Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
View Full Version : Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
Pages :
[
1]
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never buy a frame
from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act in this way if the defects had resulted in personal injury?
Dear Sir,
On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from Van Herwerden Wielersport in
the Netherlands. I have used this frame during the Summer months (March to October) resulting in a
total of 13 or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I bought the frame
established that it had cracked in at least two places.
The frame was returned to Italy via the Dutch importer. After several weeks I received notice that
Bianchi is not prepared to replace the frame simply saying that it is outside the one year
guarantee period.
I am naturally highly dissatisfied with this response: you may chose only to provide a one year
guarantee (which suggests that Bianchi has no confidence in its own products) but that does no
exclude you from the responsibility of providing a product which satisfies what can be
reasonably expected of it. It can reasonably be expected that a frame of this supposed quality
will last 5 years.
As this particular frame has lasted about 20% of that period your responsibility is to refund 80% of
its value or, as a gesture of goodwill, to provide a replacement frame of similar quality. Your
abject failure to even discuss this possibility suggests that you consider that a frame which lasts
366 days has fulfilled Bianchi’s obligations to its client. I can assure you that this is not the
case under Dutch law.
I expect better from Bianchi: your lack of preparedness to replace this frame or provide an adequate
refund is a complete desertion of your responsibility and has left the Dutch dealer (who has been
more than reasonable) out of pocket.
May I suggest that you include a statement in your publicity campaign in the Netherlands (To be
faster you only need an extra gear) to the effect that you expect certain models of your range to
last 365 days only.
I feel it only pertinent to add to the message below that the dealer from whom I bought the frame
has previously had poor experiences with the service from Bianchi in these sort of cases and has
decided no longer to stock or sell Bianchi frames. He strongly advises against the purchase of your
products: as the largest dealer in our region this will surely influence your image in the whole of
the Benelux. In the light of this I suggest that it really is time for your company to revise its
position regarding service (or as it currently is, lack of service).
I expect the courtesy of a reply containing an adequate proposal,
Yours faithfully,
Justin Lewis.
"Justin Lewis" <justin@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839adeh00n8m9i9pbor90@4ax.com...
> Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never buy a
> frame from Bianchi!
<snip>
Dumbass -
We don't give a **** about your bike warranty problems.
Plus, we like Bianchi. Jan Ullrich wouldn't have been in the TdF this year when Coast blew it, but
Bianchi stepped in and saved the day. Probably with the $$$ they made from Dumbasses like you.
Please post your bike purchase problems to a group where someone cares.
Thank you very much for your cooperation and have a nice day.
Justin: I'm curious as to whether you were aware of the 12-month warranty when you purchased the
frame, as that was an absolute, definitive indication that such frames have a very short lifespan
(as has been seen repeatedly; not just with Bianchi, but with all ultra-light aluminum frames).
If you felt Bianchi misrepresented the durability aspects of the frame, that's one thing. But such
ultra-light frames sacrifice durability in a quest for the ultimate in light weight, no question
about it. There's no magical way you can build an aluminum frame at near 2 pounds without it having
an extremely limited lifespan.
I've been part of product meetings at TREK, and the question has been asked whether we'd be willing
to go lighter that what we currently have in exchange for decreased durability and a shorter
warranty. The answer has always been no; we like the fact that the product is built to last a
number of years. But that's the choice TREK made, and there are many consumers who'd rather have
something on the bleeding edge of lightness, and will go elsewhere. The Bianchi is one of those
"elsewhere" options.
To sum things up, as long as it's not misrepresented as a long-lasting machine, the Bianchi (and its
12-month warranty) is a legit marketplace offering. You apparently made a choice that either you
didn't understand at the time, was misrepresented, or one that you now simply don't believe could
have been that way and now regret.
By the way, this probably isn't the best forum for this. Something more along the lines of "What
sort of lifespan have people in the group gotten from the Bianchi Boron? Mine failed after x months
of use; does this seem reasonable?"
