Corrosion

[edmac]

This is true, but we see the other side on here regularly enough, where someone mentions mild corrosion and are told pretty forcefully that they should not be complaining.

I just don't know of any other marque where owners are willing to keep blaming each other for problems with the bikes. As I've said before, I have a strong suspicion that the bulletproof reliability that BMW are reputed to have is more down to the refusal of owners to ever own up to a real problem than to any actual high build quality.

This one if fairly simple in my opinion, the bike is less than 2 years old still in warranty, its pitched as a premium product (and the price reflects this) capable of world wide adventure travel. Its not a disprin and shouldn't dissolve like this

 

[NorthernBoy]

This one if fairly simple in my opinion, the bike is less than 2 years old still in warranty, its pitched as a premium product (and the price reflects this) capable of world wide adventure travel. Its not a disprin and shouldn't dissolve like this

Absolutely. Frankly, if it is corroding, you are better waiting to as close to the ed of your warranty period as possible, as that means that you are getting new parts at the two year point. Replace it earlier (or are they suggesting that you should accept a spot of paint when it is not so bad?) and you may already have corrosion when the warranty goes, but not bad enough that they will replace it a second time.

I know that some people think that we should jump through the hoops that they set, but, fortunately, we do not have to. The law is on your side, BMW know that this is not acceptable, and hopefully they'll back down soon enough.

 

[Dainese Brave]

I know that some people think that we should jump through the hoops that they set, but, fortunately, we do not have to. The law is on your side, BMW know that this is not acceptable, and hopefully they'll back down soon enough.

I think it's easy to jump on the 'fit for purpose' bandwagon, and not take any responsibility for things these days, and to make unreasonable demands....

...but if things like this keep happening, then it shouldn't be accepted

....and the only way BMW will stop producing sub-grade products, is when it makes better financial sense to make better products, rather than spend a fortune in warranty replacements, cos people are demanding it!

I think if you neglect your bike, then you must take some responsibility...but not accept a bad product if you take as much care as most of us do.

 

[Wapping]

any thoughts?

Did you not notice it happening during your 18 months of scrupulous cleaning, or did it appear all of a sudden?

PS You neglected to remove the tar spots off the swing arm

 

[Wapping]

you will have to seek legal advice with regard to the bike in question not being fit for purpose

Fit for what purpose?

Riding around the world - the oft quoted 'purpose', though few of course ever do it - perhaps? Well, the bike would still go around the world no doubt, with or without its paint.

It's done 30km, so not far short of one circumnavigation, if proof were needed.

Case dismissed.

 

[Aggy]

Fit for what purpose?

Riding around the world - the oft quoted 'purpose', though few of course ever do it - perhaps? Well, the bike would still go around the world no doubt, with or without its paint.

It's done 30km, so not far short of one circumnavigation, if proof were needed.

Case dismissed.

Well the bike may have done 30k but it is not the bike as a whole in question here it is the paint and anti corrosion protection. Which needs to be appropriate, and of a necessary standard, for its intended use.

Using an analogy if you bought a brand new car and drive 30k in 18 months and the wing started to bubble up with rust would you complain? Or would you just say 'ah well the car still runs'.

 

[Wapping]

Well the bike may have done 30k but it is not the bike as a whole in question here it is the paint and anti corrosion protection. Which needs to be appropriate, and of a necessary standard, for its intended use.

Using an analogy if you bought a brand new car and drive 30k in 18 months and the wing started to bubble up with rust would you complain? Or would you just say 'ah well the car still runs'.

You seem to misunderstand 'Fit for purpose'.

Providing you explain to the vendor (most often a shop) for what purpose you intend to use whatever it is you are buying.... and seek confirmation from the vendor that the purchase will meet that requirement.... a contract is formed.

For instance, you could walk into a BuMW dealer and say that you intend to buy a 1200 GS for the purpose of pulling a plough. If the vendor agrees that the bike will be suitable - but it subsequently fails to perform the function reliably - then you will have the right to have your loss (you can't plough) remedied, as 'Not fit for purpose'.

So, as you can see, it is a phrase that is banded about with no clear understanding. As I said, lots of people link the perception of a motorbike being capable of going around the world (lots of motorcycles and other vehicles are. of course, so it is not a quality unique to BuMW) with one that should develop no faults. If the measure of going around the world is to be applied, then the rusty bike in question has clearly all but managed it, having clocked up 30,000 km.

Drawing a comparison with a motorcar's wing is not relevant. The vehicle in question is not a motorcar, nor does it have a wing that is peeling and bubbling.You may as well compare it with a washing machine.

You and I might suggest many others, have no idea how the owner looked after his motorbike, or quite why the paintwork and metals have deteriorated to such an extent. The OP has not answered why, during the regular cleaning it allegedly enjoyed, signs of such manifest rot had not been noticed, the evidence being nothing more than photographs. Would your opinion change if, for instance, you found out that matey drove through a tidal salt water slip road each day, or that he did indeed use it for ploughing - not that he does, or did.... or maybe he does....who knows?

