[Blkdoutindustries]

It seems like all versions of coil shocks that came with the "Sidearm"/2nd-gen Kenevo (that is, the RockShox Super Deluxe Coil Select and the Marzocchi Bomber CR) from Specialized have been equipped with 1/2" shafts.

First ride review: 2020 Specialized Turbo Kenevo Expert – more capable than ever, but is it more fun? | E-MOUNTAINBIKE Magazine

The new Specialized Turbo Kenevo is all about having fun on the descents. It's got a new frame, new motor, much more robust spec, which promises to be even better for those big hits and demanding descents – but will everyone benefit? We found out!

ebike-mtb.com

Perhaps the potential shock side-loading of a given suspension system and the side-loading tolerance of a given shock are things the industry/MTB-media need to do a better job educating lay consumers (and the lay masquerading as shop wrenches) about... and make the requirements/abilities more obvious. For example, I was also trying to find the shaft diameter of the Öhlins TTX22M that was equipped on the first-gen Kenevo and some "Sidearm"/2nd-gen Stumpys... but to no avail. It's strange that something as simple as this dimensional spec is not made more readily available. (Not to say shaft diameter is necessarily a be-all-end-all indicator of side-loading tolerance... but at least suggestive.)

Even in the absence of industry cooperation (I mean, nobody wants to admit that their suspension design requires a heavier-duty shock construction), more education about this issue from the MTB media might help lay consumers (and again, the lay masquerading as shop wrenches) think twice before throwing a thin-shafted shock onto a suspension design that has apparently always come from the factory equipped with burlier shafts.

I mean, you can install a Rock Shox SID fork onto a Kenevo... but I don't think anybody would think that to be a good idea nor expect the resulting machine to live up to the duty level the Kenevo ad-copy suggests. And that's because we consumers have been well-educated about stanchion diameter as a proxy for a fork's duty level.

As far as I can remember every coil shock except DHX2 has a 1/2" shaft or bigger, EXT is 14mm and Push has a specific shaft for yoke mounts and E-Bikes.

 

[DIRTJUNKIE]

This thread is shocking.

 

[Curveball]

Give me a Guerilla Gravity any day over a Specialized.

Can I give you a triple "like"?

 

[bingemtbr]

Been to court on this before and I know how the story ends. If the LBS and manufacturer did not warn the customer beforehand, then the LBS and manufacturer are to blame--especially if the LBS is a Specialized dealer.

For those victim blaming and defending the LBS, change bicycle to "new car", change LBS to Toyota (or whatever brand) dealer, and change Specialized to Toyota. The court doesn't care if the part is mundane or a performance enhancement and the court doesn't care about who the victim is either. If the customer says "Hey, Mr Toyota dealer, I want you to install new WeatherTech floor matts". Turns out the floor matts are the incorrect model for your vehicle and cause the accelerator to stick which then causes a collision...guess who the court found guilty: the dealer and the manufacturer. And yes, this is an actual lawsuit.

Specialized and the LBS should count themselves extremely lucky that the owner wasn't injured. Healthcare insurance company's would have an easy day with this one.

 

[TwoTone]

Been to court on this before and I know how the story ends. If the LBS and manufacturer did not warn the customer beforehand, then the LBS and manufacturer are to blame--especially if the LBS is a Specialized dealer.

For those victim blaming and defending the LBS, change bicycle to "new car", change LBS to Toyota (or whatever brand) dealer, and change Specialized to Toyota. The court doesn't care if the part is mundane or a performance enhancement and the court doesn't care about who the victim is either. If the customer says "Hey, Mr Toyota dealer, I want you to install new WeatherTech floor matts". Turns out the floor matts are the incorrect model for your vehicle and cause the accelerator to stick which then causes a collision...guess who the court found guilty: the dealer and the manufacturer. And yes, this is an actual lawsuit.

Specialized and the LBS should count themselves extremely lucky that the owner wasn't injured. Healthcare insurance company's would have an easy day with this one.

LOL only a jury would hold Toyota responsible for the wrong part being installed by an independently owned dealership. A judge would know better.

 

[jeremy3220]

I think the difference between this and the tuner shop analogy is on an MTB people assume it's ok (structurally) to run any shock that is the correct size as long as the manufacturer says otherwise. It's not like you're going to make sure a Pike is "compatible" with your frame that came with a Fox 34 (again assuming sizing is correct). It's not unreasonable to assume that it's fine to use a certain shock if the manufacturer hasn't stated that shock model will not work. With aggressive engine upgrades, the average person is aware it may affect the reliability of the engine.

