# Cracked Storck Powerarms Pro!!!



## Anders (Jan 12, 2004)

So after taking of my cranks to mount my small chain ring, before I was going to the Marathon World Cup at Garda in Italy, I noticed some cracks in the spider. I emailed Storck in Germany and they asked me to send them the cranks, so they could inspect them. So when removing the right pedal the pedal insert came loose as well. 
After they recieved them, they had THM (who produce the cranks for Storck) to inspect them, and the conclusion was, that I had use a too small middle chain ring and the chain had cruched the spider and they could not warrant it (I use a 2x9 setup with a 42T and 29T). It is NOT mentioned in their instruction manual which chain rings sizes you can and cannot use. They agreed that you can use a 29T on aluminium cranks, but not on their carbon cranks. 
Regarding the pedal insert, they could fix this on the warranty, but they could not do anything about the cracks in the spider. They don't want to warrant it because I should have know, that I couldn't use a 29T on their cranks. 

They have several solutions to this problem: 

1. They can repair the pedal insert on the warranty and I can see how long the cranks will hold up. 
2. I can buy a right crank arm for a certain amount. I'm concerned that the pedal insert on the left arm will fail at some point. 
3. I can buy a complete new set of cranks for almost the double of the amount for only the right cranks arm. 

Here I am now. I'm of the opinion, that they should warrant the cranks, because they have not informed that you cannot use a 29T chain ring. They say that the rider has to check if he can use a 29T chain ring on their cranks or not, although it's not mentioned in their manual. 

I have been very happy with this product until now, but 
people not honoring their warranty I realy can't understand. That is a bad 
business approach as I see it. 

I don't want to invest much more money in these cranks and I certainly don't want to deal with Marcus Storck again as it's him pulling the strings on this one. 

What do you think?


----------



## Williwoods (May 3, 2004)

Anders said:


> So after taking of my cranks to mount my small chain ring, before I was going to the Marathon World Cup at Garda in Italy, I noticed some cracks in the spider. I emailed Storck in Germany and they asked me to send them the cranks, so they could inspect them. So when removing the right pedal the pedal insert came loose as well.
> After they recieved them, they had THM (who produce the cranks for Storck) to inspect them, and the conclusion was, that I had use a too small middle chain ring and the chain had cruched the spider and they could not warrant it (I use a 2x9 setup with a 42T and 29T). It is NOT mentioned in their instruction manual which chain rings sizes you can and cannot use. They agreed that you can use a 29T on aluminium cranks, but not on their carbon cranks.
> Regarding the pedal insert, they could fix this on the warranty, but they could not do anything about the cracks in the spider. They don't want to warrant it because I should have know, that I couldn't use a 29T on their cranks.
> 
> ...


I feel your pain, however carbon cranks have always made me nervous. That warranty bs is lame they should cover the arms, I would move on to something a bit more durable though. At least you noticed it while working on your bike and not racing/at speed. To me this is another reason why carbon does not belong on cranks for mountain bikes.

Not that these are light like the Storcks but my new Deus cranks are awesome, way stiffer than the ISIS set-up I had b4.

Will


----------



## Vecsus (Apr 17, 2004)

Anders said:


> They say that the rider has to check if he can use a 29T chain ring on their cranks or not, although it's not mentioned in their manual.


Not sure how product warrenties work in Germany, but in the US they would owe you a new crank. You cannot expect a consumer to ASSUME that a 29-tooth ring could not be used. If a product has certain restrictions then documentation needs to be provided. It was not at all unreasonable for you to expect to be able to use that ring.

And if nothing else, from a straight public relations standpoint they should replace the crank.


----------



## top_ring (Feb 9, 2004)

Whoa ! That`s not good. As far as I can tell they owe you (no questions asked) a new replacement crank. There is never any assumption with warranties on the buyers part. Every company should make the warranty terms of their product very well known, so that the buyer can make an educated decision whether or not to purchase that product.

*That`s just bad customer service*. Do you have a governing body for ill practicing businesses where you live that can put pressure on Storck? Aside from a lawsuit, in Canada we have several means by which we can seek out justice for the "little guy". Good luck and keep us posted.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*bad news...*



Anders said:


> So after taking of my cranks to mount my small chain ring, before I was going to the Marathon World Cup at Garda in Italy, I noticed some cracks in the spider. I emailed Storck in Germany and they asked me to send them the cranks, so they could inspect them. So when removing the right pedal the pedal insert came loose as well.
> After they recieved them, they had THM (who produce the cranks for Storck) to inspect them, and the conclusion was, that I had use a too small middle chain ring and the chain had cruched the spider and they could not warrant it (I use a 2x9 setup with a 42T and 29T). It is NOT mentioned in their instruction manual which chain rings sizes you can and cannot use. They agreed that you can use a 29T on aluminium cranks, but not on their carbon cranks.
> Regarding the pedal insert, they could fix this on the warranty, but they could not do anything about the cracks in the spider. They don't want to warrant it because I should have know, that I couldn't use a 29T on their cranks.
> 
> ...


first of all - me too i think they should warranty this crankarm. they make a lot of money with these so they certainly can cover that.

BUT i think you should have realized that there isn't enough place for the 29t chainring. the chain touches the spider and makes for added stress. one can see the spider has marks from the chain. still - they should have a note in the manual or somewhere that 29t aren't allowed.

i just have a similar case with a pair of cranks i sold. the pedal cracked out of the crankarm while the guy was about to get a good result in a race...i hope to get a warranty on that one tough. SDtorck had this happen years ago when cranks wre lighter. after that they reinforced the pedal insertrs and that made the cranks heavier (310-320g actually).


