livedarklions

Read the whole thing--there's so many disclaimers in there, you know you aren't going to be happy if you have to use the policy. The "use as the product was intended" is just one of many loopholes.

Sy Reene

Sorry.. I understood your question. I don't know a lot about the whole rest of Giant's lineup (MTB, BMX or whatnot), so thinking about it, this extended buyer protection is really probably a cost-benefit exercise, likely using some sort of bicycle actuarial tables (projected volume of claims for replacements).

eg. Selling 1x CF bike - typically 50%+ more than Alloy counterpart = $X amount of profit for a CF bike. From that Y percentage will file a claim in the 2 yrs allowed, costing Giant something that comes out of this profit.

The profit on original sale minus replacement cost of the Y% is still likely a higher value than selling an alloy bike at whatever profit margin the market is allowing for alloy bikes. If the alloy bike is damaged, there's maybe a hope that a resale will be made of another all new alloy bike, but no guarantee it will be bought from Giant.

livedarklions

Yeah, once you pointed out it was 2 years instead of lifetime, the mystery sort of evaporated. They probably increased the price of the new bikes a small amount to cover the few bikes they'll have to replace, and they've structured it so that if it gets too expensive, they can just bail on the program.

John_V 

There would be no reason why they would. BOTOH, I'm sure that Brand-X is going to want the same or almost the same arrangement with Giant, since they did build the frames. I can't see Brand-X paying Giant for a warranty frame replacement that they built when it is free to someone who bought a Giant and pays nothing. I would assume that if Brand-X couldn't get the same deal as an individual Giant owner, they would start shopping around for someone else to produce their products. And it would look bad for Brand-X and others to not have the same warranty as Giant if they intend to compete in this market. And Giant, losing a negotiation with Brand-X and others over a frame, would stand to lose quite a bit of money since they build bikes for many of the top name bike makers. But that's none of my business and I was just thinking.

Sy Reene

The difference is that with a consumer, they may pay $1500 for a frame that Giant makes for $400. As an OEM seller, they may sell a comparable frame to another manufacturer for $500. The $100 markup isn't going to pay for a replacement policy, while the $1100 markup is more sustainable.

Bonzo Banana

I was really making the point that some companies can make cars more efficiently and cheaply but don't want to devalue the brand so offer more value in the product rather than lower the price not necessarily about the reliability of the product although a quick look here shows the models sold in the European market are pretty good overall. If you want a reliable car though Japanese is normally the best option. Giant are by far the highest quality of mass produced frames in the world and were often used for OEM work for US and European brands but many such brands now have moved to Bangladesh and Cambodia manufacturers which offer lower cost frames. Going back to the car if the car engines were failing but you have a 7 year warranty surely that would be peace of mind, I've read reports of people having Audi engines fail just after the 3 year warranty and faced with bills over £4,000. In contrast I've read of Kia engines faults after 6 years was repaired for free despite the car being bought secondhand because of the transferable warranty. I'm sure Kia factor in the probability of faults and work out a extra margin in their car price to allow for such repairs which is my original point. They could have sold the car for £15,000 new lets say with a 3 year warranty but instead sell it for £16,500 with a transferable 7 year warranty.

https://www.reliabilityindex.com/manufacturer

Bonzo Banana

Giant have lost a huge amount of OEM work in recent years although I believe this has effected the carbon fibre side more than aluminium. Many companies that used to buy Giant frames have gone elsewhere. I believe Canyon used to use them for their carbon fibre frames but then moved to Quest composites who are massively inferior and then it seemed like many more reports of their carbon fibre frames failing almost immediately sometimes. That's the thing with companies who are mainly importers they are regularly changing factories trying to find the best deal so how do you perceive quality in that situation. Many bike brands use different factories for different bikes which is harder again as you have different quality within the same year's range. You also get the process where a brand forwards it's product design to multiple companies and they all bid for that contract and pretty much the lowest price company gets the work. It's a race to the bottom especially at the value end of bikes.

It's easy to perceive quality of a bike based on the components fitted but perceiving frame quality can be more difficult especially as many US and European brands create fake commercial names for their materials, i.e. double butted 6061 aluminium becomes 'super lightweight K premium aluminium' or some other marketing nonsense used to mask fairly common construction and materials.

baldilocks

Maybe they have enough data, they are comfortable they won't have to pay out.

Koyote

I'd guess Giant knows that more cf components are damaged while tightening bolts than while riding...Hence the warranty covers damage caused while riding.

86az135i

I get the point you're trying to make. I'm maybe a little sour about my wife's Sante Fe 2.0T blowing the motor and leaving her stranded at only 18000 miles. But Hyundai did pony up. Although the new engine is slower (less aggressive tuning), and they left a few things loose.

I have a Giant in the stable. I try to be diverse with our family's bike brands.