|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
Justin- I am surpprised because most manufactures give between one and three
years guarantee and Cannondale give a lifelong guarantee on the CAD 5 which I have just looked at. BRBR Be surprised but Bianchis one year warranty is not written in fine print on a scrap of paper that is lost during the sale. It is common knowledge for anybody buying this frameset. Justin It may be acceptable in the USA (surely not in such a litigious society) but it is not in Europe. Does Bianchi have such a poor reputation? BRBR I guess I just don't understand then. Bianchi says one year warranty, it broke outside that. Explain why Bianchi has a liability here, after publishing a one year warranty. If the Dutch courts arbitrarily enforce a longer warranty, i can see Bianchi not selling in the Netherlands. Justin Not only would a court uphold this but it actually has: that is a fact, ask Eddy Merckx! BRBR Then good luck. I thought the US was mired in frivilous lawsuits. This really smacks of 'entitlement' and victumization' on the buyers part. Justin- It certainly will not be cheaper to replace the frame as standard practice when the defect leads to serious personal injury or death, as the court ruled in the Eddy Merckx case. BRBR You weren't injured. Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene" |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
William- I make furniture. The only material I use is stainless steel.
Despite its expense and difficulty to machine, it's the best material for this application (appearance and durability). BRBR When it comes to road bikes, I'd put cro-moly steel 4th behind aluminum, titanium and carbon (in no particular order). From a physics perspective it just doesn't have the stiffness to weight ratio the other materials have. BRBR Hmmmm, many custom frame makers would disagree..Stick with furniture. If ya want stuff-aluminum, if ya want longevity, not rust, titanium. If ya want space age-carbon. If you want a long lasting, good looking, well riding bicycle, steel is still the best combination of what you are looking for. William Saying that it performs just as well in less subjective measures (stiffness to weight ratio) would not be an accurate representation. BRBR 'Stiffness to weight' was your statement, not mine. A bicycle is all about subjectiveness..Ask three people about frameset ride characteristics, get four opinions. Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene" |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
Stewart Fleming wrote:
Can you make one like a Softride with a beam? Bob Schwartz wrote: Most people get sufficient shock absorption from the mattress. You must have some unique requirements. In New Zealand the beds have to accomodate sheep. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
"Donald Munro" wrote in message news Dashi Toshii wrote: This guy is one of the biggest morons that I have seen post to RBR, he's an expert on building frames because he makes furniture, yeah, right! Kurgan Gringioni wrote: That's me. I posted under that name so PC would see it. Solidworks is a solid modeling program, used mostly by mechanical engineers. Cosmos is a finite-element analysis plug-in. That's what engineers use to evaluate their designs before prototyping. I have access to those programs because my friends are mechanical engineers. Steel, when evaluated purely for stiffness to weight ratio, doesn't perform as well as the other 3 materials. That is a fact. There are other factors to consider when choosing frame material, some of which are subjective (therefore not evaluateable by finite element analysis). It's also debateable whether the 1 lb. (or less) difference matters to the average rider. But those are the subjective criteria - the objective criteria (stiffness to weight ratio) is not really disputable. The computer doesn't lie (unless the user screws up the parameters). You should cross post this to rbt if you really want to liven proceedings up (and challenge the '2 guns' thread for number of posts). Dumbass - I don't read r.b.t for a reason but thanks for the suggestion. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message ... William- I make furniture. The only material I use is stainless steel. Despite its expense and difficulty to machine, it's the best material for this application (appearance and durability). BRBR When it comes to road bikes, I'd put cro-moly steel 4th behind aluminum, titanium and carbon (in no particular order). From a physics perspective it just doesn't have the stiffness to weight ratio the other materials have. BRBR Hmmmm, many custom frame makers would disagree..Stick with furniture. I've built a few bikes. I like doing furniture much better - less design constraint. Even custom framemaking is very repetitive (to me) - change a few angles here, tube diameters there. Yes, I will stick to furniture and its offshoots. Very few design constraints in comparison. If ya want stuff-aluminum, if ya want longevity, not rust, titanium. If ya want space age-carbon. If you want a long lasting, good looking, well riding bicycle, steel is still the best combination of what you are looking for. You should rephrase that to "steel is still the best combination of what *I'm" looking for". Speak for yourself, not for me or others. Those are subjective criteria. BTW, 2 of my bikes are steel. I still put it 4th when comparing frame materials. 'Stiffness to weight' was your statement, not mine. Stiffness to weight ratio is the only objective criteria, the one that can be modeled on a computer and concrete performance data produced. The others are subjective except corrosion resistance and perhaps resistance to failure (and that varies frame to frame). As for subjective criteria, there was a time when I would have put aluminum at the bottom, but some companies (not all, perhaps not even most) have evolved it to the point where it's shock absorbtion and resistance to failure are quite nice. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message ... Justin- Try and answer the substantive issues raised in this case: $2700 for a frame which lasted one and half seasons with no acceptance of liability on behalf of the manufacturer. Reasonable? BRBR I think that you should have been a more informed customer. One year warranties, where longer ones are common, should have set off alarms for you, particularly considering the price. I also think that the dealer, when considering you and your riding style, should have been more proactive. Are you a 'larger' rider? Come right out and say it. It's obvious he's a Fattie. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
