Bianchi are appaling and last 365 days
Justin Lewis
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 frame was returned to Italy via the Dutch importer. After several
weeks I received notice that Bianchi is not prepared to replace the
frame simply saying that it is outside the one year guarantee period.
I am naturally highly dissatisfied with this response: you may chose
only to provide a one year guarantee (which suggests that Bianchi has
no confidence in its own products) but that does no exclude you from
the responsibility of providing a product which satisfies what can be
reasonably expected of it. It can reasonably be expected that a frame
of this supposed quality will last 5 years.
As this particular frame has lasted about 20% of that period your
responsibility is to refund 80% of its value or, as a gesture of
goodwill, to provide a replacement frame of similar quality. Your
abject failure to even discuss this possibility suggests that you
consider that a frame which lasts 366 days has fulfilled Bianchi’s
obligations to its client. I can assure you that this is not the case
under Dutch law.
I expect better from Bianchi: your lack of preparedness to replace
this frame or provide an adequate refund is a complete desertion of
your responsibility and has left the Dutch dealer (who has been more
than reasonable) out of pocket.
May I suggest that you include a statement in your publicity campaign
in the Netherlands (To be faster you only need an extra gear) to the
effect that you expect certain models of your range to last 365 days
only.
I feel it only pertinent to add to the message below that the dealer
from whom I bought the frame has previously had poor experiences with
the service from Bianchi in these sort of cases and has decided no
longer to stock or sell Bianchi frames. He strongly advises against
the purchase of your products: as the largest dealer in our region
this will surely influence your image in the whole of the Benelux. In
the light of this I suggest that it really is time for your company to
revise its position regarding service (or as it currently is, lack of
service).
I expect the courtesy of a reply containing an adequate proposal,
Yours faithfully,
Justin Lewis.
Kurgan Gringioni
"Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839a...@4ax.com...
> Please read the information below and make your own conclusion as to
> why you must never buy a frame from Bianchi!
<snip>
Dumbass -
We don't give a shit about your bike warranty problems.
Plus, we like Bianchi. Jan Ullrich wouldn't have been in the TdF this year
when Coast blew it, but Bianchi stepped in and saved the day. Probably with
the $$$ they made from Dumbasses like you.
Please post your bike purchase problems to a group where someone cares.
Thank you very much for your cooperation and have a nice day.
Mike Jacoubowsky
when you purchased the frame, as that was an absolute, definitive indication
that such frames have a very short lifespan (as has been seen repeatedly;
not just with Bianchi, but with all ultra-light aluminum frames).
If you felt Bianchi misrepresented the durability aspects of the frame,
that's one thing. But such ultra-light frames sacrifice durability in a
quest for the ultimate in light weight, no question about it. There's no
magical way you can build an aluminum frame at near 2 pounds without it
having an extremely limited lifespan.
I've been part of product meetings at TREK, and the question has been asked
whether we'd be willing to go lighter that what we currently have in
exchange for decreased durability and a shorter warranty. The answer has
always been no; we like the fact that the product is built to last a number
of years. But that's the choice TREK made, and there are many consumers
who'd rather have something on the bleeding edge of lightness, and will go
elsewhere. The Bianchi is one of those "elsewhere" options.
To sum things up, as long as it's not misrepresented as a long-lasting
machine, the Bianchi (and its 12-month warranty) is a legit marketplace
offering. You apparently made a choice that either you didn't understand at
the time, was misrepresented, or one that you now simply don't believe could
have been that way and now regret.
By the way, this probably isn't the best forum for this. Something more
along the lines of "What sort of lifespan have people in the group gotten
from the Bianchi Boron? Mine failed after x months of use; does this seem
reasonable?"
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
Joshua Zlotlow
>From: Justin Lewis jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl
>Date: 9/16/03 11:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <o1ufmvkk0saq7839a...@4ax.com>
>
>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.
[Snipped]
The frame had a one year warranty. You tried to warranty it after the warranty
had expired. Yes, a frame should last longer than a year, but when a product is
sold with a one year warranty, the company is saying they only stand behind the
product for a year. A one year warranty is a good reason not to by a product,
but the company doesn't owe you anything if it lasts through the warranty
period.
Josh Zlotlow
JAZl...@aol.com
Sacramento, California
Sacramento Golden Wheelmen
www.sacgw.com
Justin Lewis
Thanks for the replies: Kurgan perhaps you should have the decency to
substitute the pronoun "we" at the beginning of your vitriol with the
pronoun "I". It would appear from the other two reasonble replies that
there are people who
1) are interested in the problem and
2) have something of value to say.
Mike,
Under European law an article be in state to fulfil what can
reasonably be expected of it. Even the dealer who returned it on my
behalf to Bianchi was unaware of the short duration of the guarantee.
He has refunded half the purchase price: about $700 of refund. The
guarantee can state anything but the supplier cannot evade the
obligation of supplying a product that is fit for the purpose.
Normally one expects a frame to last for about five years and in the
European courts a sliding scale is applied regards refunds and repair
of defects which fall outside the initial guarantee period. It would
be advisable, particularly as Eddy Merckx has just lost a sizeable
personal injury claim in Belgium, for Bianchi to specifically mention
that the frame should not be used for more than one year due to safety
considerations.
I take the point about my style: one can probably imagine that I am
slightly upset at the stonewalling from Bianchi. I will attempt a more
neutral manner next time!
Joshua,
it is certainly a good reason not to buy the product. I would disagree
about the company not owing me anything after the warranty period:
this would be an incentive to provide the shortest warranty possible
for every product!
Watch this space and thanks, in some cases, for shedding lihgt upon
how others think about this sort of issue.
Justin
Donald Munro
> If you felt Bianchi misrepresented the durability aspects of the frame,
> that's one thing. But such ultra-light frames sacrifice durability in a
> quest for the ultimate in light weight, no question about it. There's no
> magical way you can build an aluminum frame at near 2 pounds without it
> having an extremely limited lifespan.
Actually the Boron is a 2.8lb steel frame. My Aluminium Bianchi has
already lasted 3 years and is about to be downgraded to being my 2nd
training bike when I get my new (Orbea Starship) frame. The problem
probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel
bikes, although if the OP posted this to rbt he'd probably have been
told to get an oversized lugged steel frame that weights 5 lbs.
Ewoud Dronkert
> Kurgan perhaps you should have the decency to
> substitute the pronoun "we" at the beginning of your vitriol with the
> pronoun "I".
