# Ever seen a carbon frame fail like this?



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

I was about 5 miles into a ride on Sunday with my wife, climbing a pretty mild hill (by San Francisco standards) when I heard a loud pop/crunch from behind and my gears suddenly changed. I looked back to see what happend and noticed my chain stay had completely splintered.



















And from the other side:









The bike is a 2009 Trek Madone 5.1, which I purchased new just under 2 years ago. The shop I bought the bike from isn't around anymore, so I took it to another local shop to file a warranty claim under Trek's "lifetime frame warranty."

I've heard mixed reviews on Trek's warranty, but now I'm nervous since the guys in the shop I took it to seem convinced that the damage was caused by impact to the frame. They said Trek would investigate it and would "know" what caused the frame to crack, but now I'm not optimistic that I'm going to get my frame replaced. This bike has never been dropped, crashed, or abused in any way. 

What do you guys think? Has anybody ever had to file a Trek warranty claim? Have you ever seen a chain stay fail like this under a normal load?

Thanks for any insight or tips on my situation.

EDIT: Update #1 - received a call from the shop and Trek says they are not going to replace the frame under warranty, based on the cell phone pictures they received from the shop. I am fighting to have the LBS send my frame in for inspection by Trek.

EDIT: Update #2 - Just got a second call from the LBS. They said they can send the frame to Trek for them to examine, however Trek will have to cut through the chainstay to determine what happened to the carbon. The LBS said that cutting through the chainstay would eliminate my ability to get a repair done (e.g., by Calfee). He said, alternatively, that having Calfee repair the bike as-is (without Trek hacking it up) would run me $300-500. 

Now I have to decide if I want to take my chances with Trek and risk not getting a replacement and being left with a un-fixable frame, or just bite the bullet and pay for the repair.

EDIT: Update #3 - Received a call from the LBS saying that they just received a new frame from Trek for me, and it appears to be under warranty (no charges). I haven't spoken with the shop yet, but it seems that Trek came through with the warranty about 3 weeks after I sent the frame in to have it inspected. Will post more when I get all the details!

FINAL UPDATE: 8/31/2011 - I can finally say that this warranty dispute it behind me. I managed to pick up my new bike from the shop yesterday, just over 2 months after the original frame broke.

Trek gave me a new 2011 Madone 5.9 frame, in a really nice metallic blue color. Unfortunately, not all my parts from my 2009 transferred over, so I had to buy a new seatmast ($120), and a bolt-on front derailleur ($80) since my old front derailleur was a clamp-on style. I was also charged $50 for shipping the bike to Trek and $200 for the shop to tear down and re-build my frame. All told, my frame cracking cost me $480 and over 2 months to get everything up and running again.

Justin


----------



## El Literato Loco (Apr 14, 2010)

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. 

Sit down and write out exactly how you think it happened while your memory of it is still fresh. Commit it to paper, sooner rather than later. Hang onto that and await Trek's response. If you get a new frame, awesome. If not, you'll have to go after them. Lots of letters & emails, then legal action, either through arbitration or court.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

If Trek doesn't honor the warranty and money is an issue i.e., repair vs. replace, send photos to Calfee Designs and ask if they can repair it. You might get very lucky.


----------



## Opus51569 (Jul 21, 2009)

I don't know anything about carbon so I'm happy to defer to those around here with more experience. From the pics, though, I don't see anything that suggests an impact. If anything, it looks to have exploded outward judging by the way the clear coat is bubbled outward.

I hope the warranty claim works out for you.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

El Literato Loco said:


> Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.
> 
> Sit down and write out exactly how you think it happened while your memory of it is still fresh. Commit it to paper, sooner rather than later. Hang onto that and await Trek's response. If you get a new frame, awesome. If not, you'll have to go after them. Lots of letters & emails, then legal action, either through arbitration or court.


Good idea. I've written most of the stuff down already in an email to a friend describing what happened. 



Peter P. said:


> If Trek doesn't honor the warranty and money is an issue i.e., repair vs. replace, send photos to Calfee Designs and ask if they can repair it. You might get very lucky.


Nice to know there may be repair options out there. 



Opus51569 said:


> I don't know anything about carbon so I'm happy to defer to those around here with more experience. From the pics, though, I don't see anything that suggests an impact. If anything, it looks to have exploded outward judging by the way the clear coat is bubbled outward.
> 
> I hope the warranty claim works out for you.


That's what I thought as well. The carbon bows out both on the inside and outside of the chain stay. The top of the chain stay, where the decal/clearcoat is, also appears to bend outwards.

Still shaking my head trying to figure out how this happened.


----------



## bike_guy (Mar 26, 2002)

Opus51569 said:


> I don't know anything about carbon so I'm happy to defer to those around here with more experience. From the pics, though, I don't see anything that suggests an impact. If anything, it looks to have exploded outward judging by the way the clear coat is bubbled outward.
> 
> I hope the warranty claim works out for you.


I agree. I would expect to see some form of indentation if it was caused by impact.


----------



## EMB145 Driver (Aug 17, 2006)

A friend on my team had a Madone chainstay break last year. Trek said it was impact, though he couldn't remember an incident that he thought could have caused it. No warranty. He rides a Tarmac now. Trek offered him a crash replacement which wasn't a really good deal and told him it would be 3 months before they had a frame for him. Good luck.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

EMB145 Driver said:


> A friend on my team had a Madone chainstay break last year. Trek said it was impact, though he couldn't remember an incident that he thought could have caused it. No warranty. He rides a Tarmac now. Trek offered him a crash replacement which wasn't a really good deal and told him it would be 3 months before they had a frame for him. Good luck.


Yikes! That's exactly what I'm afraid of


----------



## Samac (May 7, 2011)

Hope your frame is replaced by Trek. FWIW, a friend just had his 11 year old Lemond (cracked) replaced by Trek w/a 2.3 frame.


----------



## The Tedinator (Mar 12, 2004)

Same here.....had a friend with a warranty issue on a Lemond. Got a new Madone from Trek. No hassles.


----------



## cdalemike (Dec 27, 2010)

This is one reason I don't ride a carbon frame. Things like this do not concern me much with titanium (I like old school materials). In any case, I hope Trek takes care of you. I agree, does not look like an impact or strike. Frame failure in my opinion...


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Samac said:


> Hope your frame is replaced by Trek. FWIW, a friend just had his 11 year old Lemond (cracked) replaced by Trek w/a 2.3 frame.





The Tedinator said:


> Same here.....had a friend with a warranty issue on a Lemond. Got a new Madone from Trek. No hassles.


Good to know that some people get their frames replaced. I've heard a lot of times it can depend on your relationship with the LBS submitting the claim. Makes me wish the shop I bought it from was still around!! :mad2:


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Mutombo said:


> [...] I looked back to see what happend and noticed my chain stay had completely splintered.
> [...] The bike is a 2009 Trek Madone 5.1, which I purchased new just under 2 years ago. [...] What do you guys think?


What do I think? "Oh well, it's a Trek"...



EMB145 Driver said:


> A friend on my team had a Madone chainstay break last year. Trek said it was impact, though he couldn't remember an incident that he thought could have caused it. No warranty.


"Oh well, it's a Trek"...

Seriously, they should replace the frame for you on warranty. Just let them know that you would otherwise raise hell on this forum and others on the internet. That should do the trick: It's not worth the hassle for Trek, for saving the two- or three-hundred bucks that frame is on Trek's bottom line.


----------



## uncrx2003 (Jul 17, 2010)

I don't know much about Trek warranty. When my BMC had a crack in the carbon seatstay, I emailed the pic to Competitve Cyclist and they got me a new frame within two weeks. I wonder if BMC warranty service is that good or Competitive Cyclist is just good dealing with warranty. I was very lucky to have bought the bike from a shop with customer service. Sorry about you bike.


----------



## CleavesF (Dec 31, 2007)

But they're made in Taiwan... they're probably gonna tell you should have bought a 6.9 SSL or whatnots.


----------



## Steve B. (Jun 26, 2004)

The Tedinator said:


> Same here.....had a friend with a warranty issue on a Lemond. Got a new Madone from Trek. No hassles.


Trek warranty sucks. 

I had a Lemond Titanium whose paint peeled inside the first year. They re-painted and THAT pain started peeling within the 2nd year. Trek said "SOL", we only warranty paint for a year.

So I got the frame re-painted locally and about a year later developed a crack on the downtube alongside the cable stop.

Trek says because "you painted the frame, warranty is void".

Screw you guys, paint does not cause a titanium frame to crack.

No business out of me.

SB


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

You're in fine company. Lance Armstrong and a fair number of others have had similar failures:
http://www.bustedcarbon.com/2009/11/2010-madone-69-pro-busted-chainstay.html
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=3349786


----------



## Hundminen (Mar 21, 2011)

Mutombo said:


> I was about 5 miles into a ride on Sunday with my wife, climbing a pretty mild hill (by San Francisco standards) when I heard a loud pop/crunch from behind and my gears suddenly changed. I looked back to see what happend and noticed my chain stay had completely splintered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have I ever seen a carbon frame fail like this?

No, but I played semi-competitive squash for over 20 years, and that splintered fibre look is exactly the same as my carbon fibre racquet would fail in the *middle *of the racquet after contacting the wall on the *end *of the racquet. That type of failure would not be seen at the impact location, but rather is a simple beam failure which occurs in the middle of a uniformly loaded span (I happen to be an engineer as well). So based on this, I would guess that a severe lateral (sideways) impact to your rear wheel could result in the failure seen here.

Fortunately for me, whenever I had a racquet fail like this, it was never catastrophic, and I could usually finish out the game in progress before replacing the raquet. Never did see one assplode on me :yikes:


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Kontact said:


> You're in fine company. Lance Armstrong and a fair number of others have had similar failures:
> http://www.bustedcarbon.com/2009/11/2010-madone-69-pro-busted-chainstay.html
> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?p=3349786


That bustedcarbon example sounds like exactly what happened to me. They replaced his frame, here's to hoping the same thing happens to me.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Hundminen said:


> Have I ever seen a carbon frame fail like this?
> 
> No, but I played semi-competitive squash for over 20 years, and that splintered fibre look is exactly the same as my carbon fibre racquet would fail in the *middle *of the racquet after contacting the wall on the *end *of the racquet. That type of failure would not be seen at the impact location, but rather is a simple beam failure which occurs in the middle of a uniformly loaded span (I happen to be an engineer as well). So based on this, I would guess that a severe lateral (sideways) impact to your rear wheel could result in the failure seen here.
> 
> Fortunately for me, whenever I had a racquet fail like this, it was never catastrophic, and I could usually finish out the game in progress before replacing the raquet. Never did see one assplode on me :yikes:


I follow what you're saying, but have no idea how your example could possibly apply to that part of the bicycle frame. An extreme impact to the rear wheel is going to cause the rear wheel to break, and unless the loading is really strange, will also cause the other three stays to be damaged - and a seat stay is much more likely to fail since it is lighter than a chainstay.

Carbon fiber is really weak in compression - it's only about as strong as the epoxy resin that holds it together. Here we have a driveside chainstay - the part of the bike that absorbs the drivetrain loads - and it has evenly blown out at the center during high torque climbing. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see the non-impact cause of this one.


----------



## Hundminen (Mar 21, 2011)

Kontact said:


> I follow what you're saying, but have no idea how your example could possibly apply to that part of the bicycle frame. An extreme impact to the rear wheel is going to cause the rear wheel to break, and unless the loading is really strange, will also cause the other three stays to be damaged - and a seat stay is much more likely to fail since it is lighter than a chainstay.
> 
> Carbon fiber is really weak in compression - it's only about as strong as the epoxy resin that holds it together. Here we have a driveside chainstay - the part of the bike that absorbs the drivetrain loads - and it has evenly blown out at the center during high torque climbing. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see the non-impact cause of this one.


I agree with your point that this failure was not caused by an impact at the failure location. It was either a lateral impact at the rear wheel, but it's also possible that there was a non-impact situation that caused excess lateral torque in the chain stay area. Not sure what that could be though. Cross-chaining under excessive load?


----------



## jmio (Aug 19, 2008)

OMG!!!!!!! I though BD bikes only failed wow, I guess eveyones thought process on that theory has to change! hahaha, JK, but yeah, that seriously blows, I would be mad, I have 2 trek bikes which are awesome (so far) and a BD roadie, all three are sweet.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Any sign of impact from underneath?


----------



## jimmythekidd (Nov 13, 2009)

As mentioned earlier I think a lot of it will have to do with the shop you took it too, your relationship to them and the rep that handles it. If the shop puts pressure on the rep to find a solution and the shop is important to the rep then things happen even if the warranty situation is out of the ordinary. If you just wandered into this shop having never spent a dime there and plopped a warranty into their lap that might not be as favorable for you. Not saying they wont try, just that thy may perhaps be less tenacious in going after it. Hope it works out for you though.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Gee whiz....*

:biggrin5: Do Trek make good bikes? Guess not. :frown2:


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

Exactly. I am not an engineer like hundminen, but I have a hard time seeing what kind of stress which a human rider could apply to a frame which would cause failure in this method.



Hundminen said:


> I agree with your point that this failure was not caused by an impact at the failure location. It was either a lateral impact at the rear wheel, but it's also possible that there was a non-impact situation that caused excess lateral torque in the chain stay area. Not sure what that could be though. Cross-chaining under excessive load?


----------



## Iwannapodiumgirl (Jun 26, 2002)

perhaps road debris previously hit the stay and weakened it, yet only splintered recenlty due to the massive watts you were producing and immense torque you were placing on the bottom bracket as you rode up the hill?


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

Argentius said:


> Exactly. I am not an engineer like hundminen, but I have a hard time seeing what kind of stress which a human rider could apply to a frame which would cause failure in this method.


Maybe his heel hit the chainstay. :shocked:

The wimpy chainstay obviously couldn't hold up to the repeated torsional flex of the drive train. Junk.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Hundminen said:


> I agree with your point that this failure was not caused by an impact at the failure location. It was either a lateral impact at the rear wheel, but it's also possible that there was a non-impact situation that caused excess lateral torque in the chain stay area. Not sure what that could be though. Cross-chaining under excessive load?


Sorry, but that lateral impact theory of yours is a pretty hare-brained idea. A bicycle chainstay is not loaded like a tennis racket at all. The pictures show a clear symmetric compression fracture, which is nothing like what your scenario would look like (which would imply bending failure, which would be completely impossible for this bicycle without accompanying damage to the other stays).

"Excessive load"? What do you think would constitute excessive load on a bicycle? Is "trying to get up that mountain" excessive in your book?

Finally, cross-chaining has nothing to do with this at all. The chainstay is not supposed to fail under whatever gear combination you choose, and for any practical load scenario.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

It looks like a compression fracture. 

Without the shop behind you, it's tough to see this ending well.

Let us know.

Len


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

*Questionable advice.*



Pirx said:


> Just let them know that you would otherwise raise hell on this forum and others on the internet. That should do the trick: It's not worth the hassle for Trek, for saving the two- or three-hundred bucks that frame is on Trek's bottom line.


Times have changed, so that logic may not apply anymore. More and more companies take internet slamming so serious that regardless of the expense, they go after the people slamming them. If the OP does decide to raise hell on the internet, he needs to choose his words carefully.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

I think Trek will help you out. To me, it looks like the carbon failed at that point. I can't see any marring or gouging on the surface. In any case Trek does not take this on as a warranty claim, try Joes Bicycle painting. His prices are great and he does a lot of carbon repair for Calfee.
http://www.joesbicyclepainting.com/


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't carbon fail catasrophicially, sometimes a time period after an impact that weakens it? It seems to me that it is certainly possible that there was a prior weakening impact that resulted in the compression fracture described.

Good luck.

Len


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Hundminen said:


> I agree with your point that this failure was not caused by an impact at the failure location. It was either a lateral impact at the rear wheel, but it's also possible that there was a non-impact situation that caused excess lateral torque in the chain stay area. Not sure what that could be though. Cross-chaining under excessive load?


That wasn't what I said. I used your example of a strike on the wheel - well away from the failure - to show that such an impact couldn't be transmitted to the one chainstay without damage to other areas, like the wheel itself and the skinny seatstays.

Argentius,
The stay failed under compression, but it failed because it was defective. The compressive forces exploited a flaw in the composite (or possibly a design flaw). It is not a simple stress failure from riding.


----------



## nedbraden (Jun 13, 2011)

It's interesting how many times you see threads on various cycling forums with people showing damaged carbon frames that have occurred without anything untoward, simply riding along and BAM!


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Len J said:


> It looks like a compression fracture.
> 
> Without the shop behind you, it's tough to see this ending well.
> 
> ...


I agree. Unfortunately for me, the shop thinks it was impact too. Comments like "Are you sure you didn't hit the frame on something?" or "Maybe the frame was damaged when you weren't around?", while not unreasonable from their point of view, don't give me much confidence. I don't blame them, I've never been in their shop before so they really don't have any motivation to help me, but I don't have any other options so I'll have to hope for the best at this point.

I looked at the damage pretty closely before taking it into the shop, and I didn't see anything to indicate to me that it was caused by something hitting the frame. I'm not an expert or anything, but I would think that impact damage would leave some kind of indentation or dent in the carbon. Instead, I saw the carbon bowing or flexing outwards from the point of failure in all directions.



wim said:


> Times have changed, so that logic may not apply anymore. More and more companies take internet slamming so serious that regardless of the expense, they go after the people slamming them. If the OP does decide to raise hell on the internet, he needs to choose his words carefully.


I have no plans to "slam" Trek on the internet. If all goes well, my frame will be replaced and this thread will be an example of Trek standing behind their product and their warranty. However, if Trek does indeed deny my warranty claim, I think potential customers should be aware of the fact that Trek's lifetime warranty may not be as automatic as it is advertised. It certainly was a factor in my decision to buy two Trek bikes, a Trek for myself and a LeMond for my wife. I would be very disappointed if my frame is not covered since, from my point of view, I cannot think of a single thing that I did wrong to be denied coverage.



High Gear said:


> I think Trek will help you out. To me, it looks like the carbon failed at that point. I can't see any marring or gouging on the surface. In any case Trek does not take this on as a warranty claim, try Joes Bicycle painting. His prices are great and he does a lot of carbon repair for Calfee.
> http://www.joesbicyclepainting.com/


I'm pretty good about maintaining my bike, and I routinely inspect the frame before and sometimes after rides to make sure everything is up to par. And I doubt, even if there had been an impact prior to the ride that I didn't know about, that the bike would have lasted 5 miles, and several hills, into the ride on Sunday before finally giving out.

I'll keep Joe's in mind if it comes to that.

Thanks for all the feedback everyone


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=3382350&postcount=448

...this post comes to mind... in the Trek pictures thread.


----------



## gaspi101 (May 12, 2011)

Any word from Trek?


----------



## JAC526 (Jun 10, 2011)

Keep us informed. I'm interested to see how Trek handles the claim.


----------



## aaric (Mar 10, 2011)

Kontact said:


> The stay failed under compression, but it failed because it was defective. The compressive forces exploited a flaw in the composite (or possibly a design flaw). It is not a simple stress failure from riding.


Entirely possible it was due to a defect in manufacturing. Or it could easily have been an excessive load that weakened it at a previous time. ie: bike on a rack in the parking lot, and somebody backs up into it, making contact at the hub / skewer, leaving no visible damage, and likely not even noticing the bump, or the driver of the vehicle with the rack backing into something.

There's no way to tell short of dissecting it, and looking at the failure, which is likely cost prohibitive on a frame.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

jsedlak said:


> http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showpost.php?p=3382350&postcount=448
> 
> ...this post comes to mind... in the Trek pictures thread.


Other than that post being a Trek bike with damage, the damage itself looks very different than on my bike. That example looks like the carbon is completely caved in, and the breakage is very clean. Mine appears to be splintering of the carbon outwards from the failure...



gaspi101 said:


> Any word from Trek?


No word yet, I took it into the shop last night, so I'd imagine I won't hear anything for a few days.


----------



## Peanya (Jun 12, 2008)

Fredrico said:


> :biggrin5: Do Trek make good bikes? Guess not. :frown2:


This bike is made by Giant, not Trek, so the answer is still uncertain...


----------



## tfinator (Nov 4, 2009)

Kontact said:


> I follow what you're saying, but have no idea how your example could possibly apply to that part of the bicycle frame. An extreme impact to the rear wheel is going to cause the rear wheel to break, and unless the loading is really strange, will also cause the other three stays to be damaged - and a seat stay is much more likely to fail since it is lighter than a chainstay.
> 
> Carbon fiber is really weak in compression - it's only about as strong as the epoxy resin that holds it together. Here we have a driveside chainstay - the part of the bike that absorbs the drivetrain loads - and it has evenly blown out at the center during high torque climbing. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see the non-impact cause of this one.


Agreed. That was far too many simplifications for a rather complicated machine.

I think the main part of this is that a large lateral impact to the wheel will damage it more than the frame, or at least, to do that to the frame we would see some serious damage to the wheel as well.


----------



## dougrocky123 (Apr 12, 2006)

*Lance's bike*

I've seen the bike Lance broke in the Tour ( after a fall) and it looks to be in the same place as yours.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

dougrocky123 said:


> I've seen the bike Lance broke in the Tour ( after a fall) and it looks to be in the same place as yours.


Just because two things break in the same place doesn't mean it was the same cause.


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*agree*



wim said:


> Times have changed, so that logic may not apply anymore. More and more companies take internet slamming so serious that regardless of the expense, they go after the people slamming them. If the OP does decide to raise hell on the internet, he needs to choose his words carefully.


I am sure that Trek has thought about this at length. They have probably decided that a few internet rants are going to cause less impact that replacing every single frame that breaks for whatever reason. I have seen plenty of posts on this board about busted Treks (and others) and it certainly does not appear that their business was impacted. To the OP, I hope your situation gets resolved fairly. It wouldn't hurt to have a steel back-up bike too


----------



## wibly wobly (Apr 23, 2009)

A miniature Greg Lemond too action into his own hands and got some revenge on a Trek bike. I'm sorry it happened to be yours.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

DaveG said:


> I am sure that Trek has thought about this at length. They have probably decided that a few internet rants are going to cause less impact that replacing every single frame that breaks for whatever reason. I have seen plenty of posts on this board about busted Treks (and others) and it certainly does not appear that their business was impacted. To the OP, I hope your situation gets resolved fairly. It wouldn't hurt to have a steel back-up bike too


Social media is beginning to change this. Now it's easier to complain on FB/Twitter/YouTube and give companies bad press. Like that got that bought a MacBook and Apple wouldn't repair a defect so he smashed it with a hammer on put the video on YouTube. The video went viral, Apple got bad press, and hooked him up with a 17" MacBook Pro if he removed the video. The OP might consider something similar as a last resort. Gotta keep it witty though, like smashing the frame with a cheap plastic tricycle and say they have the same build quality :devil:


----------



## Argentius (Aug 26, 2004)

I find it quite doubtful that someone who has seen a low-res pic or two on the internet can assess whether or not a complicated material's failure was due to the result of a defect in materials or workmanship.



