Do You Think I have a Case...

[Bowedw]

Some years ago Shimano had a batch of chains that suffered from a side plate snapping. They did not do a recall on the product but would replace it under warranty.
A bit like the Improved XT hub that I have unfortunately have had built into a wheel recently.
This practice is not confined to Shimano but all Company's especially large ones weather the storm of a product not fit for purpose. ie. Cars, Electrical goods, etc. etc.

[PH]

IMO it all goes to show there's so many ways it could have happened that trying to establish that it was in any way the responsibility of the supplier is going to be impossible, even if you were sure it was. The supplier may assist as a goodwill gesture, but I doubt a small claims court would be able to come to a favourable conclusion. My advice remains as before, learn from it and get back out cycling.

[JohnW]

First, was the chain lubricated?

It probably was - every new chain I've ever had has come pre lubricated. Have you had one that isn't? Unless someone has one of those obsessive chain maintenance routines, that's probably the best it'll be lubricated in it's lifetime. Unless used in adverse conditions it ought to be good for a couple of hundred miles.

I understood (i.e. was told by a LBS - so only repeating as I don't have the knowledge or experience) that the pre-lubrication on a new chain would not last well or for long. When I recently has loads of work done at a different LBS they also fitted a new chain (to go with the new cassette and new chainwheels) and they added chain lube to it (as in from a bottle whilst turning chain, etc.). But I must emphasise I' just repeating what I've seen/been told and am not asserting any knowledge.

Ian

My experience is that you're both right. I always ride KMC chains - I find that they're as good as any I've had and my LBSs stock quite a range. They are lubricated out of the pack, and whilst not for long I believe that lubrication would not be an issue after 200 miles unless ridden in prolonged rotten weather. We've had plenty of threads on just about all aspects of chain lubrication.

I think that My philosophy on this is in agreement with the apparently majority view - chains don't just 'snap' - they don't just 'break' unless they're faulty. However, aggravating though it is I would not think it worth the expense and hassle of pursuing it if the on-line retailer won't do the right thing. The big lesson is not to buy a ready-built from an on-line retailer.

Has anyone else had experiences with 'Cube' bikes?

[Boyd]

Is it normal for chain snapping to course damage to derailleurs? I would estimate I have snapped 4 chains in the past never once causing damage to any other parts. No one seems to have thought of the bike shop being con merchants and taking advantage of a new cyclist.

[PH]

No one seems to have thought of the bike shop being con merchants and taking advantage of a new cyclist.

No it isn't that way most people think.

[JohnW]

Is it normal for chain snapping to course damage to derailleurs? ...........

It's certainly possible for the errant link sideplate(s) to get caught in the derailleur cage and pull/twist/deform it in all directions. It happened to me once when I'd not jointed the chain properly and I've seen it happen more than once to other people - very spectacularly on one occasion.

[JohnW]

No one seems to have thought of the bike shop being con merchants and taking advantage of a new cyclist.

No it isn't that way most people think.

+1 to that.

[RickH]

Can the OP claim at all, even if the case is good? My understanding is that the bike doesn't belong to them but to their employer until it is paid off.

[Boyd]

No one seems to have thought of the bike shop being con merchants and taking advantage of a new cyclist.

No it isn't that way most people think.

You are assuming or appear to be that all bike shop owners/mechanics are angels, I doubt it.

[JohnW]

Can the OP claim at all, even if the case is good? My understanding is that the bike doesn't belong to them but to their employer until it is paid off.

This becomes complicated. If the bike has been built/set up/adjusted incompetently or negligently, and some part of the bike fails and causes an accident and injury - then what logical thinking I'm capable of concludes that the employer would be culpable. if this is so, then is the OP's claim against his employer? The ramifications would be immense - if it is as simple as that. There must be a legal eagle out there who can shed light...............................

[JohnW]

:twisted:

No one seems to have thought of the bike shop being con merchants and taking advantage of a new cyclist.

No it isn't that way most people think.

You are assuming or appear to be that all bike shop owners/mechanics are angels, I doubt it.

