I recieved an e-mail from Erik from twisted Throttle stating that "the newer Bandit has a notoriously weaker subframe than the original model." Here’s a quote from Rainers E-mail in Germany (krauser-manufacturer) to Erik Stephens of Twisted Throttle [/color]“
(The following Quote is from "Rainer"@ Krauser, NOT Twisted throttle)
In Germany, we had 2 or 3 broken rear frames on Bandits (model after 2001) at more than 1000 sold rear racks.
And the drivers admitted, that they had overloaded the rack. It is 100 % a problem of Suzuki (because the rear frame is too weak for a Touring bike). The "old" Bandit has a very stronger rear frame and there hadn’t been any problems.” [/b]
Erik went on to note that, maybe Krauser can be asked for replacement parts for any Krauser parts that are damaged, but that I may want to "avoid putting much weight in the new bandit rack or tailsection, given the lower strength of this Bandit as compared to the older model."
Erik suggested that this particular bike may be ill-equipped to handle a lot of tail weight.
I responded with the following, and to ask that my e-mail be forwarded to Krauser...
Erik,
The actual Krauser items were not damaged, just my bike, both the rear plastic (when the metal underneath finally gave way) and the "tc rack" or "subframe" rack itself.
Q: Does the Manufacturer of this product not do product development and research on the application they are selling and advertising as a "great" product for the Bandit, before they market it?.. or is this all done by hindsight?.. as in .. after the fact.. and after there are "casualties". If other industry like, say, the medical or pharmaceutical industry took that approach to their products, we would be looking at very, very big problems.
This Product "They" promote, even with adherence to the "manufacturers" tolerances and guidelines still failed to perform even adequately close to what they claim, especially when you consider the misleading information of 5 kgms of weight maximum, when if any passenger on my bike uses the case as a safety/security rest for their back via the optional back rest, then that would n't that equal more than 5 kgms of weight?. So why does the case have a back rest option pad on it?... isn't this a bit misleading????? In retrospect, For sure the pressure of any passenger on my bike when I accelerate is what probably contributed to the fracture in the brace...They have completely mis-marketed the product if it is not meant to be used by passengers, there shouldn't be a back rest option at all.
If you look at the photographs you will see slight corrosion in the cracks and that the other side was starting to give way also, this indicates gradual failure until one last bit of pressure, "broke its back" so to speak.
So Krauser takes no responsibility for the design of their system, or for marketing it as an accessory that is to be used with their own specs/tolerances, even if adhered to?. Again, the implication in that last body of text you sent from krasuer is that, "Others" admitted to overloading their case, what does this mean, That "I must of done the same?", This is insulting.
Lets not forget about the back rest option here either? Does Krasuer not expect any contributing factors here either?.. there is absolutely no mention of the forces exerted by a passenger on the backrest and its tolerances or maximum loads??? Or is the passenger only supposed to be a 6 year old?. Again, misleading advertising and providing a product and optional accessories for a product that cant possibly perform as per its marketed claim!.
Suzuki certainly wont take responsibility for the weakness of the tc rack, no difference to adding a aftermarket roof rack to a car and IT causing damage to the car!. Ford, Volvo or Nissan, cannot accept responsibility for the damaged roof due to aftermarket product? can it? realistically?. No. the fault would be with the manufacturer of the roof rack for creating a product that both fails to live up to its claim of maximum weight and for marketing an accessory that contributed to the failure of the "roof" that eventually collapsed?
Why is it so hard to get companies to stand behind their product, and further more take responsibility for its failure?.. both in Design standards and promoted claims?.. I guess the rear back rest/pad option is only to "look" functional?, just like a bad fitted set of false teeth!.
This concern will grow in momentum, of this you can assure Krauser, I havent decided yet wether to take further Legal action against the company, as the costs of doing so might outweight the cost of the product and the repair to boot, not to mention the "international" obstacles to get over. Maybe others in Europe, put up with erroneous claims and misleading advertising more than us in the west, could be, I know my grandparents in europe did just that.
The Forum posting will stay, because others need to know about the inferiority of the product that Krauser produces. I know Givi wouldnt make a product that can damage the Motorcycle its designed for, Too much to loose.
Sincerely,and Gravely dissapointed
Simon Jones
So there you have it, I doubt I'll hear from Krauser again, unless its in a court of law, which I am considering, even though it is an expensive process.
As for their claim..."Krauser luggage racks represent the very best of German engineering and design -- quite simply, these are the Mercedes of the synthetic motorcycle hard luggage market."
If I were Mercedes, quite frankly, Id be worried about a comparison like that.
Until next time.
Topic: KRAUSER TOP RACK and K5 Luggage issue (Read 8937 times)