Kontact said:


> Argentius,
> The stay failed under compression, but it failed because it was defective. The compressive forces exploited a flaw in the composite (or possibly a design flaw). It is not a simple stress failure from riding.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Just got a call from the shop. They sent pictures to the Trek rep and their initial view is that the frame is not going to be replaced under warranty. The shop said they can contact the rep again and suggest sending the frame in for Trek to inspect.

Needless to say, I'm very disappointed. I was hoping that they would base the initial decision on more than a few cell phone pictures from the bike shop.:mad2::mad2::mad2:


----------



## stumpbumper (Jan 22, 2011)

I have seen the same type of damage on one other bike. Just as the cyclist approached a small hill, he punched the button to shift from big to small chainring. When it failed to shift, he went up on the pedals to power over the hill and just as he did the chain shifted off the big ring and hung up between it and the small ring. Since the rider was still under power that jerked the derailleur forward with enough force to punch a hole in the bottom of the chainstay. The rider managed to unstick the chain and unaware of the damage, attempted to finish his ride. At that point the chainstay broke completely.

The bike was a Cervelo R3 and at the time a replacement frame was $2800. Cervelo offered to replace the frame under their 'crash" program for $2200. The owner of the bike opted to have Calfee Designs repair the frame at a cost of about $350. Three years and thousands of miles later, the guy is still riding that same Cervelo.

Calfee has repaired hundreds of carrbon fiber frames, many in a lot worse condition than your Trek.


----------



## stumpbumper (Jan 22, 2011)

I have seen the same type of damage on one other bike. Just as the cyclist approached a small hill, he punched the button to shift from big to small chainring. When it failed to shift, he went up on the pedals to power over the hill and just as he did the chain shifted off the big ring and hung up between it and the small ring. Since the rider was still under power that jerked the derailleur forward with enough force to punch a hole in the bottom of the chainstay. The rider managed to unstick the chain and unaware of the damage, attempted to finish his ride. At that point the chainstay broke completely.

The bike was a Cervelo R3 and at the time a replacement frame was $2800. Cervelo offered to replace the frame under their 'crash" program for $2200. The owner of the bike opted to have Calfee Designs repair the frame at a cost of about $350. Three years and thousands of miles later, the guy is still riding that same Cervelo.

Calfee has repaired hundreds of carrbon fiber frames, many in a lot worse condition than your Trek. That's an option to consider if you don't get your frame replaced.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

wim said:


> Times have changed, so that logic may not apply anymore. More and more companies take internet slamming so serious that regardless of the expense, they go after the people slamming them. If the OP does decide to raise hell on the internet, he needs to choose his words carefully.


If there was anything questionable in my advice, then it was in your head. Notice that I said nothing about slandering (or "slamming") Trek. It _should_ go without saying that the OP, of course, needs to be truthful about his experience. So yes, obviously, he needs to choose his words carefully, taking care to remain accurate.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

stumpbumper said:


> I have seen the same type of damage on one other bike. Just as the cyclist approached a small hill, he punched the button to shift from big to small chainring. When it failed to shift, he went up on the pedals to power over the hill and just as he did the chain shifted off the big ring and hung up between it and the small ring. Since the rider was still under power that jerked the derailleur forward with enough force to punch a hole in the bottom of the chainstay. The rider managed to unstick the chain and unaware of the damage, attempted to finish his ride. At that point the chainstay broke completely.
> 
> The bike was a Cervelo R3 and at the time a replacement frame was $2800. Cervelo offered to replace the frame under their 'crash" program for $2200. The owner of the bike opted to have Calfee Designs repair the frame at a cost of about $350. Three years and thousands of miles later, the guy is still riding that same Cervelo.
> 
> Calfee has repaired hundreds of carrbon fiber frames, many in a lot worse condition than your Trek.


Interesting. I can't recall a situation like this where my chain was stuck under load, but it's nice to see that there is potentially another explanation for the failure besides an impact, which I'm almost certain did not happen in my case.


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

That's why I asked if there was any sign of impact from underneath. Haven't heard an answer to that yet, do you have a photo from underneath?

The first thought that came to my mind was an impact from road debris, derailleur, or dropping that caused damage to the underside of the stay, maybe even unnoticed or forgotten by OP.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Camilo said:


> That's why I asked if there was any sign of impact from underneath. Haven't heard an answer to that yet, do you have a photo from underneath?
> 
> The first thought that came to my mind was an impact from road debris, derailleur, or dropping that caused damage to the underside of the stay, maybe even unnoticed or forgotten by OP.


The bottom is the only place I didn't photograph. Since I don't have the bike on hand, I don't have an answer to your question, but I will certainly look next time I see the bike.


----------



## Dereck (Jan 31, 2005)

Okay, this is a couple of years back. In 2009, I mistakenly got off my usual route of buying the frame I wanted and outfitting to my spec, and bought a Madone 6.lots.

After about 1000 miles, no more impacts than you usually get riding on roads, the headtube cracked down the front, from the top edge to about halfway down the tube. Stripped it down, back to the shop I bought it off and yes, Trek made good on warranty and I had a new frame in around 6 weeks, IIRC. I thought I might be lucky for once with this bike as they'd introduced the 2010, but my Trek luck failed again as they had my size in old 2009 stock.

It had taken Trek and the shop THREE attempts to deliver the bike as ordered in the first place. First off, they never bothered to mention that the finish I'd ordered - nothing that fancy, but it had my name on the TT - might have been available according to the website ordering process, but it wasn't really. Trek just hadn't been bothered to check their website. I suspect the dealer was the one who couldn't tell the difference between chainring sizes, and getting the seat post I wanted took longest of all.

Fortunately, I kept the seat post when frame 1 went back - that ugly 'aerodynamic' thing that had been one of the hiccups in getting the bike originally. It wasn't their 'usual' bike in a box dimension.

The shop - Revolution Cycles in Georgetown, DC - was up to its usual Trek boutique standards. 'Thank you for paying us, now go away and stop being a bother'.

I rode the second one for a few weeks. That it had an annoying habit of developing a front wheel wobble at even my idea of speed was not reassuring.

My eventual solution was centred around EBay...

Good luck with your warranty claim. If I buy any more bikes - I'm not exactly a collector  - I'll go somewhere that builds bike frames, rather than selling 'products'.

Dereck


----------



## Irch (Mar 15, 2011)

Before I saw this thread, I was just about to pull the trigger on a new madone. After seeing this thread I will definitely go with the cannondale and call it a day.:idea:


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Irch said:


> Before I saw this thread, I was just about to pull the trigger on a new madone. After seeing this thread I will definitely go with the cannondale and call it a day.:idea:


Hmm, me too. Glad I stumbled across this post, I was in the process of talking to Foothill Cyclery in SLO about a new Madone 6 to replace my aging Roubaix. Now I'm hesitating...


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Just got a second call from the LBS. They said they can send the frame to Trek for them to examine, however Trek will have to cut through the chainstay to determine what happened to the carbon. The LBS said that cutting through the chainstay would eliminate my ability to get a repair done (e.g., by Calfee). He said, alternatively, that having Calfee repair the bike as-is (without Trek hacking it up) would run me $300-500.

Does anybody have experience with repairs? Is it true that I wouldn't be able to get it repaired if Trek cut through the chainstay?

I'm in a tough spot, I feel like what Trek is saying happened (an impact) didn't happen, so I want the frame replaced. However, if they cut up my frame and STILL say it was my fault, then I'm out a frame with no way to repair it. A discounted "crash replacement" frame isn't an option for me, I can't see myself spending more money on a Trek frame if this one didn't even last 2 years and Trek doesn't stand behind the warranty.

Decisions decisions...


----------



## ClancyO (Mar 20, 2011)

I really don't have experience with carbon bikes yet (just getting ready to pull the trigger though) - but I'm not crazy about the carbon repair part... 

I guess it it was my decision, I'd have to consider a new ~$500 Chinese frame and just move all your components over., It won't have a warrenty, but ... really, how's that different from a trek at this point? Or perhaps a used ti frame of criagslist (or wherever).

And I'd probably try to negotiate w/Trek directly - simply stating your last paragraph above. If they cut it up - it's for their benefit, to figure out what failed and how to modify their processes. They can always say it was impact and not owe you a dime for your 'valuable research' contribution. 

And you may want to point out this thread and the sentiment here.. It's clear that if this doesn't end satisfactorily for you, you'll never buy another trek product, But what they may not realize is that there is an 'army of david's' out here who agree with you and may also never buy another trek product if this ends badly for you...


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

I'm not surprised they denied. Without the LBS fighting for you, you were fighting up-hill. 

If I were you, I'd pick up the phone or e-mail Craig Calfee and ask him re the repaiability in each circumstance. I suspect, but don't know, that he could replace the entire chain stay in either case. Either way you might have a clearer choice. 

Good luck. 

Len



Mutombo said:


> Just got a second call from the LBS. They said they can send the frame to Trek for them to examine, however Trek will have to cut through the chainstay to determine what happened to the carbon. The LBS said that cutting through the chainstay would eliminate my ability to get a repair done (e.g., by Calfee). He said, alternatively, that having Calfee repair the bike as-is (without Trek hacking it up) would run me $300-500.
> 
> Does anybody have experience with repairs? Is it true that I wouldn't be able to get it repaired if Trek cut through the chainstay?
> 
> ...


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

I expect if you elect to send it to Trek, you won't get it back. I would find that out, and also e-mail the pictures you showed us to Calfee and ask about the repair (and also repair if Trek cuts it and you do get it back).

I would also think seriously about a PedalForce frame or one of the Chinese eBay frames and move the groupset over. That'll get you going again without drastic expense.

Incidentally, I've heard too many stories of Trek not honoring warranty to ever consider purchasing one.


----------



## jsedlak (Jun 17, 2008)

Mutombo said:


> Other than that post being a Trek bike with damage, the damage itself looks very different than on my bike. That example looks like the carbon is completely caved in, and the breakage is very clean. Mine appears to be splintering of the carbon outwards from the failure...


Understood. I just wanted to point it out in case the posts or the poster could be of any help.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Len J said:


> I'm not surprised they denied. Without the LBS fighting for you, you were fighting up-hill.
> 
> If I were you, I'd pick up the phone or e-mail Craig Calfee and ask him re the repaiability in each circumstance. I suspect, but don't know, that he could replace the entire chain stay in either case. Either way you might have a clearer choice.
> 
> ...





JoelS said:


> I expect if you elect to send it to Trek, you won't get it back. I would find that out, and also e-mail the pictures you showed us to Calfee and ask about the repair (and also repair if Trek cuts it and you do get it back).
> 
> I would also think seriously about a PedalForce frame or one of the Chinese eBay frames and move the groupset over. That'll get you going again without drastic expense.
> 
> Incidentally, I've heard too many stories of Trek not honoring warranty to ever consider purchasing one.


Thanks guys, I emailed Calfee regarding a repair in both circumstances and I'll wait to see what he says.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

jsedlak said:


> Understood. I just wanted to point it out in case the posts or the poster could be of any help.


Gotcha. Thanks


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

EMB145 Driver said:


> A friend on my team had a Madone chainstay break last year. Trek said it was impact, though he couldn't remember an incident that he thought could have caused it. No warranty. He rides a Tarmac now. Trek offered him a crash replacement which wasn't a really good deal and told him it would be 3 months before they had a frame for him. Good luck.


Exactly. For what these manufacturers probably pay to have a frame made (i.e., not very much), you would think they wouldn't be such a hassle on warranty claims like this.

Knew some guys that broke their Trek steerer tubes last year. Trek blamed them for over tightening the stem around the steerer tube. That might have very well been the case, but this was a racing team sponsored by Trek. Not only that, but Trek changed up its steerer tube right after these incidents occurred.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

To the OP. If Trek cuts through the chainstay and then determines that the failure was due to impact, you are going to be SOL if you really want to fight this further. If you want to take something like this to Court, you need to have your own expert examine the frame and see if your expert actually needs to cut the frame to look at it. If that is the case and the evidence must be cut up, then your expert would have to work with Trek's expert on the analysis. If it was me, I would probably be thinking about legal action under a Consumer Protection Act wherein attorneys fees would be awarded if you prevail. Might even go after them for punitive damages too. Thing is, you need to find an expert that backs up your claim, and a good expert at that, before you actually start litigating. That means money out of your pocket initially.

If you just want to get back on the bike and don't have a spare, I think I would just send it to Calfee if Calfee can repair it, pay out of pocket, and be done with it. $300 to $500 is a lot cheaper than buying a new carbon frame.

Ultimately, which route you take depends on your monetary situation and how pissed you are at Trek.


----------



## cartmaniac (Jun 6, 2007)

I'd let Brady fix it. http://brokencarbon.com/

It sounds like Trek is going to screw you, so what have you got to lose? Get a quote, compare it to Calfee....


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Irch said:


> Before I saw this thread, I was just about to pull the trigger on a new madone. After seeing this thread I will definitely go with the cannondale and call it a day.:idea:





wipeout said:


> Hmm, me too. Glad I stumbled across this post, I was in the process of talking to Foothill Cyclery in SLO about a new Madone 6 to replace my aging Roubaix. Now I'm hesitating...


Well, that's exactly what I am talking about: Replacing the OP's frame, no questions asked, would cost Trek maybe 300 bucks or so. Losing those two sales alone might cost them $1000-$2000 in profits _apiece._ If you were Trek, and if you had any brains at all, what would you do?


----------



## rbart4506 (Aug 4, 2004)

Go to court over a denied warranty on a bike frame....Geez man...

I'd say screw it, get a quote from the places mentioned above and go from there...

The quicker you get this behind you the better...


----------



## Ibashii (Oct 23, 2002)

rbart4506 said:


> Go to court over a denied warranty on a bike frame....Geez man...
> 
> I'd say screw it, get a quote from the places mentioned above and go from there...
> 
> The quicker you get this behind you the better...


I tend to agree with this post, but it's kinda one of those money/time value questions: assuming the OP gets the expert he needs to have a good chance in the legal arena--without that it's pretty much hopeless--the real issue is whether or not the best possible outcome is worth the minimum of time and energy necessary to follow the affair to its conclusion.

For me, the hidden time/energy costs would be much too high when compared to the value of a replacement frame or a repair at Trek's expense. Not even close, in fact: I'd frown for a few hours and then go buy a different brand of frame, transfer the gruppo and forget about it. I'm not even sure if I'd want _marque II_ of a product that failed on me like that anyway, even if it was free. For someone else, however--someone who has greater financial responsibilities than I do, for example, and/or is more vindictive by nature--it might be worth it.

In any case good luck, and for Dog's sake do something that gets you riding again ASAP!!


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Pirx said:


> If you were Trek, and if you had any brains at all, what would you do?


Certainly not replace frames under a "no questions asked" policy. There are quicker ways to run down a sports- and recreation equipment company, but not too many.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Mutombo said:


> That bustedcarbon example sounds like exactly what happened to me. They replaced his frame, here's to hoping the same thing happens to me.


Maybe you should try and contact the guy who's story was so similar and see if you can get his particulars. Then go to Trek and say "Why did you warranty Yada Yada's frame on 4/10/10 and won't warranty mine?"


----------



## gaspi101 (May 12, 2011)

rbart4506 said:


> Go to court over a denied warranty on a bike frame....Geez man...
> 
> I'd say screw it, get a quote from the places mentioned above and go from there...
> 
> The quicker you get this behind you the better...


Why not?? You probably get attorneys fees under the contract. Might be worth it, and likely all it would take is a strongly worded letter from a good lawyer.


----------



## krott5333 (Oct 2, 2009)

Thanks to this thread I can cross the Speed Concept off my list of potential TT bikes


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

gaspi101 said:


> Why not?? You probably get attorneys fees under the contract. Might be worth it, and likely all it would take is a strongly worded letter from a good lawyer.


I'd give Trek a chance to respond. Keep in mind that "impact" does not neccessarily mean "owner's fault."

What comes to mind is an incident related to me about a year ago. A reflector attached by the manufacturer to the rear wheel of one of his carbon-fiber bikes came loose, rotated, hit the chain stay and splintered the chainstay during the first customer test ride of that bike. Clearly, _not_ the fault of the test rider, nor would it have been the fault of a buyer of that bike. The manufacturer and the LBS had to work this one out between themselves. No idea of the outcome.


----------



## Yeti guy (Feb 16, 2010)

Hmmmmm, I'm no expert by any means but this looks like a legitimate warranty claim to me. Can't wait to see how this turns out. I'll say good luck to the OP all though I wouldn't think luck would be needed in this claim.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

gaspi101 said:


> Why not?? You probably get attorneys fees under the contract. Might be worth it, and likely all it would take is a strongly worded letter from a good lawyer.


The problem is that to have a chance to win it, you would need to spend money on....

- an expert
- an attorney.

So he would probably be on the hook initially for a couple of thousand dollars or more.........

That's fine if he wins, but what if he losses?

If I'm him, and Craig can replace the chainstay at a reasonable cost, I would let Trek have the bike and determine final disposition of the claim........and see if I could work out a deal with them....if not, pay Craig to fix it and move on.

Lots of grey areas in carbon failure...enough for manufacturers to have wiggle room.

Len


----------



## Minjin (Jan 9, 2007)

Pirx said:


> Well, that's exactly what I am talking about: Replacing the OP's frame, no questions asked, would cost Trek maybe 300 bucks or so. Losing those two sales alone might cost them $1000-$2000 in profits _apiece._ If you were Trek, and if you had any brains at all, what would you do?


Trek isn't a monolithic entity. It is composed of individuals, of which maybe one had a hand in this decision. Most employees don't see the big picture and only see the strict rules and guidelines that their manager, untrusting of the employee's judgement, has laid out for them. Can you blame them?

Companies that "get" customer service and the big picture and disseminate policy to that effect are a rarity. 

I went to Pep Boys last night to get some oil change stuff. Their flyer had a deal with oil and a Pennzoil oil filter. No model of filter was specified in the text and there was some fine print on how if the filter actually costs over $4.99 that the customer would have to make up the difference. I figured ok, I want the Pure One, a step up from the Classic and I will gladly pay the difference. Wouldn't ring up at the cashier and the manager refused to do it. He pointed to the picture as saying that the model in the picture was the Classic and that the deal didn't apply to the Pure One (the better filter). Now how many times does it go this way and not the opposite where the company will say that the text matters, not the picture? He got the sale but with many auto parts stores around, I'll be thinking twice every time I need something whether or not I want to go to their store. All to save maybe a dollar at the most. And this is the manager, someone who should know better.


----------



## nedbraden (Jun 13, 2011)

1) It cracks me up how many people immediately buy into the "I was just riding and it broke all by itself" line. I see people try to claim this on all kinds of forums and have yet to see anyone actually prove that this is what happened. Actually this is the first time the poster hasn't been debunked within five or ten posts. I guess people prefer to believe in fairytales here.

2) Trek would be stupid to just accept any warranty claim. If they did it would be a field day with everyone trading in their frame occasionally to be able to get a new one. Talk about destroying a business.

3) To the people saying they won't get a Trek now. Do you really buy a bike based on the warranty and what one person claims to have happened? If so, do some research and quit cycling because you will never get a new bike.


----------



## ClancyO (Mar 20, 2011)

nedbraden said:


> ...
> 
> 3) To the people saying they won't get a Trek now. Do you really buy a bike based on the warranty and what one person claims to have happened? If so, do some research and quit cycling because you will never get a new bike.


Ummmm - yeah! That's kinda why we're all here - sharing experiences, stories, reviews.. The place is named roadbike*review* after all. If the warrenty didn't matter, we'd ALL be riding $300 Chinese frames.


----------



## nedbraden (Jun 13, 2011)

ClancyO said:


> Ummmm - yeah! That's kinda why we're all here - sharing experiences, stories, reviews.. The place is named roadbike*review* after all. If the warrenty didn't matter, we'd ALL be riding $300 Chinese frames.


Then, like I said, you should stop rising since you guys will never find a bike with a warranty that works the way you want it to work. (No questions asked for life)

P.S.- Most reviews are about things like handling, sizing, parts, etc., not about warranty.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*How long do you want the bike to last?*



nedbraden said:


> Then, like I said, you should stop rising since you guys will never find a bike with a warranty that works the way you want it to work. (No questions asked for life)
> 
> P.S.- Most reviews are about things like handling, sizing, parts, etc., not about warranty.


Warranty is all about guaranteeing a certain reliable lifetime. If a manufacturer can't build a frame that holds up to their promise, they should replace it, free, with no hassles. Lots of bike companies do that. Might be one out of a few thousand frames, no problem. The only scenario that would bankrupt a company would be if a large number of their frames failed.

Drive side chain stays shouldn't break in the manner above. That's unacceptable from a customer's point of view, and also from a designer's point of view. The chainstay should be able to handle the torsional flex of the drive train. This one obviously didn't.


----------



## vladvm (May 4, 2010)

This is just my opinion....

let Trek cut it and figure out what is wrong (50-50 chance you get a new frame), and while they are doing this spend the $300-400 and buy an equivalent or better ebay frame (custom paint it if you like) you'll get it in 10-15 days, transfer the components, fork, wheels etc. and get back on the saddle in no time. 

then if trek gives you a new frame, sell it for profit and recover the cost of ebay frame and future ebay frame purchase.


----------



## nedbraden (Jun 13, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> Warranty is all about guaranteeing a certain reliable lifetime. If a manufacturer can't build a frame that holds up to their promise, they should replace it, free, with no hassles. Lots of bike companies do that. Might be one out of a few thousand frames, no problem. The only scenario that would bankrupt a company would be if a large number of their frames failed.
> 
> Drive side chain stays shouldn't break in the manner above. That's unacceptable from a customer's point of view, and also from a designer's point of view. The chainstay should be able to handle the torsional flex of the drive train. This one obviously didn't.


1) That has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

2) All we have is one guy claiming his chainstay broke and pics that do not show all sides of the chainstay. As I said previously I have seen all kinds of threads like this with someone claiming a carbon frame just broke with nothing ever happening to it and they all get debunked...except here where peple simply buy into the story, no questions asked...like you.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

Fredrico said:


> The chainstay should be able to handle the torsional flex of the drive train. This one obviously didn't.


Even the "obviously" can't disguise that this is sheer speculation. You could offer it as a possible explanation. But even then, you're not going to get many takers because of the "torsional flex."


----------



## ClancyO (Mar 20, 2011)

Impact damage.


----------



## Cpk (Aug 1, 2009)

nedbraden said:


> 1) 3) To the people saying they won't get a Trek now. Do you really buy a bike based on the warranty and what one person claims to have happened? If so, do some research and quit cycling because you will never get a new bike.



