Forum menu
I think you'll have more success on the owner of the stones using the "Mountain not fit for purpose" clause.
A section of tyre zip tied to down tube works well.
Well we all agree that its mountain biking and parts get dented / scratched etc. However it does raise a point to an extent.
Is an iPhone fit for purpose when the anodised back scratches so easily in your pocket and therefore nearly everyone uses a case that then hides the design that Apple have so say spent so much time on
Is car paint fit for purpose when it scratches so easily in normal day to day use and is so costly to get fixed.
Are plastic road cleats fit purpose when they wear out with only small amounts of walking around.
Even are the paint jobs that many mountain bikes have fit for purposes when they scratch and chip so easily and everyone knows mountain biking is a harsh environment.
When you think about it, it is amazing how many products are not actually designed to survive and keep looking good when they are just being used normally. I think we all agree that things wear out and there is a balance between cost, weight and durability but there does seem to be lots of products that look tatty very very quickly.
you get to choose, you get to inspect the product and determine if the compromises in the design are acceptable to you. It's simple the customer must decide if the product is acceptable to them.
But does their tattyness impede their function?
If the paint flakes or falls off you might have a point as that would be a defect, but getting scratched and chipped when things hit it, not so much. Besides, I like the battle scars 🙂
As far as an Alu frame for example, it really is a cosmetic layer, you could just as easily leave it in it's natural/oxidised state.
All of the above you've mentioned are just normal wear and tear really, the cleats one isn't fair as walking on them is not their intended purpose.
I know that the customer has a choice to inspect and decided if the product is acceptable and I agree that tattyness does not impede their function but it is still a product that does not survive well in the environment that it is designed for. Of course there is a balance between durability and design but how many bikes are powered coated which is much tougher or even use special paints to stop them looking good for longer. Remember the Marin's back in the day with there rubbery paint. I don't expect a product to look good for years and years but you do hope it will carry on looking good for some time.
We wouldn't be happy if clothes started looking crap after a few washes.
I guess it is manufactures making a product that looks the best in the showroom to get the sale but then to do this compromising on the longer term cosmetic durability.
I disagree with the plastic cleat example as its impossible really not to walk on cleats at some time. How else do you get to your bike / get on and off your bike.
I disagree with the plastic cleat example as its impossible really not to walk on cleats at some time. How else do you get to your bike / get on and off your bike.
You get the sock things, walk on heels, put them on at the bike and leave the other shoes - electric garage doors.
Performance vs Longevity is the biggest balance in the industry
I disagree with the plastic cleat example as its impossible really not to walk on cleats at some time. How else do you get to your bike / get on and off your bike.
But they've not been designed for it, it is not their intended use so you can't knock them for it.
They're designed to do the cleaty thing while riding, some might argue for performace/race applications only?
If you need a clip in system that is more resilient to walking around others are available that have taken that as part of the design requirement.
It would be like complaining that super tacky rubber tyres wear out too fast on the road, and you have to ride to the trails, well in that case a super tacky tyre isn't for you!
I think a simple non controversial solution to rock impacts would be to contact Derbyshire County Council and ask them to resurface the route. I think most rail users prefer a well groomed trail that will reduce or eleminate the risk of frame damage
woody74I disagree with the plastic cleat example as its impossible really not to walk on cleats at some time. How else do you get to your bike / get on and off your bike.
Metal cleats exist. If you don't need race equipment, don't buy race equipment then make the point that it's not fit for something other than it's intended purpose.
Intense frames are well known for being light. It's one of their main selling points. If they used thicker tubing and/or thicker paint they wouldn't be light, they'd just be expensive. They probably wouldn't dent so easily, they wouldn't crack as much either but they probably wouldn't pass the all important shop floor lift test which we all know is the absolute critical determining factor when it comes to buying a bike.