Trakhak

Your argument is not with Trek: it's with the store employee who idiotically said that Trek might cover the damage under warranty when he should have known perfectly well that they wouldn't and is now trying to shift the blame for the problem he created to the Trek rep.

The Trek rep is not claiming that you lied about the accident. The rep is saying that any impact that was severe enough to bend both the wheel and the frame would rule out warranty coverage.

This thread should be a sticky for bike store employees everywhere to read. Moral: don't bring up the subject of warranty coverage in cases of damage from impact: it probably won't end well.

Trakhak

Forget the irrelevant posts about what "lifetime" means for Trek's warranty. The Trek rep correctly ruled out warranty coverage of an impact severe enough to damage both the wheel and the frame. Damage like that would not be covered under warranty for a bike that was bought last week, let alone in 1983. If you're still angry, chew out the bike store employee. That's the person who created the problem, not the Trek rep.

On another note, congratulations on finding the Trek Elance for such a low price. You lucked out on that one.

Scummer

I'll let you know how good their warranty is, once I get my frame back. My bottom bracket shell dislodged from my 2007 Madone 5.2 frame.
I noticed the problem first when my crank started wobbling, and once I took the bike apart I was able to just spin the bottom bracket shell inside the frame. I couldn't even get the 2nd BB cup loose, because the shell just spun.

It's been 2 weeks so far, and this is clearly a manufacturers defect.

abikemechanic

thats all fine and dandy, you can believe what you want, but if the world worked the way that you believe then you would have a brand new trek 400 straight out of the box for free because of a very soft landing after you gracefully avoided a pothole.

dpeters11

Most use Small Claims court, that's $50 here, and a lot of companies don't show up.

Trakhak

Don't do it. You'll lose. The Trek rep would definitely show up and would have no trouble proving that the damage resulted from a severe impact and not from a manufacturing defect. Scummer (post 28) has a bike with an unambiguous manufacturing defect; that's a completely different situation.

DScott

Do you mean the bend is up near the headtube? Pics would help.

No matter what happens, at least you know you got your moneys worth out of that bike!

tagaproject6

You are way too emotional about this. Relax a bit, think hard about your claim.

Address the "warranty against manufacturing defect" issue and not your "shouldn't one be able to avoid a pothole and not expect their frame to be bent?". When you lifted the front wheel and came down...it was enough force to bend the frame. Pretend there is no pothole...technically what you did was a wheelie that damaged the frame. The manufacturer could then accuse you of using the bike other than what it was designed to do.

Either way, the issue here is with the manufacturer and the 41 will only serve to make its own interpretations but will ultimately have no bearing on Trek's decision.

Unfortunately, you want to be right and that feeling will cause you to make your own interpretations on what you are willing to accept.

eric01

Trek warranties defects in material or workmanship. You used the bike for TWENTY SEVEN YEARS!

That's pretty darn good material and workmanship.

Stop trying to get a handout.

Toeslider

How did you avoid the pothole with the rear wheel? Usually they both follow the same path...

Fleabiscuit

OP, quit being a moron and trying to get something for nothing. At least your father didn't try to do the same thing. Learn from his example and set a good example for that 2 year old. Trek owes you nothing.

Pedaleur

But let's see some pics anyway. This could get fun!

tagaproject6

Yes...we need to see the pics!

pdedes

i guess steel isn't real.

critofur

So, doesn't it follow that if I divert the front away from the path of the pothole the rear also would not hit it? I actually don't recall whether or not the rear caught the pothole or avoided it entirely. As far as I know, damage (other than perhaps to the rim, tire, or tube) is much less likely to happen from the rear from potholes.

I pulled the front to the side, not just up - that should also explain to you why there was stress to the frame, coming back down at an angle. I understand this myself, but I was startled that the frame was not tough enough to withstand that maneuver.


Why are you calling me a moron?

1) I didn't try to claim a warranty until the Trek store suggested it.

