Factor in inflation (handy inflation calculator) £1570 GBP in 2004 = £2103 GBP in 2014 money, plus £400 for the upgrades that £2500 looks about right…

My stumpy didn’t cost £1570. The frame alone was £1500 with saddle, seatpost and clamp (no forks). The rest was custom build (XT, easton, hope).

I’m sure I can get a rebuilt epic for roughly the cash their talking about.

The frame alone was £1500 with saddle

If it was you got ripped off, the Pro frame was £900!

Of no consolation whatsoever to the OP but on the plus side, at least it wasn’t stolen from your house & the thieves should be none the wiser when you get a replacement.

It was £2300 for a 2004 Stumpjumper Pro, but your fundamental understanding of new for old is wrong. It really is just that, you get new kit of the equivalent spec of your old one.

I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but the monetary value isn’t relevant, sometimes a new for old replacement will be more expensive than the original, sometimes it will be less. Technology is an obvious example of the latter.

From your own link on “New for old” insurance further up:

…This means that the insurance company will provide you with what you had before – they’ll restore you to the previous position. That means if you claim for a dishwasher that is four years old, you will be given a replacement dishwasher that if four years old.
Similarly, if you bought a laptop a few years ago for £400, but that model is no longer available, that is the sum you would get from the insurer, even if it would cost you much more than that to replace it with a new one….

That irrelevant monetary value is precisely what insurers deal in… they’re not looking at the details on the spec sheet and ticking off all the XT M760 bits that no new bike comes with anymore, the term would be “Functional equivalent”… and for £2500 you’ll get a functional equivalent of a 2004 Stumpjumper pro with a couple of extra bells and whistles…

If, God forbid, your old Madone was stolen, you would not be offered a full 9070 Di2 group hanging off a Madone 7.9 Just because that’s the Modern top of the range, you’d maybe have a case for a 5.2 but a 4.7 would be more likely (Ultegra 6800) and TBH a 3.1 probably looks pretty similar to most insurance companies, 10 cogs at the back, made of carbon, its arguably a modern equivalent, functionally speaking anyway, and most importantly its got the same name… just with some different numbers after…

The OPs bike was never worth the ~£4.5K a new “XT spec” Stumpy Expert Evo would cost, nor in any way equivalent to it…

If I was the shop-owner and read through this I’d be sourcing a 2004 Stumpy and building it up as per the OP’s spec – probably cost all of a £1000 for a s/h frame and non-RRP parts.

And not claiming through insurance.

I’m convinced, OP should push for a XT equipped bike with all the bits. Problem is from Canyon that bike is 2500 from Specialized it’s 3500. What else do this shop stock?

Mate just bought a 2006 stumpy in decent condition for £150! add on xt kit and you’ll still have about £1800 to play with!

Skipping through this thread…..why would anyone want to buy another old frame and put high end parts on it? Seems like an exercise in turd-polishing to me.

cookeaa – Member
I’ve read it all ta, “New For Old” in my book means new/modern equivalent based on the value of the original stolen bike, Thus in 2004 money:

list price for a Stumpy Pro FSR in 2004 was $2710 = ~£1570 GBP at the time (I’m not sure what SBC UK charged though I doubt it was a huge amount more)…

Factor in inflation (handy inflation calculator) £1570 GBP in 2004 = £2103 GBP in 2014 money, plus £400 for the upgrades that £2500 looks about right…

Apart from being utter rubbish that doesn’t take into account the fact that bike prices aren’t linked to inflation. There was a massive rise in the price of bikes a few years ago. My £1800 X9/Fox forked Cannondale was significantly more expensive the year after I bought it. By your reasoning if it had been stolen I would have been seriously out of pocket had it been stolen.

From the ABI website:

‘New for old’ means your insurer will replace your lost or damaged belongings with new items of the same type and quality as the originals

So by your definition I would have less than £1900 back if that bike had been stolen a year after I bought it which would not have replaced with the same type or quality.

And how do you define the quality of a bike? Generally speaking the groupset of the bike is a good signifier which is why this next bike is also wrong:

cookeaa – Member

That irrelevant monetary value is precisely what insurers deal in… they’re not looking at the details on the spec sheet and ticking off all the XT M760 bits that no new bike comes with anymore, the term would be “Functional equivalent”… and for £2500 you’ll get a functional equivalent of a 2004 Stumpjumper pro with a couple of extra bells and whistles…

Are you from the US because the only reference I can find to ‘functional equivalence’ is from US websites?