 

[bingemtbr]

LOL only a jury would hold Toyota responsible for the wrong part being installed by an independently owned dealership. A judge would know better.

Unfortunately, I've been involved in several of these situations. Only one went to court. The others were settled by an arbitrator. I have to say the arbitrator cases were the most surreal. Representatives for all parties involved were in a conference room at the same time. You spoke when spoken to. Made notes for when you were called to speak. The atmosphere was very friendly; heck we all went to lunch together. At the end of the day, we all went our separate ways wiser.

The silver lining to each of these situations is no one died. I know of other cases where people did die and the cases were very heartbreaking.

 

[djlee]

As an aside...
There are bike shops who have chosen to forego the easy, upfront money of e-bike sales because they don't want to deal with any possible future hassles.

This shop made money from the sale, has made money from past Specialized sales, and will make money from future sales. The shop needs to make it right. That is the deal the shop made by being a Specialized dealer.

 

[CaveGiant]

Your bike shop will have liability insurance for situations like this for reasons given above.

Ask them nicely to use it, it will be the cheapest outcome for all.

 

[Cleared2land]

Good timing on this topic. I ride with a friend who is a corporate attorney specializing in contract dispute litigation and we discussed this specific topic. I outlined the information as presented by the OP with no reference to any thread post opinions. I was seeking unbiased information. I explained the problem and subsequent damage that resulted from the installation of the shock and the following discovery that it was not a proper shock for this model of bike.

He only asked a few questions about the bike to confirm that the purchase was a new, unused bike and if it was purchased from a designated Specialized dealer and did the buyer specifically request this particular shock to be installed. I stated the buyer wanted a shock upgrade and that an employee (mechanic, I think) recommended this specific shock and buyer agreed to take it and have it installed before taking initial delivery. He clarified the situation by asking if the mechanic was an bona fide employee of the shop.

With no hesitation, he stated that any recommendations by a dealer (even if casual), or by any legitimate employee of the dealer would be interpreted by the courts as an endorsement and approval of the Dealer from a liability perspective. He further added that the courts will always view recommendations coming from SME’s or Subject Matter Experts in their particular field of expertise as reliable based on their specialty of selling and maintaining bikes. This can be legally validated by the fact that the Dealer was a recognized Specialized Dealer. He continued that because they are an authorized Specialized Dealer places them even more liable and legally responsible for ill-advised recommendations. The courts will always see a buyer of anything as uninformed and uneducated and that the buyers actual attempt to reach out to a commercial bicycle dealer for professional advice holds significant legal impact to the dealer. Unless they are extenuating circumstances, the buyer is considered as a non expert and advice taken does not jeopardize the liability of the buyer. The buyer bears no responsibility for accepting advice from a legitimate Specialized Dealer.

It was indicated that while Specialized might hold some level of responsibility for failure to inform the Dealer of the issue, the fact remains that a recommendation was made by the dealer and any issues regarding the failure to notify the dealer would be between the Dealer and Specialized and not involve the buyer. He said that the bottom line was that the dealer made the recommendation and the buyer acted on that recommendation. In a court, the Dealer will be viewed as highly knowledgeable with more detailed information than can be obtained by an uninformed buyer. Licensed dealers are expected to be reliable, trusted sources of trustworthy information. He said, unquestionably the dealer would be the direct target of any litigious action taken and not on Fox or Specialized.

He stated if this were taken to court, the LBS would lose the case hands down. He also added that the expense for such legal action would not come cheap and it would likely not be worth the money or years to find its way into the courts. He stated that no attorney would likely take this as a contingency case and the buyer would likely have to put up a retainer fee and accept all costs of executing the litigation.

 

[amirh1]

Good timing on this topic. I ride with a friend who is a corporate attorney specializing in contract dispute litigation and we discussed this specific topic. I outlined the information as presented by the OP with no reference to any thread post opinions. I was seeking unbiased information.
....

Thank you, very helpful info! Honestly the LBS is the one I care for most and have the best relationship with (IDK anyone at Fox or Spesh), and this is the third bike I bought from them. It sounds like I need to be more aggressive with my demand that they handle this appropriately, regardless of whether or not they knew of the compatibility issues in time. I definitely don't want to take anyone to court, I just want a rideable bike back without spending even more money.

 

[Carl Mega]

So amirh1, how damaged is the frame? Is it just some surface scratches? is it smashed? are you just concerned about the impact weakening it? what's the story there?

