Google Shimano and le voila. The same as the rest of us would do.
Tbh, you say you're in Japan, Shimano is in Japan, if this is such sn emotive subject to you why don't you just go to the head office and state your case?0 -
You don't use Google?
How did you find this forum?.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
But seriously, you had that repaired?
Did the shop have big windows?.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
They'd probably argue it's lightweight equipment for racing and a shorter lifespan is part of the risk you take for that.
I remember maybe 20 years ago before carbon really broke through it being argued that ultra light aluminium frames shouldn't be expected to last longer than a handful of years.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
That and its a disposable item with a limited lifespan, they don't know what you've done to it, how it was installed, have you looked after, did you forget, again, to tourwue it all up if/when you had it off, etc etc.DeVlaeminck said:They'd probably argue it's lightweight equipment for racing and a shorter lifespan is part of the risk you take for that.
I remember maybe 20 years ago before carbon really broke through it being argued that ultra light aluminium frames shouldn't be expected to last longer than a handful of years.
But its been repaired now, so all good..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
Its not Canyon's problem. Its between you and Shimano.
This does depend on how retailers operate in Japan though.
Certainly in the UK, your claim would be with the retailer i.e. Canyon, not the manufacturer of individual components. We supply parts to distributers and very little to end users. If any warranty issue came up with anything I supplied through a third party, the buyer would take up the claim with the seller, who would then deal with us as a manufacturer on their behalf.
That's not to say the OP can't try their luck with Shimano, but highly doubtful they will get anywhere.
OP - I get your frustration. Unfortunately, as I mentioned earlier, manufacturers are very unlikely to admit a product is defective unless there is overwhelming proof of failure. When I say proof, that will usually mean the same type of failure, caused under the same or very similar conditions. I know most people will say that simply riding is the same 'condition' but Shimano won't. They will look at the type of riding, the mileage, age of cranks, conditions it has been ridden in and look for specific patterns. The simple fact is that there will be a load of failed cranks each used under different conditions i.e. rider 'A' had their cranks for 6 months, rode 1000km in dry weather, whereas rider 'B' had them for 5 years, rode 50000km in all weather. From a manufacturing perspective, you would look at that and say there is no pattern there and conclude there is no proof it is a clear manufacturing defect. You might disagree with that method, but that is the way manufacturing companies tend to operate.0 -
The retailer is Canyon in Germany trading under German consumer laws and their own T&C, nothing to do with Japan
The parts are well, well, well out of warranty.
Its not a Canyon problem
The problem isn't Shimano's either as the parts are well, well, well out of warranty.
But they've been repaired now but an unauthorised- in Shimano's eyes - geezer so even if they were sent back no one could see what actually went wring with them anyhow and he's invalidated any warranty or good will claim by doing that
.The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
You could argueMattFalle said:
No you're not. Its out of warranty.UnhappyPappy said:
This is true. It's not Canyon's problem. I've acknowledged as much with Canyon in my correspondence with them.MattFalle said:Its not Canyon's problem - the parts are out of warranty.
That said, since this incident I've really soured on Canyon. Canyon are of course more affordable because they don't have any physical stores. The absence of physical stores means they don't have to deal with customers directly. I'm quite confident that if I had bought this bike at my LBS, my LBS would be a lot more sympathetic and would try to do more than what Canyon has done. (FWIW, I did try to get my last road bike at my LBS, but I need at 60cm frame, which are very difficult to find in Japan. So LBS said I would be better off trying somewhere else.)
Canyon is also a huge customer for Shimano, and they could very easily pressurize Shimano to do something by threatening to take their business - even just a fraction of it - elsewhere. If I were a bike manufacturer and I had found out one of my suppliers had been sending me substandard components, I would not be pleased. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't heard of any bike manufacturers demanding corrective action from Shimano.
And yes - it is out of warranty. But Shimano have acknowledged that there is a fault with this line (the Canyon rep I'm dealing with has said that Shimano has admitted as much in their correspondence with him), and have not - to the best of my knowledge - actively alerted consumers. This is why I think I'm entitled to some sort of compensation beyond the warranty period.
You can bang on all you want about Canyon but its not their problem.
They are not going to withdraw any parts purchases over your crankset.
No bike manufacturer is going to do that over one model of an Ultegra crankset that a) isn't very good b) is a disposable item c) is now out of date anyway.
Your LBS would have done exactly the same as Canyon - the parts are out of warranty.
Take what remains of it off, sling it in the bin and buy something decent.
The chainrings are disposable but the crank isn't.0 -
Currently enjoying the MFs defending Shimano Ultegra. 🤣The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.2 -
Yeah it is. Its a cheap metal pressed and glued together thang designed to last a couple of years so people buy the next generation.trevor.hall12 said:
You could argueMattFalle said:
No you're not. Its out of warranty.UnhappyPappy said:
This is true. It's not Canyon's problem. I've acknowledged as much with Canyon in my correspondence with them.MattFalle said:Its not Canyon's problem - the parts are out of warranty.
That said, since this incident I've really soured on Canyon. Canyon are of course more affordable because they don't have any physical stores. The absence of physical stores means they don't have to deal with customers directly. I'm quite confident that if I had bought this bike at my LBS, my LBS would be a lot more sympathetic and would try to do more than what Canyon has done. (FWIW, I did try to get my last road bike at my LBS, but I need at 60cm frame, which are very difficult to find in Japan. So LBS said I would be better off trying somewhere else.)
