Can Working On Your Bike Void The Warranty?

Of course, you can void the warranty by not working on some parts.

Popcorn anyone?

Before it even gets to the tea/biscuits/popcorn point - thanks @Mark and @stwhannah for doing this. Fab.

All sounds very pragmatic from all the firms. But what Giant have said is completely at odds with what their warranty team said to WYSIWYG when dismissing his claim, so I would expect him to hear from them very shortly (surprised they have not contacted him already with an apology), otherwise they will be judged by their actions, not by whatever flim-flam they've sent to Hannah.

Giant seem a little confused internally.
Sounds like they need to figure out their line internally before coming out with anything further

I like how clear Bird are - Giant - hah !

And now having read the article: Thank you STW, this is helpful. I hope more bike brands would contribute.

As ever, seems like rule No.1 applies on both sides by manufacturers and customers in the comments above.

I have no idea what’s been said 🙁

Should have asked them what 'lifetime' means to them.

Giant's answer's for this article has made me even more angry than ian@giant's initial response.

Two Giant bikes in my shed and I can confidently say there will be no more.

We are not able to discuss individual cases however....

Why do companies so often think it's ok to hide behind this sort of bullshit?

Individual cases [where they have singularly failed to cover hemselves in glory] are exactly what people want to hear about. We don't want waffle, bullshit or flannel. We want to hear about concrete example of how they are actually operating in real life with their real customers.

Thank you STW for the work on this.

Many brands operate well above that baseline in a zone we shall simply call pragmatic customer service. It’s a grey area but all brands understand that if you get it wrong you could face a costly backlash when word gets out.

^ and that grey area is where Giant have effed up in @wysiwyg's case which started all this off. Giant's answers within the article clearly conflict with the reality of how they've applied their warranty approach here.

Individual cases [where they have singularly failed to cover hemselves in glory] are exactly what people want to hear about. We don’t want waffle, bullshit or flannel. We want to hear about concrete example of how they are actually operating in real life with their real customers.

Bikes must only be worked on by a Giant authorised retailer?
Is this the same Giant as that which are going towards a direct sales model?

Eejits.

Seems a simple enough division to me.
Your Giant handlebars have fallen off your giant stem attatched to your giant bike, because you too them off and didnt put them back on again properly. Fine, i can see your argument.

My Giant frame has cracked at the weld.
Theres limited things you can do with your hand tools to crack a frame. A clear warranty case.

Theres limited things you can do with your hand tools to crack a frame.

well in this case you could have installed a seatpost without enough insertion. I'm not suggesting the OP did it, but it would be something you can do with hand tools that cracks the frame in exactly the same spot

Paywall dropped

Ian at Giant had one too many sherry's on Sunday afternoon.

Thanks @stwhannah, @Mark. During the q and a process, did Giant get asked for an explanation of the logic which led to rejection of wysiwyg's claim, and how that fitted in with their explanation of the warranty terms?

It's fine saying they're going to review processes, but that's pretty meaningless. Not trying to nitpick, but if your questions could have been a bit more pointed it might help. I guess most of us are still hoping this is resolved in wysiwyg's favour- do you think that Giant is hoping that they've put the issue to bed now?

Thanks to STW for doing this survey. Absolutely brilliant and us purchasers know where we stand with a few bike companies now.

There's also the question of why the Giant retailer was trying to charge the customer for investigating a warranty claim, which is why he disassembled in the first place. Scope for some follow-up questions here...

Thanks for doing this. Useful info into how various companies view some of their customers.

I guess a company like Bird or Santa Cruz probably puts a lot more thought into the warranty process as a much higher proportion of those companies customers are going to be thinking of it when purchasing, using it, chasing it up and ultimately talking about it to their cycling buddies. Companies like Giant and Trek sell a much wider range of bikes cost wise and I can't imagine the average purchaser of a £450 hybrid (surely the bulk of their sales?) is ever going to worry about a warranty or need to use it.....

well in this case you could have installed a seatpost without enough insertion. I’m not suggesting the OP did it, but it would be something you can do with hand tools that cracks the frame in exactly the same spot

Ok this is true. But let’s say I did that. I’d obviously then just push the seatpost back into the frame to the ‘legal’ limit and giant wouldn’t know any better would they?

The only way giant can make an educated call on what has caused the issue is to inspect the frame. Something they aren’t offering to do in the aforementioned case.

Also, it should be bloody obvious to giant that the min seat post height hasnt been exceeded because it’s a dropper post. The chap would need to have legs of giraffe length proportions!

I’d obviously then just push the seatpost back into the frame to the ‘legal’ limit and giant wouldn’t know any better would they?

I think there would be a mark at the height you normally rode it at. Giant could have covered that inspection requirement by asking him to include the seatpost with the stripped down frame.

Ignoring Giant, damage has already been done to their reputation, but...

I like how clear Bird are

and Trek's - we'll get you back on a bike somehow... Great attitude 👍

Whilst I commend stw, unfortunately the response from giant clearly contradicts what has actually happened. As such, It’s as worthless as the warranty that comes with their bikes

I wish i was considering a Giant bike in the future so i could make a point of not buying it.

But i wasn't, utterly bland bikes, so this small hill is going to be an easy climb.

@stwhannah - I was one of those on the other thread asking if you/STW could ask the questions to Giant.

