Cracked Sender - Canyon's Response

May 29, 2017
by Paul Aston  
Shortly after publishing my review of the Canyon Sender, in fact, a few days later and the next time I rode it, I cleaned up the battered bike and spotted a crack. I mentioned this in our weekly Skype meeting and Mike Levy mentioned the broken bike in his Good Month, Bad Month article which caused a stir in the comments.

Canyon collected the bike via courier, and within ten days I had a new frame, replaced under warranty in my hands. Now, warranty turnaround speeds made by somebody with an email address may get priority (and I hope this isn't the case), but my experience was a positive one. For years, I have believed that any frame will crack given enough abuse (I have broken plenty of bikes), the make or break for brand loyalty comes down to warranty speed and service, in this case, Canyon has come out on top.

Canyon Sender crack now replaced under warranty.
Here's my broken frame, before it was returned to Canyon for testing.

Here's a copy of Canyon's email to me, explaining their analysis and testing procedures:

bigquotesHi Paul,

Since receiving the Sender CF test bike back to our Koblenz headquarters, we’ve taken it to pieces to gain a full understanding of what was going on with the frame. We wanted to work out what could have caused the crack around the fork bumper. For us, this mystery had to be solved once and for all…

We started at our CT scanner. Canyon is still the only manufacturer worldwide to have a CT in-house and we use it throughout all our developments and quality checks. Analyzing the frame here showed us that the frame you tested met all our product quality requirements, so we can rule out the possibility that you received a frame that was structurally flawed from the start.

We can also happily rule out the damage being caused by a fork impact. The force required to break through the integrated Fork Bumper would have caused a different kind of damage, plus evidence of the impact would be visible on other components, such as the forks themselves or the bars.

Our analysis also confirms that the crack would not have led to a complete frame failure. Even after the damage was recognized, the Sender was still safe to be ridden.

Our conclusion as to how the damage occurred is that the frame was subject to a major stress overload stemming from a direct impact to the frame just behind the fork bumper. Even considering the nature of downhill riding, this damage could not have occurred under “normal” circumstances, a crash or similar incident has to be the root cause.

Unfortunately, we cannot accurately reconstruct how the damage occurred. This is the first case we know of like this from over 1000 frames and bikes sold. Had this happened to one of our customers who had bought the bike, we would send them a replacement frame at no cost. As riders, we always want our customers to have a bike they can actually ride. If a customer does suffer terminal frame damage due to a crash, we offer them our Crash Replacement Service to get them back on the bike ASAP.

We believe wholeheartedly in the standards we set ourselves at Canyon that go above and beyond others in the industry. The Sender CF was developed to be one of the strongest bikes on the scene and so far, this is precisely what our customers are experiencing.

All the best,
Daniel Oster, Senior Product Manager at Canyon

MENTIONS: @Canyon-PureCycling


  • + 33
 I dont ever post comments, mainly because they really annoy me where individuals post comments on bikes or manufacturers having never ridden or owned the bike in question.

However in this case I can testify to canyons service being second to none. I had a canyon nerve 2.5 years old, cracked the frame, sent it back. They replaced foc no questions asked. While in for the rebuild they noticed the drive train worn and replaced with spares, chain ring, cassette and chain. Rebuilt the bike they were about to send back to me, they rode it in the carpark and thought the seat dropper was stiff. So they repoaced foc (after 2.5 years old).

I aslo had an issue where he xo shifter failed in the first 12 months, they sent a replacement, unfortunately they sent silver when mine was black, so i asked them to send a black cover and i would fit. They sent a complete shifter in black, and told me to keep the silver one.

I can only speak as i find, and i tend to mesasure businesses on not when things go wrong but how they react when they do, which speaks volumes. Fyi i no longer own a canyon, but have no hesitation in reccomending their bikes or service.

I current own a whyte t130 one and half years old. last week i cracked the carbon wheel they want £300 to replace the rim, which is cost price and i have no issue with this (although i have switched to a hope wheel to avoid future issues). However i do think canyons approach might have differed (Or maybe not)
  • + 11
 @pinkbike got a new frame under warranty, but from what I gathered in the Canyon summary a normal customer would of had to pay (in this case damage due to a crash) a sum of £1199 for a new frame through the crash replacement scheme.

  • + 6
 Yeah, that's what I gathered too. "We used our CT machine to decide that it's a crash, no warranty for you"
  • + 7
 It does seem like there is some contradiction in terms there being that their assertion is that "this is crash damage but we'll warranty it anyway", though I think there are positive and negative ways of looking at it:

Positive: "they've measured everything they can measure, all they're trying to do is reassure people that this isn't something that is occurring from normal use, and in situations where it isn't 100% certain what's happening they'll give the customer the benefit of the doubt".