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com (http://www.chainreactionbicycles.com/)
>Subject: Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days From: Justin Lewis
>justin@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl Date: 9/16/03 11:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time Message-id:
><o1ufmvkk0saq7839adeh00n8m9i9pbor90@4ax.com>
>
>Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never buy a frame
>from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act in this way if the defects had resulted in personal injury?
>
>
>
>Dear Sir,
>
>On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from Van Herwerden Wielersport in
>the Netherlands. I have used this frame during the Summer months (March to October) resulting in a
>total of 13 or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I bought the frame
>established that it had cracked in at least two places.
[Snipped]
The frame had a one year warranty. You tried to warranty it after the warranty had expired. Yes, a
frame should last longer than a year, but when a product is sold with a one year warranty, the
company is saying they only stand behind the product for a year. A one year warranty is a good
reason not to by a product, but the company doesn't owe you anything if it lasts through the
warranty period. Josh Zlotlow JAZlotlow@aol.com Sacramento, California Sacramento Golden Wheelmen
www.sacgw.com
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 08:04:37 +0200, Justin Lewis <justin@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote:
>Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never buy a frame
>from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act in this way if the defects had resulted in personal injury?
>
>
>
>Dear Sir,
>
>On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from Van Herwerden Wielersport in
>the Netherlands. I have used this frame during the Summer months (March to October) resulting in a
>total of 13 or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I bought the frame
>established that it had cracked in at least two places.
>
>
>
>The frame was returned to Italy via the Dutch importer. After several weeks I received notice that
>Bianchi is not prepared to replace the frame simply saying that it is outside the one year
>guarantee period.
>
>
>
>I am naturally highly dissatisfied with this response: you may chose only to provide a one year
>guarantee (which suggests that Bianchi has no confidence in its own products) but that does no
>exclude you from the responsibility of providing a product which satisfies what can be
>reasonably expected of it. It can reasonably be expected that a frame of this supposed quality
>will last 5 years.
>
>
>
>As this particular frame has lasted about 20% of that period your responsibility is to refund 80%
>of its value or, as a gesture of goodwill, to provide a replacement frame of similar quality. Your
>abject failure to even discuss this possibility suggests that you consider that a frame which lasts
>366 days has fulfilled Bianchi’s obligations to its client. I can assure you that this is not the
>case under Dutch law.
>
>
>
>I expect better from Bianchi: your lack of preparedness to replace this frame or provide an
>adequate refund is a complete desertion of your responsibility and has left the Dutch dealer (who
>has been more than reasonable) out of pocket.
>
>
>
>May I suggest that you include a statement in your publicity campaign in the Netherlands (To be
>faster you only need an extra gear) to the effect that you expect certain models of your range to
>last 365 days only.
>
>I feel it only pertinent to add to the message below that the dealer from whom I bought the frame
>has previously had poor experiences with the service from Bianchi in these sort of cases and has
>decided no longer to stock or sell Bianchi frames. He strongly advises against the purchase of your
>products: as the largest dealer in our region this will surely influence your image in the whole of
>the Benelux. In the light of this I suggest that it really is time for your company to revise its
>position regarding service (or as it currently is, lack of service).
>
>
>
>
>I expect the courtesy of a reply containing an adequate proposal,
>
>
>
>Yours faithfully,
>
>
>
>
>
>Justin Lewis.
Thanks for the replies: Kurgan perhaps you should have the decency to substitute the pronoun "we" at
the beginning of your vitriol with the pronoun "I". It would appear from the other two reasonble
replies that there are people who
1) are interested in the problem and
2) have something of value to say.
Mike, Under European law an article be in state to fulfil what can reasonably be expected of it.
