Trek Bicycle Corporation

Review: This complaint is in regards to the TREK bicycle corporation. I had purchased one of their mountain bikes, 2011 Fuel EX 9.8 for $4700, and a couple of months ago I broke the frame. They advertise a lifetime warranty on the frames. They promptly replaced the frame with a year newer model. Roughly two weeks after getting my bike returned to me, with the newer frame, it broke again, in the same place on the same trail. They are now refusing to replace the second frame. In TREK’s most recent manual

(http://www.bike-manual.com/brands/trek/om/mountain/index.htm)

it states that the mountain bike I purchased falls into category 4 and should be able to handle ‘rough technical areas and obstacles of moderate height. Jumps should be no more then 48”, and has a weight limit of 300 lbs. I am 47 years old and ride well within these limits and weigh 230 lbs. My interpretation of their online literature is that I should be able to ride my mountain bike within the described conditions without it failing. Trek states that their warranty is ‘against defects in materials and workmanship’. Upon their examination of the bike they concluded that there was no defects. I argue that there was a design flaw, which clearly falls under workmanship. Since both frames broke in the same spot, on the same trail, with the same rider. The bike clearly is unable to handle a 230 lb. rider; let alone a 300 lb. rider. Any assistance or advice would be greatly appreciated.Desired Settlement: Ideally I would like a refund of my initial purchase price which was $4699.99.

Business

Response:

CASE # [redacted]

FROM: [redacted]

CONSUMER NAME: [redacted]

DEALER NAME: The Bicycle Chain .

DL. CONTACT: [redacted]

Model #: [redacted]

Key

Points:

1). [redacted] and the

retailer submitted a warranty claim on or about Sept. 10 2013.

2). we have taken many steps in the past few years to

improve our warranty process. One of those steps is to allow our customer

service representative or warranty technicians to make decisions. This process

works well for our customers because we can get them back on the road quickly.

3). While they are allowed to make warranty decisions they

are not allowed to deny claims without a formal review process.

4). [redacted] first frame was processed and replaced

without a formal review. However, after the fact we had the frame returned to

our headquarters to diagnose the failure. It was at this point we realized the

frame was damaged do to an over load rather than a defect in materials or

workmanship.

5). we made no effort to contact the shop or the customer.

We are willing to accept those mistakes and learn from them.

6). shortly thereafter a second claim came in from the same

shop and the same customer; [redacted].

7). our Warranty rep did not replace this frame but asked to

have it returned for evaluation prior to replacing the frame.

8). our Quality Review Board reviewed this frame and has

denied the claim. There were no defects found in the materials or workmanship.

It is clear, this frame was overloaded.

Action

taken:

1). we understand how this process can be confusing to our

customers and we’re certainly conscious of the fact that we’re sending mixed

signals. It’s unfortunate and I apologize to [redacted].

2). to soften the blow to [redacted] I offered to replace

his frame for $945.00; this is a saving of more than $500.00.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and have determined that this does not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

The particular mountain bike I purchased was the Trek Fuel Ex, which falls into the level four riding style with a weight limit of 300 lbs. Again I argue that it is a design flaw, that it can not handle a 300 lb. rider as advertised. I weigh 230 lbs. and have broken two Fuel Ex frames (in the same place on both frames), on the same trail, and riding well within the limits advertised.

Review: I purchased a trek 7.2FX bike from a local dealer (bikefactory) for $489.99 with taxes, pinhead locks, registration, it came out to $604.00 total. I really wanted to purchase the 7.3 Fx, but couldn't justify the price point. I decided to go with Trek due to the quality and the UNCONDITIONAL 30 day money back guarantee. I purchased my bike 2 weeks ago. The bicycle I purchased is now on sale (439.99 vs the $489.99 I paid). The 7.3 Fx is now on sale for $604. I asked the bikefactory if it was possible to return my bike and upgrade to the 7.3 Fx which is also on sale for $5 more than I paid for my bicycle. They informed me that they could not process the exchange because they had submitted my Bicycle registration. I asked if I could receive a refund for the difference for my 7.2 Fx, and they said I needed to discuss with Trek. After talking with Trek, they told me their unconditional Trek 30 day guarantee has the condition that it must be purchased from Trek.com.Desired Settlement: I would like to return my 7.2 fx and pay the difference for a 7.3 fx.

Business

Response:

We reached out to the retailer when this case came in, they in turn reached out to the consumer and offered them the difference of the price with an in store credit that the customer excepted.I has really bad internet where I was at and could not update before today.Please let me know if you need more info. Thanks, have a great weekend.

Consumer

Response: