Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days

Justin- I am surpprised because most manufactures give between one and three
years guarantee and Cannondale give a lifelong guarantee on the CAD 5
which I have just looked at. BRBR

Be surprised but Bianchis one year warranty is not written in fine print on a
scrap of paper that is lost during the sale. It is common knowledge for anybody
buying this frameset.

Justin It may be acceptable in the USA (surely not in such a litigious
society) but it is not in Europe. Does Bianchi have such a poor
reputation? BRBR

I guess I just don't understand then. Bianchi says one year warranty, it broke
outside that. Explain why Bianchi has a liability here, after publishing a one
year warranty. If the Dutch courts arbitrarily enforce a longer warranty, i can
see Bianchi not selling in the Netherlands.


Justin Not only would a court uphold this but it actually has: that is a
fact, ask Eddy Merckx! BRBR

Then good luck. I thought the US was mired in frivilous lawsuits. This really
smacks of 'entitlement' and victumization' on the buyers part.

Justin-
It certainly will not be cheaper to replace the frame as standard
practice when the defect leads to serious personal injury or death, as
the court ruled in the Eddy Merckx case. BRBR

You weren't injured.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

William- I make furniture. The only material I use is stainless steel.
Despite its
expense and difficulty to machine, it's the best material for this
application (appearance and durability). BRBR
When it comes to road bikes, I'd put cro-moly steel 4th behind aluminum,
titanium and carbon (in no particular order). From a physics perspective it
just doesn't have the stiffness to weight ratio the other materials have.
BRBR


Hmmmm, many custom frame makers would disagree..Stick with furniture. If ya
want stuff-aluminum, if ya want longevity, not rust, titanium. If ya want space
age-carbon. If you want a long lasting, good looking, well riding bicycle,
steel is still the best combination of what you are looking for.

William Saying that it performs just as well in less subjective measures
(stiffness
to weight ratio) would not be an accurate representation. BRBR

'Stiffness to weight' was your statement, not mine.
A bicycle is all about subjectiveness..Ask three people about frameset ride
characteristics, get four opinions.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Stewart Fleming wrote:
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
it's a platform bed, you provide your own matress.


Can you make one like a Softride with a beam?

Most people get sufficient shock absorption from the
mattress. You must have some unique requirements.

Bob Schwartz

Stewart Fleming wrote:
Can you make one like a Softride with a beam?

Bob Schwartz wrote:
Most people get sufficient shock absorption from the
mattress. You must have some unique requirements.

In New Zealand the beds have to accomodate sheep.

"Donald Munro" wrote in message
news
Dashi Toshii wrote:
This guy is one of the biggest morons that I have seen post to RBR, he's
an
expert on building frames because he makes furniture, yeah, right!

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

That's me. I posted under that name so PC would see it.

Solidworks is a solid modeling program, used mostly by mechanical
engineers.
Cosmos is a finite-element analysis plug-in. That's what engineers use to
evaluate their designs before prototyping.

I have access to those programs because my friends are mechanical
engineers.
Steel, when evaluated purely for stiffness to weight ratio, doesn't
perform
as well as the other 3 materials. That is a fact.

There are other factors to consider when choosing frame material, some of
which are subjective (therefore not evaluateable by finite element
analysis).
It's also debateable whether the 1 lb. (or less) difference matters to
the
average rider. But those are the subjective criteria - the objective
criteria
(stiffness to weight ratio) is not really disputable. The computer
doesn't
lie (unless the user screws up the parameters).

You should cross post this to rbt if you really want to liven
proceedings up (and challenge the '2 guns' thread for number of posts).





Dumbass -


I don't read r.b.t for a reason but thanks for the suggestion.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
...
William- I make furniture. The only material I use is stainless steel.
Despite its
expense and difficulty to machine, it's the best material for this
application (appearance and durability). BRBR
When it comes to road bikes, I'd put cro-moly steel 4th behind aluminum,
titanium and carbon (in no particular order). From a physics perspective it
just doesn't have the stiffness to weight ratio the other materials have.
BRBR


Hmmmm, many custom frame makers would disagree..Stick with furniture.


I've built a few bikes. I like doing furniture much better - less design
constraint. Even custom framemaking is very repetitive (to me) - change a few
angles here, tube diameters there. Yes, I will stick to furniture and its
offshoots. Very few design constraints in comparison.


If ya
want stuff-aluminum, if ya want longevity, not rust, titanium. If ya want
space
age-carbon. If you want a long lasting, good looking, well riding bicycle,
steel is still the best combination of what you are looking for.

You should rephrase that to "steel is still the best combination of what
*I'm" looking for". Speak for yourself, not for me or others. Those are
subjective criteria. BTW, 2 of my bikes are steel. I still put it 4th when
comparing frame materials.

'Stiffness to weight' was your statement, not mine.


Stiffness to weight ratio is the only objective criteria, the one that can be
modeled on a computer and concrete performance data produced. The others are
subjective except corrosion resistance and perhaps resistance to failure (and
that varies frame to frame).



As for subjective criteria, there was a time when I would have put aluminum
at the bottom, but some companies (not all, perhaps not even most) have
evolved it to the point where it's shock absorbtion and resistance to failure
are quite nice.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
...
Justin- Try and answer the substantive issues raised in this case: $2700
for
a
frame which lasted one and half seasons with no acceptance of
liability on behalf of the manufacturer. Reasonable? BRBR

I think that you should have been a more informed customer. One year
warranties, where longer ones are common, should have set off alarms for
you,
particularly considering the price. I also think that the dealer, when
considering you and your riding style, should have been more proactive. Are
you
a 'larger' rider?



