Grumpy McTrumpy

just one more thing to remove.

BikeWise1

Do you play the bass or just build them?

waterrockets 

I spend around an hour most weeks answering personal messages from people on BF asking for my advice, mostly on training. I enjoy helping them, but I'm not paying for that.

I understand your frustration with my avoidance spending money, as you have a retail establishment. Even so, I don't care.

Regarding self promotion on BF, if you're just now catching on that social networks of various sorts are driven by self promotion, then you haven't been paying attention. The goal is to give people a platform to gab (maybe starting them off with a subject), and sell the eyeball time off to advertisers. If you can convince some people to pay for it (BF stars, TotalFark, etc.), then that's great. If it becomes pay-only, the site would die, and I'd just go back to r.b.t and r.b.r., which have been free for decades.

If you look at the benefits of buying a star, they encourage more self promotion (like a larger avatar image, which I see you're using).

Grumpy McTrumpy

play on words

BikeWise1

Answer the question! Are you a luthier or a player, or both? Or neither?

caloso

What a thread. By the way, Bianchi also has a racing exclusion in its warranty. And I have a 40K mile Trek 5200; the paint is flaking off in big chunks. So far, the local Trek rep has refused to repaint it.

BikeWise1

No. You should be paid for that! That's why coaches and trainers get paid to do as such. You should start your own business coaching if you love it.

You miss my point. I don't care where people buy stuff. I really don't. They buy where they buy. My frustration is directed solely at those who want the fringe benefits of buying new products without actually doing so.

I only mentioned that because kudude inferred that I was promoting myself and you were not. That's all.

Never noticed it, actually. Just threw it up there. Mine looks about the same size as Grumpy's and he's not bought in, so I'm not really sure what added benefit I am taking advantage of....

Besides, really.....an avatar as self promotion? That tiny thing? I thought it was just there to made finding people responding to posts easier to visually index.....

Grumpy McTrumpy

You can't get there from here.

Nachoman

WR- you should consider a small claims lawsuit against Trek based on other theories, since everyone agrees that you can't win a warranty argument since you weren't the original owner. Maybe Trek should be obligated to replace the frame based on a product failure or negligent design? Why let Trek make the final decision of whether they're responsible. Let the guy in the black robe decide.

One Way Rider

I have a Trek carbon that had some finish issues after two years. I read my warranty before I bought the bike and understood that there really is no warranty per se on paint on Trek's carbon bikes. Still I was surprised when I had a problem, but hey, I was warned and still bought it so I can't complain. The doesn't ride any differently.

I like Trek. They're still family owned and I like the way they support cycling on many levels, so I guess I'm a shill.

I'd be ticked if Trek gave away stuff out of warranty. Don't like the terms? Don't buy the product. The terms are always presented up front. To do otherwise is to engage in whining.

Used? All bets are off and you know it. Quitcher cryin!

One Way Rider

I have a little experience in court.

This idea is a total and complete waste of time. Small claims generally won't hear a case involving product design. If he was original purchaser, and Trek denied warranty, then he'd having standing. Civil case? The onus would be on WR to prove the design is bad and that would take lots of time and money. In the end, all Trek would have to do is demonstrate the sheer numbers they've sold vs. how many they replaced under warranty + the pre-release testing they do to disprove the bad design conspiracy theories. This idea would help no one but the lawyers involved.

Racer Ex 

You need to take an economics class. Of course they care what you buy used. And how much you pay for it. Resale value and demand is a substantial factor in determining initial pricing of any durable good, especially as you head up the price ladder. If a bike is worthless after a year (or let's say 3), are you going to pay the same as a bike on which you could recoup 50% of your initial purchase after that same time frame?

Again, let's take that economics class. Which do you think is a better profit model? Having a board with a few people who hardly post but pay $25 once or a board with a lot of people who post a lot and don't pay anything but draws in advertisers? Which do you think creates the better long term revenue stream?

This is what advertisers look at, not whether you dropped $25 for a gold star. You're little contribution is unnecessary to the continuation of this board.

And I'm trying to think of what WR is promoting, given that the content of most of his posts is usually engaging in conversation with fellow racers and, as he mentioned, helping with training. I'm drawing a blank.

Nachoman

If you know the rules in Texas, then my bad. In California lawyers aren't allowed in small claims court. It can be quick, inexpensive justice.

kudude

implied

waterrockets 

Careful now, we're talking about Madones. I guess they're marketed as bicycles, which are generally durable goods.

Anybody else remember the Bridgestone MB-0? One year warranty, and they disclosed that the frame was likely to crack after a season or so of racing. Really sweet frame though. I always wanted a Ritchey P-21 too.

