Named and shamed

[paul fellows]

I wrote this in response to a posting by someone who had had a chain snap whilst he riding. The consensus of the responses was that it was just bad look.

"I have never broken a chain, but I’ve stretched a couple.

It is a principal in UK law that all goods offered for sale should be fit for purpose. A bike chain that fails when in use, under a load of one man-power or less is not fit for the purpose of cycling. The fact that we as cyclists accept that we get through more consumables then a motor bike rider dose [ Evan though they are subject to grater loads ] mean the manufactures will never give us better parts, and trading standers will not get involved."


My purpose in starting this thread is to create a list of manufactures and components that have let have let cyclists down, or worn out to quickly.

 

[Markymark]

I've been on another forum where they strictly forbid criticism of servicing or parts because there is no right to reply.

Although honourable in your intentions for naming-and-shaming, it would only be fair if those shamed are given the opportunity to respond.

 

[Globalti]

All bike parts wear out too quickly; I would like my chains and cassettes and chainrings and brakes to last as long as they did on my old 1960s Raleigh with its enclosed chaincase and rod brakes, which weighed a ton but lasted for ever. But I want my bike to weigh less than half the weight of my old Raleigh... er.... hang on....

 

[numbnuts]

Wot he ^^ said

 

[Markymark]

All bike parts wear out too quickly; I would like my chains and cassettes and chainrings and brakes to last as long as they did on my old 1960s Raleigh with its enclosed chaincase and rod brakes, which weighed a ton but lasted for ever. But I want my bike to weigh less than half the weight of my old Raleigh... er.... hang on....

As they say...
strong, light, cheap

Choose 2 out of the 3

 

[snorri]

fact that we as cyclists accept that we get through more consumables then a motor bike rider dose [ Evan though they are subject to grater loads ] mean the manufactures will never give us better parts, and trading standers will not get involved."

The manufacturers are merely responding to customer demand in this country.
The majority of UK cyclists want performance over longevity in bicycles, they want lightweight components and care little regarding the connection between light weight and short working life.
Go buy a Dutch style bike if you want a bike for life.
Edit 0-marky-0 beat me to it!

 

[screenman]

I find my bike parts good value and last long enough to satisfy me, I do look after my bikes though.

 

[Profpointy]

The manufacturers are merely responding to customer demand in this country.
The majority of UK cyclists want performance over longevity in bicycles, they want lightweight components and care little regarding the connection between light weight and short working life.
Go buy a Dutch style bike if you want a bike for life.

might last a long time rather than long distance as you'd have to be very dedicated to pedal it very far.

 

[Rob3rt]

What a load of tripe...

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I wrote this in response to a posting by someone who had had a chain snap whilst he riding. The consensus of the responses was that it was just bad look.

"I have never broken a chain, but I’ve stretched a couple.

It is a principal in UK law that all goods offered for sale should be fit for purpose. A bike chain that fails when in use, under a load of one man-power or less is not fit for the purpose of cycling. The fact that we as cyclists accept that we get through more consumables then a motor bike rider dose [ Evan though they are subject to grater loads ] mean the manufactures will never give us better parts, and trading standers will not get involved."


My purpose in starting this thread is to create a list of manufactures and components that have let have let cyclists down, or worn out to quickly.

You have never stretched a chain. I don't care how strong you are or how well you seem to box. Chains break (they don't snap either but that's semantics) from user error, not from weakness. Assembly problems and material faults are extremely rare on chains.

I would hate to be in the receiving end of your naming and shaming if in the first place you are not qualified to distinguish between user error, wear, overload damage and causation.

Knock it off.

 

[Globalti]

Yeah! You tell 'im!

 

[BigCoops]

At the risk of being just a little bit controversial,

These type of threads never work, because, believe it or not, consumers aren't always completely honest.

Let's be realistic, if you're trying to get a new item/refund you're not for one second going to admit any fault on your part, your maintenance schedule, use and expectation of lifespan are going to be perfect in every way, not reflective of real life situations or negligence on your part.

A fine example is a chain, if looked after, regularly cleaned and lubricated can be expected to last for a while, but still wear (IME around 2000 miles) however, weather/road conditions, type of lubricant used, foreign object damage, pedalling force imparted, cassette/chainring wear can all have a detrimental effect on longevity.

The strong/light/cheap analogy is pretty much bang on for me, but still doesn't account for every variable.

If something is pretty much an obvious QC fail, fair enough, but consumable parts once used?...not so clear IMHO.

 

[vickster]

I usually change the bike before components wear out so it's not of concern to me

 

[BigCoops]

I usually change the bike before components wear out so it's not of concern to me

I do the same with clothes and ironing

 

[Citius]

I wrote this in response to a posting by someone who had had a chain snap whilst he riding. The consensus of the responses was that it was just bad look.

"I have never broken a chain, but I’ve stretched a couple.

It is a principal in UK law that all goods offered for sale should be fit for purpose. A bike chain that fails when in use, under a load of one man-power or less is not fit for the purpose of cycling. The fact that we as cyclists accept that we get through more consumables then a motor bike rider dose [ Evan though they are subject to grater loads ] mean the manufactures will never give us better parts, and trading standers will not get involved."


My purpose in starting this thread is to create a list of manufactures and components that have let have let cyclists down, or worn out to quickly.

I couldn't get past the spelling and grammar, unfortunately.