No need, two already makes a we.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
why you must never buy a frame from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act
One year warrantry, like a lot of bicycle and other 'stuff'. Why are ya
surprised??
frame broke outside of warranty..sorry- Guy shouldn't buy a bicycle with this
rep.
Dutch guy<< It can reasonably be expected that a frame
of this supposed quality will last 5 years. >><BR><BR>
Even that is low but with very thin and light aluminum framesets, this is
standard...
Dutch guy<< Your
abject failure to even discuss this possibility suggests that you
consider that a frame which lasts 366 days has fulfilled Bianchi’s
obligations to its client. I can assure you that this is not the case
under Dutch law. >><BR><BR>
Absurd. 5 year time frame is arbitrary and no court anywhere would uphold this
guys figures. did the gebt know the warrranty was one year? I'll guess he did
and then caveat emptor.
Bianchi and others build to the lowest common denominator. That is, they assume
a certain amount of use. If exceeded, the stuff often breaks but it is cheaper
to replace in the one year period than to make the framesets stronger. It's
just business.
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
Qui si parla Campagnolo
probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel
bikes, although if the OP posted this to rbt he'd probably have been
Or a better made steel frameset that weighs about 3.6 pounds. No steel frameset
we see these days, lugged or not weighs 5 pounds. Mine is lugged and weighs 3.8
pounds. Another misrepresentation of modern steel.
Justin Lewis
Campagnolo) wrote:
>justin-<< 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? >><BR><BR>
>
>One year warrantry, like a lot of bicycle and other 'stuff'. Why are ya
>surprised??
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.>
>frame broke outside of warranty..sorry- Guy shouldn't buy a bicycle with this
>rep.
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?>
>Dutch guy<< It can reasonably be expected that a frame
>of this supposed quality will last 5 years. >><BR><BR>
>
>
>Even that is low but with very thin and light aluminum framesets, this is
>standard...
>
>Dutch guy<< Your
>abject failure to even discuss this possibility suggests that you
>consider that a frame which lasts 366 days has fulfilled Bianchi’s
>obligations to its client. I can assure you that this is not the case
>under Dutch law. >><BR><BR>
>
>Absurd. 5 year time frame is arbitrary and no court anywhere would uphold this
>guys figures. did the gebt know the warrranty was one year? I'll guess he did
>and then caveat emptor.
Not only would a court uphold this but it actually has: that is a
fact, ask Eddy Merckx!>
>Bianchi and others build to the lowest common denominator. That is, they assume
>a certain amount of use. If exceeded, the stuff often breaks but it is cheaper
>to replace in the one year period than to make the framesets stronger. It's
>just business.
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.
Mike Jacoubowsky
> already lasted 3 years and is about to be downgraded to being my 2nd
> training bike when I get my new (Orbea Starship) frame. The problem
> probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel
> bikes, although if the OP posted this to rbt he'd probably have been
> told to get an oversized lugged steel frame that weights 5 lbs.
Thanks for the clarification. I've said before that 3.5 lbs represents an
acceptable floor for durable steel frames, just over 3 pounds for Ti, and
perhaps 2.6 or slightly-higher for aluminum. Still not sure what the
minimum safe weight is for carbon-fiber, which is just fine with me.... I'd
rather have them on the conservative side!
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Donald Munro" <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.17....@yyy.zzz...
Kurgan Gringioni
<snip>
> Thanks for the replies: Kurgan perhaps you should have the decency
Dumbass -
First of all, what the fuck are you doing replying to your own bleating post
and not snipping out all that crap?
Second of all, even someone as dense as yourself would realize that using
"Kurgan" and "decency" in the same sentence is an oxymoron if you lurked here
for at least 1 day before posting.
> it is certainly a good reason not to buy the product. I would disagree
> about the company not owing me anything after the warranty period:
Goddamm, you're an idiot.
If you want a lifetime warranty, buy products that have that feature.
Otherwise, shut up. We don't care.
William Belaforous Kelly
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030917091607...@mb-m24.aol.com...
> xxx-<< The problem
> probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel
> bikes, although if the OP posted this to rbt he'd probably have been
> told to get an oversized lugged steel frame that weights 5 lbs. >><BR><BR>
>
> Or a better made steel frameset that weighs about 3.6 pounds. No steel
frameset
> we see these days, lugged or not weighs 5 pounds. Mine is lugged and weighs
3.8
> pounds. Another misrepresentation of modern steel.
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).
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.
Running finite element analysis programs (Cosmos) on Solidworks models
repeatedly confirms this.
Steel does have one advantage: it's cheap. It does have the best combination
of machinability and weldability. And I suppose some old farts like the feel.
That's fine, it's only a pound (or less) difference.
Saying that it performs just as well in less subjective measures (stiffness
to weight ratio) would not be an accurate representation.
HC
ps. Yes, I know how to weld aluminum and titanium, no I've never worked with
carbon (although it's simple, just mold and heat).
B. Lafferty
had a Bianchi frame bought in the late 1980s for $300 (Columbus steel) that
cracked in the bb area two years later. The frame had a lifetime warranty
and I got a replacement frame with no problems. In fact, they offered me a
strait replacement with one model or, for an additional $50, a frame made
out of Tange Prestige. I took the latter, rode it for 10 years. My
neighbor bought it and still rides it nearly every day ( I wish he would
clean it---it hurts to see it).
A friend bought the Pantani model AL frame in 1999 and it cracked about 1
year later. Bianchi replaced it with no problem but not with the same frame
which was out of production. The frame he got was quite similar but was
reinforced in the previous problem area.
Bianchi will stand behind their warranty, no question about that. If they
gave you a one year warranty it was because it was a very light racing frame
with a short life expectancy. Next time check the warranty and decide how
long you intend to use the frame.
"Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839a...@4ax.com...
Dashi Toshii
"William Belaforous Kelly" <spami...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:6W%9b.441$iT4.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20030917091607...@mb-m24.aol.com...
> > xxx-<< The problem
> > probably lies with new light steel used in the 'next generation' steel
> > bikes, although if the OP posted this to rbt he'd probably have been
> > told to get an oversized lugged steel frame that weights 5 lbs.
>><BR><BR>
> >
> > Or a better made steel frameset that weighs about 3.6 pounds. No steel
> frameset
> > we see these days, lugged or not weighs 5 pounds. Mine is lugged and
weighs
> 3.8
> > pounds. Another misrepresentation of modern steel.
>
>
>
>
> 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).
Bullshit snipped..
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!
Dashii
Kurgan Gringioni
"Dashi Toshii" <Tos...@Jpn.com> wrote in message
news:gfucnZlCAfw...@comcast.com...
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).