Unfortunately I have heard of Trek frames breaking more then another brand combined, again this is what "I" have heard so ymmv but 9 out of 10 times the mfg. has been Trek. 

One guy in the Lehigh Valley Wheelman was on his third frame for the season and these were the 6.9's. 

Maybe it's just a number game because there are a lot out there but I would never buy one.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Cpk said:


> Unfortunately I have heard of Trek frames breaking more then another brand combined, again this is what "I" have heard so ymmv but 9 out of 10 times the mfg. has been Trek.
> 
> One guy in the Lehigh Valley Wheelman was on his third frame for the season and these were the 6.9's.
> 
> Maybe it's just a number game because there are a lot out there but I would never buy one.


Because there are so many out there, the % failure is more important than the absolute numbers.

Len


----------



## veloci1 (Nov 29, 2005)

have a friend that the same break on his 2010 Madone. Bike went back to trek and after a month all they offered was a crash replacement frame. he ordered, paid for the frame and then, the LBS gave him full credit for him to buy another frame. in other words, Trek denied the claim, but, was willing to offer some kind of deal. The LBS was the hero in this case.

that was the second replacement my friend had in 2 years. needless to say, he does not ride Treks any more.

he did not race these bikes, but, he is about 205 lbs.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

This has always been the problem with "Lifetime" warranties on bike frames. All of the companies have the "out" of simply saying the frame was crashed or had an external impact that damaged the frame.

BTW - That NINER fork demonstration is a perfect example of the fact that carbon fiber can be made extremely tough. The problem is the weight increases substantially when you do this. And with bike companies pushing their bikes to the sub-900 gram realm, there's not much room for error.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

fabsroman said:


> To the OP. If Trek cuts through the chainstay and then determines that the failure was due to impact, you are going to be SOL if you really want to fight this further. If you want to take something like this to Court, you need to have your own expert examine the frame and see if your expert actually needs to cut the frame to look at it. If that is the case and the evidence must be cut up, then your expert would have to work with Trek's expert on the analysis. If it was me, I would probably be thinking about legal action under a Consumer Protection Act wherein attorneys fees would be awarded if you prevail. Might even go after them for punitive damages too. Thing is, you need to find an expert that backs up your claim, and a good expert at that, before you actually start litigating. That means money out of your pocket initially.
> 
> If you just want to get back on the bike and don't have a spare, I think I would just send it to Calfee if Calfee can repair it, pay out of pocket, and be done with it. $300 to $500 is a lot cheaper than buying a new carbon frame.
> 
> Ultimately, which route you take depends on your monetary situation and how pissed you are at Trek.


I don't think I'd take it that far, the time and effort do not seem worth the potential reward. Worst case scenario here, I'm out the $300 to $500 it costs to repair the frame, and hopefully I can get another couple years out of the bike before I have to look for something else.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Mutombo said:


> I don't think I'd take it that far, the time and effort do not seem worth the potential reward. Worst case scenario here, I'm out the $300 to $500 it costs to repair the frame, and hopefully I can get another couple years out of the bike before I have to look for something else.


Just remember that your resale on the frame will be pretty low.

Len


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

nedbraden said:


> 1) It cracks me up how many people immediately buy into the "I was just riding and it broke all by itself" line. I see people try to claim this on all kinds of forums and have yet to see anyone actually prove that this is what happened. Actually this is the first time the poster hasn't been debunked within five or ten posts. I guess people prefer to believe in fairytales here.
> 
> 2) Trek would be stupid to just accept any warranty claim. If they did it would be a field day with everyone trading in their frame occasionally to be able to get a new one. Talk about destroying a business.
> 
> 3) To the people saying they won't get a Trek now. Do you really buy a bike based on the warranty and what one person claims to have happened? If so, do some research and quit cycling because you will never get a new bike.


I don't expect everyone to believe my story. I know what happened, and neither Trek nor the LBS has been able to give me a reasonable explanation for how this could have happened other than saying it was caused by "impact damage." 

And they haven't been able to explain why, even if there was some mysterious "impact damage" that happened when I wasn't around, the chainstay suddenly failed 5 miles into a bike ride. Again, I'm not an expert, but I'd think that if there was pre-existing damage that I was not aware of, the chainstay would have failed earlier on my ride, when I was sprinting or riding up even bigger hills out of the saddle.


----------



## slamy (Mar 15, 2004)

I have a friend who is a rather large mnt bike rider: Maybe 250lbs. He bought a specialized mnt bike like 10 years ago. Since he is so big he has broken at least 3 frames. Every time Specialized has held up to their lifetime warranty and replaced his frame. He keeps getting newer and newer models. Think about that, he bought one frame, but has received at least 3 newer ones for free. I don't own a specialized bike but after talking to him, I would.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Len J said:


> Just remember that your resale on the frame will be pretty low.
> 
> Len


Yeah, I think I'd just keep the bike as a backup instead of selling it if I end up going with the repair.


----------



## Wood Devil (Apr 30, 2011)

If Trek fails to make good on their warranty, I'd be going batshit crazy. If this thing crapped out on you, and they tell no by looking at a freaking cell phone picture, that would be the last Trek I ever bought.

Are Treks still made in USA, or have they gone overseas as well? China carbon? Quality control issues? I don't know.


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

slamy said:


> I have a friend who is a rather large mnt bike rider: Maybe 250lbs. He bought a specialized mnt bike like 10 years ago. Since he is so big he has broken at least 3 frames. Every time Specialized has held up to their lifetime warranty and replaced his frame. He keeps getting newer and newer models. Think about that, he bought one frame, but has received at least 3 newer ones for free. I don't own a specialized bike but after talking to him, I would.


Next to Trek, the 2nd largest number of failures that I've heard about involve BB shell and seat tube failures on Specialized frames. However, in every case that I've heard of, Specialized has come through with a replacement when Trek hasn't.

Still, it's a high number of failures. I didn't consider either of those brands when I bought my CF frameset.

I did consider crash replacement and warranty issues (how well do they stand behind the product) when I did buy.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

Yipes. Sorry about your bike.
Hope you get a replacement with a minimum of headaches. TREK isn't as bad as a lot of folks out there, but I guess it's not a sure thing until you have the replacement in hand.
For comparison I have a custom stainless steel, some paint got chipped on it, was at the shop to shoot the breeze, the builder saw the chips and asked me to leave it with him. A day or two later he retouched the paint no charge.
If you want a company who stands behind their products and assumes the customer is right, don't buy it from an international conglomerate.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Mutombo said:


> I don't expect everyone to believe my story. I know what happened, and neither Trek nor the LBS has been able to give me a reasonable explanation for how this could have happened other than saying it was caused by "impact damage."
> 
> And they haven't been able to explain why, even if there was some mysterious "impact damage" that happened when I wasn't around, the chainstay suddenly failed 5 miles into a bike ride. Again, I'm not an expert, but I'd think that if there was pre-existing damage that I was not aware of, the chainstay would have failed earlier on my ride, when I was sprinting or riding up even bigger hills out of the saddle.


There are 2 possibilities here:

1.) Bike never ever had some impact damage, you are riding around and somehow the torque on the back wheel from pedaling exposed a flaw in the chain-stay which failed catastrophically in the way the pictures show.

2.) Bike had impact damage at the point of the failure (A stone was kicked up by another rider or a car and hit it or A shovel fell on it in the garage, or it fell over in the garage and hit the edge of the snow-blower, or you had it upside down while you were working on it and something fell on it or etc, etc (Many of these would not necessarily leave a detectable mark BTW)) which weakened the chain-stay. You hit a bump, were torquing by pedaling or any number of other pressures on the damaged point of impact causes the failure that shows up in the picture.

You take it into an LBS that doesn't know you, where you didn't buy either the bike or anything else that would make you recognizable. Said LBS has heard every JRA ("Just riding around") failure story in his many years in the business. What do you think his reaction is going to be to your story? What about Treks?

I'm not defending it, I'm explaining what is probably happening in the hopes that it may inform how you deal with both the LBS and Trek. 

BTW, it's possible that the request to give it to them to cut it up to determine if it is in fact impact damage is a test of your honesty....someone who knows it was impact damage would never submit to this...while someone who is confident it wasn't would be more likely to go along. Not certain but possible.

IMO

Len


----------



## aaric (Mar 10, 2011)

Mutombo said:


> And they haven't been able to explain why, even if there was some mysterious "impact damage" that happened when I wasn't around, the chainstay suddenly failed 5 miles into a bike ride. Again, I'm not an expert, but I'd think that if there was pre-existing damage that I was not aware of, the chainstay would have failed earlier on my ride, when I was sprinting or riding up even bigger hills out of the saddle.


Whether it was impact or a manufacturing defect causing the failure, it's the same process:

1) There's a weak spot in the frame, either a crack, soft spot, or a manufacturing defect. (a stress riser)

2) over time, as repeated stresses occur, the material flexes and weakens, further degrading the ability of the material to stand up to stress / cracking further. This process can take a long time, or a very short time.

3) At some point, do to the flexing/weakening cycles of flex, the material splinters/breaks.

It's like taking a thin strip piece of metal and bending it back and forth. Every time it's bent, the metal gets weaker until it comes apart.

For entertainment, you can look up stress risers. There's an interesting anecdote somewhere which explains why airplanes have rounded windows: early airplanes with square windows had cracks develop over time.

If you got a stress riser in the frame due to manufacturing problems, or due to impact, it's impossible to say.


----------



## nedbraden (Jun 13, 2011)

Mutombo said:


> I don't expect everyone to believe my story. I know what happened, and neither Trek nor the LBS has been able to give me a reasonable explanation for how this could have happened other than saying it was caused by "impact damage."
> 
> And they haven't been able to explain why, even if there was some mysterious "impact damage" that happened when I wasn't around, the chainstay suddenly failed 5 miles into a bike ride. Again, I'm not an expert, but I'd think that if there was pre-existing damage that I was not aware of, the chainstay would have failed earlier on my ride, when I was sprinting or riding up even bigger hills out of the saddle.


1) Let's see pics of the inside of the chainstay and of the bottom.

2) I can't decide if you are trying obfuscate things or if you are not very bright, based on the second paragraph.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Len J said:


> There are 2 possibilities here:
> 
> 1.) Bike never ever had some impact damage, you are riding around and somehow the torque on the back wheel from pedaling exposed a flaw in the chain-stay which failed catastrophically in the way the pictures show.
> 
> ...


Just curious, but is it actually possible for a carbon frame to suffer catastrophic damage from a kicked up stone? For the amount of money we spend on these bikes, you'd hope that they could at least stand up to this type of abuse. I know you were just giving examples, but I was wondering if people have actually lost frames in this manner.

Regarding the garage examples, I know you were just providing additional examples, but we keep both our bikes indoors in the guest bedroom, and we don't have kids running around that could have knocked it over.

I definitely get what you're saying about the LBS. It was one of the first concerns I voiced in this thread before I heard back from Trek. Like I said, it's not their fault, they don't know me and have no real motivation to fight on my behalf with Trek.

I'd thought about the idea that giving up my bike to be cut up is a "test." And I think I am going to offer the bike to be chopped up as long as I can get the frame back and repair it if things don't go my way. I'm pretty confident this wasn't impact damage, but based on how Trek has handled things so far (e.g., making a determination based on cell phone pictures) I'm not so sure that I'll get a different outcome with the autopsy.

I'm all for standing up for myself, but I'd much prefer a rideable bike for $300 than having to buy a new one for much more.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

nedbraden said:


> 1) Let's see pics of the inside of the chainstay and of the bottom.
> 
> 2) I can't decide if you are trying obfuscate things or if you are not very bright, based on the second paragraph.


The inside of the chainstay is shown in the 3rd picture of my original post. As I said earlier, I didn't think to take any pictures of the bottom of the chainstay, however I will do so when I get the bike back.


----------



## nedbraden (Jun 13, 2011)

It doesn't have to be "catastrophic" it only needs to be weakened. It's like a bone, you smack your shin on a table and it may not break in half, but it could be deeply bruised or even have a microscopic fracture. Neither of those things should cause too much trouble in normal life but if you run six miles a day or play volleyball or something else that will put a lot of stress on the bone it can break.

Not having kids means nothing, I guarantee you have bumped your bike on a wall or door frame more then once and thought nothing of it. Heck, you probably don't remember doing it.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Understood.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Mutombo said:


> Just curious, but is it actually possible for a carbon frame to suffer catastrophic damage from a kicked up stone? For the amount of money we spend on these bikes, you'd hope that they could at least stand up to this type of abuse. I know you were just giving examples, but I was wondering if people have actually lost frames in this manner.
> 
> Regarding the garage examples, I know you were just providing additional examples, but we keep both our bikes indoors in the guest bedroom, and we don't have kids running around that could have knocked it over.
> 
> ...


Carbon can fail in the manner I described.....if the impact is hard enough and in the right place with the right shape of the item impacting it. As aaric indicated so clearly, anything that creates a stress riser can end up in failure. And the lighter the bike, the less resistant to these things it will be.

In addition, engineered carbon tubes are designed to be stronger in some directions than others based on the type of stresses they are likely to encounter. The good news is that they do a great job of this, the bad news is that stresses that come from directions the tube wasn't designed to absorb can have disproportionate results....an otherwise very strong tube can fail miserably.

One of lance's tour wins includes a crash on a climb caused by snagging a kids Musette bag on his handlebars....Lance jumps back on the bike, chases back on and ends up winning the stage. The upshot was that one of the results of the accident was a failure pretty close to the one you have. Some impact on the fall coupled with his climbing after the accident resulted in a trashed drive side chain stay.

Len

edit....bike design is about comprimises........strong, light, cheap. The proportions are different by material, but the comprimises are always there.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

Contact Kirk Lee bikes. Brad can fix damn near anything on a carbon bike.


----------



## bmwrt (Aug 19, 2006)

I hope they treat you right.
I'm on my 4th Trek. Never had a problem.
I like them enough to have just ordered a new Madone. Should be here any day. No ones perfect and given the sheer number of these bikes the failure percentage is probably no different than any other manufacturer. If it was they would not be selling bikes like they are.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

nedbraden said:


> 1) Let's see pics of the inside of the chainstay and of the bottom.
> 
> 2) I can't decide if you are trying obfuscate things or if you are not very bright, based on the second paragraph.


I don't understand why you think this language is necessary or polite.

As far as your other claim - that all forum warranty complaints are baloney, I can think of several that weren't - the British gent with the Merlin and the string of Fuji seat stay failures. (I'll let you do a search.) Which suggests that you either have an axe to grind, or haven't really been around much.



For carbon failures (in particular), I think there are two important principles that are being lost in all the rhetoric:

1. The burden of proof should be on the manufacturer, not the consumer. It shouldn't be "prove you didn't hit a stone". The consumer should be able to say - prove to me you (Trek) didn't have a mold void, or prove that I did hit something. Trek deciding that the warranty doesn't apply from the same ambiguous images we're looking at just shows bad faith. The customer trusted them to make a safe bike and paid money to prove it - Trek should return that faith by providing a specific reason for denying a warranty claim. Otherwise it isn't a warranty, it's an occasional gift.

2. Materials that are used in the real world should be reasonably proof against minor abuse. Especially if we are talking about a vehicle or sporting equipment. From some of the comments on this thread, some of you consider carbon fiber bicycles to be more fragile than laptop computers, wristwatches, ceramic dinner plates or wood furniture. That is either not true, or if it is true is such a huge failing on the part of bike manufactures that they should warranty any failure caused by damage so minor that the customer is completely unaware of its occurance.


Bikes can and do get knocked around, but anyone who's spent much time with them - working in shops, shipping them, keeping them in tight spaces and crowded garages - will quickly realize that the drive side chainstay is one of the areas of the bike LEAST likely to be damaged by the bike hitting things or falling over. It's low to the ground and protected by wheel, crank arm, chainrings, seatstay and derailleur.

Finally, I posted an example of someone who had a failure that happened just as the OP described,* and Trek warrantied it*. This conclusively demonstrates that Trek believes such a failure is possible, despite the belief some of you harbor that it is impossible for a carbon tube to be defective enough fail from the act of riding the bike.


Someone posting a problem and being told they're a liar is just the usual internet forum BS - a long established pattern that comes from the fact that not one of you have to look the OP in the eye when you accuse him of committing fraud. It's pretty tiresome and rude.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

gaspi101 said:


> Why not?? You probably get attorneys fees under the contract. Might be worth it, and likely all it would take is a strongly worded letter from a good lawyer.


It really becomes worth it if an attorney is willing to take the case on a contingency fee basis, or a partial contingency fee basis. It all depends on what the OP feels like doing. There would still be time and effort required by the OP in such a case though.

The killer here is the cost of the expert opinion versus the potential upside. If you have to shell out a couple hundred dollars for the initial opinion, and it isn't what you want to hear, then it really sucks. Sucks even worse if you take the case to trial and end up losing.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

nightfend said:


> This has always been the problem with "Lifetime" warranties on bike frames. All of the companies have the "out" of simply saying the frame was crashed or had an external impact that damaged the frame.
> 
> BTW - That NINER fork demonstration is a perfect example of the fact that carbon fiber can be made extremely tough. The problem is the weight increases substantially when you do this. And with bike companies pushing their bikes to the sub-900 gram realm, there's not much room for error.


Yep. The manufacturers sort of know that most people are not going to litigate over a $3,000 to $4,000 frame, especially when it requires expert testimony to determine what happened. So, they can offer a lifetime warranty and then deny each and every warranty claim that comes in the door, whether legit or not, by stating that the damage was impact related or that the frame was raced. I really do not understand the "racing" disclaimer. As long as the bike isn't involved in an impact, it should not matter whether it was raced.

I don't buy frames based upon the warranties given. Don't buy cars based upon them either.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

Mutombo said:


> I don't think I'd take it that far, the time and effort do not seem worth the potential reward. Worst case scenario here, I'm out the $300 to $500 it costs to repair the frame, and hopefully I can get another couple years out of the bike before I have to look for something else.


Just giving advice and letting you know what your options are. I don't think many people would take this to Court, but there are some people out there with enough money to litigate based on principle. I'm an attorney and I don't even litigate my personal matters based on principle unless they happen to be above a couple thousand dollars.

If it were me, I would probably throw the frame away, buy another (i.e., NOT Trek), and move on. I would want to be back on the bike immediately. Then again, I do have several spare bikes, so I could take my sweet old time with this. Ultimately, it would depend on what an expert opinion would cost me and how pissed I was at Trek.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

nedbraden said:


> It doesn't have to be "catastrophic" it only needs to be weakened. It's like a bone, you smack your shin on a table and it may not break in half, but it could be deeply bruised or even have a microscopic fracture. Neither of those things should cause too much trouble in normal life but if you run six miles a day or play volleyball or something else that will put a lot of stress on the bone it can break.
> 
> Not having kids means nothing, *I guarantee you have bumped your bike on a wall or door frame more then once and thought nothing of it. Heck, you probably don't remember doing it.*


I can guarantee you that you are wrong about that. I am pretty anal about taking care of my bikes and other things. That doesn't mean they have never been bumped on anything, but I know when they have. My C50 and Cristallo have NEVER been bumped on anything. In fact, the only Colnago that has, has been my Arte.

Just figured this thread needs a "Steel is real" quote. I wrecked on my steel frame so many times back in the 80's, had it bent back in alignment, and still have it. It has 40,000+ miles on it.


----------



## fabsroman (Jul 14, 2006)

bmwrt said:


> I hope they treat you right.
> I'm on my 4th Trek. Never had a problem.
> I like them enough to have just ordered a new Madone. Should be here any day. No ones perfect and given the sheer number of these bikes the failure percentage is probably no different than any other manufacturer. If it was they would not be selling bikes like they are.


Marketing can sometimes sell inferior products. Until there is somebody out there logging the exact failure rate of carbon frames, we will have no clue. On top of that, once the failure rate is determined, you have to determine if it is because of a manufacturing defect, design defect, or owner abuse. I'm willing to bet that statistics like this are few and far between. It isn't like going to Consumer Digest and looking at the next car you want to buy.


----------



## ultraman6970 (Aug 1, 2010)

After seeing the pictures that doesn't look like impact at all, that think simply gave up (trek and its passion for light stuff, well fatty;s with money like light treks, racers doesn't pick a trek unless is free), sad to hear your problem, but doesn't surprise me either that they are saying is impact, because it could have been an impact but i believe you.

I have used carbon bikes and so far never a stone ding will make the carbon to delaminate like yours did, hell no. Why? stone nicks are common and always happen.


Mutombo, send the frame to calfee and sell it at fleabay. They should do it so nice that probably nobody will notice about the problem ever. Then get something else and forget about [email protected] trek forever. Dont like specialized but i know their warranties are good. Or as somebody mentioned, for 600 bucks u can get a chinese frame that probably will last longer and if it dies after 3 years u can get another one, thats what self sponsored racers do, they get cheap carbon bikes after all if it breaks they get a new one.

The other thing you should have done is to ask here for advice 1st instead of going to a store right away, the reason is that probably somebody in this forum or any other forum has o know somebody that is a trek dealer, increasing your chances to get something back from trek. When i saw the pictures thought right away," this guy is f..ed! "

The problem with broken frames is a well known issue that have been going on since long time ago, trek haters after all were right. The problem is that people continue buying their [email protected] 

Good luck dude, call calfee, sell the frame get something and forget about trek and shimano  time for you to go with campagnolo


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

Truly outstanding post, Kontact, excellent job!



Kontact said:


> 1. The burden of proof should be on the manufacturer, not the consumer.


I fully agree. This should not even be a "should": If the manufacturer cannot prove to me that the failure is not his or his product's fault, they need to provide a replacement. Like I said before, if it turns out that this is not Trek's policy, then I would recommend everybody think very hard about ever doing business with this company.



Kontact said:


> 2. Materials that are used in the real world should be reasonably proof against minor abuse. Especially if we are talking about a vehicle or sporting equipment. From some of the comments on this thread, some of you consider carbon fiber bicycles to be more fragile than laptop computers, wristwatches, ceramic dinner plates or wood furniture. That is either not true, or if it is true is such a huge failing on the part of bike manufactures that they should warranty any failure caused by damage so minor that the customer is completely unaware of its occurance.


Right on, once again. In my experience, a well-designed carbon frame will take a very significant amount of abuse, perfectly comparable to frames made from any other material. This idea that a little rock thrown up by your or somebody else's wheel will critically damage a carbon frame is complete baloney. I have seen carbon frames (and, yes, even Trek's among them) being thrown around in every which way, ridden in cyclocross events, run through potholes that totaled the rear wheel, knocked over on a regular basis, etc., etc., and they are still fine after ten years of such treatment.


----------



## litespeedchick (Sep 9, 2003)

Have you talked to someone at Trek directly? I know they would RATHER you went through a bike shop, but it may be possible to handle it directly, especially since your original shop is gone.