----------



## CODMAN (Jan 12, 2004)

That really sucks! When you pay ridiculous prices for high end equipment like that, warranty should be a no-questions-asked policy... I'd simply let them know they have lost a customer and their reputation in your eyes, and spend your money elsewhere! You might not find as light... but you will certainly find better durabilty and especially SERVICE!

Luego and good luck!


----------



## Rocky (Jan 22, 2004)

I was agreeing with you (that the cranks should have been covered under warranty) right up until I saw the pictures at the bottom of the post. It should have been pretty obvious that the chain was riding on the spider and that this may be cause for concern. At that point you should have contacted the manufacturer for advice. Since you didn't I don't think you can complain (IMHO).

Its kind of similar to having big knobs contacting and wearing grooves in the inner arms of V-brakes. You don't see Avid posting in their manual not to have the tires contacting the brake arms - some things can be left to common sense. I'm not saying everyone who rides bikes should be mechanically inclined enough to work these things out, but those that do their own mechanical work and maintainance should be.

That said - it still sucks. Sorry bud. With both tales of pedal inserts coming loose I would suggest switching to some other cranks until the problem is addressed. Good luck.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

One more vote for the above. They should cover it, and you should have noticed (Although I'm sure I wouldn't myself).

They clearly didn't test the whole range of crank sizes. If they say "94mm 5-arm rings", that's it, you're shopping with that limitation. I bet a good bottle that Storck was unaware that 29's don't work. They only found out when your crank came in. Especially weightweenie cranks need to be checked for 29t clearance (even if this is the first case in the world), as 19t middle raings like the TA are such appealing options.

Storck is closing a handful of seriously interested customers just with the low service to you, I hope that is at least a small comforting to you...

Good luck,

J

PS. You may want to send them this thread, for new insights. I admire how objectively you explained the case to us.


----------



## LAN (Jan 26, 2004)

I recived my THM Clavicula crankset (road version) last week, and the instructions said that the small ring should not be smaller than 39T. I looked at the spider and it did not seem any bigger than my Powerarms I had used for two years with a 38T. So I checked my old crankset and found the same problems that Anders have. (I haven't cracked the spider, but I have the same marks on top of it)

The Powerarms didn't come with these instructions, but the THM did.

Nino, I know you also have road Powerarms, and run a 38T, don't you have the same problems??

LAN


----------



## Anders (Jan 12, 2004)

This is the first case they have seen, they told me so. They know about this thread, as I told them I would write it. I gave them the oppotunity to take care of this situation discrete, but they were not interested is that and have even accused me of blackmailing them. Go figure. Now I have asked them to repair the pedal insert and send me the cranks back. They are rideable, the question is just how long.
I'm not investing more money in Storck. I think it is a great product that THM makes for Storck, but when Storck won't honor their warranty I have lost my respect. I hope THM will release a MTB version of the Clavicula, that I would buy.


----------



## 1speed_Mike (Jan 27, 2004)

Anders, 

Sorry to hear about your cranks. I know how it feels after snapping my Moratis. But, unlike Storck, Morati was excellent to deal with during the warranty. I've often considered Storck cranks for my rides...not any more! Thanks for the heads-up....sorry it had to come at your expense.


----------



## the_dude (Jun 18, 2004)

i completely agree with both sides of this post. 

a) you probably should have noticed the chain riding on the spider (although, same as cloxxki, i probably wouldn't have)
-but-
b) storck should warrantee them anyway, because they failed to mention that little detail.

if someone from storck is reading this, please realize your mistake and warrantee the crankset. then change the owner's manual to state that this crank will not work with 29t rings. you may think you're saving a buck by refusing this warrantee, but truth is, you're losing many many thousands more by providing bad customer service and giving customers reason to give negative reviews of your company publicly. 

the_dude


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

Yeah, what the_dude said! 
Warrantee this time for Anders, make it the first and last instance. You'll have to change your instruction anyway, because small chainrings are getting into fashion quickly (among 29" riders, even more will want a 29t, I'm even stocking up on those).


----------



## loosch (Feb 16, 2005)

If you were in Australia I would say send them to me and I will repair them for you. Alternatively find someone nearby with composite repair experience and get them fixed. Storck should probably warranty them even if they don't agree with the claim, for that price you expect better service in my opinion.


----------



## Storck Bicycle GmbH (Jun 22, 2005)

Dear MTBR Readers,

Here's the official line from Storck:

Powerarms cranks have been in production since 1995.

The cranks are designed for use with standard triple compact chainrings with 94/58mm bolt circle diameter i.e. 20 / 22, 32 and 42/44. However it is not logistically possible for small company such as Storck to test every possible combination of chainring, chain, chainline etc. available on the market.

29 tooth chainrings are intended for use with twin chainring cranks designed specifically for them e.g. Cannondale crank arms.

The combination of a 29 t. middle chainring and the Powerarms cranks results in the chain constantly running across the top of the crank spider on the crank arm. 
This is the cause of the crank failure.

For us it is difficult to understand why an experienced rider failed to notice this incompatibility issue when installing the crankarms and chainrings or when riding for one year.

For Storck the case is clearly one of improper product use, which leads to the warranty becoming void. We cannot anticipate every conceivable use / misuse of our products or give replacements to every consumer who threatens to post negative feedback on the internet.

As a measure of good will we twice offered Mr. Anders a replacement crank/s at manufacturers cost price i.e. approx. $ 150 for the right hand crank $ 240 pair. Instead he has chosen to write this thread which he has every right to do.

We welcome any questions regarding the Powerarms cranks or any other Storck product.

Roger Seal
PR - & Marketing
[email protected]


----------



## hollowtech (Jun 22, 2005)

*broken cranks*

OT: I really appreciate when companies discuss their point of view to their customers not only in personal letters, but in public, in internet forums ......

good job, Roger!