Stewart Fleming
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!
I was just wondering what sleeping on a stainless steel bed would be like...
Nick Burns
"Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839a...@4ax.com...
> why you must never buy a frame from Bianchi! Would Bianchi still act
> in this way if the defects had resulted in personal injury?
This is so lame. Nobody cares, and if they did care, why would anyone take
your word for it when you publish this in a forum that Bianchi can't reply
to? You got the exact result anyone reasonable would expect. Granted, most
others would say, "darn", right after my friggin' warranty expired" and that
would be the end of it. In fact, things like that have happened to me and I
am sure just about everyone at one time or another. In fact, I am typing
this on a 13 month old notebook that has a few problems that I should have
had repaired, but the warranty just expired a month ago. Computers are
typically expected to last about 3 years. Warrantys are typically from 90
days to 3 years. You think I should be able to get it repaired any time
within 3 years because that is the typical life expectancy? What is the
difference between your situation and mine (besides the fact that you
already got half of your money refunded)? According to you, a warranty
should be regulated by the government. And you have the nerve to call
Americans letigious? You are not a reasonable person.
Runkle
"Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839a...@4ax.com...
> 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.
Kurgan Gringioni
"Stewart Fleming" <s...@cs.otago.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:1063854100.907638@ns...
it's a platform bed, you provide your own matress.
Justin Lewis
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.
Kurgan Gringioni
<snip, snip, snip>
Dumbass -
We don't care about your bike that broke after the warranty expired. Please
complain elsewhere.
Stewart Fleming
Can you make one like a Softride with a beam?
Qui si parla Campagnolo
years guarantee and Cannondale give a lifelong guarantee on the CAD 5
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? >><BR><BR>
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!> >><BR><BR>
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. >><BR><BR>
You weren't injured.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
a
frame which lasted one and half seasons with no acceptance of
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?
But the warranty period is clear, you were NOT injured, and so I think you
would not have a case in the US. Don't know about some places in Europe who
appear much more liberal in their views on such things.
Justin<< The dealer, in contrast to your approach, has refunded half the
purchase price. I am pleased i am not your customer. >><BR><BR>
I think he should as he appears partially responsible.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Despite its
expense and difficulty to machine, it's the best material for this
<< 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.
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. >><BR><BR>
'Stiffness to weight' was your statement, not mine.
A bicycle is all about subjectiveness..Ask three people about frameset ride
characteristics, get four opinions.
Bob Schwartz
> 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
cv...@execpc.com
Donald Munro
>> 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.
Kurgan Gringioni
"Donald Munro" <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote in message
> 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!
>
> >
> > 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).
>
> 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.
William Belaforous Kelly
> 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). >><BR><BR>
> << 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.
> >><BR><BR>
>
>
> 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.
Kurgan Gringioni
> 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? >><BR><BR>
>
> 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.
Runkle
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.
Kurgan Gringioni
"Donald Munro" <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.18....@yyy.zzz...
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.
Justin Lewis
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.
Kurgan Gringioni
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:02:56 GMT, "Runkle" <cat...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> A guideline in Europe is that any consumer durable should last for
> about five to eight years.
<snip>
Dumbass -
If your claim is true, then Bianchi would be bankrupt wouldn't they?
Why don't you just take them to court if you're so sure of your legal
opinion? That way you can punish Bianchi for their egregious behavior, you
can get rich off the damage award and you won't have to bother us anymore
with your pathetic whining.
Have a nice day, Whiner.
Robert Chung
> 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.
Kyle Legate
>
> 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.
>
100000000000000 different design possibilities.
Kyle Legate
> "Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in
> message news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839a...@4ax.com...
>> 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?
>
> This is so lame. Nobody cares, and if they did care, why would anyone
> take your word for it when you publish this in a forum that Bianchi
> can't reply to? You got the exact result anyone reasonable would
> expect. Granted, most others would say, "darn", right after my
> friggin' warranty expired" and that would be the end of it. In fact,
> things like that have happened to me and I am sure just about
> everyone at one time or another. In fact, I am typing this on a 13
> month old notebook that has a few problems that I should have had
> repaired, but the warranty just expired a month ago.
>
screen hinges went kaput 1 month after my warranty, and I now have to prop
the screen open on my desk lamp if I don't want the notebook to be open at
160 degrees. And to think, Compaq is one of the few brands with
non-user-servicable hinges.
Runkle
"It can reasonably be expected that a frame of this supposed quality will
last 5 years."
"Normally one expects a frame to last for about five years..."
"A guideline in Europe is that any consumer durable should last for about
five to eight years."
Can you please provide legal documentation of these "expectations" and
"guidelines"?
"It would be considered unfair to limit liability for a defect in a frame of
this price to 365 days. The dealer recognized this and Bianchi did not."
At what point is it "fair" to end the warranty? Five to eight years? Why
not ten years? Or twenty? Why not a life time warranty? Should we mandate
lifetime warranties? Wouldn't that be "more fair"?
Nick Burns
"Kyle Legate" <leg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> Funny you should mention that. I'm writing this on my Compaq notebook--the
> screen hinges went kaput 1 month after my warranty, and I now have to prop
> the screen open on my desk lamp if I don't want the notebook to be open at
> 160 degrees. And to think, Compaq is one of the few brands with
> non-user-servicable hinges.
That is exactly the problem with my HP. They probably (the subcomponent) are
from the same manufacturer. What crap. Mine sounds like it is not as bad as
yours since the screen works most of the time. Once every few days the
screen flickers (to the point of being unusable) and I have to gently work
the hinge back and forth until it behaves normally again.
Nick Burns
"Runkle" <cat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> At what point is it "fair" to end the warranty? Five to eight years? Why
> not ten years? Or twenty? Why not a life time warranty? Should we
mandate
> lifetime warranties? Wouldn't that be "more fair"?
What else would you expect from a commie like this dude?
B. Lafferty
You're mixing apples and oranges. Liability for product replacement is
covered by the warranty. There is a warranty of merchantability and fitness
for purpose amongst others under the UCC. However, the frame is undoubtedly
a high end racing frame and was designed and sold fully fit for that
purpose. I doubt that you could prove that the frame failure was a defect
in a product not intended to have a significant lifespan.
Liability for personal injury is a far more complex issue under US law.
I won't even begin to address it here. Too many unknowns and intangables.
And you weren't injured anyway.
> >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.
UCC implied warranty for fitness of purpose. I'd say you Bianchi was
fully fit for racing for a season as it was designed for that specific,
limited purpose.
>
> Liability arises once that implied condition is breached irrespective
> of the warranty.