Even the dealer who returned it on my behalf to Bianchi was unaware of the short duration of the
guarantee. He has refunded half the purchase price: about $700 of refund. The guarantee can state
anything but the supplier cannot evade the obligation of supplying a product that is fit for the
purpose. Normally one expects a frame to last for about five years and in the European courts a
sliding scale is applied regards refunds and repair of defects which fall outside the initial
guarantee period. It would be advisable, particularly as Eddy Merckx has just lost a sizeable
personal injury claim in Belgium, for Bianchi to specifically mention that the frame should not be
used for more than one year due to safety considerations.
I take the point about my style: one can probably imagine that I am slightly upset at the
stonewalling from Bianchi. I will attempt a more neutral manner next time!
Joshua,
it is certainly a good reason not to buy the product. I would disagree about the company not owing
me anything after the warranty period: this would be an incentive to provide the shortest warranty
possible for every product!
Watch this space and thanks, in some cases, for shedding lihgt upon how others think about this
sort of issue.
Justin
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> If you felt Bianchi misrepresented the durability aspects of the frame, that's one thing. But such
> ultra-light frames sacrifice durability in a quest for the ultimate in light weight, no question
> about it. There's no magical way you can build an aluminum frame at near 2 pounds without it
> having an extremely limited lifespan.
Actually the Boron is a 2.8lb steel frame. My Aluminium Bianchi has already lasted 3 years and is
about to be downgraded to being my 2nd training bike when I get my new (Orbea Starship) frame. The
problem probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel bikes, although if
the OP posted this to rbt he'd probably have been told to get an oversized lugged steel frame that
weights 5 lbs.
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 09:58:50 +0200, Justin Lewis wrote:
> Kurgan perhaps you should have the decency to substitute the pronoun "we" at the beginning of your
> vitriol with the pronoun "I".
No need, two already makes a we.
I know of two experiences with Bianchi warranties, my own and a friend's. I had a Bianchi frame
bought in the late 1980s for $300 (Columbus steel) that cracked in the bb area two years later. The
frame had a lifetime warranty and I got a replacement frame with no problems. In fact, they offered
me a strait replacement with one model or, for an additional $50, a frame made out of Tange
Prestige. I took the latter, rode it for 10 years. My neighbor bought it and still rides it nearly
every day ( I wish he would clean it---it hurts to see it).
A friend bought the Pantani model AL frame in 1999 and it cracked about 1 year later. Bianchi
replaced it with no problem but not with the same frame which was out of production. The frame he
got was quite similar but was reinforced in the previous problem area.
Bianchi will stand behind their warranty, no question about that. If they gave you a one year
warranty it was because it was a very light racing frame with a short life expectancy. Next time
check the warranty and decide how long you intend to use the frame.
"Justin Lewis" <justin@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839adeh00n8m9i9pbor90@4ax.com...
> Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never buy a
> frame from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act in this way if the defects had resulted in
> personal injury?
>
>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from Van Herwerden Wielersport in
> the Netherlands. I have used this frame during the Summer months (March to October) resulting in a
> total of 13 or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I bought the frame
> established that it had cracked in at least two places.
>
>
>
> The frame was returned to Italy via the Dutch importer. After several weeks I received notice that
> Bianchi is not prepared to replace the frame simply saying that it is outside the one year
> guarantee period.
>
>
>
> I am naturally highly dissatisfied with this response: you may chose only to provide a one year
> guarantee (which suggests that Bianchi has no confidence in its own products) but that does no
> exclude you from the responsibility of providing a product which satisfies what can be
> reasonably expected of it. It can reasonably be expected that a frame of this supposed quality
> will last 5 years.
>
>
>
> As this particular frame has lasted about 20% of that period your responsibility is to refund 80%
> of its value or, as a gesture of goodwill, to provide a replacement frame of similar quality. Your
> abject failure to even discuss this possibility suggests that you consider that a frame which
> lasts 366 days has fulfilled Bianchi's obligations to its client. I can assure you that this is
> not the case under Dutch law.
>
>
>
> I expect better from Bianchi: your lack of preparedness to replace this frame or provide an
> adequate refund is a complete desertion of your responsibility and has left the Dutch dealer (who
> has been more than reasonable) out of pocket.