2) They first told me (I later learned this was incorrect) that they would heat up my frame so they could remove the downtube and braze in a new one. I would actually prefer that they do that.

3) I'm not trying "to get something for nothing". I just want my bike to be safe and I don't want some Chinese made $100 WalMart bike after having had this Trek 400 for the last 27 years.

4) Later, after the bike had been there for a while, I didn't understand what was taking so long and I became anxious as to what would happen. They DID continue to tell me that there's no guarantee that the would cover it under warranty, when I asked what they might do if it was covered they told me they might just give me a new bike, but they don't know until they hear back from corporate regardless.

I knew I was being honest. I knew (IMO) that the frame really shoudln't have bent from pulling the wheel up to avoid a pothole. So, I was happily thinking to myself: wow, this is so cool - I forgot about the lifetime warranty. I was thinking wouldn't that be so nice, maybe I will get a nice new Trek bike even though I'm poor and there's no way I could buy one (unless I wanted my wife to kick me to the curb and throw my stuff out the third floor window while screaming obscenities at me).

EDIT: I will go take photos now.

critofur

My 400 has seen a lot of rain, salt, snow, and sun and been parked outside most of it's 27 year lifetime. But, the bearings are all working smoothly and the frame has only a little cosmetic rust. (Some of the small parts are more than a little rusty though, as you can see - they still work properly however)
Pics as requested:

LowCel 

Looking at that picture I doubt Trek will ever go for a JRA warranty claim. Still wish you the best of luck though.

critofur

AFAIK they're claiming they don't believe what actually happened - that the damage was caused by my lifting the wheel and avoiding[not colliding with] a pothole. A) I don't really think one should be afraid to use such a maneuver to avoid road obstacles - I think if we are buying a good quality bike with a frame warranty, we should feel confident it will be covered in this case and B) So long as Trek refuses to accept the truth I'm going to keep pushing - that IS how the damage occurred and I'm NOT lying about it.

Pedaleur

Well......what? I can read? Look at the warranty (hint: it addresses replacement parts). Or find me a rep who has denied a warranty because someone replaced a tire.

Geez Louise, I'm as cynical as the next guy, but your claim was ridiculous on its face.

And I'm certainly no Trek fan-boi, though I've had great experience with Trek's (Lemond's, technically) warranty.

critofur

Thank you.

Anyway, what exactly does JRA mean? There was no collision, no actual "accident" (as in running into something). But, I was going fast down a mountain and had to lift the front and divert to the side to avoid a road hazard. Is that what you would call JRA?

The very fact that several people doubted what happened leads me to believe that the warranty claim is solid. That is to say, they are supporting my opinion that the frame should not have bent under those conditions.

Pedaleur

Whew. I'd be hard pressed to figure out how that kind of damage came from popping the front end up; I wouldn't expect compression failure like that. Whether you're telling the truth or not, this has all the indications of running it into the garage; good luck convincing Trek otherwise.

darb85

is there rust inside the frame? has it ever had an application of frame saver? yes, you were avoiding a pothole, but damage was still caused by an impact...

LowCel 

Just looked at a few different warranties for a few different companies. Looks like I am full of crap. Sorry about that, I'll go attempt to take my foot out of my mouth now.

LowCel 

JRA - Just Riding Along, doing a small wheelie, bunnyhop to avoid a pot hole is (in my opinion) just riding along. Regardless, best of luck to you.

critofur

The bike was not rusty at the time the damage occurred. Impact? Impact of the tire on a flat road??? - seems a bit annoying to call that "impact". Certainly not a "collision" as in hitting something head on.

So, you want to get technical - everytime you have even 1 mm of space between the tire and the road, and then the tire once again makes contact with the road, that is an "impact" worthy of voiding the warranty??!?

Yes! That's what happened, unfortunately, I also had to pull the front to the side a few inches.

Have you ridden a road bike down a mountain? If I had a collision, I would not be posting, I would not be alive today. I could contact my bike mechanic and probably a few others who I originally told what happened...