----------



## Anders (Jan 12, 2004)

I do appreciate it too when ex DT does it on the Turner forum. What I don't appreciate is, when a "first poster" comming from the same country as the company involved and just joined the forum the day that Storck posted this, comes in from the side line. That is not very clever!


----------



## 1speed_Mike (Jan 27, 2004)

Storck Bicycle GmbH said:


> The cranks are designed for use with standard triple compact chainrings with 94/58mm bolt circle diameter i.e. 20 / 22, 32 and 42/44. However it is not logistically possible for small company such as Storck to test every possible combination of chainring, chain, chainline etc. available on the market.


Agreed. However, you shouldn't hold a customer liable for doing this type of testing for you. Was this written anywhere in his documentation?



Storck Bicycle GmbH said:


> 29 tooth chainrings are intended for use with twin chainring cranks designed specifically for them e.g. Cannondale crank arms.
> 
> The combination of a 29 t. middle chainring and the Powerarms cranks results in the chain constantly running across the top of the crank spider on the crank arm.
> This is the cause of the crank failure.


Yes, we know now why the spider failed and you can document that in your warranty info -- no more 29T! But, should Anders be held liable for a combination that wasn't considered in YOUR testing?



Storck Bicycle GmbH said:


> For us it is difficult to understand why an experienced rider failed to notice this incompatibility issue when installing the crankarms and chainrings or when riding for one year.
> 
> For Storck the case is clearly one of improper product use, which leads to the warranty becoming void. We cannot anticipate every conceivable use / misuse of our products or give replacements to every consumer who threatens to post negative feedback on the internet.


Improper use? You didn't say that a 29T couldn't be used so how can it be improper use? I think you are treading on a very slippery slope here.


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

*nice try BUT...*



Storck Bicycle GmbH said:


> Dear MTBR Readers,
> 
> Here�s the official line from Storck:
> 
> ...


first of all it's good to see a manufacturer (ok, your just a part of them), take care of this. you need to as this thread is going on all over the world...i was just visiting a german forum where this topic is discussed too. 
the consensus all over the world seems that Storck should warranty this crank. c'mon , at the price you ask for them this is sure covered. the bad publicity you take all over the world in specific forums is going to hurt your sales BIG TIME. there's competiton out there, you know. Stronglight and Natec both have cranks lighter than yours...just don't ruin your good reputation!

you say these cranks are for use with compact triple chainrings. hmm, why in hell should someone not use 20/29/42 ? where is written that a middle ring has to be 32 ? i bought some used Strock cranks off Ebay and guess what ? they came with 20/29/42 !
and i have a compact crankset on my cyclocrosser with a 36 middle ring. so is that correct? are you telling us which chairings we have to use or what?

anyway - this is going out of your hands. instead of wasting your time here you better had offered Anders a new crankarm right away. by the way - Anders has posted his cranks several times before and was the happiest man on earth, proud owner of the most beautiful crank (with Boone Ti-rings, if anyone remembers). his pictures sure made one or another eager to want one and i'm sure he was the reason several guys bought such cranks as well. well - it seems you don't care what people do once the money is in your wallet. you better keep the quality level up as pedal inserts coming loose isn't a nice feature either.

that said, i have your cranks on my MTB and Roadbike alike. i'm very happy with them so far but since there are lighter cranks out there my next set might not be from Storck.

282g Road cranks:
http://www.mythiccarbon.com/page3.html


----------



## LAN (Jan 26, 2004)

I think Storck offer ($150/$240) is pretty good.

Standard compact chainrings is 22/32/44, so when you put a non-standard size on your crankset it's not their fault.

But, I hope they will include this in a new instructions manual. Also for roadcrank (38T)


----------



## weather (Jan 12, 2004)

just for those of us not as well informed, would Anders post a scan of his user's manual so that we can decide whether the manufacturer gave specifric enough instructions?


----------



## jakeplazma (Oct 15, 2004)

Owner's manual right HERE.

The answer seems to be on the very first page where they state this:

*Compatibility MTB Power Arms*
The cranks can be used with all standard 7,8 & 9 speed drivetrains. _*You can use any chainrings which have the Shimano 5 Arm bolt circle diameters of 94 mm ( large & middle chainrings ) and 58 mm ( small chainring ).*_ When choosing chainrings you should observe the maximum shifting capacity of the front derailleur used as well as remembering not to exceed the maximum chainring size. If you do not observe these limits front shifting will suffer."

It's pretty clear to me that Storck needs to pony up a new crankset for Anders in addition to updating the wording in the manual.


----------



## weather (Jan 12, 2004)

my 1.5 cents

1) the instruction is not specific enough and is borderline misleading in saying "any chainrings".
2) but, i do believe it is common sense not to have chain riding on a carbom spider. this is not "leaving product testing to the consumers". i agree with rocky above. 
3) i would say a good discount (like 50%) on a new set is a satisfactory solution. Stork also should reword their user's manual.


----------



## chris m (May 27, 2005)

Well personally, whilst I was originally rather undecided, and thought Anders maybe did have a point, I'm now inclined to think that Storck are actually right. How can they be held liable for damage caused by wear? It's not actually a manufacturing fault at all as far as I can see, but due solely to the chain contacting the ends of the spider, and whilst this is rather unfortunate for Anders, it is entirely his own fault, and as Storck say, something he should really have noticed (from the picture, I'd personally have been quite concerned on installing that ring, seeing how the roots of the teeth go below the top of the spider).

I agree that in america it would have to be warrantied, but then in america bicycle manufacturers have to put stickers on to tell you that it's a bad idea to ride at night without lights, along with lots of other lawyer inspired rubbish. Fortunately in europe we don't have a legal system like that (yet), so I don't see why it was Storcks fault because they didn't put a notice in the manual, given that it's not unreasonable to expect you to notice that the chain is running on the ends of the spider. Did you really not notice that Anders - from the photos it seems pretty obvious?