I’ve worked in various types of insurance for 15 years and never heard of it. I even spent 4 years replacing bikes for insurance companies on new for old policies. (Yes, XT on the spec sheet of the stolen bike meant he got XT back, not SLX.) I’m not claiming to be an expert but I have a fair bit of experience in the area. Maybe I should text the guys I ride with who still do that job and ask them what happens at the moment? I’m pretty certain of the answer, that’s why I’m not bothering.

ticking off all the XT M760 bits that no new bike comes with anymore

Btw, if you’d read the thread you would have seen that the XT gruppo wasn’t 10 years old, it was new. But that would be irrelevant even if it was old.

But, really I’d love to be your insurer! 😆

I am quite stunned at what some people would accept from insurance companies. A 10 year old stumpjumper with full xt if covered by a new for old policy should be replaced by a brand new stumpjumper with full xt. If the wheels on the new one aren’t up to the spec that the op had then they should be upgraded or some cash given to upgrade.

I had a commuter stolen and that was how it worked.

In my experience it isn’t just a random person that deals with the claim. It’s outsourced to a company that deals with the replacement that has some knowledge of bikes and is responsible for sourcing replacement. I would guess that in some cases they might have preferred suppliers, so you would get a brand they deal with. Again in my experience my Orange evo that I’d built up with 2nd hand bits (X0 level) was matched to a new Scott scale.

a 2015 properly designed 650b bike will ride a lot better than a 9 year old bike with the wrong size whells on.

XT or no XT.

oh, and I could ride round cwmcarn on a CX bike, an epic would have it for breakfast.

http://www.pedalon.co.uk/acatalog/scott-spark-740-2014.html

Again in my experience my Orange evo that I’d built up with 2nd hand bits (X0 level) was matched to a new Scott scale.

Thats unfortunate, nobody wants a scott 🙂

My 2009 Orange Five with some serious upgrades was insured on ‘New for old’. It got nicked a few months back.
The insurers asked for a shop to price the equivalent bike now. This came in at just under 5k as mine was essentially the Five RS with a couple of upgrades.

They sent me a cheque for 5k minus 5% excess. In my eyes (and the eyes of my insurer ETA) New for old means you get the equivalent new bike to your old. In my case the only bike equivalent to my old five was the new top spec one with extra thrown at it, so that’s what they covered.

So I bought a Cube for 1.5k less, got a better bike and booked a holiday for me and the Mrs!

Anyone who would accept a bag of Shit with a flag stuck in as replacment for a nice bike is off their head IMO.

Think of it this way.

You insure a barrel of Brent Crude oil in 1995 at $15.88, you have the misfortune to have that stolen. You are covered new for old. They don’t take the $15.88 and add inflation or any such shit, they give you a new barrell of oil, which happens to be worth $104.73 today. The numbers are actually irrelevant.

If there’s wear and tear included on that they still don’t base the settlement on the $15.88, they just say that actually you probably spilt a bit of that oil over the last 20 years, so we’ll give you $95. This means you cannot afford to buy a direct replacement for what you had before, you are left out of pocket slightly, or buy less than a full barrel.

I can’t believe folk are advocating the latter, the shop really does need to cover new for old. The perceived quality of newer stuff is completely irrelevant, the actual monetary value is irrelevant, the OP should be restored to the situation he was in before.

My insurance company just paid out on a stolen custom build bike that they were unable to source from Wheelies. I sent them the spec and thought initially that they would pay out on that but then they wanted a bike shop to effectively quote for my build spec and that is what they paid out on.

I just plugged every component of the build into CRC and sent them the bill and in theory got everything I had before down the the Hope bashring, ODI grips and dual ply tyres…

If it was me and the shop would co-operate I’d get a frame from Bikescene spesh frame sale e.g. Camber or Stumpjumper and get it built up with XT groupset etc and I reckon you could do that for £2.5K easy.

I can’t believe folk are advocating the latter, the shop really does need to cover new for old. The perceived quality of newer stuff is completely irrelevant, the actual monetary value is irrelevant, the OP should be restored to the situation he was in before.

Scenario A, he gets an SLX groupset, however hanging off a better, newer frame with full bike dealer/manufacturer warranty, with new forks, tyres, pads, brakes.