Depends.........not so simple as a legal issue.
>
> 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.
A high end racing frame is not a durable, like a washing machine, for
example.
>
> Attempts to exclude this clause are not recognised: attempts to limit
> its effect are judged in terms of fairness.
Equitable powers of the courts in the US are limited by statutory
provisions. Each state varies somewhat. While consumers have greater
protection in many states based on statutes (usually designed to prevent
consumer fraud) that does not preclude an individual consumer from buying
goods under a shorter warranty from one manufacturer that another. For
example, my 1998 Jetta had a 2 year warranty and that sucked. They were
losing business so my 2002 Golf has a 4 year warranty. If it breaks after 4
years, I'm not going to say VW is disreputable. I know the warranty that I
and VW are bound by as a matter of law.
>
> 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.
The dealer made a business decision as is his right. Take Bianchi to
court on the warranty and let us know what happens.
Nev Shea
> Funny you should mention that. I'm writing this on my Compaq
> notebook--the screen hinges went kaput 1 month after my warranty, and
> I now have to prop the screen open on my desk lamp if I don't want the
> notebook to be open at 160 degrees. And to think, Compaq is one of the
> few brands with non-user-servicable hinges.
Sounds like the HP-Compaq merger is a match made in heaven. I had a HP
desktop and the hard drive failed 1 month after the warranty expired.
NS
Kurgan Gringioni
"Kyle Legate" <leg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5f0358e9bfa63878...@news.teranews.com...
Dumbass -
I'd rather be kicked in the groin.
Stewart Fleming
Bob Schwartz wrote:
In a previous message, I invited Heather for coffee.
Mind you, I'm still waiting for a reply.
Nick Burns
"Nev Shea" <spam...@garbage.net> wrote in message
news:25oab.7762$UN4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
There is so much downward price pressure that it does not surprise me when
any PC tech products break like that. I am almost surprised when they do
last.
Heinz Getzler
about many of the new frame materials out there. Some of the new
tubing like the Columbus Starship tubing is paper thin. I have heard
reports that it will crumple if you brake to hard. Most of the
magazines have done a poor job of writing about the durability issues.
There is also a lot of gimmicky products on the market today. I can't
understand why someone would pay more for a 3TTT composite handlebar
that weighs more and costs more than a conventional aluminum one. Part
of the problem is that riders have been to accepting of questionable
technology and shoddy business practices. A few years back when all
the acquistions were going on with Derby and Pacific they both turned
their back of the warranties form the original owners. I have worked
in this industry for years and I am ashamed that these business
practices have taken place.
h squared
Stewart Fleming wrote:
>
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Most people get sufficient shock absorption from the
> > mattress. You must have some unique requirements.
>
> In a previous message, I invited Heather for coffee.
> Mind you, I'm still waiting for a reply.
i dunno. sounds like my ass will hurt for three days after (and i'm no triathlete)
h
Justin Lewis
<chrismc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
>news:o1ufmvkk0saq7839a...@4ax.com...
>> 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?
>
>This is so lame. Nobody cares, and if they did care, why would anyone take
>your word for it when you publish this in a forum that Bianchi can't reply
>to?
Bianchi is at liberty to publish any reply it wishes: I chose this
forum as Bianchi chose not to reply to my E-mail to their customer
service department.
You got the exact result anyone reasonable would expect. Granted, most
>others would say, "darn", right after my friggin' warranty expired" and that
>would be the end of it.
This misses the point: if one were simply to accept any defect which
manifests itself outside the warranty period firms would be best
advised to give a warranty of a about a week. People like you would
then say "darn", right after my friggin' warranty expired". However
any reasonable person realises that a manufacturer's liability does
not end at the end of that period and, just as you suggest is the case
regarding your laptop, a frame of this nature has a "life expectancy"
which is longer than the warranty period. It seems logical, in that
case, to apply a sliding scale regards liability for defects during
that life expectancy but outside the warranty period. The Dutch courts
do exactly that and the starting point for frame is that it should
last about five years. So a defect which manifests itself in the fifth
year is only 20% the responsibility of the manufacturer.
In fact, things like that have happened to me and I
>am sure just about everyone at one time or another. In fact, I am typing
>this on a 13 month old notebook that has a few problems that I should have
>had repaired, but the warranty just expired a month ago. Computers are
>typically expected to last about 3 years. Warrantys are typically from 90
>days to 3 years. You think I should be able to get it repaired any time
>within 3 years because that is the typical life expectancy?
Answer is, of course, yes, with a contribution from you in proportion
to the extent to which the lifetime has advanced.
What is the
>difference between your situation and mine (besides the fact that you
>already got half of your money refunded)?
I decided to do something about it instead of lie down and die. I got
half the money back from the dealer but he should, in turn, be
compensated by Bianchi. I protest as much on his behalf as for my
self.
According to you, a warranty should be regulated by the government.
And you have the nerve to call Americans letigious (litigous)?
This is not what I suggested: I suggest that the warranty is separate
to the implied term that a product should be reasonably fit for the
purpose for which it is sold. I base my claim upon that implied term
and not upon the warranty. Be more observant!
You are not a reasonable person.
Would you like to buy a nice secondhand Bianchi frame with a warranty
of thirty seconds?
Kyle Legate
>
> I decided to do something about it instead of lie down and die. I got
> half the money back from the dealer but he should, in turn, be
> compensated by Bianchi. I protest as much on his behalf as for my
> self.
>
position to serve as middleman with respect to warranty issues. It is not
their job to reimburse the customer out of pocket as the result of a
warranty issue, and it is certainly not their job to throw money away over
an issue which is clearly, in your case, not warranty-related. As has
already been clearly stated in this thread, Bianchi is under no obligation
to do anything other than laugh at you.
> Would you like to buy a nice secondhand Bianchi frame with a warranty
> of thirty seconds?
>
As far as I am aware, second hand Bianchis (or second hand bicycles of any
manufacture) are without warranty. Warranties usually apply only to the
original puchaser since any subsequent owner is unaware of the history of
use.
Nick Burns
"Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
<senseless crap snipped>
I am starting to see that you don't understand liability.
Runkle
"Nick Burns" <chrismc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3f6c7750$0$35504$a32e...@news.nntpservers.com...
>
> "Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
>
> <senseless crap snipped>
>
> I am starting to see that you don't understand liability.
>
>
or personal responsibility...
Justin Lewis
my responsibility to accept a defctive period, bow down to a
ridiculously short warranty period and to accept Bianchi's arrogance?
And you are a representative of the cycle trade?