The offer of a new crank at cost price seems pretty reasonable to me in the circumstances - I con't see any reaon why you should have to get a new left arm though, as presumably if the pedal insert does go they will warrantee that (if they won't due to you damaging the right arm yourself, then that really is bad businees practice).


----------



## weather (Jan 12, 2004)

> I agree that in america it would have to be warrantied, but then in america bicycle manufacturers have to put stickers on to tell you that it's a bad idea to ride at night without lights, along with lots of other lawyer inspired rubbish.


exactly.


----------



## jakeplazma (Oct 15, 2004)

I agree that from the pic above it looks obvious but, it's a pic of the cranks OFF the bike and zoomed in fairly closely. Frankly, I don't know how many of us would be paying attention that carefully to something like this. I mean, c'mon, unless clearly stated otherwise by the manufacturer (which in this case was not) when matching chainrings to a particular crankset you adhere to the parameters given for a particular BCD, right? Or am I just way off here (it wouldn't be the first time  )?


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

LAN said:


> I think Storck offer ($150/$240) is pretty good.
> 
> Standard compact chainrings is 22/32/44, so when you put a non-standard size on your crankset it's not their fault.
> 
> But, I hope they will include this in a new instructions manual. Also for roadcrank (38T)


if the crank failure would be just the spider alone this would be a good solution - agreed!

BUT here we have a crank that failed in 2 places. it seems most forget about the pedal insert coming loose. sure they offer to fix that but that alone means Anders has to send the cranks to germany and from what i know it takes quite some time (several weeks!) to get them back.

that's why i say they should have replaced that crank completely.

@LAN:
i just noticed similar marks on my road crankset where i'm running a 38t inner ring. not near as deep like Anders marks but you can also see the chain just slightly touching the spider. i wasn't aware of that as in "dry", unloaded way the chain wouldn't touch. i had a look at that before i mounted the ring initially and thought the chain would clear the spider. seems that under a load the chain goes down a bit deeper (logical). anyway - no manual prohibits you from using a 38t chainring on the roadcranks either. and the 38 is definitely nothing exotic on a roadcrank....


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

Clearly Storck never thought about it when they used the added beef around the chainring bolt holes over mainstream aluminum offering, that that would cause interference with smaller chainrings. A pretty big boo-boo, for a company working with carbon for so long.
The wise thing to do would have been to send Anders a new set of cranks because he already had bad luck with the pedal inserts (which sucks), tell him to get larger chainrings, hope he remains silent about it, update the online owners manual and never give anyone else a free replacement after that.


----------



## peabody (Apr 15, 2005)

*i personally*

question the thought going into this crank if you right from the get go have to grind a 
chain ring just to fit it on the spider. was this crank not designed with the knowledge
that chain rings have to be installed. pretty poor engineering. BUT i do agree with
storck on the fact that how could someone not be aware that the chain was running
across the spider and just grinding away at it! that is something i would notice immediately
upon installation.


----------



## 1speed_Mike (Jan 27, 2004)

nino said:


> by the way - Anders has posted his cranks several times before and was the happiest man on earth, proud owner of the most beautiful crank (with Boone Ti-rings, if anyone remembers). his pictures sure made one or another eager to want one and i'm sure he was the reason several guys bought such cranks as well. well - it seems you don't care what people do once the money is in your wallet. you better keep the quality level up as pedal inserts coming loose isn't a nice feature either.


I couldn't agree more. When I saw those Ander's carbon Storcks with those Boone Ti rings, I was in awe, drooling, etc.....they were gorgeous! I wanted a set, but just kept it in the back of mind as a future posibility.

Now, after seeing that these cranks aren't backed by a company that believes in them, I guess I don't need to worry anymore...thanks Storck! You've just made my decision for me. I will NOT support a company that will not stand behind ITS products. YOU found an "out" to YOUR warranty, albeit, a very questionable "out" by stating that it's the riders responsibility to ensure that all ring combos are cleared by YOU...BULL $HIT! If you know certain combos won't work, the put it in bold, red, highlighted font in your warranty. Put a sticker on the spider. But, please do not pass the buck to a customer. That's just very poor business practice.


----------



## Didier Carpentier (Jan 13, 2004)

thank you for sharing these problems with us anders, here is my view on the matter since you asked:
I see 2 problems with the crankset:
working with these cranks, I feel it is comun sense that a 38 cannot be mounted and you don't need to be a ingeneer to figure that if the chain rub against the carbon spider, it won't last without a breakage, so your mistake here.
about the pedal insert than it is clearly a default this should be covered by manufactor warranty.
but also all in all, lightweight product are weaker and we lightweight enthousiasts should admit that a 420 gr crank arm is stronger than a 310 gr. a crank is one of the most important component. it is almost not reasonnable that a simple individual rider race it and expect the thing to last for ever.
same story about Xpedo pedals...
and it that respect I understand STORCK that, likewise other manufactors, has to be careful when a breakage should be warranty or not.
we also have to take some responsability and not always expect the manufactor to replace our damaged parts. I feel that a manufactor has the right to justify throughout a situation and explain why he is or not prepare to replace or not a broken product.
why does every aspect should figure in a warranty form? have your bike set up by professional mechanic or else make your brain work when mounting parts. accept this 38 ring as a learning lesson.
By the way, I ordered some NATEC compact 110/170 ISIS coming up next week. 282 gr claimed...lighter and even weaker I guess...https://forums.mtbr.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
didier carpentier
www.greybicycle.com


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

MY OPINION

1.- I think this is a very interesting post. I think it´s very important to get the funny part of every post. I think the funniest part of this post is when the storck guy says:

"it is not logistically possible for small company such as Storck to test every possible combination of chainring"

for me, this is really funny.