>
>
>
> May I suggest that you include a statement in your publicity campaign in the Netherlands (To be
> faster you only need an extra gear) to the effect that you expect certain models of your range to
> last 365 days only.
>
> I feel it only pertinent to add to the message below that the dealer from whom I bought the frame
> has previously had poor experiences with the service from Bianchi in these sort of cases and has
> decided no longer to stock or sell Bianchi frames. He strongly advises against the purchase of
> your products: as the largest dealer in our region this will surely influence your image in the
> whole of the Benelux. In the light of this I suggest that it really is time for your company to
> revise its position regarding service (or as it currently is, lack of service).
>
>
>
>
> I expect the courtesy of a reply containing an adequate proposal,
>
>
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
>
>
>
>
> Justin Lewis.
On 17 Sep 2003 13:13:08 GMT, vecchio51@aol.com (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:
>justin-<< Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never
>buy a frame from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act in this way if the defects had resulted in
>personal injury? >><BR><BR>
>
>One year warrantry, like a lot of bicycle and other 'stuff'. Why are ya surprised??
I am surpprised because most manufactures give between one and three years guarantee and Cannondale
give a lifelong guarantee on the CAD 5 which I have just looked at.>
>frame broke outside of warranty..sorry- Guy shouldn't buy a bicycle with this rep.
It may be acceptable in the USA (surely not in such a litigious society) but it is not in Europe.
Does Bianchi have such a poor reputation?>
>Dutch guy<< It can reasonably be expected that a frame of this supposed quality will last 5 years.
>>><BR><BR>
>
>
>Even that is low but with very thin and light aluminum framesets, this is standard...
>
>Dutch guy<< Your abject failure to even discuss this possibility suggests that you consider that a
>frame which lasts 366 days has fulfilled Bianchi’s obligations to its client. I can assure you that
>this is not the case under Dutch law. >><BR><BR>
>
>Absurd. 5 year time frame is arbitrary and no court anywhere would uphold this guys figures. did
>the gebt know the warrranty was one year? I'll guess he did and then caveat emptor.
Not only would a court uphold this but it actually has: that is a fact, ask Eddy Merckx!>
>Bianchi and others build to the lowest common denominator. That is, they assume a certain amount of
>use. If exceeded, the stuff often breaks but it is cheaper to replace in the one year period than
>to make the framesets stronger. It's just business.
It certainly will not be cheaper to replace the frame as standard practice when the defect leads to
serious personal injury or death, as the court ruled in the Eddy Merckx case.
>Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
>(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com (http://www.vecchios.com/) "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
"Justin Lewis" <justin@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
news:854gmvkme9kl99feo0q8bptd797sgsmpg9@4ax.com...
<snip>
> Thanks for the replies: Kurgan perhaps you should have the decency
Dumbass -
and not snipping out all that crap?
Second of all, even someone as dense as yourself would realize that using "Kurgan" and "decency" in
the same sentence is an oxymoron if you lurked here for at least 1 day before posting.
> it is certainly a good reason not to buy the product. I would disagree about the company not owing
> me anything after the warranty period:
Goddamm, you're an idiot.
If you want a lifetime warranty, buy products that have that feature. Otherwise, shut up. We
don't care.
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030917091607.18024.00000782@mb-m24.aol.com...
> probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel bikes, although if the OP
> posted this to rbt he'd probably have been told to get an oversized lugged steel frame that
> weights 5 lbs. >><BR><BR>
>
> Or a better made steel frameset that weighs about 3.6 pounds. No steel
frameset
> we see these days, lugged or not weighs 5 pounds. Mine is lugged and weighs
3.8
> pounds. Another misrepresentation of modern steel.
I make furniture. The only material I use is stainless steel. Despite its expense and difficulty to
machine, it's the best material for this application (appearance and durability).