I say this because my husband broke two Litespeeds, 1 road and 1 mountain, both Ti, in a very short time span. Litespeed has a pretty bad rep these days for warranty work. (btw, I have been litespeedchick since the Lynsky days) Husband talked to someone directly at LS. It was a huge PIA for many months, requiring constant calling and reminders, and b!tching and talking to supervisors. But in the end, he got 1 bike repaired and 1 replacement frame. Good luck.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

fabsroman said:


> The killer here is the cost of the expert opinion versus the potential upside.


I'm thinking Trek would have some expert witnesses of their own who could demolish any expert witness the average Joe could find.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

you're all missing the point. This failure mode is more consistent with an impact (the small stone scenario is irrelevant) than a manufacturing defect.Manufacturing defects manifest themselves in areas of high stress - around the bottom bracket, tube junctions. The middle of a tube is not such an area (one of the reasons they were double or triple butted in metal tube sets). When a tube is cracked like this the most common explanations are events like a collision, damage during transport, something fell on the bike while it was in a garage, etc. 

It's possible the bike was damaged (again forget the pebble theory) without the owner's awareness. Owner's testimony will never win against the more probable account of this failure - it's just not what you see when carbon typically fails (like other materials in terms of areas of failure).


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

To those of you questinioning the effects of impacts on Treks Carbon frames...this is directly from their warranty page (I've bolded a section for emphasis): 

http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/support/limited_warranty/

"Carbon fiber is a great material for producing premium bike frames and parts. *However if a carbon part or frame experiences an impact, more expertise is required to determine its integrity than is needed for a comparable metal part. If you impact your bike and the force of the impact is absorbed by a carbon part, we strongly encourage you to replace the part, even if there is no indication of damage*. We know how much you love your Trek bike and understand the burden of having to replace a non-warranty damaged bike frame or part. To help with that Trek offers our customers a Loyalty Program. This program can be used to obtain a discount on a replacement frame or component in the case of non-warranty damage. Contact your local dealer for details"

Len


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Len J said:


> To those of you questinioning the effects of impacts on Treks Carbon frames...this is directly from their warranty page (I've bolded a section for emphasis):
> 
> http://www.trekbikes.com/us/en/support/limited_warranty/
> 
> ...


Which tells us what, exactly? I can wap the frame with a fingernail - that's an impact. Is the frame now questionable?

For the quoted material to be of any value, it would need to define terms, like "impact". This is just lawyer talk, not a helpful treatise on the proper care and handling of composites. If we are to take this 100% seriously, Trek shouldn't even offer a warranty because it has no way of tracking or insuring the safe handling of their products against incidental impacts that show no indications of damage.

So either there is a threshold of damage, or the bike's have no warranty. Pick one.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Kontact said:


> Which tells us what, exactly? I can wap the frame with a fingernail - that's an impact. Is the frame now questionable?
> 
> For the quoted material to be of any value, it would need to define terms, like "impact". This is just lawyer talk, not a helpful treatise on the proper care and handling of composites. If we are to take this 100% seriously, Trek shouldn't even offer a warranty because it has no way of tracking or insuring the safe handling of their products against incidental impacts that show no indications of damage.
> 
> So either there is a threshold of damage, or the bike's have no warranty. Pick one.


even a team of lawyers working on a warranty have to assume some common sense on the part of the reader. There's nothing specific about Trek on this one - even aircraft with composite parts are scanned/imaged for damage that is not easily observable (though this is true of alloys too). Fact is, damage in the middle of a tube is almost certainly due to impact - collision, damage during transport, or even something heavy falling on the bike in storage.


----------



## sikabk (Jun 23, 2011)

Okay..I confess I skipped a couple of posts, but to the OP...would your home owners policy cover this? Also I think the last poster has a point, if it was impact it could have occurred any time from the point of manufacture. But then torque also would cause that kind of splitting in wood materials, possibly in carbon fiber, but that's just my observations.


----------



## adauphin (Jul 31, 2009)

Sorry to hear about your bike, alot of good info here and I hope for the best.

I wanted to throw out a "devils card" if I may and I want to state that I believe you were unaware of the failure before it happened and didn't deliberately cause harm to the frame in hopes for a newer model...not like you were riding a bottom-of-the-line frame.

Based on the pics of the outward bulges, the only thing I can think of is a possible inward flex to the chainstay, posibly splintering the carbon under the resin on the inside of the tube. Could have been bumped, knocked into, whatever but when you went riding, the tube is now severly weakened but when pushed outwards, the carbon tightens up in the wound but is still weak.

Any strong force pushing it outwards like under torque, could bow the tube outwards causing the outside to bulge....mainly from not having any support on the backside fromn the previous wound...thus making it look like an explsion from the inside on both sides.

That's just a hunch, I doubt a stone came up and weakened the tube. Of course, it's possibly just a manufacturing defect...who knows. Fact is...it's not intentional and I cannot clearly see how Trek could say "you are at fault". A chip or dent, then they have a leg to stand on, but not in this case.

Again, sorry to hear about the bike.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

stevesbike said:


> even a team of lawyers working on a warranty have to assume some common sense on the part of the reader. There's nothing specific about Trek on this one


Yes, this is not specific to Trek, but it is still contentless lawyerese, written by people who have no understanding of the physical world whatsoever, but a lot of understanding of how to work in a court of law. No further comment.



stevesbike said:


> Fact is, damage in the middle of a tube is almost certainly due to impact - collision, damage during transport, or even something heavy falling on the bike in storage.


See, I even agree with you that the probability of this kind of thing happening due to an impact is higher than it happening due to a manufacturing defect. However, what you need to understand is that these probabilities mean absolutely nothing when considering a concrete case. Now, of course, nobody, not even the OP knows for certain what happened to this frame. I remember asking my son one day after him rummaging around in the basement why my bike was not leaning against the wall the way I had put it, but he strenuously denied knocking it over... Even if there was impact damage, it may have been damaged during packing, shipping, in the store, in the owner's garage, etc. The first three would be Trek's/the shops responsibility, only the last one is the owner's fault. 

So, what is "poor" Trek supposed to do? In my opinion, if there is no obvious impact damage, they should just go ahead and warranty the frame, simply because it's a good way to do business. Like I have said before, and in response to those Einsteins worrying about Trek's bottom line "if everybody starts intentionally damaging their frames to get a newer model", these incidents are rare, and the cost to Trek of replacing the frame is minuscule compared to the gain in reputation. The profit from just one single additional sale of a medium-high-end bike will probably cover about a dozen of those frame replacements. So the smart thing is, yes, use some judgment, but if there is a good chance the customer's case has at least some merit, then just replace the bloody frame. My 2 cents.


----------



## shankldu (Apr 28, 2011)

*frame failure*

Hello my long time trusted lbs guy is telling me that he has seen many Kona frames fail so im worried i might have the same issue although none so far and my frame is steel so i would be more easily repaired.


----------



## rzims (Nov 15, 2005)

If it were me, and I didn't have a relationship with the bike shop, I think I'd be calling Trek directly and trying to get someone as an ally there.
I know if my Giant fails, my dealer will back me to the hilt. But through no fault of yours, you have no relationship with the dealer, and therefor there's no incentive to support you or fight for you.
Good luck with this, I hope it all works out for you. I think in the meantime, I'd be looking for a replacement frame to move the components over as this could take a while...


----------



## Camilo (Jun 23, 2007)

Fredrico said:


> ...Drive side chain stays shouldn't break in the manner above. That's unacceptable from a customer's point of view, and also from a designer's point of view. The chainstay should be able to handle the torsional flex of the drive train. This one obviously didn't.


You still haven't seen what it looks like from underneath. I have no idea what caused that break and I don't think you do either. Surely it's possible there was impact from underneath? We're just taking OP's word that nothing damaged the stay, but that doesn't make it true.

[edit] I want to add that I also believe two things: (1) carbon fiber isn't as fragile as urban legend and ignorance makes it out to be. It is a strong material, and properly designed and manufactured makes excellent and long lasting sports equipment. (2) a properly designed and non-defective CF bike frame should take significant normal impacts without being damaged or failing. Many impacts - bumps, simple tip-over falls that don't involve sharp corners or on the road crashes, impacts from objects on the road or trail - are part of normal, non-abusive riding and should be withstood. If impacts that are part of normal usage can't be withstood, the frame is by my definition, defective!

So, IF (I repeat, IF) an impact that ultimately resulted in the failure, IF it wasn't outside the range of normal usage of the bike, then even IF impact were involved, the frame should be warrantied. Impact itself doesn't put it out of warranty. It's the type of impact.

Lots of IFs, I draw no conclusion and have no opinion of this particular case and think that anyone who does is foolish.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Pirx said:


> Yes, this is not specific to Trek, but it is still contentless lawyerese, written by people who have no understanding of the physical world whatsoever, but a lot of understanding of how to work in a court of law. No further comment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree with this, almost. Unfortunately companies with no-questions asked return policies end up getting screwed by people who take advantage of it - damage a bike to get a new one, etc. Just ask realcyclist, who used to have a lifetime satisfaction return policy (no questions asked). They were flooded by customers 'returning' products after 3 years of heavy use and eventually had to change it to a 30 day policy.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

wipeout said:


> Hmm, me too. Glad I stumbled across this post, I was in the process of talking to Foothill Cyclery in SLO about a new Madone 6 to replace my aging Roubaix. Now I'm hesitating...


Cannondale is good about their warranty. I got my Six frame warrantied, but it did take an experienced guy at the LBS to get Cannondale to do it. The rep said, "Humm, I have never seen that before." :mad2:

I had a new CAAD10 frame (an upgrade IMHO) in less than a week.

This thread pushes me further away from Trek as possible bike purchase for family or bike recommendations to friends.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

CleavesF said:


> But they're made in Taiwan... they're probably gonna tell you should have bought a 6.9 SSL or whatnots.


Incorrect. The 5 series was made in good ole Waterloo, WI in 2009. Plus, I am not aware that the lifetime warranty is any different for the TCT (Taiwan) frames from the ones made in Waterloo.

If the original poster is the original owner, he should pursue the warranty. A friend had a crack in his bottom bracket shell and got speedy relief when he E-mailed John Burke direct at Trek. (not hard to figure out his e-mail address) Trek quickly found him a replacement frame in stock in San Diego and shipped it to Wisconsin.


----------



## ProdigalCyclist (May 3, 2011)

OK... I've read through the posts in this thread and wanted to offer my 1 or 2 cents.

First of all... to those who would suggest a CF frame can fail due to strikes from rocks, the heels of shoes, the bike falling down in the garage etc... that's just freaking ridiculous! If CF was that fragile there's no way a bike manufacturer could get liability insurance to cover the production of a bike made of such a material. And there is no way they could justify making Mountain and CycloCross bike out of CF either.

The new 787 and Airbus fuselage is made out of CF... if a bike can't take the strike from a stone at 22mph, how in the hell is an airplane going to withstand a bird strike at 200-300 mph?

And the there was the suggestion that the only way a chainstay will fail is at the BB or dropout... now THAT is just comical! The middle of the chainstay is the thinnest wall of the chainstay... therefore its the weakest part. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to do this simple test.... take a pencile... hold it on each end... now bend it.... where does it break? It certainly didn't break right next to your finger now did it? And BTW... if there was a FLAW in the tubing THAT is where it would break.... so.... if the flaw was in the middle..... duh.... 2+2=4

Ok... now to Trek's response. That was just purely bad form on their part to form ANY type of opinion based on some grainy cell phone pictures. The fact that they did form an opinion on that, tells me the opinion was formed well BEFORE they even saw the pictures. And the fact that they want to cut the frame, to me, PROVES that (in not so many words) they are admitting at least to THEMSELVES there could have been a problem. Because the ONLY reason they would want to cut that frame is to see if there was a void, bubble, or some sort of flaw INSIDE that tube that would cause it to fail like that.

Now finally... I saw some suggested litigation... and I realize that COULD be expensive. Especially for an expert opinion. BUT... this is something for people to keep in mind. What if you have a large University with a good Engineering Department close by? And what if you were to approach an Engineering Professor and ask for their help? Not saying an Engineering Professor would automatically be willing to help you free of charge, but it couldn't hurt to ask... maybe an Engineering Professor would help... and make it a case study for his class/department as well.

And finally... Trek is the one that offered the "Lifetime Warranty" it's their burden to PROVE why it's not covered. The consumer should not have to prove they DIDN'T do something wrong. The Manufacture has the burden to PROVE the consumer DID do something wrong. How is the consumer supposed to prove a negative?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

ProdigalCyclist said:


> OK... I've read through the posts in this thread and wanted to offer my 1 or 2 cents....
> 
> And the there was the suggestion that the only way a chainstay will fail is at the BB or dropout... now THAT is just comical! The middle of the chainstay is the thinnest wall of the chainstay... therefore its the weakest part. And it doesn't take an engineering degree to do this simple test.... take a pencile... hold it on each end... now bend it.... where does it break? It certainly didn't break right next to your finger now did it? And BTW... if there was a FLAW in the tubing THAT is where it would break.... so.... if the flaw was in the middle..... duh.... 2+2=4...


bad analogy - the forces you're describing on a "pencile" aren't ones applied to frames (forks are exceptions, but we're not talking about them). You need to ask yourself why the middle of a tube is the thinnest section!


----------



## ProdigalCyclist (May 3, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> bad analogy - the forces you're describing on a "pencile" aren't ones applied to frames (forks are exceptions, but we're not talking about them). You need to ask yourself why the middle of a tube is the thinnest section!


LMAO!!!

Of course it's a bad anology... because it's in DIRECT conflict of your hair brained idea of what is going on. I'm not saying this frame couldn't fail at the BB or Drop out.... WHAT I AM SAYING IS to suggest this part of the frame can ONLY fail at those locations is completely uninformed and... really.... kind of funny, actually.

How is it a bad analogy. there are stresses at both ends of the chain stay... just like there are stresses on both ends of the pencile I described. A pencile doesn't break at the end, and neither would a stick or anything else you plug in to the analogy... including a carbon fiber tube.

Chain stays do often fail at the BB or dropout. But more often than not it's because there is a weakness at that point, like a seam, lug, weld etc. 

And I know exactly why it's the thinnest part of the tube... but in this case it could have been TOO THIN or there could have been a flaw that was compounded by the fact that it was at the thinnest part of the tube.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

stevesbike said:


> I agree with this, almost. Unfortunately companies with no-questions asked return policies end up getting screwed by people who take advantage of it - damage a bike to get a new one, etc. Just ask realcyclist, who used to have a lifetime satisfaction return policy (no questions asked). They were flooded by customers 'returning' products after 3 years of heavy use and eventually had to change it to a 30 day policy.


Yeah, my use of the "no-questions-asked" in an earlier post was a bit unfortunate: What I meant was "no further questions asked after inspection of the frame, and finding potential merit in the customer's case". As you say, unfortunately, these days people will exploit overly generous warranty policies, so there have to be limits set. On the other hand, given that a frame replacement involves completely stripping and re-building the bike afterwards, there is already a high bar there that should stop at least the most frivolous claims.


----------



## icsloppl (Aug 25, 2009)

> Of course it's a bad anology... because it's in DIRECT conflict of your hair brained idea of what is going on. I'm not saying this frame couldn't fail at the BB or Drop out.... WHAT I AM SAYING IS to suggest this part of the frame can ONLY fail at those locations is completely uninformed and... really.... kind of funny, actually.


Steve's Bikes is correct. Torque is a function of force and distance form a pivot point. In your pencil example, there are two pivot points (your hands). With this bike, there is only one, the axle connection to the rear wheel.

IMO it's sad to see personal attacks on people who are trying to help others. It's doubly so when the attacker has no understanding of the subject.


----------



## JTrider (Jun 27, 2011)

Wow. I'm about to buy a carbon bike in like a week and a half. This is all very scary to me. One of my candidates is a Madone 4.5. Are there a lot of cracked trek stories out there? I was already leaning towards the CR1 anyway cause it's 1.5 lb lighter and has mavics over those SSR's but does anyone have Scott frame crack fail stories too?


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

In an ideal world, I agree with you that the burden of proof should be on the manufacturer..........but in an ideal world, consumers wouldn't try to scam manufacturers. 

Unfortunately, in the real world, there are abuses on both sides of a warranty claim. So we are stuck with what we have. People buy bikes knowing that in most cases the manufacturers have the say as to what is covered or not.......to wish for something different is not a real help to the op IMO.





Kontact said:


> I don't understand why you think this language is necessary or polite.
> 
> As far as your other claim - that all forum warranty complaints are baloney, I can think of several that weren't - the British gent with the Merlin and the string of Fuji seat stay failures. (I'll let you do a search.) Which suggests that you either have an axe to grind, or haven't really been around much.
> 
> ...


----------



## ProdigalCyclist (May 3, 2011)

icsloppl said:


> Steve's Bikes is correct. Torque is a function of force and distance form a pivot point. In your pencil example, there are two pivot points (your hands). *With this bike, there is only one, the axle connection to the rear wheel.*
> 
> IMO it's sad to see personal attacks on people who are trying to help others. It's doubly so when the attacker has no understanding of the subject.




LOL... First of all. Nothing was ment to be an attack... Just because something is comical, ludicrous, ridiculous, or funny.... doesn't mean it's a personaI attack. I was just simply pointing out that there are many ways to look at this and to make a definative conclusion on something that has a lot of unknown variables is not exactly the way to go. I wasn't the one that implied the only way for that failure to (likely) happen was from an impact.

And speaking of someone that has "no understanding of the subject"... you really want to go with the theory that there is "only on pivot point" on a chainstay? and it's at the axle connection to the rear wheel? 

Would you like to think about that theory for a second?

Because I would think there would be some lateral forces at play (on the other end of the chain stay) when force is applied to the pedals. And before you try and minimize those lateral forces... I'll remind you that just like the seat tube takes most of those forces.... the seat stays take away most of the forces you are reffering to as well.

So I guess I'm not the one that has "no understanding of the subject" now am I? I realize my anology was overly simplistic, but it serves the purpose of showing that a failure at one end is NOT the only way something can have a failure. I never set out to prove that a failure in the middle of a chainstay is more liely to happen... I simply set out to prove it is POSSIBLE.... (MUCH more possible than was previously implied)

We can all play amature engineer on this as long as we want, but it doesn't change the fact that

A) Trek has a "Lifetime Warranty"
B) It's Trek's responsiblity to PROVE why something isn't covered
C) A stone or a heel impact is NOT going to cause a frame failure under ACCEPTABLE circumstnces
D) Trek should not have made any determination as a result of some grainy cell phone pictures
E) It's impossible for a customer to prove something did not happen.... and a customer is not legally held to a standard that would cause them to have to prove such a thing.
F) After a search of "Trek Madone Chainstay Failure", that was conducted over the course of a few minutes, I have found that this is not an uncommon problem with Trek and this problem actually predates the "Madone" moniker... and Trek has a track record of saying this is "caused by an impact"

So in summary... Trek either needs to quit jumping to the conclusion that it's never their fault, and actually take the time to do the research on a case by case basis... or they need to cease with their FALSE ADVERTISING of a "Lifetime Warranty".


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

ProdigalCyclist said:


> LOL... First of all. Nothing was ment to be an attack... Just because something is comical, ludicrous, ridiculous, or funny.... doesn't mean it's a personaI attack. I was just simply pointing out that there are many ways to look at this and to make a definative conclusion on something that has a lot of unknown variables is not exactly the way to go. I wasn't the one that implied the only way for that failure to (likely) happen was from an impact.


you'll find that people fare better here without the unnecessary rhetoric. That said, it's clear you know little about the loads a frame experiences. If you did you'd see why your pencil (by the way that's the correct spelling) was a bad analogy. The better analogy would be to hold the pencil at one end and twist it at the other (hint, that's torsional load). You'll also be better off without mischaracterizing what people said. I didn't say a frame couldn't fail that way - I said it is atypical for a frame to fail that way. Trek has to do off of patterns of failures and you've provided no evidence that this is a regular pattern.


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

I just want to know where Mutombo is, the guy that started this mess. Hasn't he made it over to the LBS yet, or was he just pulling our strings?


----------



## ProdigalCyclist (May 3, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> you'll find that people fare better here without the unnecessary rhetoric. That said, it's clear you know little about the loads a frame experiences. If you did you'd see why your pencil (by the way that's the correct spelling) was a bad analogy. The better analogy would be to hold the pencil at one end and twist it at the other (hint, that's torsional load). You'll also be better off without mischaracterizing what people said. I didn't say a frame couldn't fail that way - I said it is atypical for a frame to fail that way. Trek has to do off of patterns of failures and you've provided no evidence that this is a regular pattern.



LOL... typical...

Message board 101
Rule #1.... when one precieves they are losing an arguement they should begin to use diversionary tactics like pointing at typos, faults in grammar, and anything else they can, in hopes of trying to gain some kind of self precieved atvantage.

Well played.

And back to the subject. Like I said... the pencil (better?) analogy was not ment to prove anything. And, AGAIN, it's overly simplistic. It was an analogy that everyone can relate to that demonstrates the fact that a failure in the middle of a structural member is POSSIBLE and NOT far out of the relm of possiblity. But to offer that it's much more likely for this frame to fail in another area completely BYPASSES the fact that there could be a flaw in the frame and for a frame to crack like this and be covered under warranty a FLAW is exactly what is/should be being looked for. 

Your theory is simply doing exactly what Trek is doing and completely sidestepping the question of a FLAW and ASSuming it's just simply something the OP did to the bike.

Let me spell it out slowly for you.... I'm trying to say that if there was a flaw in the carbon, I don't care where it was or what stress it was under, the FLAW increases the likelihood of a failure at the point that the FLAW exists. Capiche?

As for impact... as a cause... a small impact to the frame (stone, heel etc) causing something like this is just ignorant. (not saying this is what you personally are implying) But even a LARGE impact to the bike like a crash etc, would manifest it's self in other components of the bike... I.E. if there was a side impact to the rear of the bike by a car etc. the RD would be damaged, the wheel would be damaged etc.... it is very rare that a chainstay would be the sole area of impact as it is "protected" by many other things that would have been impacted as well.

The ONLY "impact" I could see that would cause something like this, is for the chainstay to have been struck (with some pretty good force) with something such as a ball peen hammer.... otherwise a FLAW in this frame would be a much more likely cause of a failure like this.

And at the end of the day the burden of proof is actually on Trek... because THEY are the ones that put themselves on the hook by offering a "Lifetime Warranty"... So not only is a flaw the most likely culprit. It's Treks responsiblity (technically) to prove that this failure happened as a result of something other than a flaw that isn't covered under their warranty.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Well argued, Prodigal!*



ProdigalCyclist said:


> LOL... typical...
> 
> Message board 101
> Rule #1.... when one precieves they are losing an arguement they should begin to use diversionary tactics like pointing at typos, faults in grammar, and anything else they can, in hopes of trying to gain some kind of self precieved atvantage.
> ...