No Boyd - but whilst incompetence, ineptitude, ignorance and negligence are one thing (in a manner of speaking), targeting potential victims and doing it deliberately are something else, and why bother?

If I was to buy a ready-built from an on-line retailer I'd strip it down, rebuild it properly, set it up and adjust.................because I don't trust on-line retailers to have done any of that.................but I'd never think that they're deliberately targeting a potentially vulnerable customer. Surely that's not what you mean?

[Boyd]

:twisted:

No it isn't that way most people think.

You are assuming or appear to be that all bike shop owners/mechanics are angels, I doubt it.

No Boyd - but whilst incompetence, ineptitude, ignorance and negligence are one thing (in a manner of speaking), targeting potential victims and doing it deliberately are something else, and why bother?

If I was to buy a ready-built from an on-line retailer I'd strip it down, rebuild it properly, set it up and adjust.................because I don't trust on-line retailers to have done any of that.................but I'd never think that they're deliberately targeting a potentially vulnerable customer. Surely that's not what you mean?

An online retailer would not know he was a "vulnerable customer"
I was talking about the bike shop exagerrating the damage and therefore the need to repair it and possibly the cost. All based on the OP being new to cycling and therefore easily conned. No proffesion consists of 100% angels and that even includes the nursing proffesion.

[JohnW]

:twisted:

You are assuming or appear to be that all bike shop owners/mechanics are angels, I doubt it.

No Boyd - but whilst incompetence, ineptitude, ignorance and negligence are one thing (in a manner of speaking), targeting potential victims and doing it deliberately are something else, and why bother?

If I was to buy a ready-built from an on-line retailer I'd strip it down, rebuild it properly, set it up and adjust.................because I don't trust on-line retailers to have done any of that.................but I'd never think that they're deliberately targeting a potentially vulnerable customer. Surely that's not what you mean?

An online retailer would not know he was a "vulnerable customer"
I was talking about the bike shop exagerrating the damage and therefore the need to repair it and possibly the cost. All based on the OP being new to cycling and therefore easily conned. No proffesion consists of 100% angels and that even includes the nursing proffesion.

Ah - right - I understand now - sorry for my mis-understanding of what you meant. I see your point now - the scenario that you refer to apparently commonly applies in the motor trade, so whilst all my LBSs are brilliant, there may be those who are not 'angels'.

[RickH]

Can the OP claim at all, even if the case is good? My understanding is that the bike doesn't belong to them but to their employer until it is paid off.

This becomes complicated. If the bike has been built/set up/adjusted incompetently or negligently, and some part of the bike fails and causes an accident and injury - then what logical thinking I'm capable of concludes that the employer would be culpable. if this is so, then is the OP's claim against his employer? The ramifications would be immense - if it is as simple as that. There must be a legal eagle out there who can shed light...............................

I'm not suggesting the employer is culpable but rather that it is they as "owner" of the bike who are responsible to deal with complaints/problems. If I lease a car it is not my responsibility to chase up problems, I just say to the lease company "sort this out or give me a replacement".

Or maybe I'm agreeing with you? Who has the contract with the supplier? Can of worms?

[JohnW]

Can the OP claim at all, even if the case is good? My understanding is that the bike doesn't belong to them but to their employer until it is paid off.

This becomes complicated. If the bike has been built/set up/adjusted incompetently or negligently, and some part of the bike fails and causes an accident and injury - then what logical thinking I'm capable of concludes that the employer would be culpable. if this is so, then is the OP's claim against his employer? The ramifications would be immense - if it is as simple as that. There must be a legal eagle out there who can shed light...............................

I'm not suggesting the employer is culpable but rather that it is they as "owner" of the bike who are responsible to deal with complaints/problems. If I lease a car it is not my responsibility to chase up problems, I just say to the lease company "sort this out or give me a replacement".

Or maybe I'm agreeing with you? Who has the contract with the supplier? Can of worms?

Ah - well - I wasn't disagreeing Rick - what you said was a completely new element which had never occurred to me. It does raise questions though, doesn't it? Not that it affects me in any way - it doesn't - but it's interesting academically.