2.- You are all right when you say this crankset would be warrantied in the usa. But it´s also true that because of that this crankset it´s not made in usa... it´s made in germany.

3.- I personaly don´t like boone ti chainrings, i prefer alu. If you give me a boone rings for free i would install them, of course. But i would not pay for a heavier and more expensive rings. And i know they last way longer than alu rings...

4.- if in the manual says clearly that you can use any teeth number on the rings if you respect the bolt circle diameter, anders did everything ok. It´s storck fault if their manuals are wrong. It´s storck fault, not anders fault. That´s why they should warranty this cranset, in usa, in europe, and anywhere in the world.

5.- nino knows what he is talking about (look what happened to his vuelta brake business... ). But that´s not a real reason to warranty a crankset. I think manufacturers should not look so much to their image and the money they get. they just should care about doing things right, and not like this case.

6.- i liked poweramrs. and sincerelly, i still like them. and sincerely, i would buy them if i had enough money. this post just make me know i must not use such a small middle ring.


----------



## Cloxxki (Jan 11, 2004)

I think the fact that someone as bike-educated as Anders fails to notice the rubbing, shows us how important it is for Storck to warn customers. Does it say anywhere that the cranks are fragile and setup require an experienced all-seeing professional mechanic?


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

anyone knows the price of those NATEC mountainbike triple cranset?¿?¿?¿??

where can i buy them??¿?¿?¿


----------



## hollowtech (Jun 22, 2005)

Anders said:


> I do appreciate it too when ex DT does it on the Turner forum. What I don't appreciate is, when a "first poster" comming from the same country as the company involved and just joined the forum the day that Storck posted this, comes in from the side line. That is not very clever!


Thank you for welcoming me so friendly!

In case i would have any connection to Storck, i surely wouldn´t have registered myself as a german. think about that!


----------



## AscentCanada (Aug 20, 2004)

Well I guess I know what frames to cross off my list, Storck!



Storck Bicycle GmbH said:


> However it is not logistically possible for small company such as Storck to test every possible combination of chainring, chain, chainline etc. available on the market.


The bottom line for me is that if you are too small of a company to test every possible combination, then you should have enough integrity to stand behind what you missed. If you want to pass the testing onto your customers then you should be prepared for warrenty issues. The cost of replacing 1 crankarm is much less than the testing would have cost anyway. Storck could have replaced the crankarm, updated the user manual and still been ahead.

Instead they choose that by using a chainring size that they admit was not tested, this is a loophole in their warrenty.

What have they not tested their frames for? Oh you were riding on pavement, this is clearly a mountain bike, NO FRAME FOR YOU...


----------



## 1speed_Mike (Jan 27, 2004)

AscentCanada said:


> What have they not tested their frames for? Oh you were riding on pavement, this is clearly a mountain bike, NO FRAME FOR YOU...


Don't laugh...I nearly had the same situation with a pair of Northwave Team MTB shoes that delaminated after very little use.

In speaking with the CDN NW rep (OGC, I think...may be Lambert...anyway, doesn't matter), he implied my warranty would not be covered because I actually used the shoes in muddy conditions?! Huh, WTF!

"This is a mountain bike shoe, right?" I asked. "Ya!", he replied. "And, there's mud on trails, right?", I jokingly asked. "Ya!", he replied again. "So? Do you see where I'm going here?" "Ya, but we still won't warranty it." he exclaimed.

I lost it and really started to push back against Northwave. Went over the CDN distributor's head to the US distributor and then to Italy. In the end, I got myself a new pair of shoes....but, I will never again wear anything Northwave (I only use Shimano shoes now). That's BS! IMHO, same thing applies here with Storck's attitude of taking the easy way out!


----------



## Rainman (Apr 18, 2004)

*Silly, very silly..*

All this is very bad publicity for the manufacturer, Storch.

In business, if you get a bad reputation for warranty or customer service, it is the hardest thing in the world to shake off.

I have replaced / warrantied parts for customers even when I believed that the fault had been theirs, to maintain good customer relationships and to further my reputation as a business that looks after the customer.

This is what sells your product, and keeps the customers coming back to purchase again and again.

What you, Storch are doing will eventually come back and bite you right on the arse.

As I said, shaking off a bad reputation is very hard in business, especially in a world-wide and knowledgeable business like bikes and components.

...imo..

R.


----------



## 1speed_Mike (Jan 27, 2004)

Rainman said:


> All this is very bad publicity for the manufacturer, Storch.
> 
> In business, if you get a bad reputation for warranty or customer service, it is the hardest thing in the world to shake off.


Yep...how does that expression go? A satisfied customer tells X customers, but a dissatisfied customer tells 100X customers. With the internet and forums like this, Anders just hit 1000X customers.

IMHO, the damage has already been done. Even if Storck was to give Anders a free warranty, I'd never buy anything from a company that operates in grey waters. Just not my style.

I prefer working with companies when stuff goes wrong, and it always does. Nothing's perfect. Stuff breaks, etc. We ride hard on very demanding terrain in a very demanding sport where we push technology to the limit. When I bust stuff, I own-up to the component company outlining the history of the component....they know I race, so I can't really BS'em too much 

Anyway, most companies are very receptive to this type of product feedback because it allows them to improve. If I bust stuff because of my riding, I chalk it up to experience and move on. But, when a part busts because of a grey-area in the crank's design, I'd be very leary about buying from a company that voids the warranty because of a loop-hole they company created.


----------



## LAN (Jan 26, 2004)

I have good experiance with Storck customer service.

Last summer my Storck Rebel Pro frame broke, and all I had to do was take picture of it and send it by e-mail. I didn't even have to send the frame in.