I don’t see why you’re getting hung up on him getting ‘the same’ for some of the bits when it’s quite clear he’s getting a newer frame/forks/BB/Crankset/wheels etc instead. So yes, he’s losing out on not having XT, having to put up with SLX, but he’s got a brand new frame and bike.

I still can’t see how even with a slightly lower spec groupset, he’s not miles better off.

weeksy – Member

I still can’t see how even with a slightly lower spec groupset, he’s not miles better off.

It’s simply down to opinion weeksy. You might think he’s going to be on a better bike, but he might think that the bike he lost was the best bike he’ll ever ride, so why should he be forced into something lower spec. That’s why this argument has gone on for 4 pages – even we, the cyclists, can’t agree.

Put it another way….. if he never rode the bike but just walked past it, patting the saddle, pleased in the knowledge that he had a pretty much top-end bike with an almost top end spec. He might even be really sad and put it on his wall to look at and never, ever sit on it. So again, why should he expect someone to lose his bike and be given something that’s not the same level. Nothing to do with function, nothing to do with actual monetary value, all to do with opinion. He might just want it to boast to his mates that he’s got a top-end bike, not some mid-range crowd-pleaser.

If I had a 1st generation Colnago C40 art deco stolen and replaced with a mid-range Trek – because it’s functionally exactly the same, weighs the same, etc – I’d be furious.

I don’t see why you’re getting hung up on him getting ‘the same’ for some of the bits when it’s quite clear he’s getting a newer frame/forks/BB/Crankset/wheels etc instead

But why is that inherently better? The new Stumpjumper frames aren’t lighter, the whole bike has more travel (and Epic being a more direct equivalent), but again the whole thing is heavier, the groupset was new, so he just gets a downgrade there. Again I’ll give the example of my Madone – having ridden a 2013 Ultegra Di2 version it was heavier and not as nice to ride as mine, yes it’s newer, and retail cost is £2k more than mine was, but so what?

That just isn’t how things work, new for old means like for like, it’s not just about providing a similar item, with the ‘selling point’ being the age of the item.

Because it comes with full dealer/manf’ warranty ?

Has the OP stated what he wants yet?

There has been a lot of poo slinging in here, yet no one has asked the obvious question:

OP – Can you please list the exact components of your build, and their approximate age?

Until people know the EXACT makeup of the stolen bike no one can really say if 2.5k is good value or not. There are a lot of different types on STW – Some would consider any product that’s over 6 months old “out of date” and others would consider last years model “Bang up to date”.

Without a proper detailed rundown of the components and their age, no one can speculate as to the worth of this stolen bike!

From what the OP has said an ali frame bike for adventure racing, new xt drive chain and new wheels.

Custom build of something like a Kinesis (29er) with decent rockshox forks xt kit and hope wheels ought to be covered by that as Specialized don’t do somethingthat matches the needs anymore.

With a 2.5k payment working on trade prices you’d be getting alot of kit there that’s Trade price not rrp which maybe why people are getting confused about what I’ve said prevciously.

In responce to Chips earlier comment about ‘palming people off’ with some old rubbish it’s rather rude tbh, the one and only shock that Royal mail lost a couple of years ago, a few year old Van RC that had been serviced, was replaced with a CCDB (brand new I might add) Which I think you’d agree was reasonable 😉

Because it comes with full dealer/manf’ warranty ?

So?

Without a proper detailed rundown of the components and their age, no one can speculate as to the worth of this stolen bike!

The worth is bascially irrelevant. What’s that, 50th time now? The OP should be getting a bike with new kit akin to the old one. It doesn’t matter if it had 1993 XT, some Q21s and was completely wrecked, he should get the new equivalent of that. Whether that costs £3.50 or £15,000 is immaterial. Really, it is. It’s new for old.

The only point that becomes relevant is if the OP decides he wants the cash instead, at which point they should still be offering a settlement to purchase a new equivalent, not the value of the old item.

Dear Stinking,
I am sorry for your loss.

This thread should now be allowed to rest in peace.

Gogg

Without a proper detailed rundown of the components and their age, no one can speculate as to the worth of this stolen bike!

That’s the point, and it’s irrelevant.

The shop has quoted to their insurance company that his bike would cost them £2500 to replace on a new-for-old scheme. THEY, as in the shop, ARE ABLE to REPLACE the SAME SPEC AS NEW that he had on his old bike.

Everything else is irrelevant.