Justin Lewis
wrote:
>Justin Lewis wrote:
>>
>> I decided to do something about it instead of lie down and die. I got
>> half the money back from the dealer but he should, in turn, be
>> compensated by Bianchi. I protest as much on his behalf as for my
>> self.
>>
>Your dealer is stupid, and deserves to be out that money. It is their
>position to serve as middleman with respect to warranty issues.
As I stated in this thread, my right to compensation does rest upon
the expired warranty but upon the non-excludable implied term that a
product should be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was sold
(including any special purpose made apparent by the consumer before
the sale took place). Why do you then insist upon referring to a
warranty?
It is not
>their job to reimburse the customer out of pocket as the result of a
>warranty issue, and it is certainly not their job to throw money away over
>an issue which is clearly, in your case, not warranty-related. As has
>already been clearly stated in this thread, Bianchi is under no obligation
>to do anything other than laugh at you.
Bianchi's obligation is, in turn, to supply the dealer with a product
which meets the description as outlined above, particularly in the
case of a hidden defect of which the dealer could have no knowledge.
>
>> Would you like to buy a nice secondhand Bianchi frame with a warranty
>> of thirty seconds?
However if it were sold from a retail establishment there could well
be a warranty granted, as with secondhand cars, and the condition of
fitness for purpose would be implied.
>>
>As far as I am aware, second hand Bianchis (or second hand bicycles of any
>manufacture) are without warranty. Warranties usually apply only to the
>original puchaser since any subsequent owner is unaware of the history of
>use.
>
Could you at least attempt to answer this question? If a manufacturer
of a frame were to give a two day warranty and your frame were to
manifest a defect after three days, would you, using your analysis,
have any rights to replacement or compensation?
Justin Lewis
Nice to know that as a qualified lawyer I should bow to your superior
knowledge of Dutch law. Thanks.
Ewoud Dronkert
> as a qualified lawyer
Huh, how come you are riding for a students club from Delft then,
studied law in the evenings?
Tiscali News
"Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> a écrit dans le
message de
news:nljqmvkbchcral950...@4ax.com...
I read all the doss you wrote, and it's evident to all that your newness as
a lawyer and as a cycist comes across loudly. And to speak of yourself as
"qualified" is pitiful. You are the kind of lawyer that our profession and
our sport need none of. "Qualified" in more jurisdictions that you might
imagine, and having more kilometres and years on a bike than you are likely
to achieve, ever, I suggest (not timidly) that you learn to be more peaceful
in your approach to both activities.
I suspect that the shop was willing to pay you never to appear there, again,
That's not warranty or merchantability - just good business sense. Take the
spanking and grow up.
Justin Lewis
wrote:
You imply that it is not possible to ride for a students club and
either concurrently study full time, or prior to joining the club have
studied full time. What are the grounds for this assertion?
First degree in law from Newcastle Upon Tyne in England, 1982.
Second qualification as teacher of law, economics and business studies
Bolton, Manchester 1986.
Any other irrelevant and inaccurate remarks?
Try addressing the substantive issues.
Justin Lewis
One should be fearful for the future of this group if this is the
quality of the arguments aduced.
"I ride more than you so I know more about law and I am more
qualified" is a fairly juvenile reaction, particularly when based upon
afoundation of nothing. You might as well argue that you can shout
louder so therefore you are right.
What about someone who does not ride as far as you but rides faster:
who knows more in those circumstances? Are there any other tests which
you would like to apply? Penis measuring? Duelling?
Hypothetical situation: you buy a frame with a 365 day warranty. On
day 363 it manifests a defect but you cannot report it to the dealer
until day 366 because of a weekend and the shop being closed on
Mondays. Is this, in your opinion, a case where the consumer has no
enforceable rights?
That is a fairly straight-forward example: I would deeply value your
opinion.
Ewoud Dronkert
> Any other irrelevant and inaccurate remarks?
Hey asshole, it was a sincere question. I was simply curious as I saw
some results with you riding for the club from Delft, and one cannot
study law there. We're all out to get you, eh?
Runkle
>
> Hypothetical situation: you buy a frame with a 365 day warranty. On
> day 363 it manifests a defect but you cannot report it to the dealer
> until day 366 because of a weekend and the shop being closed on
> Mondays. Is this, in your opinion, a case where the consumer has no
> enforceable rights?
Interesting hypothetical, but that is not what happened to you.
> 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.
Again., according to your dates, the frame lasted approximately 600 days.
Maybe Bianchi would have been more flexible if it was indeed day 366 and you
came into the dealer first thing Monday after the shop being closed for the
weekend. But that is not what happened to you.
You write:
"It would be considered unfair to limit liability for a defect in a frame of
this price to 365 days.
The dealer recognized this and Bianchi did not."
Here's a hypothetical for you: Bianchi offers to extend the warranty from
365 days to 500 days. Oops, you are still out of luck. Bring on the
lawyers I guess...
We get it, you are not happy that your frame broke. I'm sorry. Get over
it.
Kyle Legate
>
> As I stated in this thread, my right to compensation does rest upon
> the expired warranty but upon the non-excludable implied term that a
> product should be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was sold
> (including any special purpose made apparent by the consumer before
> the sale took place). Why do you then insist upon referring to a
> warranty?
>
> Bianchi's obligation is, in turn, to supply the dealer with a product
> which meets the description as outlined above, particularly in the
> case of a hidden defect of which the dealer could have no knowledge.
> >
I'm sure many of the bikes sold by your dealer are able to be ridden during
the period covered by the warranty. If they suddenly cannot be ridden during
that time period then you recourse to compensation.
> Could you at least attempt to answer this question? If a manufacturer
> of a frame were to give a two day warranty and your frame were to
> manifest a defect after three days, would you, using your analysis,
> have any rights to replacement or compensation?
>
No, I would have no rights, since the frame is no longer covered. However, I
would not be so stupid to buy a frame with a 2 day warranty. Nor, for that
matter, would I be stupid enough to buy a frame with a one year warranty.
Next time read the fine print. Is that clear enough for you?
Robert Chung
>
> Try addressing the substantive issues.
The only substantive issue I'm even vaguely interested in is this: why,
despite all evidence to the contrary, do you continue to think that we
care about your bike warranty problems? Thinking so is evidence of a deep
cognitive defect. Perhaps if you stamp your little feet and threaten to
hold your breath until you turn blue you can change our minds. Or perhaps
not.
Kyle Legate
>
> "I ride more than you so I know more about law and I am more
> qualified" is a fairly juvenile reaction, particularly when based upon
> afoundation of nothing. You might as well argue that you can shout
> louder so therefore you are right.