 

[Dainese Brave]

Well the bike may have done 30k but it is not the bike as a whole in question here it is the paint and anti corrosion protection. Which needs to be appropriate, and of a necessary standard, for its intended use.

Using an analogy if you bought a brand new car and drive 30k in 18 months and the wing started to bubble up with rust would you complain? Or would you just say 'ah well the car still runs'.

Exactly!

I can see Wapping's point....but this is a build quality issue here..not 'fit for purpose'.

Even with neglect, a better build quality would have prevented, or minimised, this corrosion.

 

[Dainese Brave]

Drawing a comparison with a motorcar's wing is not relevant. The vehicle in question is not a motorcar, nor does it have a wing that is peeling and bubbling.You may as well compare it with a washing machine.

I think this is very relevant.....it's a build quality issue!

If you never washed a car for 18 months, and then washed it, and took it to the dealer, they would replace the defective parts.....because they are built to sustain the enviroment for a given period of time. This wouldn't be 18 months!!

As, if a washing machine leaked after 11 months, and was still under warranty, you wouldn't cry 'fit for purpose!'...you would merely make a warranty claim and replace the parts.

Build quality is a question of how long the manufacturer builds something to last, in a given enviroment.....fit for purpose is a manufacturer making something that doesn't work in the enviroment it has been sold in good faith in being able to do.

This in my opinion is a build quality issue....and if it was one my bike after 18 months, no matter how hard a winter it had seen, I'd be banging on that BMW dealership's door too!

 

[NorthernBoy]

This in my opinion is a build quality issue....and if it was one my bike after 18 months, no matter how hard a winter it had seen, I'd be banging on that BMW dealership's door too!

This is the point I made with respect to the two different models of the 1200 that I have had.

Even had my first one not had a string of annoying faults, I would still have been very disappointed with the build quality. It had a feeling of being made with cheap componentry, poor finishes, and inappropriate alloys. The new one feels so very much better in this regard, and so I think that BMW themselves know that they erred on the wrong side of caution when choosing what to put on the first model.

To me, it felt as though they'd pared back on what they could on the first of the 1200s, and just went a bit too far in some areas. If you look at just one particular change, the bolts on my brake discs on the first bike turned brwn within a week of buying it, despite the fact that the roads had not been gritted at that point. The ones on the new bike still look like new after a winter's riding, so they saw that there was an issue, and corrected it.

It all sort of points to the sensible piece of advice that it may be worth avoiding the first model of a new bike or car of you can, while the manufacturer works out the niggles through customer feedback. I'd say that from what I can see, this is definitely the case on the 1200GS, and I am very, very much happier with my new one than I ever was with the first one.

 

[Wapping]

I think this is very relevant.....it's a build quality issue!

This in my opinion is a build quality issue....and if it was one my bike after 18 months, no matter how hard a winter it had seen, I'd be banging on that BMW dealership's door too!

There is nothing that I have written to suggest that you (or I for that matter) would not do excatly that.... if it had been our motorbike....

But, that being said, you and I would know exactly what had happened to the bike whilst it was in our care. A luxury that is missing throughout this entire thread, other than the news that somehow or other - despite regular cleaning over 18 months - it came to resemble a pile of seriously corroded junk, as if by magic.

 

[MattW]

Off topic, but as someone mentioned an 11 month old washing machine, we as consumers should be aware that EU law affords us a minimum 2 year warranty on products sold within the union. In England and Wales, the sale of goods act affords us 6 years protection (although it's harder to enforce this and you'd probably have to go to small claims). These are (some of) the 'statutory rights' which your manufacturers warranty is in addition to.

I had an issue with an 18 month old mobile phone which died - phoned O2 who said "sorry its out of warranty" - I asked to speak to a supervisor and asked if she was aware that EU law required them to fix or replace within a 24 month period? New mobile 3 days later.

More here:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ar-guarantee-goods-kept-secret-retailers.html (I know its the Daily Mail, but it is true )

 

[Fanum]

I couldn't see the rust underneath the 18 months of crud, that was a joke I figured i would just leave it go until nearing the end of the warranty.

Did you not notice it happening during your 18 months of scrupulous cleaning, or did it appear all of a sudden?

Edmac does appear to be saying that he had noticed the corrosion, yet had chosen to wait until near the end of the warranty to report it

 

[Dainese Brave]

Wapping I'm not denying that the bike might have been neglected to get in this state.

But in all honesty...if I bought a brand new GS/GSA, then parked it on the drive for a year, never washed it, gave it no TLC at all.....if I came back in 12 months and it looked like this I'd be annoyed.....not suprised!..but annoyed.

After all...my car stays out there all year, and I don't expect that to be rotten when I need it!

Or are we, when buying any bike, entering into a contract agreement to keep them in garages, wash them every weekend, and never ever take them on the road through a winter??

