For those who believe this is a standard practice, could you please provide any evidence to support your theory?
How many of you have worked in product development? How familiar are you with the testing and QC protocols? How often have you visited factories overseas?
I think we all know the answers to those questions……and what I can tell you from nearly 30 years doing product development (with 10 in the bike industry) is that what you are all describing is completely inaccurate. I have given specific details multiple times as to why this theory doesn’t hold up, but those just get skipped over.
Assuming that this is a flawed welding process for these 2 frames, it is not massively expensive to fix the process. In fact, it is likely a relatively simple fix that would be far easier than dealing with the warranty claims and pissing off their customers.
If anyone has any actual evidence of these supposed cost- justifying strategies, please feel free to share them.
I did. Ford did it in secret internally, the decision to make their gas tank safer vs the expense. The secret came out and they had to eat crow. BECAUSE IT WAS A SECRET.
Boeing and the 737 Max. It was cheaper to do a half ass software fix instead of training pilots and/or I stalling better equipment. It was also a secret that got leaked.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s business. And you are being silly to think that doesn’t happen. Someone finds ways to save a few pennies, and the pennies add up. Someone estimates failure rate, and they figure out which one is cheaper.
Leaving aside the fact that you are talking about cases in which there were actual criminal conspiracies in play, we aren’t talking about aviation or automobiles, are we? We are talking about bike frames…and I have provided multiple details outlining why this “theory” is unlikely.
The factories have decades of manufacturing experience manufacturing these frames. Less expensive frames tend to be more durable, not less durable. And, for every company I worked for, all frames are tested the same.
Your analogy just doesn’t hold up against the facts.
I once interviewed for a job & they told me their current quality spec was for a 10 year product life & they wanted me to update the spec to a 5 year product life.
I thought, ‘This is going to be the easiest job ever.’
But if I had to guess the problem here is not a case of willful lax quality…it’s probably a mismatch between whatever stress the manufacturer uses to simulate lifetime wear and the actual stress that riding a bike on a trainer delivers.
Definitely a possibility. As you know, QC is in iterative process….you take learnings and apply them to testing modes as you move forward and discover new information.
OK, but we are talking about the bike industry……there is no logic in a company, which offers lifetime warranties on their frames, to purposely shorten the expected lifespan of its products.
I typed up more, but deleted it. Waste of time. I think it is very telling that your opinion is “fact”, whereas my facts are opinions and theories. I’m done with you.
I’m not certain why you feel the need to take this so personal….but the difference is I am talking about direct, personal experiences within the industry vs. unfounded speculation.
I’m sorry you can’t tell the difference between the two or have a cordial discussion about it.
Passed from Wheelies to Tredz after getting no response and having to call. Apparently they’re the same company (along with Halfords). They’ve asked for some pics inclung the serial number. Thought I’d snap the current state of things for them.
This 2022 Allez is deteriorating significantly faster than my older one, which was a circa 2010-2012 model year.
I would absolutely stop riding that frame…not form a safety standpoint, but from a clarity / cause of failure standpoint. The more “noise” there is around the failure, the more difficult it may be to get it handled as a warranty.