>
dick for the measuring:
"Nice to know that as a qualified lawyer I should bow to your superior
knowledge of Dutch law. Thanks."
Seeing that you got your law degree at a second string school in England,
and Ewoud is Dutch, I might expect him to know a far sight more about Dutch
law than you do.
Justin Lewis
wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:18:30 +0200, Justin Lewis wrote:
Would a capital A not be more appropriate? It is after all a proper
noun!
Ewoud Dronkert
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 17:29:33 +0200, Ewoud Dronkert wrote:
>> Hey asshole
>
> Would a capital A not be more appropriate?
It probably would.
Justin Lewis
I could stamp my feet and hold my breath until I turn blue but
implicit in my so doing would be my agreement with the assumption that
you have a mind.
Carl Sundquist
> knowledge of Dutch law. Thanks.
Why would a qualified lawyer feel the need to express and defend himself on Dutch law in
this non-legal, predominately non Dutch forum?
You have yet to find a single reply supporting your opinion.
If Dutch law is on your side, then take it to court there.
Please, let your next post on this subject be one with a link to the findings of the
court.
Justin Lewis
Do not have to: I already got half the money back in circumstances
under which most contributors would have just said: "Oh darn". I am
just surprised that you lot accept and eat such shit.
Justin Lewis
wrote:
>
>"Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
>news:fljqmvss1una30eb0...@4ax.com...
>>
>> As I stated in this thread, my right to compensation does rest upon
>> the expired warranty but upon the non-excludable implied term that a
>> product should be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was sold
>> (including any special purpose made apparent by the consumer before
>> the sale took place). Why do you then insist upon referring to a
>> warranty?
>>
>Were you able to ride the bike? Mission accomplished.
I was advised not to ride the bike by the dealer: it was dangerous.
>
>> Bianchi's obligation is, in turn, to supply the dealer with a product
>> which meets the description as outlined above, particularly in the
>> case of a hidden defect of which the dealer could have no knowledge.
>> >
>I'm sure many of the bikes sold by your dealer are able to be ridden during
>the period covered by the warranty. If they suddenly cannot be ridden during
>that time period then you recourse to compensation.
>
>> Could you at least attempt to answer this question? If a manufacturer
>> of a frame were to give a two day warranty and your frame were to
>> manifest a defect after three days, would you, using your analysis,
>> have any rights to replacement or compensation?
>>
>No, I would have no rights, since the frame is no longer covered.
It is a shame that you believe that: I would love to have clients as
naive as you:
Me: "I did teach you properly but my warranty only extends to the day
before the exam."
Student: "Oh, darn. Never mind, the warranty has expired so I will
just have to get over it"
Robert Chung
> "Robert Chung" wrote:
>
>> Justin Lewis wrote:
>>>
>>> Try addressing the substantive issues.
>>
>> The only substantive issue I'm even vaguely interested in is this: why,
>> despite all evidence to the contrary, do you continue to think that we
>> care about your bike warranty problems? Thinking so is evidence of a
>> deep cognitive defect. Perhaps if you stamp your little feet and
>> threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue you can change our
>> minds. Or perhaps not.
>>
>>
> I could stamp my feet and hold my breath until I turn blue but
> implicit in my so doing would be my agreement with the assumption that
> you have a mind.
Excellent. This is progress. Since we lack minds, trying to convince us of
your tort is futile. I am perfectly willing to have you think us witless
if you will just go away. I'm sure if you look you'll be able to find
someone who will listen to your tantrum. Have you tried your mother?
Perhaps she can provide the affirmation you seek. It is evident you will
not find it here.
Carl Sundquist
You did not answer my question: "Why would a qualified lawyer feel the need to express and
Carl Sundquist
> under which most contributors would have just said: "Oh darn". I am
> just surprised that you lot accept and eat such shit.
BTW, how does it make you feel that the shopowner took a significant loss on the
transaction?
Carl Sundquist
"Robert Chung" <inv...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> Excellent. This is progress. Since we lack minds, trying to convince us of
> your tort is futile. I am perfectly willing to have you think us witless
> if you will just go away. I'm sure if you look you'll be able to find
> someone who will listen to your tantrum. Have you tried your mother?
> Perhaps she can provide the affirmation you seek. It is evident you will
> not find it here.
>
If we can get Justin (with his breadth of things Dutch) to send Bruce Johnston LVM info
and translations, I'll bet Bruce would be willing to be supportive of Justin's plight.
Kurgan Gringioni
>
> One should be fearful for the future of this group if this is the
> quality of the arguments aduced.
<snip>
This group will have no future if we get more self-absorbed whiners like you
posting.
wafflyDIRTYcatLITTERhcsBOX
>either concurrently study full time, or prior to joining the club have
>studied full time. What are the grounds for this assertion?
>
>First degree in law from Newcastle Upon Tyne in England, 1982.
Whey bonnie laad, ye shudda nown bedder like. Noo, if yor frame hadda konked
oot in t'warrantee like, ye wudda had sum case. But if aahm reedin yee right,
like, the frame knackered ootside t'warrantee peereeod. In which case, bonnie
laad, yee is up the creek wivoot a paddle. Noo, it mighta bin good customewr
sorvice like, if Bianchi haada dum summat for yee, but as aah see it, bonnie
laaad, the form divvint hafta.
Bye the way, bonnie laad, I ride a Bianchi anna whey maan, its great!
>
>Second qualification as teacher of law, economics and business studies
>Bolton, Manchester 1986.
Whey ah winnat howld it against yee. Ah suppose some poor b*ggarz got t'be in
Manchester.
Haaaway the laads, helen s
(Geordie lass)
~~~~~~~~~~
This is sent from a redundant email
Mail sent to it is dumped
My correct one can be gleaned from
h*$el***$$n*$d$ot$**s**i$$m*$m$**on**$s$@*$$a**$*ol*$*.*$$c$om*$
by getting rid of the overdependence on money and fame
~~~~~~~~~~
Justin Lewis
<car...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>
>"Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
>news:okprmvcrhh3dll7vq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:40:39 -0500, "Carl Sundquist"
>> <car...@cox-internet.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >> Nice to know that as a qualified lawyer I should bow to your superior
>> >> knowledge of Dutch law. Thanks.
>> >
>> >Why would a qualified lawyer feel the need to express and defend himself on Dutch law
>in
>> >this non-legal, predominately non Dutch forum?
>> >
>> >You have yet to find a single reply supporting your opinion.