They also let me upgrade to another frame, the Storck Adrenalin Carbon that I have posted here. I just paid the price difference between the frames.

Now I'm a proud owner of both a Adrenalin Carbon, and a CD1.0/Stiletto


About Anders cranks: 
It would be great if they replaced it, but I can see their point. A 29T is really pushing it, even on a alu spider.


----------



## 1speed_Mike (Jan 27, 2004)

LAN said:


> About Anders cranks:
> It would be great if they replaced it, but I can see their point. A 29T is really pushing it, even on a alu spider.


Yes, I can see their point, too. It's obviously not a configuration that works with these cranks. Fine. No body is arguing that.

But, the fact remains, there was nothing in the documentation or warranty indicating that a 29T could NOT be used....just this (as already posted by Jakeplazma): Storck manual

"*Compatibility 
MTB Power Arms*
The cranks can be used with all standard 7,8 & 9 speed drivetrains. You can use *any* chainrings which have the Shimano 5 Arm bolt circle diameters of 94 mm ( large & middle chainrings ) and 58 mm ( small chainring )."

In reading the above, I don't see any probs using a 29T. Do you?

If it is so obvious to everyone here, why wasn't it so blatantly obvious to Storck? They could have, at the very least, put a line in the documentation indicating that a 29T could not be used because of potential issues. Or, at least specify a minimum tooth number, i.e. >30T, or whatever. But, they chose to leave it pretty open and are now trying to slam the door on a warranty?!

But, they decided not to test this configuration and not to put any such wording in their documents. To me, that's Storck's issue, not Anders. When companies put the responsibility and onus on their customer's to do their testing, then they need to accept the consequences.

To me, what is very obvious, is Storck's lack of customer respect.


----------



## Didier Carpentier (Jan 13, 2004)

If it is so obvious to everyone here, why wasn't it so blatantly obvious to Storck? They could have, at the very least, put a line in the documentation indicating that a 29T could not be used because of potential issues. Or, at least specify a minimum tooth number, i.e. >30T, or whatever. But, they chose to leave it pretty open and are now trying to slam the door on a warranty?!

But, they decided not to test this configuration and not to put any such wording in their documents. To me, that's Storck's issue, not Anders. When companies put the responsibility and onus on their customer's to do their testing, then they need to accept the consequences.

To me, what is very obvious, is Storck's lack of customer respect.[/QUOTE]

It is obvious to you Mike, as it is for most person in american continent. throughout what I usually read, if something happen, you try to have (or put pressure on manufactor) to have a free replacement, even if completly unjustified. than manufactor prefer to let go rather than damaging its image.
I'm not saying we are better and you are bad. just a view on matters in general.
basically when something breaks, your first reflex is WARRANTY issue.
I feel in that precise matter, Storck is explaining itself and offers decent replacement at budget pricing for a failure product that took place because of unsuitable ring.
Look again at the picture. isn't so obvious that that crank is not made for 38 ring?
this is what I'm saying about having a professional mechanic to instole parts on your bike and the problem would have not occur or else it would be definitly his responsability if it happens to fail like that.
this is what I was saying earlier, anders should be happy to have to pay only $100 or so for his mistake. of course, concerning the pedal insert that is a different story but easely fixed these days with epoxyl glue or else returned to manufactor for repair.

didier carpentier
www.greybicycle.com


----------



## nino (Jan 13, 2004)

MaL�L said:


> 5.- nino knows what he is talking about (look what happened to his vuelta brake business... ). But that�s not a real reason to warranty a crankset. I think manufacturers should not look so much to their image and the money they get. they just should care about doing things right, and not like this case.


what's the problem with my brake buiness? i sold ALL of them and have 99% happy customers.
305 positive Ebay ratings also say a thing or two, don't they? keep your mouth shut and concentrate on what the thread is all about,ok? when was the last time you posted something of interest here? anyone remember?


----------



## 1speed_Mike (Jan 27, 2004)

Didier Carpentier said:


> It is obvious to you Mike, as it is for most person in american continent. throughout what I usually read, if something happen, you try to have (or put pressure on manufactor) to have a free replacement, even if completly unjustified.


Stop right there, Didier. You don't know me well enough to make that statement. As I've mentioned already in this post, I don't BS with companies. I break stuff all the time. I tell them the truth about how the part has been used and abused. They appreciate the honesty instead of the BS JRA stories. Sometimes they are warranteed. Other times, they aren't. Most companies don't try and pull what Storck is though. They now their warranties and now their products and will stand behind them. Sometimes, they even stand behind them when it was the customer's fault.



Didier Carpentier said:


> basically when something breaks, your first reflex is WARRANTY issue.


Not my reflex. My reflex is to call/email the company and explain what happened. If a warranty happens, great. If not, oh well. But, I just can't agree with the BS Storck is pulling. Call it the "American Way" if you like, Didier (BTW, I'm Canadian), but warranties are there for a reason...not just fluff.



Didier Carpentier said:


> I feel in that precise matter, Storck is explaining itself and offers decent replacement at budget pricing for a failure product that took place because of unsuitable ring.


Agreed. Storck has explained itself (as they have the right to do and have done) and has decided not to honor their warranty based on their findings. Their findings NOW clearly show that a 29T cannot be used. But, was their any warning before this? Nope.

It's not that I have a problem with Storck or not being able to use a 29T on a crank (I really don't crare), what I have a problem with is that they chose not to specifically test this ring combination and specifically left the wording in their documentation vague enough that this ring could be included in the allowable configurations. That's a loop-hole and Storck is jumping-in with both feet leaving Anders with the bill.

M.


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

hey nino, why don´t you relax a little bit????

i said nothing against you. take it easy man. we all know you sell great products and the warranty you give is way better than storck warranty for sure.