When it comes to road bikes, I'd put cro-moly steel 4th behind aluminum, titanium and carbon (in no
particular order). From a physics perspective it just doesn't have the stiffness to weight ratio the
other materials have. Running finite element analysis programs (Cosmos) on Solidworks models
repeatedly confirms this.
Steel does have one advantage: it's cheap. It does have the best combination of machinability and
weldability. And I suppose some old farts like the feel. That's fine, it's only a pound (or less)
difference.
Saying that it performs just as well in less subjective measures (stiffness to weight ratio) would
not be an accurate representation.
HC
ps. Yes, I know how to weld aluminum and titanium, no I've never worked with carbon (although it's
simple, just mold and heat).
> Actually the Boron is a 2.8lb steel frame. My Aluminium Bianchi has already lasted 3 years and is
> about to be downgraded to being my 2nd training bike when I get my new (Orbea Starship) frame. The
> problem probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel bikes, although if
> the OP posted this to rbt he'd probably have been told to get an oversized lugged steel frame that
> weights 5 lbs.
Thanks for the clarification. I've said before that 3.5 lbs represents an acceptable floor for
durable steel frames, just over 3 pounds for Ti, and perhaps 2.6 or slightly-higher for aluminum.
Still not sure what the minimum safe weight is for carbon-fiber, which is just fine with me.... I'd
rather have them on the conservative side!
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com (http://www.chainreactionbicycles.com/)
news:pan.2003.09.17.09.23.01.567444@yyy.zzz...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> > If you felt Bianchi misrepresented the durability aspects of the frame, that's one thing. But
> > such ultra-light frames sacrifice durability in a quest for the ultimate in light weight, no
> > question about it. There's
no
> > magical way you can build an aluminum frame at near 2 pounds without it having an extremely
> > limited lifespan.
>
> Actually the Boron is a 2.8lb steel frame. My Aluminium Bianchi has already lasted 3 years and is
> about to be downgraded to being my 2nd training bike when I get my new (Orbea Starship) frame. The
> problem probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel bikes, although if
> the OP posted this to rbt he'd probably have been told to get an oversized lugged steel frame that
> weights 5 lbs.
"Justin Lewis" <justin@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839adeh00n8m9i9pbor90@4ax.com...
> Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never buy a
> frame from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act in this way if the defects had resulted in
> personal injury?
This is so lame. Nobody cares, and if they did care, why would anyone take your word for it when you
publish this in a forum that Bianchi can't reply to? You got the exact result anyone reasonable
would expect. Granted, most others would say, "darn", right after my friggin' warranty expired" and
that would be the end of it. In fact, things like that have happened to me and I am sure just about
everyone at one time or another. In fact, I am typing this on a 13 month old notebook that has a few
problems that I should have had repaired, but the warranty just expired a month ago. Computers are
typically expected to last about 3 years. Warrantys are typically from 90 days to 3 years. You think
I should be able to get it repaired any time within 3 years because that is the typical life
expectancy? What is the difference between your situation and mine (besides the fact that you
already got half of your money refunded)? According to you, a warranty should be regulated by the
government. And you have the nerve to call Americans letigious? You are not a reasonable person.
>
>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from Van Herwerden Wielersport in
> the Netherlands. I have used this frame during the Summer months (March to October) resulting in a
> total of 13 or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I bought the frame
> established that it had cracked in at least two places.
>
>
>
> The frame was returned to Italy via the Dutch importer. After several weeks I received notice that
> Bianchi is not prepared to replace the frame simply saying that it is outside the one year
> guarantee period.
>
>
>
> I am naturally highly dissatisfied with this response: you may chose only to provide a one year
> guarantee (which suggests that Bianchi has no confidence in its own products) but that does no
> exclude you from the responsibility of providing a product which satisfies what can be
> reasonably expected of it. It can reasonably be expected that a frame of this supposed quality
> will last 5 years.