The thinnest, least re-enforced section of a CF tube is in the middle, where it's shaved off thin. The normal twisting and bouncing up and down from the side to side play of pedaling and rolling along the bumps, would definitely cause a weak tube to break precisely where you suggest, in the middle. We see with our own eyes that has happened! Trek has the burden of proof that this is not the case.

Junk.


----------



## bmwrt (Aug 19, 2006)

My new Madone just arrived and will be put together this weekend. Get fit and pick it up on tuesday. Yea


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

icsloppl said:


> Torque is a function of force and distance form a pivot point.


Uhmm, people, this is the engineer talking now: I have no clue why people keep blabbering about "torque" here, when torque has absolutely, positively no role in this failure scenario. 

Generally speaking, _all _of the stays (chain and seat stays) of a standard road bicycle frame (=double triangle) are under an almost perfect compressive or tensile load parallel to the stay. Yes, under the dynamics of riding, in particular high-effort out-of-the-saddle sprints, there can be bending loads, but those are typically quite small. 

With no forces on the pedals, the loads are compressive on the seat stays, and pure tension on the chain stays. When a high force is applied to the pedal, then the tension in the chain acts to compress the chain stay (drive-side only, hence some of the newer asymmetric designs, such as with Pinarello's Dogma). The fracture we see in the OP's pictures shows a typical compression fracture of the carbon. Incidentally, the carbon is indeed weakest with respect to compression, but of course, a properly designed chain stay would have no problems withstanding the loads that occur.


----------



## sikabk (Jun 23, 2011)

icsloppl said:


> Steve's Bikes is correct. Torque is a function of force and distance form a pivot point. In your pencil example, there are two pivot points (your hands). With this bike, there is only one, the axle connection to the rear wheel.
> 
> IMO it's sad to see personal attacks on people who are trying to help others. It's doubly so when the attacker has no understanding of the subject.


Okay, who's a structural engineer in this bunch, but to me the frame of a bike is similar to a truss and you do have two points the front axil and the rear. A bike is like a moving truss bridge. Depending on the load and forces you can have excessive torque on a member, it does not always have to be an impact. A beam if I recall correctly will shear at the point of greatest moment, but I could be wrong I'll let a structural engineer explain this one! A beam can taper to the ends and be massive in the center. I believe the cross sectional area of the center of the tube would be critical in this calculation...,but I not a structural engineer...I hire them as needed. :thumbsup:


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

Len J said:


> In an ideal world, I agree with you that the burden of proof should be on the manufacturer..........but in an ideal world, consumers wouldn't try to scam manufacturers.
> 
> Unfortunately, in the real world, there are abuses on both sides of a warranty claim. So we are stuck with what we have. People buy bikes knowing that in most cases the manufacturers have the say as to what is covered or not.......to wish for something different is not a real help to the op IMO.


I'm not "wishing" for anything on Trek's part. I am advocating for the consumer, and trying to get across the idea that all of us are bike consumers and should be supporting the OP's efforts in getting Trek to at least act like they take their own warranty policy seriously.

Stupid, right? Or is it:
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=232793&highlight=merlin

Forums have at least a little leverage. Everyone who is reading this thread should be thinking about how they expect a spontaneous, dangerous and unexplained failure of their bicycle to be handled.

The armchair composite experts that "know" that carbon can't fail that way on its own are just hurting all of us by calling a fellow bike buyer a liar. While they may not be earning our trust, the Trek warranty department knows a hell of a lot more about what sort of impacts can destroy tube integrity. But they aren't bothering to look at the bike.


----------



## sikabk (Jun 23, 2011)

Fredrico said:


> The thinnest, least re-enforced section of a CF tube is in the middle, where it's shaved off thin. The normal twisting and bouncing up and down from the side to side play of pedaling and rolling along the bumps, would definitely cause a weak tube to break precisely where you suggest, in the middle. We see with our own eyes that has happened! Trek has the burden of proof that this is not the case.
> 
> Junk.


It doesn't matter how thin it is if the cross sectional area is great enough to resist the forces at the center....now one of you structural engineers please step forward!


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

sikabk said:


> It doesn't matter how thin it is if the cross sectional area is great enough to resist the forces at the center....now one of you structural engineers please step forward!


It matters how thin something is. Even if it is theoretically strong enough, there is such a thing as "too thin", where the material can't deal with unusual loads or hasn't enough material to make up for minor voids or flaws.


Everyone likes to make airplane analogies, but really, no one uses carbon fiber the way bicycle makers do. The wall thicknesses are much thinner than used in most other applications. And not everything scales perfectly.


----------



## ProdigalCyclist (May 3, 2011)

OK... so let me try this again....

I don't claim to be a structural engineer (or any other kind of engineer for that matter) But let's boil this down to brass tacks.

All Amature Engineers please put your protractors, pencils, and pocket protectors away and listen up for a second here. (I'll make sure to not use any analogies that can be nit picked, feel free to point out any spelling mistakes, grammar errors or anything else that doesn't pertain to the actual subject matter of the thread if you feel so inclined)

Here are the facts. A bicycle is designed to with stand certain forces durning normal operation... now I don't give a crap what kind of force it is whether it's torsional force, compression force, lateral force, bi-lateral force of the damn dark side of the force. A frame is supposed to stay in one piece as long as it is submitted to forces that are within the design specification. But a bike that has a flaw inherantly DOES NOT meet those specifications... because IT HAS A FLAW.

And MOST (if not all) bikes are overdesigned to meet the manufactures (minimum) desired specs due to liability concerns.

So let me pause to review the above and put it in simple English... the damn bike is designed so it wont freaking break when it is BUILT properly and then USED properly 

Ok... now we got that settled on to the next point... The bike that the OP showed us pictures of, FAILED in an area that is not unheard of. This is not the first bike that has failed in the middle of a chainstay... nor will it be the last. It is COMPLETELY within the relm of Probability that the chain stay failed as a result of a FLAW in the material. And a determination that disputes that, CAN NOT be made by some grainy cell phone pictures... nor can a determination be made that it did fail due to a flaw by same said pictures. And it also can't be disputed by some pimple faced bike salesman at the local shop for that matter.

Trek should NOT have made any type of determination as a result of those pictures and the fact that they DID speaks volumes to thier motives in this scenario. If what the OP describes is true, Trek has/had no intention of honoring thier warranty and they are using a cop out that the failure is due to the OPs negligence (to sum it up) without having any evidence or making any type of study to the frame.... now I want to point out another tid bit here that may be being overlooked. If Trek wants to automatically jump to the conclusion that it's not their fault... and they have done this many times with many people with this EXACT SAME failure (I have found this via a search of the web pertaining to this type of situation)... I say this really sheds a terrible light on their QA department... because if they would rather cover it up, than actually try and fix a possible problem then.... well..... they pretty much suck.

You can give me what ever type of formula or calculation you want but... you CAN NOT tell me that this bike could not have failed in this area... because like we covered above.... the bike is designed not to fail. And the overall design of a modern bike is a time tested design with the lay out and geometry.... but that DOES NOT TAKE IN TO CONSIDERATION A FLAW IN THE MATERIAL. (I.E. bubble, void, thin tube, improper mixture of resin, light application of resin during the lay up etc etc etc etc etc)

Now impact could cause a failure similar to this, and I am aware of that. But a slight impact would NOT cause this, and to suggest so is (like I've said before) ignorant. And a major impact would show evidence on other areas of the bike... I can say with certainty that there is NO ONE here or anywhere else that can say they have seen a bike involved in a major impact that effected the drive side chainstay and NOTHING else on the bike... that simply NEVER..... EVER..... EVER.... happens. I can go out side and pick my bike up over my head and throw it directly at the ground on the drive side and I can guarantee there will be far more damage to a LOT of other things than the chainstay. Or even if something got caught up in the spokes (like Trek suggested to another customer with this EXACT SAME problem) there would be bent and broken spokes before a catastrophic failure of the chain stay.

OK... so... to finish...... if the OP is telling the whole story... and there is no damage to anything other than the chainstay on his bike... I'm sorry but the evidence DOES NOT support an impact to the bike... it DOES support a failure of materials. And this is just common sense... It doesn't take an Engineering degree to figure out. Obviously a study of the frame should be done... but realistically, judging from Trek's preconceptions based on ZERO actual evidence... I don't hold out much hope they will change thier tune.


----------



## Jarryd (Jun 14, 2011)

Purchase an FM028 from China running more or less the same geometry at your madone. 
If it fails you will find the replacement cost for a new frame to be less than the repair on your current frame.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

ProdigalC, you're not adding anything beyond the obvious point that you can't determine with near certainty the cause of a failure from a picture. We all know that. What we also know - and clearly Trek knows this better than you since they are one of the largest producers of bikes - is that this failure is more likely the result of an impact than a manufacturing defect. Your're just wrong that an impact would show damage in other places. There are a ton of ways to get impact damage like this without damaging any other parts. The stay hits the rail of a roof rack, it hits the axle of a wheel propped up against a car when being taken down, the owner's kid drops something on it in the garage, etc. For that matter, hang out at races long enough and you'll see all sorts of bizarre breakages where one tube is destroyed and the rest of the bike is pristine. 

The fact that you can find other Trek failures isn't surprising - it's not the number of failures, it's the failure rate (since Trek is a big company if the rate is the same as a smaller company there will be more Trek failures).


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

sikabk said:


> Depending on the load and forces you can have excessive torque on a member, it does not always have to be an impact.


And there I was, just having finished telling people to stop blabbing about torque... There is no torque in the ideal truss framework, and next to none in the real ones.



sikabk said:


> A beam if I recall correctly will shear at the point of greatest moment,


Your recollection, if there is one, is both incomplete and wrong. Failure due to moment loads is _not_ through shearing. There are other modes of failure than shear. This particular case has nothing to do with shear or bending.



sikabk said:


> but I could be wrong I'll let a structural engineer explain this one!


Then why post your random fantasies at all?



sikabk said:


> A beam can taper to the ends and be massive in the center. I believe the cross sectional area of the center of the tube would be critical in this calculation...,but I not a structural engineer


Quite obviously, if I may say so.



sikabk said:


> I hire them as needed. :thumbsup:


What if you don't know that you need one?


----------



## sikabk (Jun 23, 2011)

Kontact said:


> It matters how thin something is. Even if it is theoretically strong enough, there is such a thing as "too thin", where the material can't deal with unusual loads or hasn't enough material to make up for minor voids or flaws.
> 
> 
> Everyone likes to make airplane analogies, but really, no one uses carbon fiber the way bicycle makers do. The wall thicknesses are much thinner than used in most other applications. And not everything scales perfectly.


I'm not going to debate this anymore after this, but a wall thickness can be made thinner if the size of the tube is increased....meaning it has greater cross sectional area. This frame was engineered, and the calculations for that frame has been modeled on a computer...I can guarantee that. If there was shear failure, it can be checked calculated and tested both on a computer and by physical model....break some frames on a test bed. 

I'm also not saying the OP has done anything wrong, I have no reason to disbelieve his side, it's plausible. But, if there was an impact it does not follow that he knew about it nor that it occurred after he bought it...we as a group will never know that.

I wish the OP the best and so should everyone!


----------



## sikabk (Jun 23, 2011)

Pirx said:


> Uhmm, people, this is the engineer talking now: I have no clue why people keep blabbering about "torque" here, when torque has absolutely, positively no role in this failure scenario.
> 
> Generally speaking, _all _of the stays (chain and seat stays) of a standard road bicycle frame (=double triangle) are under an almost perfect compressive or tensile load parallel to the stay. Yes, under the dynamics of riding, in particular high-effort out-of-the-saddle sprints, there can be bending loads, but those are typically quite small.
> 
> With no forces on the pedals, the loads are compressive on the seat stays, and pure tension on the chain stays. When a high force is applied to the pedal, then the tension in the chain acts to compress the chain stay (drive-side only, hence some of the newer asymmetric designs, such as with Pinarello's Dogma). The fracture we see in the OP's pictures shows a typical compression fracture of the carbon. Incidentally, the carbon is indeed weakest with respect to compression, but of course, a properly designed chain stay would have no problems withstanding the loads that occur.


My apologies, must have missed your post...the time sequence doesn't seem to work. Your first statement does make an assumption that the frame is in balance, which it should be, but since this one failed for what ever reason it was not. Since, you are now officially the engineer, could it be stress...material fatigue. If a frame wasn't balanced could other forces be in play? Could a weakened frame have excessive bending? This is your moment to shine so educate us....I love having engineers educate...so do it! And I wouldn't expect torque in a stable triangle either...


----------



## sikabk (Jun 23, 2011)

Pirx said:


> And there I was, just having finished telling people to stop blabbing about torque... There is no torque in the ideal truss framework, and next to none in the real ones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Since your the engineer, tell me under which conditions torque can exist? Can it occur in an unbalanced system? 

Your obviously very helpful so please continue!


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

sikabk said:


> I'm not going to debate this anymore after this, but a wall thickness can be made thinner if the size of the tube is increased....meaning it has greater cross sectional area. This frame was engineered, and the calculations for that frame has been modeled on a computer...I can guarantee that. If there was shear failure, it can be checked calculated and tested both on a computer and by physical model....break some frames on a test bed.
> 
> I'm also not saying the OP has done anything wrong, I have no reason to disbelieve his side, it's plausible. But, if there was an impact it does not follow that he knew about it nor that it occurred after he bought it...we as a group will never know that.
> 
> I wish the OP the best and so should everyone!


You're still talking about the structural model, not the "beer can problem" of wall thicknesses that are too delicate. You could make a stiff tube that is as thin as tissue paper - and it would act like tissue paper, too.

I agree that the bike was designed with a computer model. Who wrote that model? Carbon bike frames are still being developed - the models included. There isn't some universal composite modeler that only spits out correct answers.


----------



## ProdigalCyclist (May 3, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> ProdigalC, you're not adding anything beyond the obvious point that you can't determine with near certainty the cause of a failure from a picture. We all know that. What we also know - and clearly Trek knows this better than you since they are one of the largest producers of bikes - is that this failure is more likely the result of an impact than a manufacturing defect. Your're just wrong that an impact would show damage in other places. There are a ton of ways to get impact damage like this without damaging any other parts. The stay hits the rail of a roof rack, it hits the axle of a wheel propped up against a car when being taken down, the owner's kid drops something on it in the garage, etc. For that matter, hang out at races long enough and you'll see all sorts of bizarre breakages where one tube is destroyed and the rest of the bike is pristine.
> 
> The fact that you can find other Trek failures isn't surprising - it's not the number of failures, it's the failure rate (since Trek is a big company if the rate is the same as a smaller company there will be more Trek failures).




AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH :mad2:

As if you are adding anything by jumping to ASSumtions that this was most likely caused by a phantom impact that can not be proven?

I never said I could say anything with certainty about this... In fact in my last post I was pretty specific that a determination can't be made according to "grainy cell phone pics". But I'm the guy discussing this in a Forum... Trek is the one that has a LEGAL OBLIGATION in this matter and they obviously made their minds up... but it's funny how when they made their minds up it just HAPPENED to be a decision that was beneficial to them.

Again... I'm not saying anything with certainty but what I am saying is if there is nothing else damaged on the bike the evidence WOULD NOT appear to coincide with Trek's version of this story that they fabricated prior to having any facts in hand I.E. something more than a "grainy cell phone picture"

ALL of the scenarios that you described that could cause this type of failure fall in to the It was hit by a rock or scuffed by a shoe theory... it just simply does NOT hold up. A simple hit on a roof rack, or knock with a hub, of a child dropping something on it WILL NOT cause a catastrophic failure of a frame member... and to suggest it would is... frankly.... stupid. 

Let me get this straight... (I assume you ride a CF Frame) and if you do... Are you telling me that you are stupid enough to go spend $1000-$2000 on a frame and ride it downhill at 45-50 mph even though you think it's fragile enough that if a child drops something on it the frame will have a catastrophic failure?

Now do me a favor and read that last part again and ask yourself it that makes ANY sense.

Carbon Fiber is obviously A LOT stronger then you think it is... a simple bump is NOT going to cause it to fail.... A child would have to "drop" a ball peen hammer VERY hard to cause something like this to happen.

And BTW... I've hung out at my fair share of races... I've hung around enough races to be a Catagory 2 racer and a former resident of the Olympic Training Center.... thank you very much :wink: Oh and I probably was working in a bike shop when you were in a bouncy seat.


----------



## sikabk (Jun 23, 2011)

Kontact said:


> You're still talking about the structural model, not the "beer can problem" of wall thicknesses that are too delicate. You could make a stiff tube that is as thin as tissue paper - and it would act like tissue paper, too.
> 
> I agree that the bike was designed with a computer model. Who wrote that model? Carbon bike frames are still being developed - the models included. There isn't some universal composite modeler that only spits out correct answers.


I see your point, production and design don't always stay on the same page..


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

ProdigalCyclist said:


> AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH :mad2:
> 
> As if you are adding anything by jumping to ASSumtions that this was most likely caused by a phantom impact that can not be proven?
> 
> ...


how about sticking to topic; the scenario I described is a common one. The initial event doesn't cause the catastrophic failure. It compromises the section (the same ones that also ding alloy frames). The rider then goes out and the tube fails during riding. Because the initial event wasn't noticed, the rider attributes the failure to the later time. This is a standard, classic scenario - and why Trek was able to deny a warranty and recommend their loyalty (essentially a crash replacement program).

Funny about the bouncy seat. I see you started racing in 1992. I think that was the same year my team won the team GC at Redlands with Chris Horner our team leader.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> how about sticking to topic; the scenario I described is a common one. The initial event doesn't cause the catastrophic failure. It compromises the section (the same ones that also ding alloy frames). The rider then goes out and the tube fails during riding. Because the initial event wasn't noticed, the rider attributes the failure to the later time. This is a standard, classic scenario - and why Trek was able to deny a warranty and recommend their loyalty (essentially a crash replacement program).
> 
> Funny about the bouncy seat. I see you started racing in 1992. I think that was the same year my team won the team GC at Redlands with Chris Horner our team leader.


In this particular case, there was no initial event. Any ding to the chainstay is a presumption on the part of Trek - there is no evidence of it.

Imagine going to jail because you are the most likely person to have committed a crime, rather than there being actual evidence. Would you be happy with a justice system like that? It would probably be right most of the time...


Oh, and I first raced in the late '80s, so it seems like everyone here has plenty of bike riding experience, just no composite engineering or testing experience.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

*Catastrophic failure*



cdalemike said:


> This is one reason I don't ride a carbon frame. Things like this do not concern me much with titanium (I like old school materials). In any case, I hope Trek takes care of you. I agree, does not look like an impact or strike. Frame failure in my opinion...


I have a LOOK carbon frame. I really like it, but don't expect it to last as long as me steel bikes. Carbon is very fragile when it comes to crashes and impact. Look at this poor racers bike.


----------



## sikabk (Jun 23, 2011)

Here's something for us amatuers:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/fea.htm

and:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/framedesign.html


Enjoy!


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

stevesbike said:


> Funny about the bouncy seat. I see you started racing in 1992. I think that was the same year my team won the team GC at Redlands with Chris Horner our team leader.


----------



## ProdigalCyclist (May 3, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> how about sticking to topic; the scenario I described is a common one. The initial event doesn't cause the catastrophic failure. It compromises the section (the same ones that also ding alloy frames). The rider then goes out and the tube fails during riding. Because the initial event wasn't noticed, the rider attributes the failure to the later time. This is a standard, classic scenario - and why Trek was able to deny a warranty and recommend their loyalty (essentially a crash replacement program).
> 
> Funny about the bouncy seat. I see you started racing in 1992. I think that was the same year my team won the team GC at Redlands with Chris Horner our team leader.




And an "initial event" that would "later cause a failure" would not be a simple "ding" or a hit on a roof rack, or a child dropping a hot wheel on it... or a rock thrown up from the road... or a heel scuff.

THAT is the point that seems to be flying over your head. And if Trek is trying to say that something simple like that is the cause, then they are just simply using it as a way to get out of their "Lifetime Warranty"

And if something as simple as that can later cause a catastrophic failure... people would be stupid to spend the kind of money they do on CF bikes and even more stupid to trust their life in them when rolling downhill at over 50 mph.

AND ANOTHER THING... if something as simple as a "ding" can later cause something like this to happen who's to say that "ding" didn't occur in shipping from Trek to the shop? Or who's to say that "ding" didn't happen at TREK'S FACTORY before the bike ever even shipped out? 

And good for you about racing with Chris Horner... that's cool.... I could give a crap where you've raced or who you raced with. You implied I haven't raced or haven't been around enough races to know what I'm talking about... I simply gave you a bit of background that would show otherwise... you didn't have to turn it in to some pissing match.... OH, well I guess you had already done that when YOU brought it up.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Pirx said:


> Uhmm, people, this is the engineer talking now: I have no clue why people keep blabbering about "torque" here, when torque has absolutely, positively no role in this failure scenario.
> 
> Generally speaking, _all _of the stays (chain and seat stays) of a standard road bicycle frame (=double triangle) are under an almost perfect compressive or tensile load parallel to the stay. Yes, under the dynamics of riding, in particular high-effort out-of-the-saddle sprints, there can be bending loads, but those are typically quite small.
> 
> With no forces on the pedals, the loads are compressive on the seat stays, and pure tension on the chain stays. When a high force is applied to the pedal, then the tension in the chain acts to compress the chain stay (drive-side only, hence some of the newer asymmetric designs, such as with Pinarello's Dogma). The fracture we see in the OP's pictures shows a typical compression fracture of the carbon. Incidentally, the carbon is indeed weakest with respect to compression, but of course, a properly designed chain stay would have no problems withstanding the loads that occur.


To me, as a non-engineer, bike fixer guy, it looks like there was a weak spot at that point, perhaps a void, that allowed the stay to compress and rupture at that point. Which I'm pretty sure is what you said.

Since the carbon fibers are bulging out, it seems pretty obvious to me that the failure came from inside rather than outside.

Does Trek screw good customers?


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

PlatyPius said:


> To me, as a non-engineer, bike fixer guy, it looks like there was a weak spot at that point, perhaps a void, that allowed the stay to compress and rupture at that point. Which I'm pretty sure is what you said.


Yep, that's my guess.



PlatyPius said:


> Does Trek screw good customers?


Maybe we'll find out. Personally, I don't care too much about Trek one way or the other (well, I think their stores suck dead bunnies through a straw, but that's a different topic). I think pretty much all of the well-known manufacturers make good bikes, with Trek maybe just a little more adept at marketing (and scoring their contract(s) with Armstrong, back in the day). **** happens, and it can happen with any manufacturer. But when it happens, the really important question is, how does that company deal with their customers? This particular example doesn't look too good for Trek, at this point, but I have seen cases where they seemed to have been a lot more cooperative. YMMV.


----------



## ProdigalCyclist (May 3, 2011)

qatarbhoy said:


>




LOL... you think that was an "Ice Burn"???

