Hi
i broke a frame (seatpost tube)even though I respected the minium insertion of it, as I prove them with photos
This is their reply:
"They have looked over the information you have sent and because you have used a shim the seat tube has not been supported correctly"
Note that the shim is a 4" USE one
What dou you think???
Did the shim come below the min insertion mark?
Of course
Pace?
guess it 🙂
[img] 
[/img]
Issue is whether the shim went below the junction. Extended seat tube may mean it didn't.
Scott specifically say warranty it's void with use of a shim in their carbon frames.
it is not a extended seat tube, so the shim went below the junction by far
[img] 
[/img]
After my brother cracked his dream Kona Hei Hei frame when he used a shim on his USE seatpost I decided I'd never use one myself (he doesn't either).
No seatpost is worth cracking the frame!
Unfortunately I don't think many (if any) companies will warranty seat tube damage where a shim has been used. I suspect there is probably quite a variable thickness of shims (poor tolerances) and the seatpost/ seattube contact is less consistent and potentially subject to more bending forces than a seatpost only, even if the shim has a deep insertion. Can't explain this well but that would be my guess...
and why they don't say that in the warranty or the owners manual?
That's a question to put to the company if it isn't clear where they state their stance on seatpost shims. Most companies tend to be clear on this.