>
>
>
> As this particular frame has lasted about 20% of that period your responsibility is to refund 80%
> of its value or, as a gesture of goodwill, to provide a replacement frame of similar quality. Your
> abject failure to even discuss this possibility suggests that you consider that a frame which
> lasts 366 days has fulfilled Bianchi's obligations to its client. I can assure you that this is
> not the case under Dutch law.
>
>
>
> I expect better from Bianchi: your lack of preparedness to replace this frame or provide an
> adequate refund is a complete desertion of your responsibility and has left the Dutch dealer (who
> has been more than reasonable) out of pocket.
>
>
>
> May I suggest that you include a statement in your publicity campaign in the Netherlands (To be
> faster you only need an extra gear) to the effect that you expect certain models of your range to
> last 365 days only.
>
> I feel it only pertinent to add to the message below that the dealer from whom I bought the frame
> has previously had poor experiences with the service from Bianchi in these sort of cases and has
> decided no longer to stock or sell Bianchi frames. He strongly advises against the purchase of
> your products: as the largest dealer in our region this will surely influence your image in the
> whole of the Benelux. In the light of this I suggest that it really is time for your company to
> revise its position regarding service (or as it currently is, lack of service).
>
>
>
>
> I expect the courtesy of a reply containing an adequate proposal,
>
>
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
>
>
>
>
> Justin Lewis.
"Justin Lewis" <justin@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839adeh00n8m9i9pbor90@4ax.com...
> Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never buy a
> frame from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act in this way if the defects had resulted in
> personal injury?
>
>
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from Van Herwerden Wielersport in
> the Netherlands. I have used this frame during the Summer months (March to October) resulting in a
> total of 13 or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I bought the frame
> established that it had cracked in at least two places.
The warranty period begins the day the frame was purchased. Whether you ride the frame or just hang
it on the wall, the warranty time clock is still ticking. According to your dates, the frame lasted
approximately 600 days.
Your subject line is misleading and you are full of crap...I'm glad you are not my customer.
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 04:19:30 GMT, "Runkle" <catbsq@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Justin Lewis" <justin@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
>news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839adeh00n8m9i9pbor90@4ax.com...
>> Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never buy a
>> frame from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act in this way if the defects had resulted in personal
>> injury?
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from Van Herwerden Wielersport in
>> the Netherlands. I have used this frame during the Summer months (March to October) resulting in
>> a total of 13 or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I bought the frame
>> established that it had cracked in at least two places.
>
>The warranty period begins the day the frame was purchased. Whether you ride the frame or just hang
>it on the wall, the warranty time clock is still ticking. According to your dates, the frame lasted
>approximately 600 days.
>
>Your subject line is misleading and you are full of crap...I'm glad you are not my customer.
>
I would echo the gladness at not being your customer: as I have stated even the Dutch dealer assumes
that a frame should be god for at least three seasons.
The corolary of your reasoning, if it can be called that, is that you believe that a producer can
limit his or her liability to the period of the warranty. A defect which occurs one day after the
guarantee period is purely the responsibility of the client, in your view.
I can assure you this is not the case in both the European and American legal systems: were a frame
that you sell to break and injure a rider one day after the end of the guarantee period I assume
that you would display the attitude that is so evident above. I hope so because, as is the case with
Eddy Merckx recently, you would be found liable for both the defect and the personal injury. The
courts will assume that a frame which breaks is defective and the onus of proving any incorrect use
would be upon you.
Whilst you may not approve of my subject line (perhaps a little emotive) there is certainly truth in
it. Your approach to service is, however, perhaps worthy of your own terminology.
Try and answer the substantive issues raised in this case: $2700 for a frame which lasted one and
half seasons with no acceptance of liability on behalf of the manufacturer. Reasonable? Good for its
reputation: I do not think so. The dealer from whom I bought it no longer deals with bianchi,
advises all his clients to avoid them and I am a reasonably well-known rider who will make very
apparrent that no rider in Holland should consider such a frame.
The dealer, in contrast to your approach, has refunded half the purchase price. I am pleased i am
not your customer. Go away and learn something about service and responsibility.
