I haven't been part of this discussion for a while but just for an update.
The final response from CSG (Switzerland) was no, outside the average lifespan in age. (not forgetting that Jon claimed that the bike had only been ridden approx. 100 times and not at all for the last 4 years)
Jon was disillusioned and sold the bike for parts value to my vision impaired friend John. John will be getting the frame repaired by Gripsport and probably repainted with custom decals so that it no longer bears the name Cannondale.
im_no_pro wrote that the warranty was for the lifetime of the bike not of the person, however that is not the case with Cannondale. Their warranty states that it is for the "lifetime of the original owner" as per the first post. It is only later that they introduce the concept of fatigue as wear and tear which is not covered. Since they did not choose to address Jon's claim of limited use and simply reverted to a formula of 5 years is an expected life for the bike it would seem that the statement of 'lifetime of the original owner' should be at least followed by an asterisk and a footnote to make it clear that this is only if the original owner dies within 5 years. It is still unsatisfactory for a bike that is intended for touring use to fail after so little use.
im_no_pro wrote:Nobody wrote:im_no_pro wrote:I dont understand how time becomes the primary consideration for most people - wear and tear is governed by use, not a timespan. My bike after 10 years will have seen less use than other bikes which are 1-2 years old.
Since bikes don't have mandatory odometers, it's the only measure they have. The manufacturers therefore can only play the averages game.
Agree, its far from an exact science but assessment can give a better indication than simply working on averages.
This is certainly part of the issue, yes in the photos they could have determined that some parts had been replaced (Dura-Ace chainrings don't come standard) but tandems do wear running gear out quickly though. If we take Jon's 100 ride estimate and suggest that each ride was 100km (not unbelievable he was a high level racer) that would be 10,000km. In that time you'd expect to go through several drive chains, 4 or 5 rear tyres, a couple of cassettes and at least one set of rims as well as chainrings.
If the company had disputed Jon's claim of usage directly and used service history, riding logs etc as evidence they would have been on stronger grounds to say that this failure was due to wear. But to reject it on time alone was the disappointment.
If the warranty stated from the outset that the bike was designed to withstand 5 years of regular use, with the usual escape clauses for excessive and unusual use, crash, sale etc I don't think that Jon would have even attempted to claim warranty. However the wording led him to believe that he did have a reasonable claim despite the age of the bike. Now all he is left with is a bad opinion of Cannondale which he will continue to voice. Will that cost Cannondale more than the $500 that a new frame or repair would have cost them, particularly since that could have turned this story into songs of praise for the brand.
Cheers,
Cameron