Well, I just had a warranty replacement from one of those brands. I sent them a photo showing the bike with longer forks than it came with, a different damper and almost no other stock parts. They sent a new frame of latest model within a week, no questions.

When I looked at steel – cotic = 5 years, starling = 2 years, stanton = lifetime but they want the frame back to inspect and judge themselves whether it’s their fault.

So that was my call. I’m sure others experiences may lead them to different conclusions.

Surely sales volume would play a part here; the more profit and operating capital you have, the more you can afford a blinged out warranty for PR purposes

or to look at it another way:

If you have mass production churning out 100 frames a week, vs a bloke in a shed doing 1 frame a week, then you’ll have a lot more spare frames for crash replacement and warranty claims

Sometimes though, you have to go with your heart rather than your head, or to put a different twang on it:

harmonics beat economics

Did the excellent warranty support on early Reverbs mean they were really high quality reliable products with a long lifespan or did it mean they had such high profit margins and were playing such a longterm game with big financial backing that they could keep replacing a poorly designed product without quibbling?

I’m sure there is a big affordability element, though that doesn’t explain the disparity between the niche brands.

I’m pretty sure the big brands spend a lot more on RnD and testing also, so they can minimize the losses on warranty claims which would add up to a lot with the numbers they sell.

It’s nice to have small UK brands knocking out something different. But they are kind of a luxury. And they won’t create the same levels of employment in the UK as a Giant or Specialized, so I don’t feel bad for not buying them.

All mountain bikes are a luxury. Do any of the big three employ that many people here or get involved with mountain biking at a grassroots level?

navigate the legal departments of Specialized, Trek, Giant, etc

I was basically the warranty department at Trek and it was very rare that a frame breakage was deemed non warranty. Only in the event of an obvious crash did I turn down a frame replacement and the number of times I offered a full bike in exchange for an obsolete one that had broken was beyond counting. Many warranty departments have a motto of “how can we get to yes” when I comes to replacements…. except Giant.

@funkmasterp
I don’t think we’d have some of the trail centres we have without sponsorship from the big players. They also sponsor charity teams and events. There wouldn’t be an industry here for newer, smaller brands to exploit without these companies. They’ve invested millions in promoting the sport here. They employ people in their concept stores and dealer networks. And the back-office staff. Sponsored riders and brand ambassadors. The race teams.

It’s just a fair comparison to make.

Thanks gtx29 I wasn’t aware of most of that tbh. Only ever owned a couple of Treks over the years. All other bikes have been steel (Cotic, Stif, Stooge etc). Not sure if it’s a fair comparison or if the smaller brands wouldn’t exist without them. The former due to the financial backing and production facilities they have . The latter doesn’t really add up as some of the niche UK brands have been around for a very long time. Curtis for example

The main reason I don’t stray from carbon or alloy big brands is you can until recently pick up a total bargain on last year’s model and even bigger bargains if its 2 years old, a couple of years back CRC were selling off Nukeproof mega frames for £750, and before that I just missed out on an XT equipped mega for around £2000 if I remember correctly, unbelievable bargains could be had if you’re quick off the mark, so when the supply chain gets back to normal in a year, the bargains will be there the year after, fingers crossed.
I doubt you’ll ever see the steel guys have a decent sale.

Pipedream Full Moxie!

Love to ride one just to see how a steel full sus feels. Mind you, I’ve never ridden a carbon bike either. True story. Not because I don’t like them. Just never tried one!

My FS is ti anyway and it’s more a bike than I’ll ever need really!

I doubt you’ll ever see the steel guys have a decent sale.

Because they work to a different business model.

Why do weight conscious WRC rally cars use steel roll cages?
https://www.redbull.com/gb-en/how-wrc-roll-cage-safety-feature-works

Why do KTM use steel on their motorbikes?
https://www.voestalpine.com/blog/en/mobility/ktm-relies-on-steel-motorcycle-chassis/

https://www.motorcyclesports.net/motogp/motogp-motogp/ktm-keep-confident-steel-chassis-motogp/

https://www.autosport.com/motogp/news/ktm-will-never-give-up-on-steel-trellis-frame-in-motogp-5279501/5279501/

https://motocrossactionmag.com/amp/ask-the-mxperts-will-the-big-four-switch-to-steel-frames/

Beat me to it. ^^^^

A lot easier to change and develop chassis and associated flex amounts than alu or carbon.

Why do weight conscious WRC rally cars use steel roll cages?

The simple answer to that is because the FIA tells them to. Before the rules were tightened up they got upto all sorts of shenanigans.

You could build a carbon roll cage, plenty of series allow them. But that would require far more testing and cost a fortune. It’s easier to say roll cages must be made from a specified grade of steel, set OD and wall thickness and say they must be triangulated a certain way. Then all your scrutineer has to do is poke his head in, check the manufacturers plate, and tick a box.

Comparable to the UCI weight limits. They could come up with a durability test, but it’s simpler to just say bikes have to weigh 16lb and remove the incentive for manufacturers to get into an arms race.