You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Why are bike warranties not transferable between owners of the bike (With the exception of Bird bikes)?
Transferable warranties apply to cars and motorbikes so why not bikes in general. Obviously a part of it is consumerism so that you are encouraged to buy a new bike rather than a used one, but beyond that why? It's not as if as soon as you sell the bike second hand it will immediately fail on the new owner.
I think it's just the bike industry shamelessly taking advantage of consumers, if the automotive sector enforced similar policies with regards to their warranties they wouldn't last a week.
That's my rant for the day 🙂
Isn’t The automotive industry the exception, rather then the rule when it comes to warranties of consumer goods?
Gives them an additional get out.
Isn’t The automotive industry the exception, rather then the rule when it comes to warranties of consumer goods?
Most consumer goods usually have a transferable warranty as long as you have the proof of purchase
It’s an interesting point, but for a few more exceptions I don’t put much faith in them anymore.
It seems to me that it’s either a case of obvious manufacturing fault like a weld failure, which would be well covered by consumer protections or almost worthless thanks to vague wording littered with caveats and exceptions.
“Lifetime” for example is a big bullshit alarm for me, it doesn’t often mean your lifetime, but the ‘lifetime’ of the item, which could be anything. Not to mention the ability to reword warranties and apply them retrospectively - buy a bike today with a lifetime warranty, 2 years from now they may reduce it to 5 years, a year later decide that they only cover the front triangle for 2 years. You go back to them 3 years after buying a bike with a “lifetime” warranty with a cracked weld on your chainstay only to be told “yeah they’ve had loads of them go like that, so they reduced it to 2 years, sorry“.
/rant
Also, transferable warranties will increase prices, both of new bikes (as you are paying for every frame/bike to have to cost of warranty factored in, for the full time. (Big manufacturers assume the average amount of time before you’ll sell on and budget accordingly), and second hand prices go up, because the new price is more, and you still get a warranty.
Would be quite interesting to see the outcome of someone actually legally testing a non transferable warranty. I’d say an obvious manufacturing defect was apparent for the second owner. That said, I’m not sure why it’s such an issue. You enjoy some tasty savings on used kit, but there is associated risk with buying used. If you want to warranty then buy new is the ultimate message for me.
Warranties are legal mechanisms are really there to protect the manufacturer and not the consumer. They are intended to protect against manufacturer defects and quality issues, not long term 'performance' so really intended for a short period of time (everything has a limited life), long enough for any defect to have shown itself. Their primary legal purpose is to provide limited liability for the manufacturer, so if your frame snaps in half on your first ride due to a dodgy weld (nobody can guarantee 100% quality) and you break your neck and are paralysed from the neck down the manufactures legal liability is limited to the value of the replacement frame assuming no neglegence on the manufacturers behalf.
Would be quite interesting to see the outcome of someone actually legally testing a non transferable warranty. I’d say an obvious manufacturing defect was apparent for the second owner.
The burden of proof is on the consmer and not the manufacturer. If a manufacturer offers an extended warranty and take on additional risk then that is upto them and, of course, they can always refuse to pay out...how on earth after 3 years of hammering your bike are you going to legally demonstrate it failed due to a manufacturing defect and not down you crashing into a tree - or that 15ft drop to flat you did four rides ago and not the six inch step you happened to be riding off when the frame actually broke? It would be impossible. And the old 'fitness for purpose' thing that sometimes gets banded about would be laughed out of court. Who's protecting the manufacturer from idiots who abuse their products and keep coming back to them for replacement frames they've broken doing some silly stunt?
Personally I don't value warranty - manufacturers build it into the price anyway so you're paying for it in the price premium. At £3.5k the frame has several replacements built into the price as well as a tidy profit.
you’re confusing the warranty - which is an entirely optional product from the manufacturer, to reward customers & strengthen brand reputation - with statutory rights.Would be quite interesting to see the outcome of someone actually legally testing a non transferable warranty. I’d say an obvious manufacturing defect was apparent for the second owner.
You have protection, in law, against an “obvious manufacturing defect”, all you need is proof of purchase.
Van Nicholas offer a warranty transfer system. I think you have to get the frame checked over and they "re-certify" it.
I have little faith in warranties, particularly the parts on complete bikes. Manufacturers seem to want to warranty their frame only rather than the parts they attached to it and sold to the consumer at a profit.
One kink that always intrigued me was with ex demo bikes. Some manufacturers won't warranty them, some will. Weird.
you’re confusing the warranty
I’m really not having spent years in the motor trade I’m aware fully. But the point is, that if there is an obvious manufacturing defect, as the second owner the OEM would likely hide behind their T&C’s. My question is around how this would be viewed if challenged? Understanding to some extent you would need to prove the defect and relative small cost of a bike frame vs the likely costs to challenge, time and providing proof via some supposed mechanical/professional assessment
Bike manufacturers will only offer warranty on the frame and other parts made by them.
Shimano parts on a giant bike (for example) will be dealt with by Shimano...
But the point is, that if there is an obvious manufacturing defect, as the second owner the OEM would likely hide behind their T&C’s. My question is around how this would be viewed if challenged?
Then yo are relying on statutory rights. T&C are nothing to do with it. Warranty is something the manufacturer offers over and above stat rights.
The cynic in me thinks it's because car companies via their finance deals have a stake in the 2nd hand car market.
If a car had no warranty then it's 2nd hand value would be reduced. This makes the car more expensive to finance. It also ruins the brand's image as a quality manufacturer so it's now more expensive and yet cheapened. So they shift less units.