>> >
>> >If Dutch law is on your side, then take it to court there.
>> >
>> >Please, let your next post on this subject be one with a link to the findings of the
>> >court.
>> >
>> >
>> Do not have to: I already got half the money back in circumstances
>> under which most contributors would have just said: "Oh darn". I am
>> just surprised that you lot accept and eat such shit.
>
>You did not answer my question: "Why would a qualified lawyer feel the need to express and
>defend himself on Dutch law in
>this non-legal, predominately non Dutch forum?"
>
The main thrust of my argument is that Bianchi has acted in an
unreasonable way which will eventually cost it more than has been
saved by refusing me (and my retailer) any gesture of goodwill.
The retailer from whom I bought the frame has experienced an
abnormally high failure rate from Bianchi frames (upto 70% of the
frames sold since Pantani's glory year have been returned). Even those
frames which broke within the guarantee period were not replaced by
Bianchi or were replaced after upto 6 months.
The retailer no longer sells Bianchi frames and the reputation in
Holland is at an all time low.
I got on to talking about law when it became apparent that I am in the
minority regards the knowledge that a manufacturer's legal obligations
to its consumers extends beyond the end of the guarantee. I find it
remarkable that many of you accept such shoddy treatment from your
dealers which encourages their callous attitude.
The dealer is out of pocket? Well he very often makes a large profit:
that is the risk of his profession.
Justin Lewis
Anyone got any idea what this is about?
Kurgan Gringioni
Dumbass -
Yes.
Kyle Legate
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:49:33 GMT, "Kyle Legate" <leg...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in
>> message news:fljqmvss1una30eb0...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> As I stated in this thread, my right to compensation does rest upon
>>> the expired warranty but upon the non-excludable implied term that a
>>> product should be reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was
>>> sold (including any special purpose made apparent by the consumer
>>> before
>>> the sale took place). Why do you then insist upon referring to a
>>> warranty?
>>>
>> Were you able to ride the bike? Mission accomplished.
> I was advised not to ride the bike by the dealer: it was dangerous.
>
it? If not, then then the "product should be reasonably fit for the purpose
for which it was sold" and it was.
> Me: "I did teach you properly but my warranty only extends to the day
> before the exam."
>
> Student: "Oh, darn. Never mind, the warranty has expired so I will
> just have to get over it"
>
I don't know how you guys do it in British law school, but education doesn't
come with a warranty anywhere else. thanks for playing.
Kyle Legate
Kurgan Gringioni
> >
> The main thrust of my argument is
<snip snip snip>
Dumbass -
Have you noticed that no one is on your side? Please go away.
Thank you for your cooperation and have a nice day.
Carl Sundquist
and
> >defend himself on Dutch law in
> >this non-legal, predominately non Dutch forum?"
> >
> The main thrust of my argument is that Bianchi has acted in an
> unreasonable way which will eventually cost it more than has been
> saved by refusing me (and my retailer) any gesture of goodwill.
> The retailer from whom I bought the frame has experienced an
> abnormally high failure rate from Bianchi frames (upto 70% of the
> frames sold since Pantani's glory year have been returned). Even those
> frames which broke within the guarantee period were not replaced by
> Bianchi or were replaced after upto 6 months.
If what you say is true, then why not initiate a class action lawsuit against Bianchi?
Surely you must be able to find other Bianchi owners who are similarly outraged as you
are.
> The retailer no longer sells Bianchi frames
Based on your information, that sounds like a necessary move.
> and the reputation in Holland is at an all time low.
Please cite your sources of information for Bianchi's reputation and the 70% failure rate.
> I got on to talking about law when it became apparent that I am in the
> minority regards the knowledge that a manufacturer's legal obligations
> to its consumers extends beyond the end of the guarantee. I find it
> remarkable that many of you accept such shoddy treatment from your
> dealers which encourages their callous attitude.
Does Bianchi's one year warranty extend across their whole product line, or only on
certain products designed for high performance racing? I do not believe that high
performance racing products would fall under a category 'durable goods' as defined by
greater than 1/2 decade of use.
>
> The dealer is out of pocket? Well he very often makes a large profit:
> that is the risk of his profession.
He does? There are a number of contributors to this NG that will tell you that their
profits are far greater on parts, accessories, and service than on the sales of complete
bicycles.
Joshua Zlotlow
>minority regards the knowledge that a manufacturer's legal obligations
>to its consumers extends beyond the end of the guarantee.
I don't recall seeing you appropriately cite any applicable law that provides a
warranty period longer than that offered by the manufacturer. A manufacturer's
legal obligations in the U.S. extend beyond the length of the warranty, but
that's product liability law, which is a separate concept from the warranty.
I find it
>remarkable that many of you accept such shoddy treatment from your
>dealers which encourages their callous attitude.
>
People here aren't accepting of callous treatment from dealers at all. Unless
the dealer offers its own warranty in addition to the manufacturer's the dealer
is only obligated and should only be reasonably expected to act as the
intermediary between you and the manufacturer that offered the warranty itself.
>The dealer is out of pocket? Well he very often makes a large profit:
>that is the risk of his profession.
>
>
Unless the dealer was just trying to get rid of you, it was foolish to give you
even a partial refund. Dealers really do not make the enormous profits that
you think they do. Frankly, if I were the dealer, I wouldn't do any more
business with you. Even by California standards, a place that many consider the
most litious place in the world, this is just plain old sour grapes.
>
>
>
Josh Zlotlow
JAZl...@aol.com
Sacramento, California
Sacramento Golden Wheelmen
www.sacgw.com
Robert Chung
Yes.
Ewoud Dronkert
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:16:29 -0500, "Carl Sundquist" wrote:
>> If we can get Justin (with his breadth of things Dutch) to send
>> Bruce Johnston LVM info and translations, I'll bet Bruce would be
>> willing to be supportive of Justin's plight.
>
> Anyone got any idea what this is about?
Yes.
Nick Burns
Just about everyone but you does. Maybe that is the point, eh?
Nev Shea
> I could stamp my feet and hold my breath until I turn blue but
> implicit in my so doing would be my agreement with the assumption that
> you have a mind.
No please don't. It's the pigheaded idiots like you that make this group
most amusing by stubbornly arguing your point as if your whining here will
get Bianchi to send you a new bike and say you were right all along.
But anyway, try explaining it in simpler terms so the mindless posters here
(besides you, of course) can understand. Also try keeping the language
simple, 2 syllables or less, for them stupid foreingers.
Thank you.
