[Closed] PSA : The sad reality of a liftime frame warranty

That's a sad tale, indeed. Also sad that lifetime warranty means nothing or any real extended warranty and better in some ways to go for the cheaper throw away frames than invest in something.

I might be wrong but think Trek are pretty good warranty wise, a few years ago when I worked in a bike shop a guy bought his cracked trek aluminium frame that he bought in 1991, we phoned trek and they said "yup post it back with the original receipt and will will send you out a new frame". We sent a very worried looking man home to search through his old paper work in hope that the receipt would emerge! Not sure if he found it or not.

I think warranty like Curits bikes free repairs for life are more meaningful or crash replacement schemes, yes your less likely to get a shiny new frame for "free" but at least not all is lost.

I hope you get something out of it, you could asked the citizens advice bureau if you have any leg to stand on, or sometimes uni's have free legal advice session. May your not wanting to go down that route but might be worth finding out and letting Litespeed know that your doing so, might shock them into doing something!

was the frame purchased direct or through a UK retailer?

My philosophy with building frames is we have a deal - you give me money to build a frame to do a job. If the frame ever ceases to do that job, I'll fix it - if the job changes (you go downhilling on a touring bike), then you've broken your end of the deal.

Seems reasonable to me 🙂

Just read Litespeeds warranty on the website http://www.litespeed.com/inner.asp?content=re-warranty

Some quotes from the warranty: "not used for it's intended pupose", "trail riding", "jumps". So MTBing in general then?

In short = This warrany is void if you ever claim on it.

...considering most titanium frames last 5 years...

In the end, however, I had the frame welded up by Vernon Barker. Cost £75 including postage, very neat job, and it is still going strong.

So they can say the 'lifetime' of the frame has expited once it cracks? Therfor don't have to honour the warranty since the frame has reached it lifetime.

Thats pish and very misleading. I would keep this thread going for as long as you can and I certainly wouldn't leave it at that.

"trail riding"

So what is mountain biking? The word 'Mountain' conjures up quite rugged landscape. Maybe send them this link: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=mountains&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1280&bih=845&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=SSC2T6mYELCo0AXR8q2aCg

....and they should rename their product 'light loose earth use product'.

I've had cause to use the Marin/Whyte (ATB sales) warranty service a few times and they've always been superb, my Whyte 19 Ti made by Litespeed but I'm not expecting it to fail any time soon.

I agree with all the disappointment expressed here, but unfortunately according to my mate who is a Trading Standards officer (who are generally very pro-consumer), 'lifetime warranty' does not actually mean your lifetime. Instead it means 'reasonably expected' lifetime of the item in question.

The example he gave is if you buy a saucepan as a newly wed and use it every day for 70 years, and then the handle breaks, do you really expect to get a new one no questions asked. Because being reasonable you wouldn't really expect a saucepan to last 70 years, would you?

The issue here then is what is considered a reasonable lifetime for a Ti frame. Unfortunately, most of us buy into thinking that Ti frames go on for ever, and evidence shows that isn't the case. Is 5 years reasonable? What would the average MTBer in the street say? Now it becomes a contentious issue.

So i suspect sadly you don't have a chance other than through getting a deal on a replacement. And in turn; Litespeed (and others) should fess up on what they really think the expected lifetime of a frame or component is because this 'lifetime' warranty is just misleading marketing.

My Raleigh Titanium is now about 16 years old and still going strong (fair enough it is a road frame), maybe someone should tell it it should have died 11 years ago!!

I can sort-of see where they're coming from - titanium, like aluminium, has a finite life. Even the best-made frame with perfect welds will eventually fatigue and crack - it's an intrinsic property of the material.

So they should be more clear about what they mean by "lifetime" and the difference between fatigue and a manufacturing defect.

I experienced another interesting interpretation of warranty terms with Bianchi. I had an alloy road frame crack at a weld after less than a year. They replaced it with a new frame (actually the next model up) which was very nice until it also cracked after a few months. At this point (having also seen someone else's frame crack in exactly the same place) I decided I didn't want to risk any more Bianchis, and asked for a refund on the original bike purchase.

Bianchi refused, and then attempted to claim that my warranty was void because I had used my road racing frame "for racing"...
After much complaining, the best I managed to get was a refund for the value of the frame and keeping the components.

I guess the moral of the story is that all warranties are not created equal.

If litespeed expect a frame to last 5 (or 10) years then should say it is a 5 (or 10) year warranty. They have deliberately misled by wording the warranty in a way that implies something greater than they are willing to honour. Poor service.

After breaking 2 FS frames, I paid particular attention to the warantee blurb - especially with some companies limiting cover on the rear triangle, setting rider weight limits etc etc. My view is that if it breaks within 2-3 years of normal riding, then it's not fit for purpose. I would be f*cking livid if I was the OP.

Fyi, the Rose warantee is an unambiguous 10 years against frame breakages.

"If litespeed expect a frame to last 5 (or 10) years then should say it is a 5 (or 10) year warranty."

