[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.

Indeed

Sounds like he was unlucky. If during the crash your momentum applies across the rear-triangle rather than down through it, then the stays might deform and not go back - esp. as it's a light-built frame.
The fact that the paint has flaked elsewhere suggests to me non-plastic deformation. It could be a manufacturinjg fault of course but you cant tell really.
Give it to Halfords to send back to Boardman who might be nice about it and either give you a new frame or a discount on one.

BTW. I have a Boardman Team frame (1.7kg) with F120 forks and think it makes a really decent XC/trail bike.

A cheap lightweight frame has bent? As keith Bontrager famously once said "Cheap, light, strong, pick any two"

So you want to quote law but then attempt to lie about it thus breaking the law

I don't want to attempt to lie about anything thank you [it isn't my bike], merely pointing out what would happen if you did

Can one of you please explain what Q13 means from this gov site?

Now the retailer may well point out obvious signs of it having been in a crash but I still read that as the onus being on the retailer & not - as the lawyer up there said - on the consumer.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080107211236/http://www.berr.gov.uk/Consumers/fact-sheets/page38311.html

Dear Sir,

I was recently riding my new (ish) bike, when all of a sudden I fell off and damaged it, there seems to be a dent/scuff on the frame and it may be bent. This is clearly the fault of you or your supplier, therefore you must give me a new frame for nothing.

You are having a laugh of extreme proportions, surely!!

Replace 'riding my new bike' with 'driving my car' walk into a dealer and ask for a new one and see how far you get. 😆

You are having a laugh of extreme proportions, surely!!

I don't expect he'll succeed, merely pointing out that the retailer has to prove it & not him

Al - in general the point is true - under SOGA a fault is assumed to be a manufacturing fault if it appears within six months. Its really clear.

However in a case like this the retailer merely has to say - its crash damage therefore not a manufacturing fault. The retailer has expert opinion. The fact that there is crash damage establishes that it is not necessarily an inherent fault and the burden of proof would return to the buyer. He would have to sue and to show that it was a manufacturing fault.

i.e common sense prevails

I've crashed all my bikes numerous times and I'd be well hacked off if the frames had broken in other than catastrophic circumstances. I'd expect to fall off my bike about 50 times a year, and for the bike to survive years of such treatment - hell, I often jump off and drop it on the floor to catch a shot 🙂 Mountain biking is inherently risky and the bikes should be built to withstand routine impacts.

The comparison with a car is spurious - you don't expect to crash a car, and if you do, you want it to crumple and absorb the shock to protect the occupants

Pretty much mark. I wouldn't fancy your chances in court trying to prove that a crash should not have caused that much damage.

BTW - someone said above racing invalidates warranty - It may well do but your rights under SOGA are a separate thing. If racing would be a reasonable use of the bike then racing with it would not affect your SOGA rights

He's a car dealer, so if he leans on his car and the wing 'creases', thats a manufacturing fault?

Son No2's XTC has a huge dent in the top tube where Son No1 dropped his GT on it... when/if it fails I'll just buy another frame.

TandemJeremy - Member
Al - in general the point is true - under SOGA a fault is assumed to be a manufacturing fault if it appears within six months. Its really clear.

However in a case like this the retailer merely has to say - its crash damage therefore not a manufacturing fault. The retailer has expert opinion. The fact that there is crash damage establishes that it is not necessarily an inherent fault and the burden of proof would return to the buyer. He would have to sue and to show that it was a manufacturing fault.

It's not a fault though, that's my point - it's damage.

So "the retailer merely has to say - its crash damage" kind of makes "a fault is assumed to be a manufacturing fault if it appears within six months" meaningless, no?

Exactly al. Have a we read of the links above - its onerous on the retailer hence many try to get out of it. It does not make it meaningless - the six months reversed burden of proof is a general principle not a cast iron written in statute absolute.

By pointing to the crash damage and saying that is the reason for the bent tube the retailer shown that it is not an inherent fault.

The point is that at less than six months old it is up to the retailer to show / prove that it was not an inherent fault - after 6 months it sis up to the buyer to show it is an inherent fault.

But it could be a fault that it wasn't able to survive whatever impact it took when it should have done.
Or it could have been normal damage for the given impact

whichever, if the consumer claims that it was a fault - the burden of proof is with the retailer [in the first 6 months]

It does not make it meaningless

It does in this situation.

The retailer has expert opinion

The fact that there is crash damage establishes that it is not necessarily an inherent fault and the burden of proof would return to the buyer. He would have to sue and to show that it was a manufacturing fault.

Ultimately this will just be a squabble between two parties where the OP's mate will have to go to court if the retailer refuses to meet his expectations.

I don't know much about SOGA but I have done countless research and report writing for failure cases where my then boss did the appearing as an expert witness, and I currently provide consultancy services for a solicitors here where product failure is an issue. Admittedly I'm still learning the ropes when it comes to legalese, but my experience is that if there is obvious crash damage as described, and an expert is likely to conclude your mate bent it in a crash then this will likely only make it as far as solicitors letters if he were too push it that far. Most solicitors, upon receiving an engineers report that blames the crash will advise him to not go any further. Your mate could push it further than that but it would probably be a waste of time. Like others said, I think common sense will prevail, he is not likely to win anything because of some perceived SOGA technicality.

Did your friend travel to the race in a yellow bus with lots of tongue marks on the windows 🙄

Uplink - the point being that the retailer can give a reasonable explanation for the damage -"its crash damage" and refuse to replace. next step for the buyer is to sue in court. The claim would rest on is the retailers refusal to replace reasonable ( remember "reasonable" has a legal meaning). I would think it unlikely a court would find against the retailer in this situation.

Its not like a TV failing - unless there is obvious signs of the TV having been dropped.