Canyon is also a huge customer for Shimano, and they could very easily pressurize Shimano to do something by threatening to take their business - even just a fraction of it - elsewhere. If I were a bike manufacturer and I had found out one of my suppliers had been sending me substandard components, I would not be pleased. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't heard of any bike manufacturers demanding corrective action from Shimano.
And yes - it is out of warranty. But Shimano have acknowledged that there is a fault with this line (the Canyon rep I'm dealing with has said that Shimano has admitted as much in their correspondence with him), and have not - to the best of my knowledge - actively alerted consumers. This is why I think I'm entitled to some sort of compensation beyond the warranty period.
You can bang on all you want about Canyon but its not their problem.
They are not going to withdraw any parts purchases over your crankset.
No bike manufacturer is going to do that over one model of an Ultegra crankset that a) isn't very good b) is a disposable item c) is now out of date anyway.
Your LBS would have done exactly the same as Canyon - the parts are out of warranty.
Take what remains of it off, sling it in the bin and buy something decent.
The chainrings are disposable but the crank isn't.
Its a club level/commuting groupset at the end of yhe day..The camera down the willy isn't anything like as bad as it sounds.
0 -
I've got a Shimano 105 chainset with 78,000 miles on it. Not really a disposable item like PPE or paper plates.1
-
I guess they shouldn't bother making the chainrings for when they wear out too ,seems pointless .MattFalle said:
Yeah it is. Its a cheap metal pressed and glued together thang designed to last a couple of years so people buy the next generation.trevor.hall12 said:
You could argueMattFalle said:
No you're not. Its out of warranty.UnhappyPappy said:
This is true. It's not Canyon's problem. I've acknowledged as much with Canyon in my correspondence with them.MattFalle said:Its not Canyon's problem - the parts are out of warranty.
That said, since this incident I've really soured on Canyon. Canyon are of course more affordable because they don't have any physical stores. The absence of physical stores means they don't have to deal with customers directly. I'm quite confident that if I had bought this bike at my LBS, my LBS would be a lot more sympathetic and would try to do more than what Canyon has done. (FWIW, I did try to get my last road bike at my LBS, but I need at 60cm frame, which are very difficult to find in Japan. So LBS said I would be better off trying somewhere else.)
Canyon is also a huge customer for Shimano, and they could very easily pressurize Shimano to do something by threatening to take their business - even just a fraction of it - elsewhere. If I were a bike manufacturer and I had found out one of my suppliers had been sending me substandard components, I would not be pleased. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't heard of any bike manufacturers demanding corrective action from Shimano.
And yes - it is out of warranty. But Shimano have acknowledged that there is a fault with this line (the Canyon rep I'm dealing with has said that Shimano has admitted as much in their correspondence with him), and have not - to the best of my knowledge - actively alerted consumers. This is why I think I'm entitled to some sort of compensation beyond the warranty period.
You can bang on all you want about Canyon but its not their problem.
They are not going to withdraw any parts purchases over your crankset.
No bike manufacturer is going to do that over one model of an Ultegra crankset that a) isn't very good b) is a disposable item c) is now out of date anyway.
Your LBS would have done exactly the same as Canyon - the parts are out of warranty.
Take what remains of it off, sling it in the bin and buy something decent.
The chainrings are disposable but the crank isn't.
Its a club level/commuting groupset at the end of yhe day.1 -
pblakeney said:
Currently enjoying the MFs defending Shimano Ultegra. 🤣
MattFalle said:
Yeah it is. Its a cheap metal pressed and glued together thang designed to last a couple of years so people buy the next generation.trevor.hall12 said:
You could argueMattFalle said:
No you're not. Its out of warranty.UnhappyPappy said:
This is true. It's not Canyon's problem. I've acknowledged as much with Canyon in my correspondence with them.MattFalle said:Its not Canyon's problem - the parts are out of warranty.
That said, since this incident I've really soured on Canyon. Canyon are of course more affordable because they don't have any physical stores. The absence of physical stores means they don't have to deal with customers directly. I'm quite confident that if I had bought this bike at my LBS, my LBS would be a lot more sympathetic and would try to do more than what Canyon has done. (FWIW, I did try to get my last road bike at my LBS, but I need at 60cm frame, which are very difficult to find in Japan. So LBS said I would be better off trying somewhere else.)
Canyon is also a huge customer for Shimano, and they could very easily pressurize Shimano to do something by threatening to take their business - even just a fraction of it - elsewhere. If I were a bike manufacturer and I had found out one of my suppliers had been sending me substandard components, I would not be pleased. Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I haven't heard of any bike manufacturers demanding corrective action from Shimano.
And yes - it is out of warranty. But Shimano have acknowledged that there is a fault with this line (the Canyon rep I'm dealing with has said that Shimano has admitted as much in their correspondence with him), and have not - to the best of my knowledge - actively alerted consumers. This is why I think I'm entitled to some sort of compensation beyond the warranty period.
You can bang on all you want about Canyon but its not their problem.
They are not going to withdraw any parts purchases over your crankset.
No bike manufacturer is going to do that over one model of an Ultegra crankset that a) isn't very good b) is a disposable item c) is now out of date anyway.
Your LBS would have done exactly the same as Canyon - the parts are out of warranty.
Take what remains of it off, sling it in the bin and buy something decent.
The chainrings are disposable but the crank isn't.
Its a club level/commuting groupset at the end of yhe day.
That didn’t last long - a bit like the OP’s crankset.
To the OP - I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but you simply aren’t going to get anywhere with Shimano or Canyon.
Just buy another crank & ride your bike.0