 

[Cleared2land]

How about some close up photos of the damaged frame?

 

[amirh1]

@Carl Mega and @Cleared2land IDK how damaged the frame is. The bike is still at the LBS so can't close up photos but of course I'm concerned it was a large impact to a carbon frame, with noticeable impact marks. Whether or not the frame is structurally damaged - I'm not an expert. I don't want to find out on the trail, the same way I found out even downhill shocks can break three months in...
Why do you ask? Can you spot damage based on photos? I'd be happy to go take them if you think it helps. But I wouldn't be comfortable riding it until a specialist at least took a look (I know nobody from Spesh took a look yet).

 

[Cleared2land]

While this photo does not clearly show your frame or level of damage, it really doesn't look that bad. Certainly appears repairable. But I hope that someone does the right thing and takes care of this issue and move on.

 

[Carl Mega]

Why do you ask? Can you spot damage based on photos? I'd be happy to go take them if you think it helps. But I wouldn't be comfortable riding it until a specialist at least took a look (I know nobody from Spesh took a look yet).

Yes, I could spot damage from photos...just not all possible damage. Obvious damage. Potential damage.

Nothing wrong with asking for an expert to examine the frame - if that gives you piece of mind. You were there, I wasn't and that is valuable information into what might be waiting.. Depending on what my impression of the impact, there's a good chance I'd be getting on with my riding and not worrying - but that's me and my tolerance to risk. The things I'd be concerned about would probably leave indications that there was looming damage, paint deformation, etc. I've had plenty of fairly large rock strikes and the like that I'd inspect but, in the end, were not much to worry about. YMMV. If in doubt, have an expert examine.

 

[Jayem]

I agree with the legal assessment above, also, this could likely be settled in small claims court easily, but it need not come to that. You should not be talking on the phone or in person with them anymore, unless they agree to an outcome you can live with. Otherwise, you should prepare a letter, state some of the things above, keep it cordial, etc., but ask for your terms. You need to establish a written record for the possibility it does go to small claims court. In all likelihood, you won't have to go that far. If specialized runs out of dealers willing to sell their bikes due to these kind of issues, they may finally change their ways, but nothing will ever happen unless people stand against it. It is ridiculous that they design the bikes like this and the shop should know better. If they aren't making that kind of information easily available, then shame on them.

 

[r-rocket]

In a court, the Dealer will be viewed as highly knowledgeable with more detailed information than can be obtained by an uninformed buyer.

Good post. This key point above is the right answer between the debate over whether the LBS or the bike buyer would have had the legal responsibility to make the shock choice decision based upon any KNOWN problems with using that shock with that frame. It is definitely clear cut that if there were KNOWN (proven/demonstrated) problems with that shock choice at the time of the sale, it would clearly have been the shop's responsibility, not the buyer's.

The problem in this case, is that the problems weren't known to the LBS until after the sale. The type of lawsuit your friend imagined wouldn't be a contract case over whether the warranty or the sales agreement would obligate Fox or Specialized or the LBS to repair the damage.

Instead it would be a liability lawsuit where the burden of proof would be even higher, to show that the LBS either knew or should have known that the shock that works fine on other bikes, and the bike that works fine with other shocks, don't work together. And that they actually did something negligent by advising the purchase of this shock for this bike.

But that's where the case falls apart. The notice from Fox/Specialized didn't come out until after the sale. And the LBS can't be held retroactively negligent for information that wasn't released by Fox/Specialized until after the sale.

That would be a "who knew, and when did they know it" case, and the OP clearly posts in the title of the post that they didn't know until afterwards. There cannot be retroactive negligence. The only way there would be a legal claim on a retroactive basis would be under contract law for a warranty or sales contract. And as your friend implies, there is no contract case here.

The best strategy here is to work with the LBS towards a good will solution. Let the know shop know what they can do so that you will leave a satisfied customer. If the know there is a solution where there is a satisfied customer in the end, they have an incentive to help in ways they are not legally obligated.

Maybe offer them free teeth whitening at your dentist office for help with your dentist bike? II KID!!! I KID!!!

 

[phantoj]

I'm just surprised the bike shop isn't willing to do more to keep a big spender happy. Seems like a one-way "relationship" with that LBS.

 

[Cleared2land]

^^^^^^ That is exactly my thought. They should step up and deploy damage control. This is nothing more than managing the customer relationship. The OP needs to be more assertive and take the 'friendship' component out of the equation.