Negative: "they're replacing it under warranty to keep him happy and generate good PR because he's in the mtb media, but also saying it's not their fault and that it must be due to a crash with the implication that it's not a legit warranty case and anyone else would have to pay"

Whichever one seems more plausible to you I suppose. I'm inclined to think the former, but without knowing the facts on both sides of the story, I'm really just giving Canyon the benefit of the doubt regarding their response there. At least they admitted "we don't know for certain what caused this" which in my experience is the hallmark of someone who is honest enough to admit when they don't have all the information.
  • + 4
 I think that's ok. Warranty shouldn't cover for crashes, insurance is for that.
  • + 5
 So did you actually crash the bike? This seems like just a he said she said argument.
"Even considering the nature of downhill riding, this damage could not have occurred under “normal” circumstances, a crash or similar incident has to be the root cause."
  • + 2
 nice to see canyon doing such checks and replacing the frame quickly. My next bike may well be a canyon. I have had to have 3 frames replaced due to issues 2 being marins for cracks and a kona for paint issues. All were sorted quickly and marin were good enogh to upgrade me each time too (they were different frames that these issues occured on). and the replcement bikes had zero issues. these things do happen its inevitable but whats key is the manufacturers stand behind there products.
  • + 2
 I had a warranty issue with a Sender and Canyon were spot on replacing the frame as soon as possible. The Guys in the UK service center bent over backwards to resolve my concerns and issues. In fact I was so impress I bought another frame for my son and will be buying one of their TT bikes for my other son.
  • + 1
 The most interesting thing about this is that the CT doesn't seem to pick up the damage. Delamination extends to the middle of the material but the CT scan says there are no material defects. Makes you wonder how useful the thing is as a diagnostic tool for this application.
  • + 1
 From what i gather, the CT allows you to see if the damage started on the inside or the out side of the frame. This might make it easier to draw a conclusion on how it occurred. A lot of warranties stem from voids in the resin or wrinkles in the lay up.
  • + 1
 looks like the CT scan was performed before they sent the bike to pinkbike, and they are showing that there are no defects. If canyon actually CT scans every frame they sell, that's impressive, but I doubt that's the case. However, it would be a great tool for handling warranty claims, though the customer might not like it since they could be given evidence it was not a material defect.
  • + 2
 I don't understand the comments interpreting this to mean a paying customer would be out of luck?

"Had this happened to one of our customers who had bought the bike, we would send them a replacement frame at no cost."
  • + 3
 Breaking News! Although Canyon tried its best to patch thing up. Customer satisfaction is still split down the middle.
  • + 1
 Wow. My sender was broken after 1st ride. Hit bushguard and mount cracked. Warranty denied... F**k

Photo here
@Canyon-PureCycling are you sure it is a dh frame?
  • - 1
 They can load their response with all the marketing BS and quasi science talk they want, but to summarize:

"It's impossible to tell what exactly happened... "
"this damage could not have occurred under “normal” circumstances, a crash or similar incident has to be the root cause."

I'm pretty confident that Paul would have owned up to a major crash during testing, or in the very least not drawn attention to the damage if he legitimately caused it, so if you bought this bike and you're not Pinkbike, pony up for a crash replacement like every other bike company.
  • + 2
 I can see where you're coming from, but I don't really agree with this. The magnitude of an impact as measured is pretty well impossible for a human to quantify anecdotally. You don't have to have a big crash to have a sufficiently hard hit to do damage like that - that sort of thing can even come from a bad knock during shuttling (done that!).

As an example, two days ago I washed out at quite low speed in a tight berm and landed on my shoulder - no injury to me, nothing to the bike except the brake rotor had nailed a rock square on (without me noticing or hearing) and basically flared it massively without bending it. This is the kind of damage that takes a LOT of force to achieve but that impact was something I would never have predicted from that crash and never had any indication that it'd happened until I began rolling down the trail again and the brake rotor was quite obviously jamming fairly hard in the pads every rotation.

In this case, Canyon have made a pretty solid effort to forensically quantify the cause and extent of the damage, to the greatest degree that is realistically achievable in a laboratory. You can call them liars if that seems justified to you, but as someone who deals with problems like these from the other side of the fence, I think it's nothing short of awesome that they have gone to this level of detail in examining the frame and publicly discussing the results. Of course they are keen to inspect things like this in the case of a Pinkbike review when the entire world's eyes are on them because of it - imagine you'd built a frame, sold thousands of them, and someone crashing one (or inadvertently damaging it in some other way) meant that you got a completely undeserved reputation for failure. What would your response be?
  • + 1
 @specializedglory shame @Canyon-PureCycling couldn't assist you with the @raceface cranks failing, even after buying a strive and a sender off them!
  • - 1
 Great testing. But I think there is a little flaw with the dropped weight test. When you crash a bike with dual crown fork the initial impact is only the beginning of the force. Often the fork is then driven hard against the frame as the bike and rider continue to push the front wheel hard against the ground and thus the fork harder against the frame. I think this force would be much harder than just a single hit.
  • + 1
 Don't worry. We had Canyon Sender a year ago for tests. We've broke it next to cranks on the second day of ridingBig Grin

Post a Comment

Copyright © 2000 - 2019. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.039746
Mobile Version of Website