[Closed] Boardman bent frame after two rides

bent how, from impact?

pics?

I'm thinking material fault, maybe too much material removed during butting or too much heat during welding? (seems unlikely)

Or he didn't do the QR up properly and it bounced out of one of the drop-outs and bent the other one.

The good old 'just riding along' failure?

racing is never covered in the warranty.

Falling off is never covered by warranty. Crash replacement at a cost but not warranty

speed is not really important, how you hit the ground is. Hit a root or rock the force is concentrated and the damage done.

what mrmo said.

Agree with above, crashing = not warranty.

If he'd just dropped it and it happen to land on a sharp rock and dent, should that be warranty?

It's annoying, and you could try the whole 'trading standards not fit for purpose thing' but I wouldn't hold your breath!

I've not seen the bike but he's is a bit timid on the bike at the moment (bit certainly fit enough and no fatty). There is a small (1/3rd size of thumbnail) scuff near the brake caliper where it must have hit something and slightly further up is the bend in the frame where the paint has cracked slightly.
Rear wheel doesn't do a complete rotation without jamming the brake rotor in the caliper.
He said he would mind if he was on fire and it was a monster crash, but he said it was a pathetic effort!

So, let's get this straight: He's fallen off and bent it and expects a new frame for free?

Sorry, I'd be amazed if that happens. If they offer a new one at a discounted rate, that would be more a great result IMO.....

But of course, because it HalFRAUDS they must be ripping him off, right???

He was probably a bit unlucky but being a car dealer he's making a lot of noise about it and sticking to his guns. Does seem a bit odd though.

So, let's get this straight: He's fallen off and bent it and expects a new frame for free?

He's mostly questioning the build quality of a bike that is expected to hit the ground occasionally (unlike his road bike or tri bike).

I suppose the thing is you have to accept that on a lightweight frame, things get bent quite easily. Had he been riding a DH monster the frame would have shrugged it off, an XC race type bike won't. Lots of tubing is coke can thin anyway so they aren't going to be that resilient.

I'm not an engineer so I won't start wurbling on about technical stuff but as an mtb er who has damaged lots of lightweight frames, but no sturdy ones, this is my experience.

Anyway, as mentioned above.. racing is specifically excluded.

Steel frames on the other hand can be repaired quite easily and IME don't ding/bend/fail quite as easily. That's no help for him though.

^what they say. In summary; ask your mate if he would expect the garage to pay for damage to his car if he bumped it into a wall really slowly.

unless it's a material fault (and those normally show up as cracked welds) then I suspect he's out of luck. Hopefully Halford's will do him a deal on crash replacement but that's up to them.

you want light you get fragile, such is life. I dented a cannondale frame by dropping it

do post pics, if the stays are still aligned (ie the tube is dented rather than bent) then it should remain rideable. I still ride the cannondale that I dented.

In all seriousness, I bent a frame once. I was only coasting slowly down a shallow hill and just clipped something and fell off. I wasn't even pedalling or standing up,

That really is the truth! Honest is it!

[img] [/img]

I wonder how much of this is based out of an underlying prejudice / snobbery factor around Boardman (Halfords) bikes.

If it had been a Trek / Spesh / On One / etc. would we be as quick to bash blame the shonky quality?

Surely all these bike pass CEN now?

ask your mate if he would expect the garage to pay for damage to his car if he bumped it into a wall really slowly.

hehe, I'll try that - you are of course right 🙂

do post pics, if the stays are still aligned (ie the tube is dented rather than bent) then it should remain rideable.

Bike is with Halfrauds and I doubt it will be back - they're on to Boardman about a replacement frame. Bike is unrideable as the rotor jams in the caliper every rotation

Not sure what a boardman limited edition bike is like, but if its a light weight xc bike, why has he bought that if hes just started?

I think light weight xc bikes are best off in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

If your just starting out you want something solid and made from steel, cos your bound to fall of loads of times.

Guys - it's April 1st!!!

Should add how does it go:

Light / Strong / Cheap

Pick any 2 of the above.

The Boardmans are light and relatively cheap.

You could try re-aligning the caliper, might help, might not.

Guys - it's April 1st!!!

Aww rats!

Bike is unrideable as the rotor jams in the caliper every rotation

Am i been fick here, if the rotor jams every rotaion then the rotor is bent ?

If its was the frame that was bent it would not turn at all and the rim would be nearer the chain\seat stay when static ?

I think light weight xc bikes are best off in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

Really? They are a lot of fun to ride quickly, if a complete beginner came to me and asked which secondhand bike to buy I'd point them at something like a cannondale F500 because they're an absolute hoot to ride, and whereas I'm prepared to suffer dragging 30lb of steel around the Peaks, I can imagine it would be hell for a beginner, and TBH some days I wish I still had it 🙁

What's more fun is the look on weekends warriors faces when you rock up on a 24lb v-braked XC bike and just ride past them down some "super gnarl core lite" trail (I'm thinking Cannock chase red here).

Anyway I'd echo comments that it's often slow crashes that do the damage.

It may be perfectly rideable as dents in lesser-stressed tubes are often not an issue.