There is the problem though isn't it. They are a premium brand and one of the selling points they use is that they imply it will last longer, all helps justify the stupid price tags compared to other bikes.

If they change their marketing material to say 5 year limited warranty, not as many folk will buy them.

I guess its up to what strategy they want to achieve.

titanium, like aluminium, has a finite life. Even the best-made frame with perfect welds will eventually fatigue and crack - it's an intrinsic property of the material.

Really? I was of the impression that titanium, like some steels, has a fatigue limit such that if subjected to alternating stress below a certain value it would have infinite life.

That may only be for pure Ti though, you got any data for 6-4?

If litespeed expect a frame to last 5 (or 10) years then should say it is a 5 (or 10) year warranty. They have deliberately misled by wording the warranty in a way that implies something greater than they are willing to honour. Poor service.

That's the crux of the matter; expecting a 'lifetime warranty' to last 100years or whatever is un-reasonable and it's fair enough that the manufacturer suggests what the 'reasonable' life time of the frame is.. what is definitely not reasonable is for them to sell it without explaining exactly what they consider the lifetime to be.. they were quick enough to tell you when it failed that it was 5years, they ought to be able to tell new and potential purchasers as well.

I believe it depends on the heat treating, though I don't work with the stuff so not an expert 🙂

@ funkyDunc. Absolutely correct.

But a true premium brand would have every issue sorted they would either have a "no quibble, don't worry son we'll see you right without any questions asked" warranty or they would be clear and unambiguous with their wording in the first place. What these types of warranty issues point to is that they are a premium brand in terms of price only.

There can't be that many people that have the same frame for over 10 years, have the original receipt and suffer a weld failure rather than crash damage. The numbers must be so small that they would be better off fixing the frames and making a big deal about it. That is the sort of marketing exposure that would be worth it's weight in gold.

Something along the lines of " muppetWrangler bought a frame from us in 1993, recently he noticed a small gap appear in the head tube welding. muppetWrangler was unhappy and that made us unhappy we fixed up his frame free of charge and now muppetWrangler's happy again. Here's to another twenty years of trouble free riding."

Reading up some old books - the material itself (like steel) has a fatigue limit. The problem comes with welds where there can be micro stresses and edges that produce loads above the fatigue limit.

Not sure if that's an intrinsic problem with titanium welds or not - maybe Raleigh had the right idea with bonded tubes...

Do people really expect their frames to last forever? Where do you ride them, around the house (but only on carpet)?

I am not very sure on this, but i think Ti has a serious issue with welding which is the root of many problems. ANY contamination and the welds are likely to go, and the heat generally isn't appreciated by the joints.

Anyway, broke a 7? year old Trek Lemond, no arguments, i was asked what colour scheme i wanted and a new frame was shipped over from the states. Then as the model i had was no longer made they gave me an upgrade and for some reason also sent me a new fork. Which i wasn't expecting but was appreciated as the frame had gone from a 1" to 1 1/8" headtube.

The welding is critical - I imported some Russian MTB frames and components many years ago, only a small batch (luckily). Some stuff broke right away, some within a year, some is still going strong - I'm still using some of the tubular titanium cranks on my commuting bike.

I had a good friend have almost a mirror situation with litespeed over a road, I wouldn't buy anything from them and will tell anyone who will listen their story to warn them. I will add the op's tale to this to. Company of shister's.

could a premium member add litespeed and warranty to the tags? ^

kimbers - Member
could a premium member add litespeed and warranty to the tags?

obviously all that effort to convince numpties that Ti bikes are made of magic and are AMAZING and so therefore should be massively premium has obviously started to have consequences.

🙂

So if you really want Ti, buy a "budget" brand and put the change towards a replacement in a few years time...

I'm sticking with steel.

VOLVO FOR SALE is back! 😛

Hmmm, I don't think there is a lifetime warranty on my 95 DBR Axis TT, but it's still going strong.

ransos - Member
So if you really want Ti, buy a "budget" brand and put the change towards a replacement in a few years time...

if it were me, I'd get it in an SEM and have a look at the microstructure of the crack, and then issue a science smackdown.

I had a Litespeed made Cove Hummer. It cracked at the reinforcing weld and the aluminium insert they put into the head tube that the headset attached to came out when I was swapping out a King headset.

Litespeed and Cove got into a protracted period of debate over who should pick up the warranty with Litespeed and Cove offering differing warranty periods with Cove now sourcing the Hummer from Lynskey. From what I can gather, Litespeed weren't interested in picking up the cost of repair.

In the end, Silverfish came to the rescue and sorted me with a brand new Lynskey made frame. I was delighted with this but disappointed that the importer didn't get the support I would reasonably have expected Litespeed should have given them as the manufacturer.

