I'm after some opinions on the below images. They show a Rockshox Revelation fork bought brand new, from a major retailer. The retailer states, after inspection, that there is nothing wrong. In real life, the marks appear quite silvery, as if the coating is very thin.
What is the consensus of STW? Am I being fussy?
[img] 
?1212[/img]
[img] 
?1212[/img]
I'd be pissed off if I found those on used forks let alone new. They'll be trouble down the road, you mark my words!
pic 2 looks bad enough to ask for replacement i'd say....its only going to get worse quick!
i had that on some revs - LBS said i was trying it on!! Merlin sent to sram who replaced csu with no quibble
Yep send them back.
Thank you both so far.
I have sent the fork back for a refund, arguing that they are faulty.
The retailer claims to have had the fork inspected by 3 different warranty advisors, all of whom have confirmed that there is no damage.
This obviously effects who pays for return postage. After asking for a refund on the return postage costs, I have been offered a 'goodwill gesture' of vouchers. I have an issue with the principle that they think this fork is ok and secondly, that they are offering a gesture of goodwill, rather than fulfilling a basic requirement.
Without inspecting them first hand I can't say for sure what the issue is but it looks to be a defect with the anodising rather than damage.
The dye in the anodising can vary causing 'watery' marks not unlike when neat caustic cleaners are used and not wiped off. Whether this affects the perfomance or longevity of the stantions is questionable though.
That's a bad fork looks like inner bushing are not seated correctly causing friction
'Damage' is their word, not mine. I would agree with your assessment, Loco.
They were shipped in a compressed state (increased negative pressure), not sure if this has anything to do with it.
That would annoy me and I would want a refund .
I don't think vouchers covering the postage is wrong.
I don't think vouchers covering the postage is wrong.
Ignoring the 'goodwill' or monetary aspect, would you agree with the retailer that there is nothing wrong with the fork?
I have that on some RS forks...I emailed SRAM: they said it was 'ghosting' and not a issue. They were second hand and I was unhappy the seller didn't tell me about the marks prior to sale. However can't see how it will affect fork performance. If they had been brand new I think I would have contacted seller for a replacement
I once received a pair of Lyriks and the anodised stanchions on each leg were completely different colour gold.
They went back!
Quality control for RockShox is good but mistakes still slip through. Many threads about rockshox forks arriving with no or little oil in the lower leg. Hence always dropping the legs on new forks.
agree to send them back
It may be only "cosmetic" but it is not meant to look like that so I would not be accepting them
Distance selling regs if under 14 day old
The second piccy looks a lot like 'ghosting', which to me looked like oil penetaon of the anodising. Mine were 'in the lowers' in vertical lines, others have them in rings around where the seals have been sat a while. SRAM tech said no issues but they ended up being swapped anyway owing to a creaky crown. Makes me wonder whether that's why the new ones are 'murdered out'!
My Sids have very similiar looking marks, though a bit larger, seems to be some sort of oil staining- it's the exact pattern of the bushings, from when they were reduced to 100mm, so no prizes for guessing where they came from! It seems harmless. But I wouldn't want it from new forks I don't think.
bought brand new, from a major retailer
please do tell who...it's good to know who might be difficult to deal with when there is a problem.
I had some Rebas with marks like that, an anodising inconsistency as Loco says. Worked fine, didn't wear unusually and I used them for ages. But if you're buying new and they're unfitted etc it's your call to return them.
I had some which had those marks where the seals had been sitting on the stanchions. Used them for two years and didn't notice any wear occuring.
Even a cosmetic fault in a product of that value bought brand new would be grounds enough to return them IMO.
I had a Rev 29er with some marks on.
Couldn't see them until i put some air into the fork.
The marks were where the stanchions had been sat in the seals.
[url= http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7013/6755745395_9b3305c734_z.jp g" target="_blank">
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/stu-b/6755745395/ ]2012_0124forkmarks0008[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/stu-b/ ]multispeedstu[/url], on Flickr
They sent me a new fork straight away.
You could have sent them back for a refund under the distance selling regulations - seven days at the moment increasing to fourteen days next year!
If they've not been fitted (ie. are resellable) then distance selling regs say that they have to refund return postage if you return them for any reason, not just due to a fault.
Replaced ASAP and the seller pays the collection/return costs and checks the new forks thoroughly for all defects etc before sending out.
I had similar marks on my u-turn revs. As the length markings were on top of the mark, I wasn't worried about them being damage or wear. I didn't have any problems with them in use at all.
I've had 4 sets of RS 32mm forks in the last 2 years and they have all had 'marks' like the OP's second picture. I must have been getting the ones you guys returned 😉
If they were as 'bad' as singlespeedstus I would probably have sent them back.
I just didn't want the hassle and they have all been used for at least a year with no ill effects (And yes I do remove clean and re-lube the lowers every 6 months)
Curiously it would only be on one leg and could well be something like LoCo says.
I did get a 5th set of RS, Totems, without any marks at all but I got a mystery scratch on those on about the 3rd use, so deep that in smoothing it out I removed a patch of anodising 🙁 .
Surely its irrelevant whether its damaged or will affect performance/longevity. It has a factory defect. That's just a typical thing for a supplier/manufacturer to say to avoid doing the honourable thing. A car with a paintwork defect in the lacquer is not damaged and won't affect its performance but you wouldn't accept it.
I had similar marks on some Revs I got from Merlin. They said they were fine, I said they were not so they replaced them. The second set were also marked so after a bit of agro I got my money back and bought some DT Swiss, which were flawless.
I put it down to them being Merlin OEM/seconds, hence the none RS box they came in but maybe it's just Rock Shox quality control.
Never had the issue with any other brand. I think you should be able to expect a product that costs what forks do to not have such imperfections. Put me off buying aftermarket RS, although the Sektors that came on my current bike seem ok.
wwaswas - Member
If they've not been fitted (ie. are resellable) then distance selling regs say that they have to refund return postage if you return them for any reason, not just due to a fault.
Interesting, the 'expert' on BBC news yesterday was stating that you pay the return postage but get any initial postage costs are refunded with the item. She repeatedly said that the buyer still has to pay for the return postage.
From Sale of Goods Act:
"Return of goods ordered online, by telephone or by mail order
The retailer's terms and conditions should say who pays for returning goods. If they don't, then the retailer has to pay, not the customer.
Retailers may also set out the way they want goods to be returned, but this cannot be unreasonably expensive or difficult"
1st photo just looks like a run in the anodizing or a flaw in the metal tube before the process - wouldn't worry
2nd photo - top bush is either dry, not seated correctly or becoming loose - seek replacements
It's staining from oil/red grease that rockshox use, I've had it on two sets of forks and on one it went away and the other it never got any worse or better
Thanks to all that have taken the time to reply.
I have now received a refund for the return postage, but not because the goods were faulty.
The retailer still believes that the fork is absolutely fine. I believe that at the very least they were cosmetically faulty and were certainly not intended to look like that; my 2 year old Revs don't.