I guess it would have been... but then you have to consider the fact that Chris Horner wasn't a Pro until 1995... and he never did anything of note at the Redlands Classic until 2000 when he won it (8 years AFTER 1992) He did compete in the RC as early as 1991 but he certainly wasn't a "Team Leader"

And if memory serves... the overall TEAM winners of that race around that time frame was 1990-The Russian National Team (Horner didn't race for them) then it was 1991-Redlands Trek-Cytomax (And Randy Whicker raced for them AND won the race... AND Horner never raced for them) the next year the Team overall winner was 1992-Saturn (but Scott Fortner rode, and won the Overall GC for them, so obviously the team leader wasn't Horner.... oh... and then there is the fact that Horner didn't even race for Saturn until 2003)

And if I'm not mistaken... 1992 was only Chris Horner's second year actually racing a bike. (at least his Bio on the Radio Shack home page agrees with me on this) So I HIGHLY doubt he was the "team leader" of ANY team heading in to the 1992 Redlands Classic.

So I guess YA... it would have been a bit of a burn... if my man Steve could get some of his facts straight... because if he was there.... like he says he was.... he would have known all this already..... but since he didn't know this already, I'll have to really question the truthfulness of his response.... I wasn't going to say anything but.... well our man from the sand kinda called me out.

Oh... and BTW.... hey Steve.... would you like any more holes in that story of yours?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

ProdigalCyclist said:


> LOL... you think that was an "Ice Burn"???
> 
> I guess it would have been... but then you have to consider the fact that Chris Horner wasn't a Pro until 1995... and he never did anything of note at the Redlands Classic until 2000 when he won it (8 years AFTER 1992) He did compete in the RC as early as 1991 but he certainly wasn't a "Team Leader"
> 
> ...


You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said team GC, not overall leader. I did get it wrong - we were 3rd that year in team GC at Redlands. You need to ride more and chill out...


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

ProdigalCyclist said:


> LOL... you think that was an "Ice Burn"???
> 
> I guess it would have been... but then you have to consider the fact that Chris Horner wasn't a Pro until 1995... and he never did anything of note at the Redlands Classic until 2000 when he won it (8 years AFTER 1992) He did compete in the RC as early as 1991 but he certainly wasn't a "Team Leader"
> 
> ...


You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said team GC, not overall leader. I did get it wrong - we were 3rd that year in team GC at Redlands.


----------



## ProdigalCyclist (May 3, 2011)

stevesbike said:


> You need to work on your reading comprehension. I said team GC, not overall leader. I did get it wrong - we were 3rd that year in team GC at Redlands. You need to ride more and chill out...


Uh... well there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension... If you'll read back I listed off the teams that won overall GC from 1990 to 1992... as well as some of the riders who won.

And you just happened to forget that your team came in 3rd in GC insted of winning the overall GC... ya riiiiight.

And whether your team was 1st, 3rd, 5th, or 10th... it doesn't matter... because you DID NOT race on a team with Chris Horner in 1992 because Chris Horner was pretty much an unattached rider until after the 95 season. He raced as an INDEPENDANT PRO in 1995.

I guess you did need more holes in your story after all.

And that was cute... you tried to imply that I didn't race earlier... and that didn't work... so now you're going to imply I don't ride enough?

You're the one calling me out, and I'm the one that needs to chill? I'm sorry you have been wrong about pretty much everything in this thread but you don't need to take it out on me for pointing it out. Just get your facts straight before you post and you wont be embarassed..... and BTW.... I'm plenty "chill" and am preparing to head out the door for a nice 30 miles (now that it has cooled down a little bit):thumbsup:


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

ProdigalCyclist said:


> Uh... well there's nothing wrong with my reading comprehension... If you'll read back I listed off the teams that won overall GC from 1990 to 1992... as well as the some of the riders who won.
> 
> And you just happened to forget that your team came in 3rd in GC insted of winning the overall GC... ya riiiiight.
> 
> ...


I don't want to hijack this thread, so here's my last post - you don't really deserve it but anyways:

http://www.redlandsclassic.com/recent-newsupdates/interview-chris-horner/

Chris wasn't an unattached rider during his amateur years - since you're so plugged in thought you'd have known that...


----------



## fermatd (Jul 2, 2011)

The CF damage I've ever seen was caused by a crash and it looked totally different that that. The damage wasn't localized and it was not a clean as that break seems.


----------



## bds3 (Aug 10, 2009)

Did you ride the bike on a trainer? I'm not saying that caused any damage, and I don't know if riding a bike on a trainer can even _actually_ damage the chain stays, but with some manufacturers' warnings about not riding carbon frames on trainers, I was just curious.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*I've heard that.*



bds3 said:


> Did you ride the bike on a trainer? I'm not saying that caused any damage, and I don't know if riding a bike on a trainer can even _actually_ damage the chain stays, but with some manufacturers' warnings about not riding carbon frames on trainers, I was just curious.


Some manufacturers don't want you to ride their bikes in trainers. The rear axle is held steady by the stand, while the rider's pedaling forces are shaking the bike laterally. The chain stays are being twisted up and down much worse than if the rear wheel were "floating" on pavement, following the lateral forces without resistance.

If the chain stays are reinforced at the BB shell and dropouts, their weakest point would be right in the middle. That's where this one broke. :frown2: Junk.


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

Fredrico said:


> *Some manufacturers don't want you to ride their bikes in trainers. The rear axle is held steady by the stand, while the rider's pedaling forces are shaking the bike laterally. The chain stays are being twisted up and down much worse than if the rear wheel were "floating" on pavement, following the lateral forces without resistance.*
> 
> If the chain stays are reinforced at the BB shell and dropouts, their weakest point would be right in the middle. That's where this one broke. :frown2: Junk.


The only trainer I would ever put a carbon bike on is the Kinetic Rock-n-Roll; for this reason.


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

PlatyPius said:


> The only trainer I would ever put a carbon bike on is the Kinetic Rock-n-Roll; for this reason.


Do you really thing there are more forces applied to your frame on a trainer compared to the pounding your frame takes blasting 40 MPH down a bumpy road? I sure would love to see any studies you can point me to that show this is a fact...


----------



## macscac (Jun 29, 2011)

Whatever happened to the warranty claim?


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

wipeout said:


> Do you really thing there are more forces applied to your frame on a trainer compared to the pounding your frame takes blasting 40 MPH down a bumpy road? I sure would love to see any studies you can point me to that show this is a fact...


It's not a question of the amount of forces, but how the forces are applied. Bikes are specifically engineered for bumpy roads, they are not build with trainers in mind.

I'm not saying that trainers are necessarily bad, but it is a bicycle, not a static trainer, towel rack or step stool. Bikes are very strong in the ways they need to be strong - but I can still destroy a bicycle frame with my bare hands.


----------



## rbart4506 (Aug 4, 2004)

I was told by my LBS, a Specialized dealer, that Specialized was beginning to decline warranty on frames that broke in this manner. There reasoning is that it points to the bike being in a trainer and that is specifically not covered in their warranty for carbon frames.

Personally I have a 2008 Tarmac Expert that has spent the last 2 winters on a trainer and as of yet there has been no issues...Who knows what the future holds...


----------



## gaspi101 (May 12, 2011)

rbart4506 said:


> I was told by my LBS, a Specialized dealer, that Specialized was beginning to decline warranty on frames that broke in this manner. There reasoning is that it points to the bike being in a trainer and that is specifically not covered in their warranty for carbon frames.
> 
> Personally I have a 2008 Tarmac Expert that has spent the last 2 winters on a trainer and as of yet there has been no issues...Who knows what the future holds...


Interesting....I don't suppose this involves rollers, correct? Only stationary trainers that lock on to the rear wheel, right?


----------



## PlatyPius (Feb 1, 2009)

wipeout said:


> Do you really thing there are more forces applied to your frame on a trainer compared to the pounding your frame takes blasting 40 MPH down a bumpy road? I sure would love to see any studies you can point me to that show this is a fact...


Yes, I do.
I've heard the carbon crack when a guy was getting on his carbon bike while it was on a trainer.

So do bike manufacturers.

Ghost: "*Answer GHOST-Bikes:*
In general, bicycles with aluminum frames can be used on all common types of roller trainers (roller trainers with rear wheel clamping or loose roll without fixed clamping).









*Bicycles with carbon frames are only permitted to be used on a loose roll, without any clamping*."

Cube: "Carbon frames can be strongly damaged by permanently fixing the bike on the bicycle trainer."

That's only 2 I realize, but I just don't care enough to search more. Since I was only stating my belief about it, your belief or disbelief is irrelevant.


----------



## Pirx (Aug 9, 2009)

wipeout said:


> Do you really thing there are more forces applied to your frame on a trainer compared to the pounding your frame takes blasting 40 MPH down a bumpy road? I sure would love to see any studies you can point me to that show this is a fact...


You don't need any studies for that, since this is entirely obvious: On a standard trainer, the frame will be subject to bending moments that would never exist on a road ride, and for which the frame was never designed. It was designed for the "pounding" of the road ride, but not for the bending of the trainer. Whether or not the frame will, nevertheless, survive trainer use without issue is a different question, of course.



gaspi101 said:


> Interesting....I don't suppose this involves rollers, correct? Only stationary trainers that lock on to the rear wheel, right?


Correct.


----------



## bds3 (Aug 10, 2009)

macscac said:


> Whatever happened to the warranty claim?


And I'm still curious if the OP rode this bike on a trainer...


----------



## mattfatlander (Feb 7, 2005)

Mutombo said:


> Just got a call from the shop. They sent pictures to the Trek rep and their initial view is that the frame is not going to be replaced under warranty. The shop said they can contact the rep again and suggest sending the frame in for Trek to inspect.
> 
> Needless to say, I'm very disappointed. I was hoping that they would base the initial decision on more than a few cell phone pictures from the bike shop.:mad2::mad2::mad2:


there sure have been a lot of people in this thread willing to throw Trek under the bus based only on the same cell phone pics....

Trek's policy now is that all carbon frames submitted for warranty consideration must be returned to Trek and examined before a decision is made, which makes me wonder why they would just say "no, it's an impact" before even seeing it.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

mattfatlander said:


> there sure have been a lot of people in this thread willing to throw Trek under the bus based only on the same cell phone pics....
> 
> Trek's policy now is that all carbon frames submitted for warranty consideration must be returned to Trek and examined before a decision is made, which makes me wonder why they would just say "no, it's an impact" before even seeing it.


As far as I can tell, the only reason people are "throwing Trek under the bus" is BECAUSE they have rejected a warranty based on cell phone pictures.

If it had gone to Waterloo before such a pronouncement, I seriously doubt as many people would feel put out. This really isn't a thread about Trek quality - it is about Trek customer service.


----------



## Hooben (Aug 22, 2004)

Will somebody please call Mutombo, it's getting to be like he's never making it to the LBS.


----------



## Sparti (May 4, 2011)

Are most CF manufacturers declining warranty repairs if you are using trainers or is it just Specialized?


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Kontact said:


> It's not a question of the amount of forces, but how the forces are applied. Bikes are specifically engineered for bumpy roads, they are not build with trainers in mind.
> 
> I'm not saying that trainers are necessarily bad, but it is a bicycle, not a static trainer, towel rack or step stool. Bikes are very strong in the ways they need to be strong - but I can still destroy a bicycle frame with my bare hands.


Interesting - I've not heard that a trainer can harm a carbon (or any material for that matter!) frame. I sit on my tacx trainer (when the stupid software decides to work!!) for hours using my Carbon Roubaix and have not broke it. If I can't trust my frame in a trainer I sure has heck don't think I can trust it on a road... Thanks for the info...


----------



## wipeout (Jun 6, 2005)

Pirx said:


> You don't need any studies for that, since this is entirely obvious: On a standard trainer, the frame will be subject to bending moments that would never exist on a road ride, and for which the frame was never designed. It was designed for the "pounding" of the road ride, but not for the bending of the trainer. Whether or not the frame will, nevertheless, survive trainer use without issue is a different question, of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.


Maybe... I'm not so sure if stresses on a trainer are greater or all that difference than out on a lumpy road, some proof would be nice. Just sayin...


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

wipeout said:


> Maybe... I'm not so sure if stresses on a trainer are greater or all that difference than out on a lumpy road, some proof would be nice. Just sayin...


Wouldn't a manufacturer's specific warning against doing it be proof enough? It seems you think Specialized is propogating a wives tail with their warranty information.


----------



## Thedudebikes (Jul 4, 2011)

That looks a lot like something got stuck in the spokes, swung around and hit the chainstay. That would not be covered, i bet. do you remember hitting anything? check your spokes for a bent one lining up with the crack in the stay. Also most big companies have a crash replacement policy.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Hey everyone, been away for a few days so I'm trying to catch up on the thread. Sorry, I was entertaining the in-laws who were in for a visit over the holiday weekend.

I'm going to have the LBS send the bike in to Trek for their "analysis". I haven't spoken with the guy at the LBS handling my claim yet, he's been out of the shop, so once I speak with him and make sure I get the frame back after Trek is done with it, the bike is going in. I'll respond to any other inquiries in this thread once I get caught up.

Thanks again for all the comments.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

bds3 said:


> Did you ride the bike on a trainer? I'm not saying that caused any damage, and I don't know if riding a bike on a trainer can even _actually_ damage the chain stays, but with some manufacturers' warnings about not riding carbon frames on trainers, I was just curious.


Yes, I have ridden the bike on a trainer. Not a lot, maybe 10-15 hours in two years. We have a 1upUSA trainer.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Thedudebikes said:


> That looks a lot like something got stuck in the spokes, swung around and hit the chainstay. That would not be covered, i bet. do you remember hitting anything? check your spokes for a bent one lining up with the crack in the stay. Also most big companies have a crash replacement policy.


I don't remember hitting anything before it happened. Not saying it's not possible, but I think I would have noticed something getting pulled up in the spokes. I've had it happen before on a different bike.


----------



## nightfend (Mar 15, 2009)

Mutombo said:


> I'm going to have the LBS send the bike in to Trek for their "analysis". I haven't spoken with the guy at the LBS handling my claim yet, he's been out of the shop, so once I speak with him and make sure I get the frame back after Trek is done with it, the bike is going in. I'll respond to any other inquiries in this thread once I get caught up..


Due to liability issues, bike companies will not return a bike frame to you that they cut apart. They keep the frame. So make sure you are willing to part with it before sending it in. On the possibility they don't warranty the frame, you'll be out of luck and forced to buy a crash replacement.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

nightfend said:


> Due to liability issues, bike companies will not return a bike frame to you that they cut apart. They keep the frame. So make sure you are willing to part with it before sending it in. On the possibility they don't warranty the frame, you'll be out of luck and forced to buy a crash replacement.


I just spoke with the LBS, they are going to verify whether or not I get the frame back. Thanks for the info though.


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

nightfend said:


> Due to liability issues, bike companies will not return a bike frame to you that they cut apart. They keep the frame. So make sure you are willing to part with it before sending it in. On the possibility they don't warranty the frame, you'll be out of luck and forced to buy a crash replacement.


That sounds odd to me. I don't see how bike company could refuse to return the bicycle to the legal owner. If this is a true policy, I would think the corporate lawyers would require some legal document/agreement to be signed by the bike owner prior to bike company cutting open a frame for inspection.


----------



## stockracing (Sep 6, 2010)

I was on some bumpy road yesterday while riding and could here my chain bouncing against the chainstay. Could it be that repetitive occurance of this may have weakened the structure of the chainstay and was just waiting to fail?


----------



## onthebottom (May 4, 2011)

Post your pics on Trek's Facebook page... I've seen them respond directly to clients on that page.

OTB


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Some good info in this thread. I'll have to keep it in mind if I get a carbon bike. Out with the Kurt Kinetic, in with rollers.


----------



## Fredrico (Jun 15, 2002)

*Interesting point.*



stockracing said:


> I was on some bumpy road yesterday while riding and could here my chain bouncing against the chainstay. Could it be that repetitive occurance of this may have weakened the structure of the chainstay and was just waiting to fail?


All drive side stays have chain guards! I've got dents in an aluminum protector from God knows when. May not have been caused by the chain bouncing. The wheel could pick up something and slam it into the stay, no problem. :shocked: The only bike that has successfully withstood nicks is one the builder chromed. Ain't nothin gonna nick up chrome! :thumbsup:

Maybe Trek should glue stainless steel chain guards on their precious Madones! :biggrin5: Junk.


----------



## gbarker (Jun 29, 2008)

*What's the resolution??*

Motumbo-

Do we have any word yet from Trek as to cause and resolution? Thanks


----------



## Genshammer (Mar 24, 2011)

*Trek Repair*

Sorry to hear about your situation, Mutombo. If the warranty attempt with Trek doesn't work out, and you want to have the frame repaired, we can also be of assistance. We are the official repair facility for the Trek Bicycle Superstore network of shops here in the San Diego area, and have repaired many Madones like yours.

You can get more information on us, our experience and our inspection/repair process at the URL below.

Happy trails and tarmac,


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

gbarker said:


> Motumbo-
> 
> Do we have any word yet from Trek as to cause and resolution? Thanks


No word yet. The LBS sent the frame to Trek, I'm just waiting for the results.


----------



## R_Z (Jun 23, 2011)

I just found this thread and read it front to back. Very sorry to hear about your frame. I can't say whether Trek has issues with CF or not, I'm still a Trek fan since I've had 2 of them. Unfortunately for me, my Madone 4.5 fell over and chipped the seat stay. Granted that was my fault. My concern is the minimal force used to chip the CF. I'm not technical or an engineer so I have no clue when CF is compromised or how it's compromised. I just know now that for me CF is not the way to go in the future.

In any event, I wish you luck with Trek. Having a good LBS behind you is certainly worth it's weight in gold. And as many here have recommended, if you get the frame back, and they won't honor the replacement, send it off to a CF house and I think it will be better than ever.

I'm in the middle of getting mine repaired as I type and will report on CFR once I get the bike back, just as others have done for Calfee and RR Velo.

Good luck!


----------



## gbarker (Jun 29, 2008)

Thanks for keeping us apprized. I have a vested interest in that I own a '09 Madone 5.1. I love it, great bike but when you hear about stuff like this happening it makes you wonder.


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Nov 10, 2008)

Friends don't let friends buy Trek.


----------



## inthesticks (Oct 27, 2010)

I love my Trek 6 series...so does the other 9 riders I ride with! It would be interesting to know how many they sell compared to ones with issues? How many times do people go online and say a product is good, sure not as many as they do bad!


----------



## Zombie John (Jul 25, 2011)

My feeling is that their "Lifetime Warranty" is only as good as the bike shop you're using.

I made a claim with Trek over a very small, nit-picky thing -- the decals on my mtb rubbed through within one month of purchase. I didn't expect them to really do anything but I figured I'd give it a shot since "Trek Has Your Back." Well, surprisingly, they came back and said they'd either give me $40 or replace the frame, with the LBS charging me $140 to switch over the components.

When I started asking questions about the frame replacement, I was told Trek backed out and said they wouldn't cover it at all now. Even though I hadn't expected much to begin with, that pissed me off.

I decided to call Trek personally not to discuss my claim but just to see if I could get the bike looking new again. They gave me a different story than what my LBS did but wound up giving me a free helmet to make amends.

I'm still not sure if it was Trek crawfishing or my LBS lying but my next bike was a Cannondale from a different LBS!

Mutombo, I'd really suggest calling them yourself if things don't go well after all this. Best of luck to you!!


----------



## sneakyracer (Dec 1, 2007)

At the VERY minimum Trek should offer a crash replacement but they should make good on their lifetime warranty and give you a new frame. Anything less is unacceptable. 

In fact, If I were Trek I would be more worried about just getting that frame in the factory and examining it thoroughly to see if there is some design flaw or manufacturing defect rather than shafting a trek owner for a few more dollars that are really peanuts for a multi million dollar, multinational company. Its not like there s some large scale fraud scheme going on to score new frames.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Still no word from Trek, they've had the frame for almost 3 weeks. Hoping this gets resolved soon.


----------



## Elfstone (Jun 27, 2006)

Mutombo said:


> Still no word from Trek, they've had the frame for almost 3 weeks. Hoping this gets resolved soon.


Total bummer, I hope you get a word from Trek in the very near future and it's good new at that.

Peace


----------



## Porca (Jul 31, 2011)

2 mates of mine have had good dealings with trek with warranty. 1 guy his madone bottom bracket came loose. The other broke a chain stay broke like your one, on a 10 year old carbon hard tail mtb and they replaced both frames


----------



## FatGut1 (Dec 16, 2008)

uncrx2003 said:


> I don't know much about Trek warranty. When my BMC had a crack in the carbon seatstay, I emailed the pic to Competitve Cyclist and they got me a new frame within two weeks. I wonder if BMC warranty service is that good or Competitive Cyclist is just good dealing with warranty. I was very lucky to have bought the bike from a shop with customer service. Sorry about you bike.



I just got a cracked chain stay on my BMC and I am having the opposite.

These bike manufacturers need to honor these warranty issues. My frame was 3g's and I have to beg for a replacement.


----------



## kbaker310 (Aug 14, 2010)

Ouch that is a tough break, hope everything works out for you.


----------



## uphillcrash (Apr 12, 2009)

Three weeks and no word yet not good enough! .So much time off your bike must be messing with your mind and fitness.


----------



## pivi (Jul 31, 2011)

Never, ever, ever, ever buy a Trek.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

Boy. Trek better make this good. The whole world is watching.


----------



## pivi (Jul 31, 2011)

I've never seen carbon break like this (I have a Tarmac, I hope I never experience something like that), but most of the pics of broken carbon I see on the internet, not due to a crash, are from Trek models. The chainstay of a Tarmac is much thicker than this, at least it looks much stronger.

The only Trek bike I had was an entry-level mountain bike, that had an "unfixable" problem with the shock that made me replace it for a Giant, so I never looked for Treks again.

One of the most recent posts on bustedcarbon.com shows an "asploded Trek", the top and down tubes broke next to the headtube out of the blue.


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

pivi said:


> never, ever, ever, ever buy a *carbon* trek.


fify :d


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

Warranty fullfillment, pay for your own repair...geez everyone...hasn't anyone mentioned the obvious yet? - Duct tape!

Oh, and I got 2 for Steve Vs. Prodigal. Who wants ‘em.
Chris Horner (or a look a like depending on who you believe) will be in Steve's corner.


----------



## B05 (Jul 31, 2011)

the ones in page 1 looks painful.


----------



## cmg (Oct 27, 2004)

Has this been resolved? great read. Some questions.
1. How much does the rider weigh? 
2. What gear was he using when he was going up the mild hill? 

Why do i ask, because i've seen a 225lb rider shear off a brand new Ultegra rear derailluer at the frame connection when he tried to take off in the 53-13 from a a dead stop using 175mm crank arms. That's alot of force to send down that chainstay and that damage is on the driveside. compression break as LenJ suggested sounds correct. rider stands up to push down on the crank, chain pulls toward the crank, chainstay under compression.