Woukd I ever buy a Litespeed product? Er, no. I have no desire to give my hard earned to a company that based on my experience doesn't support their dealers nor their importers. Clarity over what a lifetime warranty actually means with examples would go a long way to helping folk decide whether to buy a frame or not. I suspect it would mean that Litespeed lose more customers than they might gain though. 😀

The numbers must be so small that they would be better off fixing the frames and making a big deal about it

This!^

Do they expect more than a handful of people to be returning frames 10+ years old? of course not, so why not just take those costs on the chin - understanding that they are the true cost of offering a much fanfared "lifetime warantee"? If their marketing department had half a braincell between them they would realise that this is a fantastic opportunity for them to do some really positive PR.

Start posting on their facebook page - I bet their CEO isn't on the "claims committee", but I expect reads that!

If the OP really wants this to show up on a Google search he might want to change the title from 'liftime' warranty ;). But really, one hour after it is posted, this thread is on the first page for 'litespeed warranty'. Scary

I don't think blame only the material. There are Ti frames still on the go from way back. I've seen quite a few Airbornes about and that company has been defunct for years.

I've a twenty one year old merlin that must have done tens of thousands of miles. It's been used offroad, touring, racing and commuting. It was last ridden for a road/bridleway route at the weekend.

Are Lightspeed still made in the States? I'm now getting a bit worried about my old Lightspeed-made Tomac 🙂

Considering ti frames are billed as 'for life', the number of threads about broken ones vs broken steel or alloy frames is very high (especially considering ti frames must be a tiny fraction of the number of frames out there).

Back in time to the front page, I think there are probbaly a lot more broken frames out there, but Ti owners are more likely to demand a warrenty replacement after 10 years, whereas my cannondale I'd probably hang on the wall as it cost 0.1x what a ti one would have done. Ditto steel frames, loads of roadies have issues with steel frames, everything from BB's deforming/ovalising/cracking, to tubes poping out of the luggs.

litespeed titanium lifetime warranty issue has a ring to it. and from the advertising quoted clearly claims the lifetime of the first owner. clearly by expecting most bikes to last only 5 years they must be aware that to offer such a warranty thier product would have to exceed by some margin the usal or expected lifespan of a titanium frame.
such a calculation must include factoring in the wear and tear that such a long life would insinuate. so clearly they have miscalculated or not calculated or deliberatly not built to the specification indicated by the calculation.
all these sums are possible.. aircraft manufacturers do it.
if litespeed offer no prospect of a sucessful cliam for a full replacement FOC then the samll claims is the way. your small inital payment ( refunded as costs if sucessful) ensures that they have a case to answer failing to answer or losing would mean you winning and being awarded costs etc if a USA company chose to ignore the decsion you could have a lean placed on goods etc belonging to the compnay in the uk and youd soon get your money..

I don't think blame only the material. There are Ti frames still on the go from way back. I've seen quite a few Airbornes about and that company has been defunct for years.

Bu that's my point - the likes of Airborne/ Van Nic don't appear to be any less durable, are much cheaper, and don't offer a worthless warranty.

leffeboy I think stw is now "go-to" for google on these topics, not to mention religion, nuclear power, helmet efficacy etc 😉

I dislike their arrogance shown to customers. 🙁

I dislike the spelling 'Lite'.

It recently developed a crack in the welding just behind the headtube...

Interesting, the mode of failure probably has some baring on their interpretation of the applicability of their "lifetime warranty", sa a longitudital crack developed in a tube rather than a weld cracking then they may have conceeded a fault in materials, failure at the weld is more open to question from either party I suppose in that there is apparently no damage cause by a flaw the parent material but at the weld, which of course they produced but would also be the focal point for stresses induced through missuse...

I'd go back and question their quality systems ask if can they supply the following proof for the quality of manufacture specifically for your frame:

1- Material Certificates for the tubing used in you frame

2- Certs for the Welder who constructed your frame

3- Inspection Logs/certs and details of the procedures used in Weld inspections and/or Factory acceptance testing conducted on your frame.

4- Details of the engineering substasiation carried out in the design of the frame (Calculations and/or FEA).

Put the onus back on them to demonstrate unequiocally that the failed weld was, at the time of construction, sufficiently tested and substansiated against failure under what they could reasonably term "normal use".

Effectively they are asserting that you have in some way abused or missassembled the product, leading to this failure, switch it around and demand that thay demonstrate just how they provided engineered safeguards against such a failure in this structure relative to it's expected operational use...

If they cannot or will not provide any of the above proof of the frames suitability for integration into a mountain Bike with the obvious structural challenges that entails then challenge them on that, They are stating that the items failure is completely due to your missuse but they are not providing any evidence that ten years ago they took measures to guard against a lemon leaving the factory.

They use the word "Quality" in a couple of places in there [I]About Us [/I] page but make no mention of any internal systems for ensuring it or any formal accreditation of their Quality... Challenge them on this also, you bought their product in good faith it has failed you want proof that they engineered it not to...

State that you had a reasonable expectation of the products performance and durability (naturally based on the products "lifetime warranty") and in stating that the frame was engineered and constructed sufficiently to meet those expectations the burden of proof is upon them to show it...