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030918085314.14331.00001734@mb-m18.aol.com...
> William-<< I make furniture. The only material I use is stainless steel. Despite its expense and
> difficulty to machine, it's the best material for this application (appearance and durability).
> >><BR><BR> << When it comes to road bikes, I'd put cro-moly steel 4th behind aluminum, titanium
> and carbon (in no particular order). From a physics perspective it just doesn't have the stiffness
> to weight ratio the other materials have.
> >><BR><BR>
>
>
> Hmmmm, many custom frame makers would disagree..Stick with furniture.
I've built a few bikes. I like doing furniture much better - less design constraint. Even custom
framemaking is very repetitive (to me) - change a few angles here, tube diameters there. Yes, I will
stick to furniture and its offshoots. Very few design constraints in comparison.
>If ya want stuff-aluminum, if ya want longevity, not rust, titanium. If ya want
space
> age-carbon. If you want a long lasting, good looking, well riding bicycle, steel is still the best
> combination of what you are looking for.
You should rephrase that to "steel is still the best combination of what *I'm" looking for". Speak
for yourself, not for me or others. Those are subjective criteria. BTW, 2 of my bikes are steel. I
still put it 4th when comparing frame materials.
> 'Stiffness to weight' was your statement, not mine.
Stiffness to weight ratio is the only objective criteria, the one that can be modeled on a computer
and concrete performance data produced. The others are subjective except corrosion resistance and
perhaps resistance to failure (and that varies frame to frame).
As for subjective criteria, there was a time when I would have put aluminum at the bottom, but some
companies (not all, perhaps not even most) have evolved it to the point where it's shock absorbtion
and resistance to failure are quite nice.
"William Belaforous Kelly" <spamislame@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:6W%9B.441$iT4.293256@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030917091607.18024.00000782@mb-m24.aol.com...
> > probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel bikes, although if the OP
> > posted this to rbt he'd probably have been told to get an oversized lugged steel frame that
> > weights 5 lbs.
>><BR><BR>
> >
> > Or a better made steel frameset that weighs about 3.6 pounds. No steel
> frameset
> > we see these days, lugged or not weighs 5 pounds. Mine is lugged and
weighs
> 3.8
> > pounds. Another misrepresentation of modern steel.
>
>
>
>
> I make furniture. The only material I use is stainless steel. Despite its expense and difficulty
> to machine, it's the best material for this application (appearance and durability).
Bull**** snipped..
This guy is one of the biggest morons that I have seen post to RBR, he's an expert on building
frames because he makes furniture, yeah, right!
Dashii
"Justin Lewis" <justin@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
news:hshimvkgu8ali6epm9den4ki50l0nv7l2v@4ax.com...
<snip, snip, snip>
Dumbass -
We don't care about your bike that broke after the warranty expired. Please complain elsewhere.
Thank you very much for your cooperation and have a nice day.
> >"Justin Lewis" <justin@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
> >news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839adeh00n8m9i9pbor90@4ax.com...
> >> Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never buy a
> >> frame from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act in this way if the defects had resulted in personal
> >> injury?
> >>
> >> Dear Sir,
> >>
> >> On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from Van Herwerden Wielersport
> >> in the Netherlands. I have used this frame during the Summer months (March to October)
> >> resulting in a total of 13 or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I
> >> bought the frame established that it had cracked in at least two places.
> >
> >The warranty period begins the day the frame was purchased. Whether you ride the frame or just
> >hang it on the wall, the warranty time clock is
still
> >ticking. According to your dates, the frame lasted approximately 600
days.
> >
> >Your subject line is misleading and you are full of crap...I'm glad you
are
> >not my customer.
> >
> I would echo the gladness at not being your customer: as I have stated even the Dutch dealer
> assumes that a frame should be god for at least three seasons.
>
> The corolary of your reasoning, if it can be called that, is that you believe that a producer can
> limit his or her liability to the period of the warranty. A defect which occurs one day after the
> guarantee period is purely the responsibility of the client, in your view.