----------



## Carbon 6 (Jul 24, 2011)

Hope it works out to your favor whatever happens. That sucks, the reason I stick to metal over carbon, I ride a Giant TCR Aero that is aluminum, 19 lbs but I love it and have complete confidence in its build quality.


----------



## Terex (Jan 3, 2005)

Get the new Trek frame. Sell the frame. Buy a frame from a different company. The failure is just stupid. Trek says they have rocket scientists designing their frames - right, the ones that got fired after Challenger. Make sure the new frame doesn't have any O-rings.


----------



## jgrabowmst (Jun 22, 2011)

I read through this frame, and I have a few questions...

1) Why is the best the shop can do send in "cellphone pictures?" I work in a computer shop, and when I have a problem with a part not fitting right, I go straight to the company with hi-res images. Granted, not everyone has a dSLR camera at this disposal, even someone's home point and shoot can produce much better, dare I say, more professional looking images for such an important warranty claim?

2) I see that your frame was sent to Trek for their "diagnostic" if you will. Are you going to get it back, and more importantly, will they contact you, or the LBS?

I would have cut my losses, and thanked the LBS, maybe gotten a set of spare inner tubes from them for their work, but I would have submitted my own images to the Trek warranty process, because if I worked in an RMA department, I'd ask for a better shot than something from a cell phone. My newest cell phone is about 7 months old now, and I'll be honest, the camera sucks on it. It's an HTC G2, and yeah, the pictures look good on the phones screen, I look at it on a computer, and it's crap.

I'm going to say that impact could be a contributing factor, as many others agree, but I can't say I've seen any carbon fiber really split like that before. Impacts leave a mark, and if you clean the bike a lot, and you're aware of the debris you ride around, you'd have known about that the moment it happened.

My only guess relates to something that almost happened to me a few weeks ago. I was biking on a stretch of road that I normally avoid because of the no-shoulder situation, but I went on it for some odd reason, and a land rover HSE barreled past me, and I saw the tire kick up a good sized rock, and send it over to the side of the road, and if my front forks were in the path of that rock, it would have been over right there. Maybe a small rock got kicked up by the wheel, or someone else, and hit the chainstay...but it's a very wild guess, because if it did damage the carbon fiber, you'd have known...


----------



## Porca (Jul 31, 2011)

any news?


----------



## inthesticks (Oct 27, 2010)

It would be interesting what they have to say...I live real close to Trek and ride with many of their employee's, they are decent folks.

R


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Hey everyone,

I was out of town this weekend, but had a message waiting for me from the LBS when I got back. It sounds like Trek honored the warranty! A new frame showed up for me over the weekend, same size and model but in a different color. I haven't spoken with the shop yet to get all the details, but I have to say that I'm extremely surprised and happy that Trek determined to warranty my frame after their "diagnostic" testing.

I'll post up some more details once I speak with the shop.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

cmg said:


> Has this been resolved? great read. Some questions.
> 1. How much does the rider weigh?
> 2. What gear was he using when he was going up the mild hill?
> 
> Why do i ask, because i've seen a 225lb rider shear off a brand new Ultegra rear derailluer at the frame connection when he tried to take off in the 53-13 from a a dead stop using 175mm crank arms. That's alot of force to send down that chainstay and that damage is on the driveside. compression break as LenJ suggested sounds correct. rider stands up to push down on the crank, chain pulls toward the crank, chainstay under compression.


1. I'm 6'4", 190lbs, riding on a 62cm frame
2. I don't recall the exact gear, but I was in the small ring up front and somewhere in the middle on the back.



jgrabowmst said:


> I read through this frame, and I have a few questions...
> 
> 1) Why is the best the shop can do send in "cellphone pictures?" I work in a computer shop, and when I have a problem with a part not fitting right, I go straight to the company with hi-res images. Granted, not everyone has a dSLR camera at this disposal, even someone's home point and shoot can produce much better, dare I say, more professional looking images for such an important warranty claim?
> 
> 2) I see that your frame was sent to Trek for their "diagnostic" if you will. Are you going to get it back, and more importantly, will they contact you, or the LBS?


1. I'm not sure if they ended up taking better pictures, but when I was in the shop the only pictures I saw them take were w/a cellphone. After he did so, he said "we'll send these in to Trek and see what they say." So I'm not sure if they ended up taking better pictures, can't say for certain.

2. I was told that I'd get my damaged frame back if they didn't warranty my claim. Now that it appears Trek did warranty my claim, I'll only be getting the new frame.


----------



## JTrider (Jun 27, 2011)

Mutombo said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I was out of town this weekend, but had a message waiting for me from the LBS when I got back. It sounds like Trek honored the warranty! A new frame showed up for me over the weekend, same size and model but in a different color. I haven't spoken with the shop yet to get all the details, but I have to say that I'm extremely surprised and happy that Trek determined to warranty my frame after their "diagnostic" testing.
> 
> I'll post up some more details once I speak with the shop.


Congrats on the new frame! It's good to know they honored their warranty after all. I hope if anything goes wrong with my Scott that they will do the same.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

Mutombo said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I was out of town this weekend, but had a message waiting for me from the LBS when I got back. It sounds like Trek honored the warranty! A new frame showed up for me over the weekend, same size and model but in a different color. I haven't spoken with the shop yet to get all the details, but I have to say that I'm extremely surprised and happy that Trek determined to warranty my frame after their "diagnostic" testing.
> 
> I'll post up some more details once I speak with the shop.


Awsome. 

Let us know the details as you discover them.

Len


----------



## DaveG (Feb 4, 2004)

*that is great news*



Mutombo said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I was out of town this weekend, but had a message waiting for me from the LBS when I got back. It sounds like Trek honored the warranty! A new frame showed up for me over the weekend, same size and model but in a different color. I haven't spoken with the shop yet to get all the details, but I have to say that I'm extremely surprised and happy that Trek determined to warranty my frame after their "diagnostic" testing.
> 
> I'll post up some more details once I speak with the shop.


You must be relieved. It was not looking too good there for a while


----------



## CyclingVirtual (Apr 10, 2008)

No never seen one go like that.


----------



## pivi (Jul 31, 2011)

That's very nice of them! Good luck with your "new" bike!


----------



## Porca (Jul 31, 2011)

great news


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

Just confirmed with the shop that they got a new frame for me under warranty. They wanted to make sure I'm okay with the color change before they started rebuilding it. I'll post up any additional information I get, and hopefully some new pictures later this week once the bike is intact. Can't wait to get back on the bike!


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

An unfortunate run-around (or possibly relenting to things like this thread?), but I'm glad you're being taken care of.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

Mutombo said:


> Hey everyone,... Trek honored the warranty! A new frame showed up for me over the weekend, same size and model but in a different color. I haven't spoken with the shop yet to get all the details, but I have to say that I'm extremely surprised and happy that Trek determined to warranty my frame after their "diagnostic" testing.


That is fantastic news, Mutombo. Enjoy your new ride.

Trek haters, your servings of crow also arrived. Tuck in!


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

qatarbhoy said:


> That is fantastic news, Mutombo. Enjoy your new ride.
> 
> Trek haters, your servings of crow also arrived. Tuck in!


Because they eventually honored a claim that they first rejected out of hand without inspection? 

I'm a little less than impressed with their magnanimousness.


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

Kontact said:


> Because they eventually honored a claim that they first rejected out of hand without inspection?
> 
> I'm a little less than impressed with their magnanimousness.


I have my doubts that Trek rejected the claim in the first place. I suspect the LBS was simply trying to avoid processing a warranty claim on a frame they did not sell. There is very little if any profit to be made in processing a warranty claim and many shops will attempt to avoid getting involved in a warranty claim on a frame that was not purchased from their shop. 

It appeared the OP had to insist that the frame be sent back to Trek for inspection.

Unfortuately, Trek is only as good as it's dealer network. And I think we all know how tough it can be to find a really good bike shop these days.


----------



## OldChipper (May 15, 2011)

Great news! Wouln't hurt to throw a few bucks at the LBS for the build. Granted, they didn't exacty bend over backwards to help, but as you noted, you just walked in off the street and as others have pointed out, they aren't making much if anything on the deal. Some goodwill down the road could be worth the bucks if this happens again.


----------



## High Gear (Mar 9, 2002)

Great news. Happy they stood by their product.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

Mutombo said:


> Just confirmed with the shop that they got a new frame for me under warranty. They wanted to make sure I'm okay with the color change before they started rebuilding it. I'll post up any additional information I get, and hopefully some new pictures later this week once the bike is intact. Can't wait to get back on the bike!


Do you have to pay anything for the build?


----------



## inthesticks (Oct 27, 2010)

I think we need to get some crow on order for all the doubters!


----------



## Matt1986 (Mar 19, 2010)

Mutombo said:


> Just confirmed with the shop that they got a new frame for me under warranty. They wanted to make sure I'm okay with the color change before they started rebuilding it. I'll post up any additional information I get, and hopefully some new pictures later this week once the bike is intact. Can't wait to get back on the bike!


Great news, glad to hear everything worked out for you. Pics of the new frame once it's built up!


----------



## gbarker (Jun 29, 2008)

*Many Thanks*

Mutombo-

Many thanks for keeping us in the loop. It's unfortunate it took so long. I hope you had a backup machine to play on. Hard to know why the lengthy process but I suspect lack of motivation for the LBS but that's purely speculation. I would patronize them but with caution.... I'd also like to here about Trek's diagnosis as to the cause. Thanks again.


----------



## Capt.Canuck (Jul 28, 2011)

Good to hear everything worked out in the end.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

gtpharr said:


> I have my doubts that Trek rejected the claim in the first place. I suspect the LBS was simply trying to avoid processing a warranty claim on a frame they did not sell. There is very little if any profit to be made in processing a warranty claim and many shops will attempt to avoid getting involved in a warranty claim on a frame that was not purchased from their shop.
> 
> It appeared the OP had to insist that the frame be sent back to Trek for inspection.
> 
> Unfortuately, Trek is only as good as it's dealer network. And I think we all know how tough it can be to find a really good bike shop these days.


There's plenty of money to be made in both building the frame up and, especially, earning the loyalty of a new customer. We go out of our way on warranty claims from other shops, and keep their customers.

Any shop that avoids doing a warranty claim for a customer that has previously purchased a $3000 bicycle deserves to go out of business.


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

Kontact said:


> There's plenty of money to be made in both building the frame up and, especially, earning the loyalty of a new customer. We go out of our way on warranty claims from other shops, and keep their customers.
> 
> Any shop that avoids doing a warranty claim for a customer that has previously purchased a $3000 bicycle deserves to go out of business.


If the LBS goal is to earn new customers and retain existing customers, I don't agree that there is "plenty" of money to be made in stripping and rebuilding a warranty frame. 

If I come to your shop and you attempt to make "plenty" of money off me in processing a warranty claim, that will probably be the last time you see me.

I do agree that processing of warranty claims is a great opprotunity to retain existing customers and earn new customers which should be the primary goal of any LBS. He with the most loyal repeat cusotmers wins!


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

gtpharr said:


> If the LBS goal is to earn new customers and retain existing customers, I don't agree that there is "plenty" of money to be made in stripping and rebuilding a warranty frame.
> 
> If I come to your shop and you attempt to make "plenty" of money off me in processing a warranty claim, that will probably be the last time you see me.
> 
> I do agree that processing of warranty claims is a great opprotunity to retain existing customers and earn new customers which should be the primary goal of any LBS. He with the most loyal repeat cusotmers wins!


What a shop charges to build up a frame is their business, no one who is coming into a new shop where they didn't buy originally should expect this service for free - Trek/Cervelo/Specialized isn't paying the shop for labor. That doesn't mean the shop needs to make a killing, but they should be paid for their time.

Don't you think?


----------



## JoelS (Aug 25, 2008)

Glad to hear the warrantied the frame in the end! Hope the rest goes smoothly.


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

Kontact said:


> What a shop charges to build up a frame is their business, no one who is coming into a new shop where they didn't buy originally should expect this service for free - Trek/Cervelo/Specialized isn't paying the shop for labor. That doesn't mean the shop needs to make a killing, but they should be paid for their time.
> 
> Don't you think?


No one said the LBS was expected to provide this service for free. No one said the shop should not be paid fairly for their time. All I said was that I do not agree with your statement that there is "plenty of money to be made" in a frame replacement warranty transaction.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

Come on, Kontact, stop stalling and eat up. That crow's not gonna eat itself!


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

gtpharr said:


> No one said the LBS was expected to provide this service for free. No one siad the shop should not be paid fairly for their time. All I said is I do not agree with your statement that ther is "plenty of money" in the warranty transaction.


I'm expecting that I'll have to pay for the labor associated with breaking down, shipping, and rebuilding the frame.

I'm also due for some new shoes, and the wife's bike needs some work, so I'll probably send that business their way. I needed a new LBS anyways


----------



## BostonG (Apr 13, 2010)

Mutombo said:


> Hey everyone,
> 
> I was out of town this weekend, but had a message waiting for me from the LBS when I got back. It sounds like Trek honored the warranty! A new frame showed up for me over the weekend, same size and model but in a different color. I haven't spoken with the shop yet to get all the details, but I have to say that I'm extremely surprised and happy that Trek determined to warranty my frame after their "diagnostic" testing.
> 
> I'll post up some more details once I speak with the shop.


Awww that's just freakin' great. Now I gotta put Trek back on the list of possibilities.

Glad to hear it worked out and that they honored the warranty.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

Oh yuk, Crow tastes terrible. I can't see how my dog goes after these things.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

gtpharr said:


> No one said the LBS was expected to provide this service for free. No one said the shop should not be paid fairly for their time. All I said was that I do not agree with your statement that there is "plenty of money to be made" in a frame replacement warranty transaction.


"Plenty of money" as in, it is not unprofitable to do a frame swap on a warranty because it is labor, and bike shop labor is not a public service, it makes money for the shop. And since it is an entire bike build, it makes a few sheckles more than changing flats and adjusting indexing. 

In contrast, you seemed to be suggesting that it made the shop no real money. Labor is good, new happy customers are good for the future. It is a total win-win.



qatarboy said:


> Come on, Kontact, stop stalling and eat up. That crow's not gonna eat itself!


 The first post of this thread is 6-29. It is now 8-9. You're right, I am so impressed with how Trek handled from the first call until finally admitting the customer maybe wasn't at fault. 

A custom Ti frame we sold 10 years ago came in today with a crack in the frame. I guarantee we'll have the customer RIDING a new frame faster than it took Trek to decide it is going to authorize replacement.

But I guess it is all worthwhile, because Trek makes the most attractive, highest quality, cutting edge bicycles in the world.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

Kontact said:


> The first post of this thread is 6-29. It is now 8-9. You're right, I am so impressed with how Trek handled from the first call until finally admitting the customer maybe wasn't at fault.
> 
> A custom Ti frame we sold 10 years ago came in today with a crack in the frame. I guarantee we'll have the customer RIDING a new frame faster than it took Trek to decide it is going to authorize replacement.


Be fair, dealing with a long-standing customer who bought a custom Ti frame from you is just a bit different from going to an LBS you've never been to before with a warranty claim from a major manufacturer. Sending the frame for inspection is a reasonable request from Trek given all the JRA stories being told about CF bikes, but it is going to take time. If they replaced every warranty-claim frame no-questions-asked they would have gone out of business a long time ago.



Kontact said:


> But I guess it is all worthwhile, because Trek makes the most attractive, highest quality, cutting edge bicycles in the world.


Yet you said earlier,* "This really isn't a thread about Trek quality - it is about Trek customer service."* 

The big question in the thread was *Would Trek warranty the claim?* and it has now been answered to Mutombo's satisfaction. The Trek-haters have now either gone very quiet (with a couple of honorable exceptions) or - in your case - are now commenting on bike quality, speed of service etc etc. 

*Did Trek honour the claim? 

Yes.*


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

I am not sure why anyone needs to eat crow. Sure end result was happy for Motumbo as he got a new bike but the way this was handled was terrible. Took too long. Communication was sketchy. Not sure if LBS was reaaly trying here so can't blame Trek totally either. AND just because they did warranty you still have to question the overall quality and checks Trek has instore to let this one "slip by". I am not hating as I had a Trek 2300 aluminum for many years. Loved the bike and ironically I had my frame warrantied when I first got the bike as it came with a huge dent in TT right out of box (box was not damaged). I moved and had to do warranty through an LBS that was new to me. They turned my bike around in 4 weeks.
Just think of it this way. If you went to a restaurant and service was bad and you had to send food back but at the end they comped your meal would you still go back? I wouldn't


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

> _If you went to a restaurant and service was bad and you had to send food back but at the end they comped your meal would you still go back? I wouldn't _


Terrible analogy. But thanks for trying!

Nom nom awwwwk nom.


----------



## psycleridr (Jul 21, 2005)

qatarbhoy said:


> Terrible analogy. But thanks for trying!
> 
> Nom nom awwwwk nom.


Gee, I thought it was pretty good. Bad service from server (LBS) and burnt food from cook that eventually made it better (Trek). 
End result of getting what you originally ordered doesn't excuse the bad service from LBS and the bad product from Trek. 

Like I said, for me I would not hit up the LBS again as I think this is where the major FAIL happened. You mass produce anything and something always slips though. I just do not think the LBS was really in Motombo's corner on this one or they would have had a local/regoinal rep out to do thier eval before sending it off to Trek for the enginerds to look at it. I say this because I have gone through it (3 major frame warranty issues) over the years and even when I did not buy from the LBS service was excellent and quick compared to what occurred here


----------



## gaspi101 (May 12, 2011)

psycleridr said:


> Gee, I thought it was pretty good. Bad service from server (LBS) and burnt food from cook that eventually made it better (Trek).
> End result of getting what you originally ordered doesn't excuse the bad service from LBS and the bad product from Trek.
> 
> Like I said, for me I would not hit up the LBS again as I think this is where the major FAIL happened. You mass produce anything and something always slips though. I just do not think the LBS was really in Motombo's corner on this one or they would have had a local/regoinal rep out to do thier eval before sending it off to Trek for the enginerds to look at it. I say this because I have gone through it (3 major frame warranty issues) over the years and even when I did not buy from the LBS service was excellent and quick compared to what occurred here


I have nothing against Trek. I thought the analogy was on point. Get dinner elsewhere.


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

psycleridr said:


> Gee, I thought it was pretty good. Bad service from server (LBS) and burnt food from cook that eventually made it better (Trek).
> End result of getting what you originally ordered doesn't excuse the bad service from LBS and the bad product from Trek.


_All _CF bikes suffer failures, are all CF bike manufacturers making "bad product"? 

More accurate analogy: you go to a McD's franchise, buy a Big Mac (I'm not pretending that Madones are anything other than the Big Mac of CF bikes), eat it and get the runs. You take the half-eaten Big Mac to _a different_ franchise to complain. They think you may have eaten something else that gave you the runs, but take a blurry photo and send it off to McDonald's HQ for analysis, then sometime later say the Big Mac itself needs to be sent. After the lab at McD's identifies the problem, they send a new Big Mac for the restaurant to heat up and deliver to the customer.



psycleridr said:


> Like I said, for me I would not hit up the LBS again as I think this is where the major FAIL happened. You mass produce anything and something always slips though.


I agree about the LBS: I'd not be too keen on using them again. (You can see why the LBS might be cautious though, when an unfamiliar customer brings a broken frame.) But you muddy the issue by then blaming mass production. The LBS isn't the one mass-producing the bikes, and as said above, _any _ CF bike can fail - including Pinarellos, Bianchis, BMCs, etc - even custom Ti bikes can crack, as Kontact mentioned. 

Trek honoured the warranty: give them credit for that. They did not "screw good customers" as some suggested they would.


----------



## gaspi101 (May 12, 2011)

I was listening to the Bike Show podcast earlier, and Jack Thurston (host) was talking about how cyclists differ around the world in terms of demand for bikes. In the UK, for example, customer service is not a 10th as important as it is here in the US, whereas there, the premium is on quality. According to the recent posts here, I tend to agree. This bike broke in an manner unexpected of a bike built of high-quality. Not to say this makes Trek generally a builder of poor quality bikes, but I must admit this is not the first I hear of Trek's carbon fiber bikes breaking in a manner suggesting poor workmanship. Despite that, posters seem to suggest thst's ok, because the customer service came through. It looks like Jack was right.


----------



## Creakyknees (Sep 21, 2003)

Great thread. @Mutombo - consider asking the shop to install some of that clear protective tape stuff, not only on the stays but also underneath the downtube.


----------



## ziscwg (Apr 19, 2010)

qatarbhoy said:


> Be fair, dealing with a long-standing customer who bought a custom Ti frame from you is just a bit different from going to an LBS you've never been to before with a warranty claim from a major manufacturer. Sending the frame for inspection is a reasonable request from Trek given all the JRA stories being told about CF bikes, but it is going to take time. If they replaced every warranty-claim frame no-questions-asked they would have gone out of business a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I ate my crow very very loudly and complained the whole time.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

qatarbhoy said:


> Be fair, dealing with a long-standing customer who bought a custom Ti frame from you is just a bit different from going to an LBS you've never been to before with a warranty claim from a major manufacturer. Sending the frame for inspection is a reasonable request from Trek given all the JRA stories being told about CF bikes, but it is going to take time. If they replaced every warranty-claim frame no-questions-asked they would have gone out of business a long time ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did Trek _eventually_ honor the claim? Yup.

Did Trek reject the claim? Also, yup.

If the OP had accepted that rejection, would Trek have changed its mind on its own? Nope. He'd be SOL if he'd taken that rejection as iron clad.


Trek rejected a perfectly valid warranty claim, and had to back track and change its story when faced with the actual evidence - evidence that they didn't even ask for when they rejected the claim. That makes you feel good?

And I don't care who the customer is or who the dealer is, Trek has a warranty for ALL buyers, not just the ones who guess correctly on which dealer is going to give a damn. Their procedures should make sure that crummy dealers have nothing to do with the process. Why - so this kind of stuff doesn't happen.

Trek tried to brush one of their customers off instead of making sure they weren't at fault (they were). I guess I'm missing the "honor" part of honoring a warranty. 


I am relieved that the OP got his frame replaced. I'm certainly not happy with how it happened or Trek's attempt to get out of it.


----------



## gbarker (Jun 29, 2008)

Kontact said:


> Trek rejected a perfectly valid warranty claim, and had to back track and change its story when faced with the actual evidence - evidence that they didn't even ask for when they rejected the claim. That makes you feel good?
> 
> And I don't care who the customer is or who the dealer is, Trek has a warranty for ALL buyers, not just the ones who guess correctly on which dealer is going to give a damn. Their procedures should make sure that crummy dealers have nothing to do with the process. Why - so this kind of stuff doesn't happen.
> 
> Trek tried to brush one of their customers off instead of making sure they weren't at fault (they were). I guess I'm missing the "honor" part of honoring a warranty.