----------



## top_ring (Feb 9, 2004)

*Storck... your reputation is at stake.*

Clearly after reading the many posts regarding this issue Storck is wrong. A _reputable _company would have thoroughly tested their product BEFORE going to the market place. A _reputable _company would also have clear guidelines in their manual as to which chainrings NOT to use.

You can bet that Storck will NOW revise their documentation at Anders expense so no further confusion surrounds this issue.

Storck... you make some awesome products, but how about getting it right the first time so that your consumers don`t suffer. You`re treading on thin ice with your warranty... any chainrings which have the Shimano 5 Arm bolt circle diameters of 94 mm... my @$$!


----------



## chris m (May 27, 2005)

The point is though that you seem to expect them to cover every eventuality in their manual - just to use an extreme example, if he had broken his cranks by smashing them against a rock would you say that they should warrantee them because the manual didn't say you shouldn't smash them against a rock? The wording may be a little ambiguous, but if you're prepared to get off your high horse, I think the intent is quite clear - they are designed to be used with 3 chainrings. Since nobody uses a 29 tooth ring with a 3 ring setup unless they're really strange, Storck never tested this, so it wasn't really obvious to them that it was a problem - though I suspect they were aware, but just thought that no responsible mechanic couldn't notice the lack of clearance, so it wasn't an issue on a continent where we take responsibility for our own mistakes.


----------



## top_ring (Feb 9, 2004)

chris m said:


> The point is though that you seem to expect them to cover every eventuality in their manual - just to use an extreme example, if he had broken his cranks by smashing them against a rock would you say that they should warrantee them because the manual didn't say you shouldn't smash them against a rock? The wording may be a little ambiguous, but if you're prepared to get off your high horse, I think the intent is quite clear - they are designed to be used with 3 chainrings. Since nobody uses a 29 tooth ring with a 3 ring setup unless they're really strange, Storck never tested this, so it wasn't really obvious to them that it was a problem - though I suspect they were aware, but just thought that no responsible mechanic couldn't notice the lack of clearance, so it wasn't an issue on a continent where we take responsibility for our own mistakes.


 Apples and oranges my friend. Smashing your cranks on a rock is not the same as mounting a chain ring that by Storck`s standards says... ANY chainrings which have the Shimano 5 Arm bolt circle diameters of 94 mm - that being 1, 2 or 3 rings. The intent as you say seems very clear to me and many other posters here. High horse indeed!


----------



## Didier Carpentier (Jan 13, 2004)

so it wasn't an issue on a continent where we take responsibility for our own mistakes.[/QUOTE]

I can't agree more. manufactor are pressured and by fear to loose some image/business, they'd rather to replace without arguing. at least STORCK has balls and stand along with comun sense. would anders had the job done by a professional mechanic, that would have never took place or the mech. would have been responsable for the mistake.
since anders instole the ring and due to lack of comun sense and mechanical formation/experience the crank carbon star broke. it is definitly his mistake not STORCK.


----------



## aosty (Jan 7, 2004)

Good thing you didn't use a 28t/94mm Ritchey ring!


----------



## 1speed_Mike (Jan 27, 2004)

chris m said:


> The point is though that you seem to expect them to cover every eventuality in their manual


No, just this:

"Compatibility 
MTB Power Arms
The cranks can be used with all standard 7,8 & 9 speed drivetrains. You can use any chainrings which have the Shimano 5 Arm bolt circle diameters of 94 mm ( large & middle chainrings ) and 58 mm ( small chainring )."

Does it state anywhere that it must be a triple? Certain size? Nope. Leaves it pretty open, doesn't it?

Listen, I'm trying to turn this into a personal attack against Storck, or you, or anyone else who has an opinion about this issue. All I'm saying is, is that the wording in the Storck manual leaves a lot to be desired and could have been more specific (and likely is now  )....that is, mentioning a minimum # of teeth to be used, only using 3 rings (not 2), etc. But, they opted not to.



chris m said:


> - just to use an extreme example, if he had broken his cranks by smashing them against a rock would you say that they should warrantee them because the manual didn't say you shouldn't smash them against a rock?


Extreme, is right.



chris m said:


> The wording may be a little ambiguous, but if you're prepared to get off your high horse, I think the intent is quite clear - they are designed to be used with 3 chainrings.


Giddyup, let's go! Seriously though, I was never on a horse and am done with this discussion since it's obviously going nowhere fast. These aren't even my cranks!

Right or wrong Chris, Storck has made their statement and they will need to live by it. For me, I will never buy a Storck product...ever. Others might. If it were my company, I would have handled this situation very differently. To each his own though.


----------



## Anders (Jan 12, 2004)

Thanks for all the inputs, that is what the forum is about. I will keep you updated.


----------



## Anders (Jan 12, 2004)

Finally got some new Powerarms from Storck today. A little lighter than the old ones and still as beautiful as ever. I think I'm going to sell them and use my XTR's instead.


----------



## Anders (Jan 12, 2004)

Yes I did, no problems when they found out that the BB insert had gone loose.


----------



## Boj (Jan 13, 2004)

So did you get them as a free replacement?


----------



## Upandatem (Apr 11, 2004)

*I think...*

Carbon fiber cranksets + Mountain biking = Bad Idea


----------



## Terkel (Jul 17, 2005)

Upandatem said:


> Carbon fiber cranksets + Mountain biking = Bad Idea


  hmm there is a lot of pro MTB teams that don't agree with you 
FSA sponsered teams:

Bianchi-Argos (ITA) 
Full Dynamix (ITA)
Merida International (GER)
Siemens Mobile (GER)
Madcatz Ironhorse (USA) 
Devo Jr. Dev Team (USA)

I think most if not all of the XC sponsered teams are using the K-FORCE Megaexo crankset.