Grumpy McTrumpy

I suppose I'll add a serious post to this


I don't really care about the whole warranty thing. In fact I don't interpret the topic to be about warranty. What I do get from this whole debacle is that a section of the bike (that should not have this problem) in fact does have this problem.

A problem that could be solved with better physical joinery before the epoxy is laid in.

My conclusion (so far) is that I don't want a Madone, be it new, used, warranted, unwarranted, whatever. I think this sort of thing shouldn't happen to a BB shell.

BikeWise1

Cars yes. Airplanes yes. Bikes no. High resale is but one indicator of how a brand is perceived. But high end bikes lose a far larger percentage of their value than do sub $500 commodity bikes. I've done the business thing for many years and have a pretty good feel for how bikes lose value. And I can tell you with absolute certainty, Trek does not plan their line or marketing strategy around resale values.

If advertising here really generated significant revenue for the advertisers, you'd see a lot more places advertising here, and the cost would be higher. There would likely also be a tier of advertising that even paid members would see.

Apparently advertisers do look at it! This is a very narrow market. We're poised to have a Latino majority in this country, but fewer than 5% of posters here claim to be Hispanic? African Americans? Asians? Fuhgeddaboutit. Maybe ask the admins whether they think this site would be fine if no one contributed. And the economics of scale means all those "little contributions" add up to a significant chunk.

Is it not obvious? He would be able to leverage his acquired knowledge and expertise as well as high visibility into a nice little post-racing career side business, if desired. Not only that, I would imagine his visibilty here doesn't hurt his racing and how he is perceived in his community. In other words, would he be perceived differently were he not Waterrockets here with 16,000+ posts? Were he just another talented racer? I think yes. He has created a brand-the Waterrockets brand. It is unique to him and it means something to others.

Ware

^ +1 to Grumpy's post

IMHO the debate in this thread could have been over a long time ago, when the distinction between defect and subsequent failure vs. damage or fatigue from use was pointed out, as I think was originally done by WR.

Fleabiscuit

My conclusion (so far) is that you are basing this assumption on a sample of one and assume the original poster and the joker who sold him the bike didn't do something to mess up the frame. If this is a problem or design flaw, why haven't we seen a small army of credible posters telling a similar story about their Madone breaking in a similar manner (BB shell area). WR is being a little crybaby because a company won't do something they state VERY CLEARLY they will not do, and the fan-boys in this thread are just hanging on his jock.

Bikes break. Sometimes because of misuse, or crashes...sometimes because people try to install parts incorrectly, and sometimes because of design flaws. I've seen nothing in this thread or in WR's comments to convince me it's a design flaw. There are lots of these bikes on the road (Madone Trek's) and I have not seen any complaints from other owners regarding this problem.

A guy in my group has a Madone, I think it's an '06, and he loves it. He is not a big k-watt masher like WR but, nonetheless, has ridden thousands of miles without a single issue with the frame. Of course, this is just a sample of one and I'm not trying to imply all Madones are perfect based on one example. Only a complete moron would do that. Right?

El Diablo Rojo

Mellow Johnny's is far from mellow.

Flatballer

The passive aggressiveness was a nice touch. If you aren't convinced this is a design flaw (or a manufacturing defect) you're obviously unfamiliar with the part in question. What we're talking about is a metal sleeve that's bonded into the carbon fiber of the bottom bracket. It should be the strongest part on the bike. There shouldn't be anything you could possibly do to it to remove it, short of cutting it with a sawzall or torch or something. Overtighten a crank bolt? nope. Install a BB incorrectly? Nope. Wail on it with a hammer? nope. Drop it off a building? nope. None of those scenarios would cause this to happen if it were built correctly in the first place.

Grumpy McTrumpy

maybe if it were true, but it isn't. there have been other examples. some of which have been linked to in this very thread.

Grumpy McTrumpy

that's what happens when people overestimate their cleverness

El Diablo Rojo

LOOK warrantied a frame that I sold to Cypress (you haven't been around here long enough to know who that is). I told the LOOK rep that I had sold the frame to someone else and the lugs around the BB were cracked. He said send it back and gave him a new 585 for 100 bucks. Why? Because LOOK screwed up and stood behind their product. This wasn't case of the bike being crashed and neither is WR's the bike was defective and Trek should have stood behind their product.

El Diablo Rojo

Well lets assume that was true (I know for a fact that it is not but lets pretend anyway) Trek didn't even offer to look at the frame and determine if it was a factory defect or 'operator error'. When I had a BB issue on a LOOK I sold LOOK took care of the frame once they determined it was a defect in workmanship. Trek should have done the same.