>
> I can assure you this is not the case in both the European and American legal systems: were a
> frame that you sell to break and injure a rider one day after the end of the guarantee period I
> assume that you would display the attitude that is so evident above. I hope so because, as is the
> case with Eddy Merckx recently, you would be found liable for both the defect and the personal
> injury. The courts will assume that a frame which breaks is defective and the onus of proving any
> incorrect use would be upon you.
>
> Whilst you may not approve of my subject line (perhaps a little emotive) there is certainly truth
> in it. Your approach to service is, however, perhaps worthy of your own terminology.
>
> Try and answer the substantive issues raised in this case: $2700 for a frame which lasted one and
> half seasons with no acceptance of liability on behalf of the manufacturer. Reasonable? Good for
> its reputation: I do not think so. The dealer from whom I bought it no longer deals with bianchi,
> advises all his clients to avoid them and I am a reasonably well-known rider who will make very
> apparrent that no rider in Holland should consider such a frame.
>
> The dealer, in contrast to your approach, has refunded half the purchase price. I am pleased i am
> not your customer. Go away and learn something about service and responsibility.
Responsibility for what? You were not injured. Warranty against defect and liability for injury are
two separate issues.
Manufacturers can be held responsible for liability for injury for the life span of the product that
they produce. Whether defect or not, liability can be assigned by the court and the manufacturer can
be held responsible for the resulting injury. However, believe it or not, in the case of liability
for injury, the manufacturer is not required to replace the product.
Your claim against Bianchi has nothing to do with liability for injury as you were not injured. Your
claim is solely based upon your feeling that Bianchi has an unfair warranty policy. However, you
knew (or should have known, just as your dealer should have known) what the Bianchi warranty was at
the time that you made your purchase. A one year warranty lasts for 365 days past the date of
purchase. Try and bring your car back to the dealership one day after the warranty expires and see
how far you will get.
You need to stop arguing liability as it has nothing to do with your case. Your case is solely based
on warranty. Go away and learn to take responsibility for your own actions or lack there of.
"Dashi Toshii" <Toshii@Jpn.com> wrote in message news:gfucnZlCAfwsm_SiU-KYhw@comcast.com...
>
> "William Belaforous Kelly" <spamislame@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:6W%9B.441$iT4.293256@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> >
> > "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20030917091607.18024.00000782@mb-m24.aol.com...
> > > probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel bikes, although if the
> > > OP posted this to rbt he'd probably have been told to get an oversized lugged steel frame that
> > > weights 5 lbs.
> >><BR><BR>
> > >
> > > Or a better made steel frameset that weighs about 3.6 pounds. No steel
> > frameset
> > > we see these days, lugged or not weighs 5 pounds. Mine is lugged and
> weighs
> > 3.8
> > > pounds. Another misrepresentation of modern steel.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I make furniture. The only material I use is stainless steel. Despite its expense and difficulty
> > to machine, it's the best material for this application (appearance and durability).
>
> Bull**** snipped..
>
> This guy is one of the biggest morons that I have seen post to RBR, he's an expert on building
> frames because he makes furniture, yeah, right!
That's me. I posted under that name so PC would see it.
Solidworks is a solid modeling program, used mostly by mechanical engineers. Cosmos is a
finite-element analysis plug-in. That's what engineers use to evaluate their designs before
prototyping.
I have access to those programs because my friends are mechanical engineers. Steel, when
evaluated purely for stiffness to weight ratio, doesn't perform as well as the other 3 materials.
That is a fact.
There are other factors to consider when choosing frame material, some of which are subjective
(therefore not evaluateable by finite element analysis). It's also debateable whether the 1 lb. (or
less) difference matters to the average rider. But those are the subjective criteria - the objective
criteria (stiffness to weight ratio) is not really disputable. The computer doesn't lie (unless the
user screws up the parameters).
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
