shovelon":3elu8s8d said:
The thread discussed "pedal induced stress". So without a gauge to measure how many pedal cycles it endured, the frame could have failed the next year and they would have a way out. There is no odometer on your bike.
That's the thing, isn't it.
Normal wear and tear in components you expect to show visable / mechanical signs of wear and tear, and perhaps it's easier to judge.
I suspect there's no real argument against the proposition that pedalling and general riding of a bike, causes wear and tear to the frame material (due to stress applied to the frame material).
The problem is, in quantifying when that is reasonable, and when unreasonable - in terms of whether something is fair, at least (what really matters in this case, is terms of the warranty - and if there is any wiggle room in that).
So when a crack can be established as being congruent with wear and tear factors - that's no doubt a reasonable conclusion. However, if that had happened within, say, a year, all other things being equal, and you'd have to say that although "wear and tear" was the stimulus, perhaps substandard manufacturing or material choice / usage could be quite contributory.
Thing is, it's been 14 years. And a lifetime warranty - albeit with caveats.
So you could argue that there are intangibles, in terms of factors (in general, contract law can often be deemed "unfair" if terms aren't sufficiently clear) - which may be a prospect. That said, 14 years is a good while to have let that slide...
On the other hand, tests of reasonableness normally cut both ways - or at least can be applied both ways.
My personal feelings - I accept the technical arguments, in terms of what and why has happened to the metal. But - and there is always one, isn't there - there are probably some design, material and manufacturing / build options that could influence the effects of wear and tear on that area, too - so I think the whole "it's wear and tear, and you're stuffed" position is a little inflexible.