I think the OP probably realises he prehaps should have taken a little more care with the up-keep of the bike.....but still wouldn't expect it too be this bad?....I know I wouldn't!

To say that it's ok cos it still runs, and can still be used for purpose, is a bit silly to be honest.

I stand by what I've said, it's a build quality issue, and this is unreasonable corrosion on an 18 month old bike...regardless!

 

[basilbrush]

Those of you who suggest there is a legal remedy for this problem have overlooked the fact the chap lives in Ireland where the consumer laws may be different.

In this country the relevant legislation which governs the supply of products in these circumstances is the Sale of Goods Act which, amongst other things, specifies that goods should be "....of merchantable quality and fit for their purpose...." It is inconceivable that the said motorcycle is not fit for its purpose - the issue here is whether, at the time of sale, it was of merchantable quality. If it was not of merchantable quality the remedy lies with the retailer and not the manufacturer.

The Sale of Goods Act protection is not an enduring guarantee and for its provisions to be effective the merchantable quality must be determined soon after sale and if unsatisfactory the goods rejected.

If purchase goods are defective the buyer is entitled to return the product for a full refund but most people do not do that but instead allow the retailer the opportunity to repair the defect and by doing so the buyer forfeits the right to return the goods for a refund unless they first specify their rejection and make the repair conditional.

In the circumstances described in this case, if it occurred in England or Wales, after the length of time which has elapsed since purchase there is undoubtedly no remedy under the Sale of Goods Act so the buyer is left with the manufacturer's warranty.

In considering the warranty it is important to know just what the manufacturer is actually warranting. There will be terms & conditions and these must be taken into account for there must surely be some defects or wear excluded. BMW do seem to have a reasonable reputation for making goodwill gestures particularly if approached by a franchised dealer and this is obviously the way to go in cases of this type. The prospect of a successful legal claim in circumstances as described must be slim.

The best practical advice to this chap might be to buy a tin of paint!

 

[Dainese Brave]

Edmac does appear to be saying that he had noticed the corrosion, yet had chosen to wait until near the end of the warranty to report it

In all fairness to the OP, there are many replies on this site that I have seen suggesting that anyone experiencing any corrosion do exactly that.

I.e.....rather than get parts replaced when they first corrode, wait until the warranty is nearly expired, thus prolonging the life of the new parts.

A risky gamble I'd say, but I can see the logic.

It would seem from Northern Boy's experience that the parts are being made to newer standards...and if they are, I'd just get them replaced when the problem arose, and then keep them maintained....but that's just me.

 

[Fanum]

In all fairness to the OP, there are many replies on this site that I have seen suggesting that anyone experiencing any corrosion do exactly that.

I.e.....rather than get parts replaced when they first corrode, wait until the warranty is nearly expired, thus prolonging the life of the new parts.

A risky gamble I'd say, but I can see the logic.

It would seem from Northern Boy's experience that the parts are being made to newer standards...and if they are, I'd just get them replaced when the problem arose.

Understandable logic, but as I understand it, new parts come with their own warranty period from when fitted

 

[Dainese Brave]

Understandable logic, but as I understand it, new parts come with their own warranty period from when fitted

But that would still extend the time scale of the warranty...if you left it later to have them fitted.

 

[cookie]

Understandable logic, but as I understand it, new parts come with their own warranty period from when fitted

2 years, but only if you pay for them. with warranty replacements it's to the end of existing warranty.

 

[Wapping]

Wapping I'm not denying that the bike might have been neglected to get in this state.

But in all honesty...if I bought a brand new GS/GSA, then parked it on the drive for a year, never washed it, gave it no TLC at all.....if I came back in 12 months and it looked like this I'd be annoyed.....not suprised!..but annoyed.

After all...my car stays out there all year, and I don't expect that to be rotten when I need it!

Or are we, when buying any bike, entering into a contract agreement to keep them in garages, wash them every weekend, and never ever take them on the road through a winter??

I think the OP probably realises he prehaps should have taken a little more care with the up-keep of the bike.....but still wouldn't expect it too be this bad?....I know I wouldn't!

To say that it's ok cos it still runs, and can still be used for purpose, is a bit silly to be honest.

I stand by what I've said, it's a build quality issue, and this is unreasonable corrosion on an 18 month old bike...regardless!

There are a lot of if's in that little lot.

If it were your bike.

If it were a car.

If it sat on the drive.

If it rusted to such a state.

All of which are perfectly valid, if they were / are all true. But, as they are not, other than the rust, which is obvious. Rust which you have no idea how it occured or why. Simply repeating that it is - or has to be - a production failing does not get you very far.

How many other bikes of a similar age and mileage have you seen in such a state and why? One, ten, fifty, a hundred or more? Is it a one off, caused by one load of badly applied paint? Is it caused by matey simply not cleaning it quite as regularly as he might have done, having noticed corrosion then simply letting it run on so that he could get it all done just as the warranty expired? Who knows?