"Donald Munro" wrote in message news Stewart Fleming wrote: Can you make one like a Softride with a beam? Bob Schwartz wrote: Most people get sufficient shock absorption from the mattress. You must have some unique requirements. In New Zealand the beds have to accomodate sheep. In Wyoming (where I grew up) they do some things with the sheep, but don't sleep with them. That's very nice of the New Zealanders. Some girlfriends don't even get treated that nice. Heather Halvorsin for instance, her boyfriend boots her off the bed in the afterglow. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:02:56 GMT, "Runkle" wrote:
"Justin Lewis" wrote in message news Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to why you must never buy a frame from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act in this way if the defects had resulted in personal injury? Dear Sir, On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from Van Herwerden Wielersport in the Netherlands. I have used this frame during the Summer months (March to October) resulting in a total of 13 or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I bought the frame established that it had cracked in at least two places. The warranty period begins the day the frame was purchased. Whether you ride the frame or just hang it on the wall, the warranty time clock is still ticking. According to your dates, the frame lasted approximately 600 days. Your subject line is misleading and you are full of crap...I'm glad you are not my customer. I would echo the gladness at not being your customer: as I have stated even the Dutch dealer assumes that a frame should be god for at least three seasons. The corolary of your reasoning, if it can be called that, is that you believe that a producer can limit his or her liability to the period of the warranty. A defect which occurs one day after the guarantee period is purely the responsibility of the client, in your view. I can assure you this is not the case in both the European and American legal systems: were a frame that you sell to break and injure a rider one day after the end of the guarantee period I assume that you would display the attitude that is so evident above. I hope so because, as is the case with Eddy Merckx recently, you would be found liable for both the defect and the personal injury. The courts will assume that a frame which breaks is defective and the onus of proving any incorrect use would be upon you. Whilst you may not approve of my subject line (perhaps a little emotive) there is certainly truth in it. Your approach to service is, however, perhaps worthy of your own terminology. Try and answer the substantive issues raised in this case: $2700 for a frame which lasted one and half seasons with no acceptance of liability on behalf of the manufacturer. Reasonable? Good for its reputation: I do not think so. The dealer from whom I bought it no longer deals with bianchi, advises all his clients to avoid them and I am a reasonably well-known rider who will make very apparrent that no rider in Holland should consider such a frame. The dealer, in contrast to your approach, has refunded half the purchase price. I am pleased i am not your customer. Go away and learn something about service and responsibility. Responsibility for what? You were not injured. Warranty against defect and liability for injury are two separate issues. Manufacturers can be held responsible for liability for injury for the life span of the product that they produce. Whether defect or not, liability can be assigned by the court and the manufacturer can be held responsible for the resulting injury. However, believe it or not, in the case of liability for injury, the manufacturer is not required to replace the product. Your claim against Bianchi has nothing to do with liability for injury as you were not injured. Your claim is solely based upon your feeling that Bianchi has an unfair warranty policy. However, you knew (or should have known, just as your dealer should have known) what the Bianchi warranty was at the time that you made your purchase. A one year warranty lasts for 365 days past the date of purchase. Try and bring your car back to the dealership one day after the warranty expires and see how far you will get. You need to stop arguing liability as it has nothing to do with your case. Your case is solely based on warranty. Go away and learn to take responsibility for your own actions or lack there of. Liability refers to any legal obligation: implied into all contracts of sale in Europe and the USA is a term (non-excludable, by whatever means including the offering of short warranty) that the goods must be fit fo the purpose for which they were sold and that they must fulfil what can reasonably be expected from that product. Liability arises once that implied condition is breached irrespective of the warranty. In its consideration the court will look at the price, what could be reasonably expected of similar products and whether it was being used for the purpose for which it was designed. A guideline in Europe is that any consumer durable should last for about five to eight years. Attempts to exclude this clause are not recognised: attempts to limit its effect are judged in terms of fairness. It would be considered unfair to limit liability for a defect in a frame of this price to 365 days. The dealer recognised this and Bianchi did not. I have hed two similar experiences: one with a computer after two years in which the dealer had to pay 60% of the repair costs and once with a car after 3 years in which the dealer paid 50% of the repair costs. The personal injury issue is separate: inthe case of Eddy Merkcx the company had attempted to replace the broken fork whilst refusing to compensate for the considerable injuries sustained when the fork broke. Court decision: EM LIABLE for both replacement and personal injury. The attitude of many of the suppliers in the cycle injury is most unhelpful and perhaps arrogant. Bianchi NL have certainly lost more than they have gained by their attitude. Fat? 82Kg and three times district time-trial champion. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
Justin Lewis wrote:
Kurgan perhaps you should have the decency to substitute the pronoun "we" at the beginning of your vitriol with the pronoun "I". Judging from the responses you've received here in the last day, perhaps you should have the decency to apologize to Kurgan since it appears his usage of "we" was justified. He was right: we really *don't* care about your bike warranty problems. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|