----------



## MaLoL1 (Jan 16, 2004)

if you are a pro and you break a fsa carbon crankset, do you think there is any problem there? do you think you´ll have to buy a new ones?

and that´s not considering fsa cranksets are really heavy...


----------



## Upandatem (Apr 11, 2004)

Wow I didn't know that so many teams were using carbon fiber cranksets, but then again I don't really care.


----------



## Ole (Feb 22, 2004)

Terkel said:


> hmm there is a lot of pro MTB teams that don't agree with you
> FSA sponsered teams:
> 
> Bianchi-Argos (ITA)
> ...


An aquaintance, who raced XC in the Olympics in '96, pulled the pedal eyelet out of his K-Force after only a few months of use. He wasn't impressed by the stiffness either, no stiffer than his Extralite E-Bones with a American Classic 150g BB. He said the interface between the axle and the arms was so thin that it flexed a lot there.

Ole.


----------



## GreekBiker (Sep 28, 2004)

*Pros get paid to use equipment...*

During the 2004 Athens Olympics my riding partner was a volunteer as a driver for a national team in which one of the top 3 female MTB riders was. She had a carbon crankset on her race bike and a Shimano XTR on her training bike. When asked why so, her answer was "because the company that makes the carbon crank is my sponsor".
Bottom line is : If somebody pays you to use something that you don't like so much, you will  use it (providing of course that it is not a complete piece of cr*p and would not ruin your winning chances).

P.S. Do you think it is a coincidence that most of the top road riders that used Campagnolo equipment in TDF did not use the carbon Record but the Alu one? Makes you wonder about the stiffness of carbon in that application also.


----------



## eurorider (Feb 15, 2004)

Terkel said:


> hmm there is a lot of pro MTB teams that don't agree with you
> FSA sponsered teams:
> 
> Bianchi-Argos (ITA)
> ...


There is nothing to worry about in terms of safety with the FSA "carbon" cranks because they are a heavy, conservative design that uses an aluminum skeleton within the carbon. It seems like a bunch of marketing to me.

Any rider from a pro team will not care if he/she bangs their FSA carbon crank arm off a rock and chips a piece of carbon off or puts a crack in it. They will likely carry on with their race and have a new one installed afterwards.

Storck Power Arms are full carbon and very lightweight ....but yes, not used by many pros.

IMO, XTR with some Boone rings would be pretty hard to beat for serious riders. The Extralite might be fine as well if you are looking for the weight savings edge.


----------



## carlos (Jan 12, 2004)

i prefer a "tried and tested" design, even if its a few grams heavier ( nobody will ever notice it) than a lighter and weaker design that doesnt work and is that expensive. but i will ride my xtr/bbm950 combo for still a looong time..


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Terkel said:


> hmm there is a lot of pro MTB teams that don't agree with you
> FSA sponsered teams:
> 
> Bianchi-Argos (ITA)
> ...


There's also a lot of pro MTB bikes that wouldn't stand up to a weekend of the kind of riding that some of us do.


----------



## tomacropod (Jul 23, 2004)

*to the kind of riders that some of us are

- Joel


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

Jayem said:


> There's also a lot of pro MTB bikes that wouldn't stand up to a weekend of the kind of riding that some of us do.


:thumbsup:


----------



## chrism (Jan 27, 2004)

Onie said:


> :thumbsup:


Is 20 months a record for necrophiliac posting?

For the record since you brought it up though, my FSA carbon pro ISIS cranks are still going strong after 4 years - looking a little scruffy, but still working fine with no structural damage. My FS bike which is probably lighter than what a lot of the pros ride (9.76kg when weighed yesterday) is also standing up perfectly well as my regular ride after 18 months of use in all conditions. Since the build is finally largely complete, pictures and description of a practical light bike to follow soon.


----------



## Onie (Sep 15, 2005)

hahah! Pardon me but I have a penchant for digging old but interesting threads... This time when I saw Jayem's post it made some sense & reminds me of people in my local forum... How about that! 

Mine's the Shimano's integrated...3 years still going, going...!


----------



## mikedesign (Jan 25, 2004)

Anders said:


> This is the first case they have seen, they told me so. They know about this thread, as I told them I would write it. I gave them the oppotunity to take care of this situation discrete, but they were not interested is that and have even accused me of blackmailing them. Go figure. Now I have asked them to repair the pedal insert and send me the cranks back. They are rideable, the question is just how long.
> I'm not investing more money in Storck. I think it is a great product that THM makes for Storck, but when Storck won't honor their warranty I have lost my respect. I hope THM will release a MTB version of the Clavicula, that I would buy.


stop whining then

anyone with a brain can see the chain was hitting the spider

the insert in the pedal is a warranty fair enough

your own stupid mistake regardless of wether its in the instructions or not is your mistake
maybe go on a mechanics course

the shoe would be on the other foot if you had been a bicycle mechanic for a shop and done this your shop would have been carrying the cost of your mistake

quit trying to pass the buck


----------



## mikedesign (Jan 25, 2004)

Instead they choose that by using a chainring size that they admit was not tested, this is a loophole in their warrenty.


no its a loophole in common scence


----------



## akazan (Jul 9, 2005)

Old topic will come back again and again...still have my Storck Powerarm and Boone chainrings in a box, and haven't put it yet together. I'm very afraid that it will not last
in our trails. It will desintegrate for sure in the rocky trails of El Paso, Texas. I'm thinking of getting Middleburn cranks (R8) for my Boone chainrings.


----------



## mikedesign (Jan 25, 2004)

Terkel said:


> hmm there is a lot of pro MTB teams that don't agree with you
> FSA sponsered teams:
> 
> Bianchi-Argos (ITA)
> ...


exactly

S P O N S O R ED

THEY DONT PAY TO USE ****


----------