Really didn't expect a thorough article like this, so thank you very much.

I'm not looking to buy a bike just now, but if I was I'd be considering a Bird based on their reply here. Of course in practice a) I don't expect to need the warranty (knock on wood) and b) what happens in practice may be different from the warm words in their reply (just like Giant, in fact). Still, it's nice to feel that you are buying from decent people.

It's as though Giant have one set of (happy smiley) words for Journos, and another ,(gofheckyerself) set for actual customers !

Hmmm.... I wonder why 🤔

Agree with other posters About Bird - absolutely spot on. Canyon and Cotic too.

I’m not looking to buy a bike just now, but if I was I’d be considering a Bird based on their reply here.

If I can't chop the head tube off and weld it back on without voiding my warranty I'm out.

unfortunately the response from giant clearly contradicts what has actually happened. As such, It’s as worthless as the warranty that comes with their bikes

Maybe there's a new guy in the warranty dept who applied a fall-back rule literally. A warranty can have terms in clauses to be applied if needed and they might be written in a very B+W sense because it's had a company lawyer sign it off. Rule #1 and common sense or customer relations would overrule those clauses normally.
Yes they represent the company, but people make mistakes and to apply that one round of communication as gospel to every bike they ever sell might be a stretch? Something like not attributing to malice that which can be attributed to misunderstanding.

yes but a head honcho said the same thing IIRC

I’d be considering a Bird based on their reply here. Of course in practice a) I don’t expect to need the warranty (knock on wood) and b) what happens in practice may be different from the warm words in their reply

I had a grand total of 6 hours, between the discovery of a crack, to riding my new rear triangle in the woods. Probably would have been faster if I didnt have a job getting in the way.

This thread makes me smile for a few reasons…

The power of STW

The great journalism at the mag

The fact I bought a bird last time I bought a bike frame

I am wondering if GT were asked and whether they would cover @weeksy’s headtube issues though!

I am wondering if GT were asked and whether they would cover @weeksy’s headtube issues though!

From my time in bike shops, GT were one of the better ones - especially around their numerous LTS failures.

Since it was supposed to be the full sus of the decade, they kind of kept quiet about the back end snapping and just replaced them, no fuss.

Lol 2nd owner at least, plus they don't warranty DH bikes in same way. I'm cool with it

Companies looking at this (eg Giant, Norco) should review their warranty wordings compared to Specialized's. I bought a Norco last year and went to check the warranty wording vs a few others after reading the wysiwyg's thread.

Fair enough to exclude damage caused by improper maintenance or fitting of incompatible parts - if you want to do that, say that, a la Spesh. If you want to make it clear who pays for labour, shipping, do that too.

Edit: @jameso calls this "serviced by authorised dealers only" language "fall back" language, but it's worse than useless - it's in conflict with standard practice, your distribution model, the instructions in your user guide, the tools you sell and the pictures on the your warranty page depicting your customers using them. A s soon one of your dealers or warranty managers relies on the words to repudiate a claim, it's shown up to be laughable, and you're forced back by media pressure or lawyers' letters to a more reasonable position - and possibly into a corner of replacing something you could might have been able to deny due to improper maintenance or something.

Eventually though, wording or not, your warranty response will be known, and form part of your offering.

A nice screen grab from the SC part .. and will be kept for the next round of emails with Jungle !

Not my experience with trek, I'm afraid.

yes but a head honcho said the same thing IIRC

I looked that up, I don't think he said the same thing. I read it as they prefer it all to be dealt with via a Giant store and if that store does do all the work your claim is stronger. He's not saying the guy's bike there had an incorrectly applied change or not, or 'take your bike to a Giant store for a new chain or your warranty is invalid'.

There are B+W warranty points in writing (eg on modifications) and generally they're written to the strictest application needed, warranty staff then apply experience and sense to resolve the issues around those terms. So there's judgement needed and it'll go wrong sometimes.

generally they’re written to the strictest application needed, warranty staff then apply experience and sense to resolve the issues around those terms

I tried making this very point in the original thread, but it got lost in the pile on.

Something like not attributing to malice that which can be attributed to misunderstanding.

That's called hanlon's razor.

Can understand how that applies, and I think most people would appreciate everyone can make mistakes including the warranty department.

Whilst an initial mistake can be excused, the continued stupidity and inconsistency of the position giant is maintaining, I don't think can be excused.

That’s called hanlon’s razor.

Yeah, I misquoted it for the post as 'stupidity' or similar isn't fair to the situation here. Heuristics and mental models are good things. A warranty policy might even benefit from including a few of them for the benefit of interpretation.

Whilst an initial mistake can be excused, the continued stupidity and inconsistency of the position giant is maintaining, I don’t think can be excused.

Doesn't seem to be maintained to me? Mis-comms in error to begin with, clarified here. But I'm hesitant to have an opinion on this and contribute to dragging it on. I get that some don't like how it reads to them.

BTW I have no stake in or knowledge of Giant but I've experience of warranty from writing the clauses they way I think they should be to working through them with legal counsel, to dealing with fall-out in instances like this. You can't write a foolproof warranty policy for a big company, it's all too nuanced. Particularly because the bigger the company the more piss-take claims you probably get so the fall backs need to be tight.