View Single Post
Old 01-29-13 | 12:39 PM
  #29  
Campag4life's Avatar
Campag4life
Voice of the Industry
 
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 12,572
Likes: 8
Originally Posted by Bacciagalupe
I have no doubt that Specialized did the math, and figured that it would be more cost-effective to inspect the forks and replace as needed, rather than manufacture 12,000 forks. That would take a lot more time and would result in around 20,000 surplus forks.

This doesn't mean Specialized are a pack of diabolical fiends trying to do the least possible for their customers. It's just business as usual.

I don't believe this will have any effect on lawsuits. If someone is going to sue, they're going to sue.

While I concur that it's a little bit inconvenient, I'm sure the owners will somehow manage to survive the trials and tribulations -- oh, the horror! -- of taking their bike to the shop for a week. And it's no different than, say, a Cannondale recall on Lefty forks, which were not user-serviceable and required taking the bike to an authorized retailer for repairs.
Diabolical in the sense of...business as usual...lol. They are trying to do the least for their customers as this saves them money.
$100 is for store credit for their products. Some base buying decisions upon business practices. I don't. I buy what I think is the best bike and to me Specialized makes the best bikes. But it is what it is.
PS: as to effect on lawsuits. Not so. Lawsuits can gather momentum. Recalls both promote and mitigate lawsuits.
Nothing sinks a company faster than recalls. The ONLY reason a company implements a recall is to mitigate liability aka the cost of heavy court payouts. My only hope is nobody is hurt by this issue.

Last edited by Campag4life; 01-29-13 at 12:43 PM.
Campag4life is offline  
Reply