Honestly, I'd be embarrassed in taking it back (having had folk try this on me as LBS employee)

+1 njee - re' the 'not fit for purpose' suggestion.

Surely no-one is saying that MTBs shouldn't be made to withstand a fall, crash...Are they? I mean a reasonable one, like this one seems to have been.

The crash to me didn't sound like a major one and should be able to withstand a reasonable crash imo. isn't that the reason we invest our hard-earned in to more expensive bikes?

The crash to me didn't sound like a major one and should be able to withstand a reasonable crash imo. isn't that the reason we invest our hard-earned in to more expensive bikes?

It's not that simple. You would never buy the bike that could withstand these sorts of impacts because it would weigh a ton.

It's under 6 months old
The onus is on the shop to prove that it's not a manufacturing fault, in law it's presumed that it is

If I were him - I'd say nothing about racing though

'Bit difficult to really go in to this as we do not know the facts of the off/crash...

In general terms though, MTBs should be generally crash resistant imo.

uplink - Member
It's under 6 months old
The onus is on the shop to prove that it's not a manufacturing fault, in law it's presumed that it is

BS

Ah, that'll buff out, surely?

[img] [/img]

cynic-al - Member

uplink - Member
It's under 6 months old
The onus is on the shop to prove that it's not a manufacturing fault, in law it's presumed that it is

BS

there you go al - the BS you refer to

http://www.consumerlaw.co.uk/Sale_Of_Goods_Act.htm

Anything you buy must meet its ‘contract’. So, for example, products must do what they are supposed to do, meet any sales description given by the retailer and they must be of a satisfactory quality.
[b]If something you buy doesn’t meet this contract then the person/company you bought it from is legally obliged under the Sale of Goods Act to take responsibility and not the manufacturer.[/b]
You should make a claim as soon as possible after you have made a purchase and discovered the problem. You do, however, have up to six years after your purchase date to ask for damages.
If you ask for a repair or a replacement product within 6 months of buying the original item then the retailer has to prove that the goods were not faulty under the Sale of Goods Act.

Jesus wept! You first have to establish what I have emboldened. How?

Misguided amateurs!

Jesus wept! You first have to establish what I have emboldened. How?

what's to establish?
That statement merely says that the retailer is responsible not the manufacturer

From the Government website

[i]
What happens if there is a dispute that the goods were faulty at the time of sale?

[b]If you make a claim for a repair or replacement of faulty goods within six months of purchase its up to the seller to prove that the goods were not faulty when sold to you.[/b] After six months you may be asked to prove that the fault has not been caused by accidental damage or wear and tear and you may want to obtain an independent expert’s report to back up your claim. However independent reports can be costly so before you get one it is important to discuss your proposals with the trader and if possible get prior agreement as to who will cover the costs. [/i]

http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/after_you_buy/know-your-rights/SGAknowyourrights/

probably just misguided amateurs though eh?

How do you establish the bike was faulty?

Say you crash your new car and dent it. Do you take it back and demand a repair?*

(*if you say "yes" here, all is lost.)

It's under 6 months old
The onus is on the shop to prove that it's not a manufacturing fault, in law it's presumed that it is

If I were him - I'd say nothing about racing though

Even for things that have been crashed?

Umm aye. That makes tons of sense.

You buy a plasma, you fall into it drunk at a party and smash the screen.
You take it back to John Lewis to get a new one aye?

Have a word with yourself...

Well the seat stay is bent - it's still the responsibility of the shop to prove it was his fault

If they can prove he fell off it - either by him admitting it or other acceptable means then fine.
If he goes in & says it was a JRA incident - they do indeed need to prove it wasn't, he doesn't have to prove it was

Same with the TV incident
Unless you admit to the drunken caper, they'd have to prove otherwise

after 6 months the onus changes to the buyer

How do you establish the bike was faulty?

You don't have to - they have to prove it isn't
did you not read the stuff from the gov link?

[b][i]its up to the seller to prove that the goods were not faulty when sold to you[/i][/b]

Say you crash your new car and dent it. Do you take it back and demand a repair?

If you had the balls to go in & say the damaged happened all on its own - they would have to prove it didn't

It may sound daft - but that's the law as it stands

I give up. I take it you are a teenager/student or whatever, never worked in retail/bought stuff/lived generally?

Onus is on buyer to make his case, then if it's half decent (which it clearly is not), for seller to rebut it.

Oh and if you are trolling, ACE WORK!

why is your email "stw.forum@googlemail.com"?

why is your email "stw.forum@googlemail.com"?

Why not?

I give up. I take it you are a teenager/student or whatever, never worked in retail/bought stuff/lived generally?

51 yr old small business owner

Onus is on buyer to make his case, then if it's half decent (which it clearly is not), for seller to rebut it.

as the law clearly states, no it's not

as the law clearly states, no it's not

You're not reading it in sequence (that website is misleading). The onus is always on the party who makes the claim. Basic law.

I am a lawyer BTW, dealing with disputes. Good luck with your consumer law!

Why not?

makes you look like a fan-boy.

You don't have to - they have to prove it isn't
did you not read the stuff from the gov link?

So you want to quote law but then attempt to lie about it thus breaking the law... what you propose is deception for material gain.

LOL @ the online consumer experts.