He is due a branded (Spec/Trek/Giant etc), 100mm ish travel XC/Trail bike fitted with a full XT groupset and equivalent wheels. Some minor details may need some negotiation with the shop but I imagine they can get a “near-enough” model and change a front mech etc to keep the customer happy.

If the customer is not happy, they’ll be out of pocket by the excess and out of pocket as he’ll not return to do more business.

Sorry for starting such a big argument…

Ok, as my bike was a custom build, the LBS claimed it as a bike spec rather than as an actual off the peg bike, so;

2004 stumpy pro frame + seatpost and saddle
2006 rockshox duke forks
M785 XT groupset + pedals
M785 XT brakes with centre lock rotors
M785 XT hubs, nukeproof 650b TR rims, DT swiss comp spokes
Hope headset
Easton bars and kore stem (not sure of models)

Brakes and wheels have never been ridden. Drivetrain was about 2 months old. Parts were bought and fitted by the same shop (I can get cheaper online but wanted to support the LBS ironically).

As people have pointed out, I don’t see the current stumpy frame as much of an improvement. It’s a different bike and much less XC.

Although I can’t replace my bike new for 2.5k, I’m happy to go with a SH/ex display epic and a new groupset and wheels, which is essentially what I had before (old frame + forks, new components and wheels), but with a newer frame (not concerned with carbon as it may get knocked about during race transit). It just means fussing about and building myself rather than the LBS being able to replace my bike themselves.

I’ve already told the LBS this, I’m still waiting for them to sort it out with the insurance…

Oh, also one of the guys at the LBS loaned me his bike for the day for a race. I was in a team so didn’t want to let the team down. We came second in category so he was pleased his bike came second =D

All sounds positive (aside of the initial loss obviously)

Hope it gets sorted quickly now, as for starting an arguement, it’s STW isn’t it 😉

Glad you have found a solution that works for you.

For insurance purposes, I insure (and pay the premium for) my bike at full retail cost; not what it’s worth on the classifieds or in the sales (and I suspect most on here do). If I did not have a new for old policy, I’d be updating the value for insurance purposes every year (downwards).

The value of my used bike is irrelevant as I have a NEW for OLD policy.
I wouldn’t accept lesser spec forks, wheels or even cheaper pedals regardless of wether the proposed replacement frame is considered by some to be in some way “better”.

The worth is bascially irrelevant. What’s that, 50th time now?

No you’ve misunderstood me,

That’s the point, and it’s irrelevant.

As have you,

I’m not saying or trying to argue new for old.

What i’m trying to discover whether in reality he’s got a good deal or not with the 2.5k.

It could turn out the OPs “new XT” was 3 years old and due for replacement, in which case he’s probably cashed in and should count his blessings. Yes its new for old but by inflating the worth of his bike and claiming more than it’s worth “realistically” – don’t forget it’s everyone else who ends up paying for it anyway through increased bike premiums for insurance.

Again, I’m not arguing new for old, I’m just trying to figure if OP got a good deal in the first place and should count his blessings – or if he really should be pushing for exact replacement.

Yes its new for old but by inflating the worth of his bike and claiming more than it’s worth “realistically”

No, now you’re misunderstanding new for old, he’s not “inflating” the value, and what it’s worth is what a replacement costs – see the oil example. People are getting too hung up on the cost, which is just a product of market economics, it’s a number, which doesn’t mean much unless the OP doesn’t want a replacement.

There is absolutely no consideration of the condition in the settlement. It’s not “new equivalent considering the condition of old”. Whether it’s utterly trashed and due for replacement or factory fresh doesn’t matter one iota. This is one of the reasons insurance fraud can be lucrative. However, that is how it works. Fact.

Not sure if this is the time to admit that I work for a very large multinational insurance company…

So what’s it worth??

😉

So what’s it worth??

It’s worth an XC-biased, XT equipped, mid range mountain bike to the OPs satisfaction.

Loco, the impression I got from your posts were, his bike was worth £500 if he was lucky and should be grateful for what ever he is given.

If I sent you a 2006 RS rev and someone sneaked in and nicked it.
Would you send me a brand new 2013 rev,
Or
Send me a fork of equal value of what you think a 2006 rev would go for on the classifieds.

I don’t wish to be personal.

He’s set out his stall on what he did on the one occasion it went wrong.

Seems like he looked after his customer pretty well.

That is why I found it strange he took the stance he did.

Indeed, he’s arguing a completely different point here to the action he actually took when faced with the situation, which is stupid.