Bike companies on the other hand sell you the bike for cash (or 3rd party finance) and couldn't give a stuff what their frames are worth in two years because it doesn't matter to the consumer. Bikes (of the leisure rather than commuting types) aren't a rational purchases, people buy them based on adverts, reviews and brand image not resale values.
Having said that, I'm the exception that proves the rule. I buy simple bikes that cost peanuts to maintain and generally secondhand so I lose almost nothing when it comes to selling.
Bikes are one of the high end consumer products I feel less fussed about not having a warranty for. There are few products I own that with just a modicum of knowledge it is possible to identify the failed component, source it and replace so easily. Obviously still costs but not insurmountable.
Bikes are one of the high end consumer products I feel less fussed about not having a warranty for. There are few products I own that with just a modicum of knowledge it is possible to identify the failed component, source it and replace so easily. Obviously still costs but not insurmountable.
So if your frame has a crack or a manufacturing defect on it, you're happy just to shell out for a replacement frame?
Any manufacturer offering a lifetime warranty is doing it on the basis of what they consider to be the lifetime of the product, transferable or not. If you base your purchasing decision on the expectation that you will be covered, that's your choice, but expectations may not endure when they encounter reality.
So if your frame has a crack or a manufacturing defect on it, you’re happy just to shell out for a replacement frame?
No, that’s why I buy new. To get peace of mind from warranty backing. Some people may not wish to do this, for a discount. You pays your money, you makes your choice.
You haven't bought the bike from the manufacturer then they have no obligation to help you out if things go tits up . Who knows what abuse it's been subjected to before you bought it , not so with a new bike .
So if your frame has a crack or a manufacturing defect on it, you’re happy just to shell out for a replacement frame?
You still have statutory rights do you not? Or do they apply only to the original owner?
Even a lifetime warranty is only really a 10 year or so warranty. Case in point, I have a bike from y2k that was used for everything for a couple of years, not used for a while, then used a bit more for MTB, and is now used for taking kids about on. I reckon 10 years typical keen mtber use in total, with little added for the foreseeable future and most would've binned it or sold it on by now. A really keen rider could probably have put the same life into it in 2 to 3 years tops.
It doesn't matter to the manufacturer as only a tiny percentage of bikes they sold are still in use by the original owner.
With the changes to MTBs over the years I doubt it would be a problem even if the warranty was transferrable but it clearly helps limit things and encourage buying new!
Any manufacturer that supplies a warranty will have a corporate insurance policy to cover unintended big payouts 'the bike failed and I'm paralysed' (yeah unlikely but that's the point of insurance) so in order to write that policy and claim on it, the insurance company will want to know the name and address and inside leg* of the purchaser of the product. So that insurance company will not honour the claim of an object passed from the purchaser, it's not quantifiable enough.
If a manufacturer offers transferrable warranties they are either paying a lot for their cover or playing dice
*as much as they can to quantify the risk
Transferable warranties apply to cars and motorbikes
With caveats on milage, service history, official parts only, no cover of wear and tear parts etc, almost none of which you fouled trace for most bikes. Its also much easier to "hide" a crash on a bike, misuse etc, than a car. Given the volume involved and the nature of the product, there are also very specific modes of failure and a lot of diagnostic information making tracing the cause of a fault "easy" with a car. If the welds on a Stumpy failed as many times as the electrics on a mondeo (&I've no idea if they're reliable or not) you'd be looking at a recall not warranty after the fact because its a fair % of bikes as opposed to 1 in a few hundred thousand cars.
As for the transferable warranties, a genuine question , how do they work, can you transfer as part of a private sale or do they really only transfer when the car is resold by a dealer (eg. the dealer re-certs effectively?)
In essence with a bike, how would you prove, as the owner of a second hand bike there was anything wrong and its not just been broken? Look at the steel city DH thread, that bike could be a week old, you could (possibly) buy that frame 2nd hand next week, when the head tube separates from the top tube in 6 weeks whilst jra, is it an mf fault or damage?
Warranties are purely a marketing tool. Bike manufacturers obviously feel transferable warranties don't sell more bikes, or at least enough of them to justify the cost. So they don't provide them, simples.
I wish Bird made a frame I wanted (a DH bike). Based on their warranty, value and apparent customer service (which everyone raves about) I don't know why you'd go anywhere else if they have a bike in the class you're looking for. How do they manage to offer a lifetime transferable warranty on frames only a grand a piece?
Last time I bought a bike from a local shop they said 'well strictly its not transferable, but if you sell it on to someone local we will make sure we look after them for the term of the warranty'...
Also I bought a nearly new bike last year, private sale but via the shop who had sold it originally - they said any problems just give them a call and they'll sort the warranty (again not strictly transferrable).
There seems to be a lot of confusion between warranty and liability.
Obviously manufacturers are keen not to add more liability for any injury caused by failure of their products, but with or without a warranty they'll carry some liability.
As for the chat about potential untraceable damage in a second hand bike, how does this suddenly appear as a risk when it's sold and not if it's just been abused? It's simply a bit of extra piece of mind to get people to buy a new bike as others have suggested. If it's obviously been abused or used beyond it's intended use, they have a get-out for the warranty. If not, they don't, regardless of how many people have owned it. And they'd still be potentially liable for a second hand bike frame.
Warranties are purely a marketing tool.
I mostly agree with this.
Eg. Orange frames were warrantied for one or two years and frames were cracking.
They now offer five years - which is quite reasonable I think and mitigates against the high cost and reasonably high chance of cracking. This seems to have restored their reputation among riders.
But I bought a secondhand one anyway, despite not usually being a gambling man.