NS
h squared
i feel a little sorry for him. i would cry if my new bike broke after
only a year.
a few years back, when i was shopping for a bike, i told the sales
person- "i want a bike that isn't going to crack after only a year or
two." he replied, "that doesn't happen with any bike."
i didn't buy anything from him.
heather
Kurgan Gringioni
"h squared" <peckledoggyr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F6E158C...@hotmail.com...
Dumbass -
He was being honest with you.
Racing bicycle frames are engineered to straddle a fine line between
performance and reliability. It's not possible to have infinite amounts of
both. Get more of one and give up some of the other.
If you're concerned about the breakage issue, buy a frame with a lifetime
warranty.
h squared
Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
>
> "h squared" <peckledoggyr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3F6E158C...@hotmail.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > Kurgan Gringioni wrote:
> > >
> > > "Justin Lewis" <jus...@NOSPAMGEENOMMELlewis.tmfweb.nl> wrote in message
> > > news:fk1smv8ghp3av5jru...@4ax.com...
> > > > >
> > > > The main thrust of my argument is
> > >
> > > <snip snip snip>
> > >
> > > Dumbass -
> > >
> > > Have you noticed that no one is on your side? Please go away.
> > >
> > > Thank you for your cooperation and have a nice day.
> >
> >
> > i feel a little sorry for him. i would cry if my new bike broke after
> > only a year.
> >
> > a few years back, when i was shopping for a bike, i told the sales
> > person- "i want a bike that isn't going to crack after only a year or
> > two." he replied, "that doesn't happen with any bike."
> >
> > i didn't buy anything from him.
>
> Dumbass -
>
> He was being honest with you.
sorry, i can never write what i mean. he was telling me that frames
never crack, and that i could buy any bike without worrying about it..
what i said is "i want a bike that isn't going to break, and i've heard
that some kinds/styles are more prone to it then others." and he said,
"no, that doesn't happen, buy whatever you want"
i don't hold it against him. i think it may have been his first job ever...
h the dumbass
Bob Schwartz
I've attempted to find some simple phrases in Dutch that I
think might be useful to the debate. I'm still looking for a Dutch
equivalent to 'dumbass', but I think 'galbak' applies in this
instance. For example, 'Justin is een galbak', meaning he is a
whiner or always complaining.
'Johny' is used to describe a male with below average intelligence,
but I don't think it is quite on the same level as 'dumbass'.
Just trying to be helpful and inclusive,
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
TritonRider
>a few years back, when i was shopping for a bike, i told the sales
>> > person- "i want a bike that isn't going to crack after only a year or
>> > two." he replied, "that doesn't happen with any bike."
>> >
>> > i didn't buy anything from him.
>>
>> Dumbass -
>>
>> He was being honest with you.
>
>
>sorry, i can never write what i mean. he was telling me that frames
>never crack, and that i could buy any bike without worrying about it..
>what i said is "i want a bike that isn't going to break, and i've heard
>that some kinds/styles are more prone to it then others." and he said,
>"no, that doesn't happen, buy whatever you want"
>
>i don't hold it against him. i think it may have been his first job ever...
>h the dumbass
>
>
Congrats for asking the tough questions. You are the one spending the money,
ask the questions, if you're not comfortable go somewhere else. Sounds like
just what you did. Good call.
Bill C
Kurgan Gringioni
> >
> > Dumbass -
> >
> > He was being honest with you.
>
>
> sorry, i can never write what i mean. he was telling me that frames
> never crack, and that i could buy any bike without worrying about it..
> what i said is "i want a bike that isn't going to break, and i've heard
> that some kinds/styles are more prone to it then others." and he said,
> "no, that doesn't happen, buy whatever you want"
>
> i don't hold it against him. i think it may have been his first job ever...
> h the dumbass
Dumbass -
You should hold it against the dumbass salesman. It's his job to know basic
information like that.
Kurgan Gringioni
"Bob Schwartz" <cv...@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:vms8jkj...@corp.supernews.com...
Dumbass -
That is a good idea. Perhaps Ewoud can help (since he refuses to give Bruce
J. LvM stalking information).
As an aside, I used to try to know the equivalent of the word pussy in as
many languages as possible and your post gave rise to the thought of
replacing that quest with the quest for the word dumbass. It would be more
acceptable to my friends with children.
Jeff Jones
> I've attempted to find some simple phrases in Dutch that I
> think might be useful to the debate. I'm still looking for a Dutch
> equivalent to 'dumbass', but I think 'galbak' applies in this
> instance. For example, 'Justin is een galbak', meaning he is a
> whiner or always complaining.
>
> 'Johny' is used to describe a male with below average intelligence,
> but I don't think it is quite on the same level as 'dumbass'.
>
Jeff
Ewoud Dronkert
> still looking for a Dutch equivalent to 'dumbass'
Galbak is more a despicable worthless person, or chagrin, not a dumbass
necessarily. Still, it might have the desired effect. Try also
domoor (rather friendly)
dommerik
onbenul (somewhat friendly; stronger: stuk onbenul)
onnozelaar (friendly; southern dialect)
sufferd
ezel (somewhat archaic, what Günter said to Ross)
dwaas
idioot
oen
achterlijke gladiool (Utrecht dialect)
krotekoker (Rotterdam dialect)
stommeling
oelewapper
druiloor
bal gehakt
oliebol
knurft
mongool
eikel (elab.: domme eikel; stronger: stomme eikel)
prutser (very much in fashion last few years)
mafkees (rather friendly)
gekke henkie (friendly mad version of dumb)
debiel (stronger: randdebiel)
droplul
domme lul
zak hooi
zakkewasser
sufkut (only female)
huppelkutje (only female; airhead version of dumb)
hersenloze zaadcel
kloothommel
drollebak
natte wind
stom stuk vreten (even stronger: stom stuk stront)
zeiksnor (annoying version of dumb)
boerenkarhengst (rude version of dumb)
geitebreier (naive idealist version of dumb)
mafketel (weird version of dumb)
guppekop (deranged version of dumb)
badmuts
stoethaspel (clumsy version of dumb)
Source: H. Heestermans - "Luilebol! Het Nederlands scheldwoordenboek"
gwhite
Dumbass,
That's why she said: "i didn't buy anything from him."
Robert Chung
>
> i feel a little sorry for him.
Heather, you're too good. I feel sorry for the guy at the bike shop.
Kyle Legate
> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
> Galbak is more a despicable worthless person, or chagrin, not a
> dumbass necessarily. Still, it might have the desired effect. Try also
>
> domoor (rather friendly)
You guys have nearly as many words expressing stupidity as the Inuit have
for snow. Is this saying something?