Come right out and say it.

It's obvious he's a Fattie.

"Donald Munro" wrote in message
news
Stewart Fleming wrote:
Can you make one like a Softride with a beam?

Bob Schwartz wrote:
Most people get sufficient shock absorption from the
mattress. You must have some unique requirements.

In New Zealand the beds have to accomodate sheep.



In Wyoming (where I grew up) they do some things with the sheep, but don't
sleep with them.

That's very nice of the New Zealanders. Some girlfriends don't even get
treated that nice. Heather Halvorsin for instance, her boyfriend boots her
off the bed in the afterglow.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:02:56 GMT, "Runkle" wrote:

"Justin Lewis" wrote in message
news Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to
why you must never buy a frame from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act
in this way if the defects had resulted in personal injury?

Dear Sir,

On 1 December 2001 I purchased a Bianchi Boron Frame Size 58 cm from
Van Herwerden Wielersport in the Netherlands. I have used this frame
during the Summer months (March to October) resulting in a total of 13
or 14 months use. Recently (end of August ) the dealer from whom I
bought the frame established that it had cracked in at least two
places.

The warranty period begins the day the frame was purchased. Whether you
ride the frame or just hang it on the wall, the warranty time clock is
still
ticking. According to your dates, the frame lasted approximately 600
days.

Your subject line is misleading and you are full of crap...I'm glad you
are
not my customer.

I would echo the gladness at not being your customer: as I have stated
even the Dutch dealer assumes that a frame should be god for at least
three seasons.

The corolary of your reasoning, if it can be called that, is that you
believe that a producer can limit his or her liability to the period
of the warranty. A defect which occurs one day after the guarantee
period is purely the responsibility of the client, in your view.

I can assure you this is not the case in both the European and
American legal systems: were a frame that you sell to break and injure
a rider one day after the end of the guarantee period I assume that
you would display the attitude that is so evident above. I hope so
because, as is the case with Eddy Merckx recently, you would be found
liable for both the defect and the personal injury. The courts will
assume that a frame which breaks is defective and the onus of proving
any incorrect use would be upon you.

Whilst you may not approve of my subject line (perhaps a little
emotive) there is certainly truth in it. Your approach to service is,
however, perhaps worthy of your own terminology.

Try and answer the substantive issues raised in this case: $2700 for a
frame which lasted one and half seasons with no acceptance of
liability on behalf of the manufacturer. Reasonable? Good for its
reputation: I do not think so. The dealer from whom I bought it no
longer deals with bianchi, advises all his clients to avoid them and I
am a reasonably well-known rider who will make very apparrent that no
rider in Holland should consider such a frame.

The dealer, in contrast to your approach, has refunded half the
purchase price. I am pleased i am not your customer. Go away and learn
something about service and responsibility.

Responsibility for what? You were not injured. Warranty against defect and
liability for injury are two separate issues.

Manufacturers can be held responsible for liability for injury for the life
span of the product that they produce. Whether defect or not, liability can
be assigned by the court and the manufacturer can be held responsible for
the resulting injury. However, believe it or not, in the case of liability
for injury, the manufacturer is not required to replace the product.

Your claim against Bianchi has nothing to do with liability for injury as
you were not injured. Your claim is solely based upon your feeling that
Bianchi has an unfair warranty policy. However, you knew (or should have
known, just as your dealer should have known) what the Bianchi warranty was
at the time that you made your purchase. A one year warranty lasts for 365
days past the date of purchase. Try and bring your car back to the
dealership one day after the warranty expires and see how far you will get.

You need to stop arguing liability as it has nothing to do with your case.
Your case is solely based on warranty. Go away and learn to take
responsibility for your own actions or lack there of.

Liability refers to any legal obligation: implied into all contracts
of sale in Europe and the USA is a term (non-excludable, by whatever
means including the offering of short warranty) that the goods must be
fit fo the purpose for which they were sold and that they must fulfil
what can reasonably be expected from that product.

Liability arises once that implied condition is breached irrespective
of the warranty.

In its consideration the court will look at the price, what could be
reasonably expected of similar products and whether it was being used
for the purpose for which it was designed.

A guideline in Europe is that any consumer durable should last for
about five to eight years.

Attempts to exclude this clause are not recognised: attempts to limit
its effect are judged in terms of fairness.

It would be considered unfair to limit liability for a defect in a
frame of this price to 365 days. The dealer recognised this and
Bianchi did not.

I have hed two similar experiences: one with a computer after two
years in which the dealer had to pay 60% of the repair costs and once
with a car after 3 years in which the dealer paid 50% of the repair
costs.

The personal injury issue is separate: inthe case of Eddy Merkcx the
company had attempted to replace the broken fork whilst refusing to
compensate for the considerable injuries sustained when the fork
broke. Court decision: EM LIABLE for both replacement and personal
injury.

The attitude of many of the suppliers in the cycle injury is most
unhelpful and perhaps arrogant. Bianchi NL have certainly lost more
than they have gained by their attitude.

Fat? 82Kg and three times district time-trial champion.

Justin Lewis wrote:
Kurgan perhaps you should have the decency to
substitute the pronoun "we" at the beginning of your vitriol with the
pronoun "I".

Judging from the responses you've received here in the last day, perhaps
you should have the decency to apologize to Kurgan since it appears his
usage of "we" was justified. He was right: we really *don't* care about
your bike warranty problems.