Kontact if memory serves me correctly, we are hearing about what Trek did or didn't do through the LBS. Motumbo didn't have direct contact with Trek. Considering that I think you dumping a lot on Trek without all the facts.


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

I agree with Kontact's above points. I've read enough bad dealings with Trek's warranty service that I'd go with a $400 Chinese carbon frame before considering Trek.

Glad everything worked out for the OP, considering Trek was trying to give him the shaft.


----------



## i abdool (Apr 26, 2011)

keep buying made in china stuff and put our kids out of jobs


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Traci said:


> Sorry for your troubles...I would steer clear of carbon until they've mastered the technology.


"Mastered the technology." Where have I heard that before?

Whiskers1/Look75, you can stop trying to sell steel to everyone and go back to being banned.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

gbarker said:


> Kontact if memory serves me correctly, we are hearing about what Trek did or didn't do through the LBS. Motumbo didn't have direct contact with Trek. Considering that I think you dumping a lot on Trek without all the facts.


1. See my above explanation why it is in a shop's best interest to warranty a frame.

2. The shop risks losing its lucrative dealership if they were to misrepresent Trek. And sending it in after lying is likely to cause that to come to light if the customer calls Trek directly.

3. Starting the warranty process involves very little work.

4. It involves creative invention on your part to concoct such a scenerio, since we know that Trek does, no occassion, reject seemingly valid warranty claims.


Sure, it's possible. Is it the most likely scenerio? Nope.


----------



## Renelikedecartes (Aug 11, 2011)

*An aside about the felt footprint*

Felt has a carbon fixie the footprint that is described as a fixie with road bike design. It is a carbon bike. I was thinking about purchasing as my second bike. I originally was going to go with the curbside which is a more durable aluminum bike. But a guy at a bike shop showed me the footprint. My LBS doesn't think it s necessary and may nit be a great second bike for city riding because of durability issues with carbon. Any ideas or recommendations?

I recently had my Fuji Roubaix stolen so want to upgrade to The felt AR 4 and have a second bike.


----------



## knapper13 (Jul 5, 2009)

ouch, totally looks like it is from impact. maybe seat stays were different lengths putting too much pressure on your chain stay


----------



## ohvrolla (Aug 2, 2009)

i abdool said:


> keep buying made in china stuff and put our kids out of jobs


If I lived in Taiwan I'd agree with you. If buying a Trek gave me the feeling they'd stand behind their product the sentiment might be different. That said I've heard better about dealing with Specialized and would be swayed to a purchase from them because of that.


----------



## sherlock (Aug 6, 2011)

Renelikedecartes said:


> Felt has a carbon fixie the footprint that is described as a fixie with road bike design. It is a carbon bike. I was thinking about purchasing as my second bike. I originally was going to go with the curbside which is a more durable aluminum bike. But a guy at a bike shop showed me the footprint. My LBS doesn't think it s necessary and may nit be a great second bike for city riding because of durability issues with carbon. Any ideas or recommendations?


If it's just a runaround, go alu. Felt make wicked carbon frames, but you're probably more likely to drop (or have bumped/knocked) a fixie that you ride down to the shops on.

The Curbside is $900 cheaper than the Footprint too. I reckon spend the $900 on adding some slick stuff to the Curbside, or to your AR4.


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

Kontact said:


> Trek tried to brush one of their customers off instead of making sure they weren't at fault (they were). I guess I'm missing the "honor" part of honoring a warranty.


What you are really missing is many of the facts to this story. All you have to work with is second and thrid hand info provided by one side of the story. You've just filled in all the missing facts so that they fit the conclusions you were so eager to jump to.


----------



## gbarker (Jun 29, 2008)

gtpharr said:


> What you are really missing is many of the facts to this story. All you have to work with is second and thrid hand info provided by one side of the story. You've just filled in all the missing facts so that they fit the conclusions you were so eager to jump to.


Exactly!


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

Kontact said:


> 4. It involves creative invention on your part to concoct such a scenerio, since we know that Trek does, no occassion, reject seemingly valid warranty claims.


The only scenerio I see being concocted here is the one by you who portrays the evil Trek Empire sitting up in Waterloo doing everything they can to brush off customers and avoid honoring valid warranty claims.

And no, *WE* do *NOT* know that Trek does, on occassion, reject seemingly valid warranty claims. It is my opinion that Trek is pretty lenient & generous in their approval of warranty claims. I suspect Trek is much more likely to approve a claim that is not a valid warranty issue, which may well be the case here, than they are to deny a valid warranty claim. Like a lot of other reputabel companies, Trek does their fair share of "goodwill' gestures.


----------



## Kontact (Apr 1, 2011)

gtpharr said:


> What you are really missing is many of the facts to this story. All you have to work with is second and thrid hand info provided by one side of the story. You've just filled in all the missing facts so that they fit the conclusions you were so eager to jump to.


Facts? There is only one source of information in this thread: The OP. If you want to make it sound like someone is making up things (aside from the story you made up), why not just say that the whole thing is fiction and that a Trek frame didn't break at all?

That way you don't have to come up with more complicated scenerios and no engineer, warranty person or Trek dealer would have done anything wrong.


Or, we can accept the story as offered and not create unlikely fantasies to excuse behavior we wish didn't happen. 

I've worked at many dealers, including a Trek dealer. There is no reason for a dealer to pretend to contact Trek and speak for them - it's a preposterous scenerio that you wouldn't entertain if you didn't have an emotional attachment to defending Trek.


----------



## R_Z (Jun 23, 2011)

After having gone through all the grief I went through getting my madone seat stay repaired, I can't say that I'd buy a Trek again. In looking for a backup bike, I would certainly not buy a 2nd CF bike. Granted you can dent steel or aluminum, but I'll take that chance. Plus the cost would be much less to replace.


----------



## Mutombo (Jun 8, 2009)

I can finally say that this warranty dispute it behind me. I managed to pick up my new bike from the shop yesterday, just over 2 months after the original frame broke.

Trek gave me a new 2011 Madone 5.9 frame, in a really nice metallic blue color. Unfortunately, not all my parts from my 2009 transferred over, so I had to buy a new seatmast ($120), and a bolt-on front derailleur ($80) since my old front derailleur was a clamp-on style. I was also charged $50 for shipping the bike to Trek and $200 for the shop to tear down and re-build my frame. All told, my frame cracking cost me $480 to get everything up and running again.

I understand that Trek can't be responsible for paying for all new components for each warranty frame but was still a little shocked at the total price I paid, especially that Trek doesn't pay for shipping the frame even when they determine that the frame is to be warrantied.

It's a minor gripe since I'm glad to finally have a bike back, but I have to admit that the whole process has left a sour taste in my mouth. I am glad that Trek decided to warranty the bike, but I'm pretty confident that they never would have replaced it had I not fought so hard to get them to do so. Plus, I've been without a bike for 2 months during the middle of summer. At the very least, this has taught me that "lifetime warranties" are never as straightforward as they seem, and I probably won't base any future bike purchases on this type of warranty.

I haven't taken any pictures yet, but will do so in the next day or so just to complete the thread. Thanks again for everyone's words, advice, and support, I probably wouldn't have gotten this frame warrantied without the help of this forum.


----------



## Zombie John (Jul 25, 2011)

My Trek experience left me feeling the same way. Glad to hear you got your bike! 

Yes warranties are like that. I think the paperwork on my Cannondale actualy said, "Limited Warranty." I think they actually have the same type warranty as Spec/Trek/Etc. but chose not to say "Lifetime." I thought this was a more honest approach and I appreciated that.

When I hear things like "Trek has your back!" and "Lifetime Warranty," I believe it. Don't. At least not literally. Yes, they have a lifetime warranty but that's with some stipulations and overall judgement-calls on the manufacturer's behalf.


----------



## early one (Jul 20, 2010)

"At the very least, this has taught me that "lifetime warranties" are never as straightforward as they seem, and I probably won't base any future bike purchases on this type of warranty."

You might want to rethink that. Al or C, without the warranty you would be out a lot more $.


----------



## pivi (Jul 31, 2011)

I just went back to aluminum because of situations like this. I had a 2010 Specialized Tarmac - it was fine, but I'm not willing to be almost paranoid because failures like the one you experienced. I had a carbon seatpost crack on a road bike before. Now, I got a 2012 Specialized Allez Comp, I wish it remains solid for a reasonable period of time.

Also, I ride more confident on the Allez. Almost same weight and it's a very comfortable frame. No pains in long rides. Even though I hadn't experienced a problem with a carbon frame, stories like yours are enough for me to avoid it.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

That does seem like a steep price to pay for a defect that was warrantied And I think you feeling a bad taste is appropriate,

Companies like Trek are all trying to do a balancing act between handling legitimate claims expeditiously and making sure they don't honor claims not covered by the warranty submitted by people trying to take advantage of them. Their first line of defense in this are their dealers. In your case, not having a relationship with the LBS hurt you both in terms of time to settle as well as probably cost. There are many lbs that would have worst case sold you the new parts at cost and best case waived the labor.......for long term customers. IMO this shop had a chance to earn a loyal customer and may have blown it. 

As to the failure itself, I'd love to know what Trek attributed it to...........a race worthy bike of any material shouldn't fail like that. 

As to those claiming that trek is blameless in this whole thing...........I wonder if they would feel the same way if they had to fight as hard as the OP and have it take 2 months and almost $500 to get back riding a bike that failed because of a manufacturers defect (since they covered the claim, and their warranty is only for manufacturing defects.......)....... I suspect they would be lass thoughtful about it than the OP. 

IMO

Len



Mutombo said:


> I can finally say that this warranty dispute it behind me. I managed to pick up my new bike from the shop yesterday, just over 2 months after the original frame broke.
> 
> Trek gave me a new 2011 Madone 5.9 frame, in a really nice metallic blue color. Unfortunately, not all my parts from my 2009 transferred over, so I had to buy a new seatmast ($120), and a bolt-on front derailleur ($80) since my old front derailleur was a clamp-on style. I was also charged $50 for shipping the bike to Trek and $200 for the shop to tear down and re-build my frame. All told, my frame cracking cost me $480 to get everything up and running again.
> 
> ...


----------



## AJL (Jul 9, 2009)

Wow, what an ordeal! I'm glad it over for you. I've been following this thread to see how things would turn out. Basically, next time I buy there is a 90% probability that I'll buy from my LBS, just because they treat me so well. Glad I've built a good relationship with them over the years. A good lesson to learn.

When talking to a salesman I know at my LBS, he said I should only buy carbon if I can afford to buy a new frame in case I crash it!


----------



## canyonchaser (Jun 14, 2011)

I dunno - $500 for a brand new frame? That doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. If you'd decided you wanted to upgrade to a new chassis just because, you'd have a hard time getting into a new frame for that price.

The biggest bummer is the amount of time you were without a bike.

dp


----------



## gbarker (Jun 29, 2008)

Mutombo-

Thanks for updating us and sorry to hear about your trials and tribulations with Trek and the LBS. It seems not stellar performance by either. 

It just goes to show, that you don't have to be a racer to need multiple rides in the stable. Good luck and good riding with your new steed.


----------



## Maximus_XXIV (Nov 10, 2008)

Friends don't let friends ride Trek. 
Perfect amount of bikes = N+1. N=Number of bikes currently owned. 
Light bikes fail. Whether carbon, steel or aluminum. Ti lasts for 1001 years, no matter what.
Roadies are snobs
Tubular tires ride smooth as a baby's hiney but without all the noise
One day you will discover that you are a retro grouch 

I think that covers everything.


----------



## gtpharr (Oct 6, 2008)

Mutombo,

I'm glad you are back riding, but I feel you have every right to have been left with a sour taste in your mouth. $480 out of your pocket for repairs to correct a frame that failed under warranty is a bit excessive.

It was not your fault nor the LBS faults that the frame failed. The LBS did not owe you any favors or discounts, but they might have worked with you a little bit more if they valued your future business. $200 for a frame swap is about the most I'd expect to pay no matter what shop I went to. $80 for a new Ultegra FD seems like full retail as we can buy them on line all day long for $45 to $60. I'm in the shipping business and know it does not cost $50 to ship a bike frame from CA to WI via ground so the shop made a little extra profift on the shipping unless they sent it overnight or 2nd day. Like I said, the LBS did not owe you any favors or discounts, but I don't see that went out of their way to help you or do anything to earn your future business.

As for Trek, I can't believe you got stuck paying $120 for their proprietary seat mast. If Trek chose to replace your frame under warranty, the least they could have done is provide you with a seat mast that fits the new frame. Sticking you with $120 bill for a new seat mast was either an honest mistake or a poor business decision on someone's part. If you have not done so already, I *strongly suggest *you call Trek's Warranty Dept personally and ask them why you had to pay for the new seat mast. I would not be surprised if Trek apoliigized for that mistake and offered you some type of compensation. 

Good luck with the new frame and I hope you get many trouble free years of riding out of it.


----------



## Porca (Jul 31, 2011)

I have just picked up my bmc that had the frame replaced under warranty. The local bike shop swapped everything for free I paid for them to put new cables on. I also got a new fork that didnt need replacing and they used the seat post off the old frame.
I didnt get charged shipping i would not of been happy with that. But the service from the lbs was excellent


----------



## grashoverride (Jun 1, 2009)

IMO the seatmast is part of the frame, it's strongly specific part and SHOULD be provided with the frame with no extra costs...
The relationship with the LBS is indeed very important. I had some paint cracks on my old Trek 1.7 and had no problems with getting new 2012 2.3 frame with no extra costs. I also had the chance to strip the old frame and put the components on the new alone, so no extra costs for me at all... I don't know if that's possible everywhere, but I did it myself not to save money, but to be sure that everything is done properly (in my country bike mechanics are very unreliable, especially if we talk about road bikes.)
I am very happy that after all you've got a new frame and I am waiting to see the pictures. I myself have 2011 5.2 frame, which is the same but in different color and so far I am very pleased with it.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

canyonchaser said:


> I dunno - $500 for a brand new frame? That doesn't seem like a bad deal to me. If you'd decided you wanted to upgrade to a new chassis just because, you'd have a hard time getting into a new frame for that price.
> 
> The biggest bummer is the amount of time you were without a bike.
> 
> dp


He had a new frame.
It broke because it wasn't made right. 
Why should it cost him $500 to get back to where he was before it broke?

Not to mention the lost 2 months of riding. 

Len


----------



## canyonchaser (Jun 14, 2011)

Len J said:


> He had a new frame.
> It broke because it wasn't made right.
> Why should it cost him $500 to get back to where he was before it broke?
> 
> ...


Len,

Read the OP



> The bike is a 2009 Trek Madone 5.1, which I purchased new just under 2 years ago


In my book, a two year old bike is no longer "new" 

But the 2 months lost to riding does indeed suck.

dp


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

canyonchaser said:


> Len,
> 
> Read the OP
> 
> ...


It certainly isn't an old frame.......and it seems like the OP wasn't looking for a new frame when it broke. 

I've had 2 yo frames that you couldn't pay me to replace.

I guess the message here is.......buy a bike....and if it brakes because we made it wrong, be happy it only cost you $500 to get it replaced. 

I just don't get that attitude. 

Ymmv

Len


----------



## otter68 (Jul 15, 2010)

OP, glad you're up and running again. I admit that I haven't read the entire thread, so sorry if this has been covered...

I've read multiple cases (online, of course) of manufacturers paying for the parts swap when they do a warranty frame replacement (and some that didn't). I agree it might be in your interest to contact Trek to try and get a check for the parts swap and the seat post. If you do, make sure you get the Trek case number the shop got and use the same contact number the shop uses, if possible. Personally, I think you deserve reimbursement for the derailleur since it was another frame-dependent swap, but I really don't see them doing that.

My bet is that like any warrant department, their 1st response will be that the frame replacement is all they can do. Like many warranty claims, it might take multiple calls, if that's worth it to you.


----------



## evansuk2000 (Sep 1, 2011)

Good good!


----------



## qatarbhoy (Aug 17, 2009)

I'd gladly pay $500 to replace a broken bike rather than 1000s of $ to buy a new one from scratch. My wife would also be much happier. 

Two months off cycling sucks but that's why everyone should have a spare bike.


----------



## onefastbiker (Mar 23, 2012)

*Trek's "lifetime" Warranty*

After 18 years &t 4 months Bob Read's Masterpiece: my 1993 5200 OCLV; developed a crack in drive side chain-stay.

An authorized dealer photographed the damage and sent the claim to Trek. They wanted to see the frame, so we dissembled it and sent it to Waterloo. Prior to receiving the frame, I spoke to Mr. Mitch Plout at Trek Warranties, he remarked that: "carbon fiber does not fatigue". In fact, Calfee's technical white paper states that carbon fiber frames have a "high fatigue resistance". I explained that, over the years, I have dropped the chain due to shifting miss-adjustments a few times, but this hasn't occurred in years. The crack was below where a chain would drop (the crack extends to the bottom of the chain stay where it turns back on form a "u" shape on the bottom of the stay) . This crack didn't result from any recent accident. Mr. John Buchanan of Natomas Cycles, the authorized dealer, remarked that Specialized Bicycles warranty policy left things up to the dealer and he would replace the frame if this bike was from that manufacture. After Mr. Mitch Plout received the frame, he contacted John and remarked that the crack was from "wear and tear" and would NOT be covered by the TREK Warranty. This process took a full month. In concession, I was offered a new frame or bike at 20% off. John offered me the new frame at an extremely low price and did a fine job building it.

It is true that I had over 76K miles on the 5200 and certainly got my money's worth.However, over the years I have known a few owners of this frame that developed a crack in the carbon and all of them received a replacement frame from Trek.

This is the first bike I've owned without a "made in America" decal displayed on a frame tube. Guess a few penny's a unit is worth more to the current management then keeping America's work force strong and vibrant. American business should look at Germany for a better solution for both parties. Warranties have always been a marketing issue - the manufactures know that most of the bikes they sell will be collecting dust in the garage long before their structural expiration. Replacing a few of them went a long way towards establishing their hard earned reputation.

Treks remain exquisitely engineered, highly rated and sought after. Hopefully, one day their management will match the engineering expertise the company relies on. I hope all of you that are on a Trek are as lucky as I am given Trek's current policies!


----------



## Nicole Hamilton (Sep 5, 2010)

Mutombo said:


> FINAL UPDATE: 8/31/2011 - I can finally say that this warranty dispute it behind me. I managed to pick up my new bike from the shop yesterday, just over 2 months after the original frame broke.
> 
> Trek gave me a new 2011 Madone 5.9 frame, in a really nice metallic blue color. Unfortunately, not all my parts from my 2009 transferred over, so I had to buy a new seatmast ($120), and a bolt-on front derailleur ($80) since my old front derailleur was a clamp-on style. I was also charged $50 for shipping the bike to Trek and $200 for the shop to tear down and re-build my frame. All told, my frame cracking cost me $480 and over 2 months to get everything up and running again.



That's not a bad outcome. I'm glad it worked out. I hope you had another bike to ride while your Trek was out of commission.


----------



## Elfstone (Jun 27, 2006)

Mutombo, when you have a moment, would you so kind as to post some photos of your new rig? Thank you in advance.

Peace


----------



## 917mulsanne512 (Jul 21, 2012)

In 2011 at a well-regarded soCal shop I saw a Madone frame being prepared for a warranty return. I had never before or since seen a double seat stay failure (about 3 in. above dropouts). Was said to be a JRA failure, i.e., not an impact. Decided on a Cervelo frameset instead.


----------



## pivi (Jul 31, 2011)

I might be dumb, but I own a Madone now... after posting positive aspects on the Allez some time ago, I had lots of pain after a 50-mile ride in San Diego, so I found that the problem was either the frame material or sizing. I ended up finding a 4.5 Madone (Ultegra) for the price of a Tarmac with Apex on Black Friday last year.

Can't say I did not have problems... I'm now on my 3rd frame. I got the 1st one on Black Friday (November 2012), found some bubbles on the non drive side of the chainstay, but the LBS replaced it with no hassle in January. One month later, I found a crack on the clearcoat exactly where the aluminum rear dropout bonds on the carbon. The store tried to convince me that was safe, but I insisted and they replaced the frame again... so I'm on my 3rd one now since March, and so far so good (I guess). I don't know if I like Trek (or the LBS) for solving the issues, or hate Trek for having issues with 2 brand new frames.

In the end, this bike is way more comfortable than the Allez, but I'm not sure if it's because of the material or sizing: this one is size 58 whereas the Allez was 61 and the bike was so stretched for me.


----------



## Guest (Oct 4, 2013)

I figured that Trek would honor the warranty. Why not as those carbon frames do not cost them much at all most likely. I did see a carbon frame with a break similar to that at Stones Cycles in Alameda Calif. The shop owner sent it in for warranty for the bike owner. Stones cyclery only sells steel frames but he sent it in for the person anyway. I asked him why and he said because they will be happy and come back and buy other stuff like tires and things. Maybe they will fall in love with a beautiful Waterford or Bob Jackson sometime. You never know. 

I have two bikes that are made in America. One is over 20 years old and I commute to work on it every day and the other I had built for me earlier this year in Santa Ynez California.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

917mulsanne512 said:


> Decided on a Cervelo frameset instead.


Out of the frying pan and into the fire.


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

Does everyone realize this is a two year old thread you're responding to?


----------



## Guest (Oct 5, 2013)

stanseven said:


> Does everyone realize this is a two year old thread you're responding to?


 I just logged into the roadbike forum today and had no idea it was so old. The guy probably does not even have the replacement frame any longer.


----------



## onefastbiker (Mar 23, 2012)

*still have the replacement frame*

Yes, "The guy" does still have the replacement frame. The 5.9 still handles,climbs and accelerates with authority! In addition, a friend of mine just took delivery of a Project 1 and that 15lb masterpiece is covering ground at an alarming rate! Yes, it's still a shame that he had to pay so much to get a bike made in America, as they still only make the top of the line Project 1, 6 & 7 series bikes here. My friends overseas simply shrug and remark that the USA is rapidly becoming a plutocratic state. One remarked that German's would shun someone who closed so much production in their country. Another friend remarked that he worked for a German company assembling products in Indochina however, those products were only for that market. The German factory remained open making the same products that are sought after in both Europe and the USA. Thus Germany has a strong economy. Time magazine ran an story about how the USA should follow the German example. Assembling Bicycles we engineer in this country again would be a good start! BTW, German assembly workers make as much or more then American workers. That's how they can afford to buy Trek's OCLV frames which are sought after tn both Europe and the USA !


----------



## scott967 (Apr 26, 2012)

Yup. That's why I ordered a Focus Izalco. German engineering and Chinese manufacturing. I suppose Canyon is manufacturing in Germany as well?

scott s.
.


----------

