KOXX-UK Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Mark, no surprise that I could not remember Mr. Ropers frame; it must be nearly a year ago. Let me tell you what was wrong with it. The rear hub was skewer located. I had been moving during use and the hard knurled washers on the skewer had eroded the drop outs. Had the hub and skewer had been fitted to any Aluminum frame it would have had the same effect. Strictly speaking I was not obliged to change the frame, but regardless of passage of time and usage I always consider every case on its own merits. Mr. Ropers 1065 was the first frame of that model that had been the subject of a warranty claim, so I decided to replace it. Stupidly I thought that he may put a thank you post on a forum, I am not a self indulgent person, so I asked him not to comment, and it’s that simple. No one has had a three month time limit applied to their claim by me, the U.K. importer. If someone has a fair point they will be treated fairly. I suggest that from a legal standpoint “treated fairly” is impossible to define, the factory quote three months against manufacturing faults so that is what’s quoted. Regarding the prices, yes, our frames do appear expensive by comparison to some other manufactures frames, but you do get a reliable product. Fred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 I wasn't refering to frames, but fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brisa Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 I really think if you look at that bash and the mounts they have all shifted forward like that due to the front mount playing hide and seek! It's hardly going to stay on one perfect shape considering at the moment of failure it would be using 2 rear mounts instead of evenly distributing the force. Either way with a back up like that on a frame thats barely over a month old from a company that usually is pretty fair as far as warranty cases go is shit! I think onza should go down the CLS Python route and leave the bash off if thats going to happen. Why put in there if its not for using? Its obvious its going to be the most abused part of the frame and if abused as you say it has been why didnt the bash fail first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted June 4, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 I couldnt of said it better myself Brisa :- Nice one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 I really think if you look at that bash and the mounts they have all shifted forward like that due to the front mount playing hide and seek! ← It would've bent further back if that was the case, not that far forwards, which is caused by it being twatted. The bash mount at the front effectively moved closer to the centre of the tubing near the frame, so that'd just mean it'd bend over the elastomer part. However, this bashguard hasn't (going from the pics), as it looks like the bend is further up the bashguard, into an area which wouldn't have been particularly affected by the movement of the mount. Also, the mount wouldn't make a big bulge like that, but repeatedly twatting it would. If you think I've got it wrong though, explain why 'cos I might not have remembered the pics properly... EDIT: This is the pic I was thinking of: That mount at the front moving in wouldn't have caused the bash to fold like that, so it IS just from it being twatted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishayton Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 Mark, no surprise that I could not remember Mr. Ropers frame; it must be nearly a year ago. Let me tell you what was wrong with it. The rear hub was skewer located. I had been moving during use and the hard knurled washers on the skewer had eroded the drop outs. Had the hub and skewer had been fitted to any Aluminum frame it would have had the same effect. Strictly speaking I was not obliged to change the frame, but regardless of passage of time and usage I always consider every case on its own merits. Mr. Ropers 1065 was the first frame of that model that had been the subject of a warranty claim, so I decided to replace it. Stupidly I thought that he may put a thank you post on a forum, I am not a self indulgent person, so I asked him not to comment, and it’s that simple. No one has had a three month time limit applied to their claim by me, the U.K. importer. If someone has a fair point they will be treated fairly. I suggest that from a legal standpoint “treated fairly” is impossible to define, the factory quote three months against manufacturing faults so that is what’s quoted. Regarding the prices, yes, our frames do appear expensive by comparison to some other manufactures frames, but you do get a reliable product. Fred. ← Right well, as good as koxx are, i'm still not impressed that a bolt stripped in my levelboss 2days after using it ans you told me their is nothing that you could do. you just told me that i must have stripped it, which still isn't good because i dent over tighten the bolts so i have to say i think the problem could be due to poor quality brake mounts really. anyway im not having a go because you were pleasant enough on the phone and helped me by advising to get it helicoiled. but i just think warranties on trials products take the mick abit. if that was a xc frame from another high profile company then i am in no doubt that it would by replaced of at least fixed, but because its trials as soon as it leaves the factory the manufacturer or distributor do not care what happens to it, on a £400 frame you would expect even the lame 3 month warranty to mean something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 4, 2005 Report Share Posted June 4, 2005 They can't *really* cover stripped threads though, 'cos that'd lead onto loads of shit like, for example, people stripping their BB shells, which in 99.9% of cases is mechanic's error. So I suppose there's not much they could do with you, 'cept tell you to either a) go on to Google and look for a helicoil kit for M5-sized bolts, or b) go to your local engineer/bikeshop/mechanic and ask them to helicoil it for you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishayton Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 They can't *really* cover stripped threads though, 'cos that'd lead onto loads of shit like, for example, people stripping their BB shells, which in 99.9% of cases is mechanic's error. So I suppose there's not much they could do with you, 'cept tell you to either a) go on to Google and look for a helicoil kit for M5-sized bolts, or b) go to your local engineer/bikeshop/mechanic and ask them to helicoil it for you... ← Yeah fair enough. I appreciate that. fred was quite helpful about that. It just pi**ed me off that a £400 frame developed a problem after 2 rides. its all sorted now so its ok but i dont think a thread should go after that length of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Isn't it Echos or ZOO!'s that die straight out of the box, thread-wise? I still don't get why we have cranks that have replaceable pedal inserts and freewheel threads, yet we still don't hvae a simple little helicoil in frames as standard :- Stronger, better, but no... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrishayton Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Isn't it Echos or ZOO!'s that die straight out of the box, thread-wise? I still don't get why we have cranks that have replaceable pedal inserts and freewheel threads, yet we still don't hvae a simple little helicoil in frames as standard :- Stronger, better, but no... ← yeh that does seem like a good idea doesnt it. hmm it prob costs alot more in production or something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomm Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 That mount at the front moving in wouldn't have caused the bash to fold like that, so it IS just from it being twatted. ← I disagree (And agree with Brisa). If the front mount failed, then the whole bash would pivot about the rear mounts. The elastomers could easily have been bent by that, and the shape of the bashplate could easily change, because there is no arch in it to support the force. Think of it like that bridge-building game. You take away one bit of the arch and the whole bridge collapses and looks really mangled. Same deal here (ish). To be honest, I agree with what a lot of people have already said: If you design a frame with a bashguard, you can expect it to be used for bashing. For it to break after 5 weeks of bashing is rediculous. I think Jay has a right to be pretty annoyed at the moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si-man Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 (edited) It wouldn't have failed if Onza had designed that area like the T-pro. How the hell are those little pieces of rubber supposed to do anything when they are hollow, and the mount for the elastomers doesn't even go anywhere near the bash plate. One hardish hit on the bash will obviously bend it since there isn't much holding it. Also, I think Onza should have put a plate over the mount on the downtube to strengthen that area. Why did Onza change an already proven to work design to something as shit as on the T-mag?? (The bashguards can also be bent by hand with abit of force) I hope that you understand what i'm on about, I tried to get my point out Edited June 5, 2005 by merlin_rider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted June 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 When are you gonna send my frame back then? It is mine after all :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 What's that all about? :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted June 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Well if theyre not gonna replace it i want it back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Er, I'm guessing phoning them, and sorting out the postage cost then would be easier. According to the warranty, the customer is liable for all postage costs (checking it 'cos I bent my FallGuys :P), just so you know in advance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted June 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 ok, cheers mark :P And i still want a price on a tpro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Well, technically you *should* be allowed half the price of the T-Mag frame off a frame of your choice if they're willing to half-price the Mag, so...er...I guess that's near enough £100, so you'd probably have to pay around £60 yourself, or £70 to inc. postage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted June 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Well that sounds fair enough. Onza can you please reply to my pm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Well that sounds fair enough. Onza can you please reply to my pm ← It's someone who works at Supercycles who replies to e-mails, so it's unlikely you'll get a reply at 20 past 10 on a Sunday evening, so they're not being intentionally rude or anything... You may not be able to get a T-Pro frame just yet, as there's some sorta issue with the BB shell on the new batch or something. I needed a replacement, and I had to get the T-Lite Long or the T-Mag because they didn't have any T-Pro frames spare that had working BB shells. Don't take that as gospel though as the situation may have changed. Try e-mailling info@supercycles.co.uk though, as you're more likely to get a response from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted June 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 I pm'd them on friday i think :P If they give me a t-lite i'll have one. I just want a frame so i can go riding! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 Just remember though that that'd still be approx. £160 you'd be paying for the T-Lite, I suppose... This is again assuming you get in the region of £100 as half-price thing from the T-Mag, so don't take it as 100% accurate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caleb Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 I thought the t-mag are £290 new? Shouldnt jay be getting like £150 off another onza frame ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lawnmowerman Posted June 5, 2005 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 well if i'm gonna have to pay loads then i wont get a frame. It took long enough to save for the tmag and now ive gotta save again. Bills to pay etc. It's not worth it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark W Posted June 5, 2005 Report Share Posted June 5, 2005 My bad, yeah - T-Mag's are £290 new. Didn't realise :"> So yeah, that'll probably be around a T-Pro's-worth, I guess, probably with £20-ish on top for the excess amount and postage... "Bills to pay" - coming from Mr. "King hubs front and rear" :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts