Cordura jacket and pants that leak!

[Quasievil]

That's all fine and dandy, but the CGA doesn't hold your view. I know which one I'd back on winning.

Err yes it does after 3-5 years you would get zero remedy on any item of clothing, wont matter if its a pair of levis or a motorcycle jacket., and if some weird stupid mediator did hold the supplier accountable after 3-5 years it would be a pro rata basis, meaning that three years of use was gained so only a partial remedy would be provided.

3-5 years is a reasonable period of time for an item of clothing.


However in the case of QUASiMOTO any issues we fix and fix instantly and dont find ourselves in a situation like this.

[Sparky Bills]

Have you washed the jacket at all??
SOmetimes after time the membrane pores can get blocked and stop working right.
There is a product called Sport Wash which is fantastic for this situation.
Give it a go. Whats the worst that will happen?
Any good bike shop will be able to get this product from Dold Industries in Hamilton. ( They are a wholesaler so wont sell to public)

Ive had my Alpinestars RK-5 Goretex jacket for a year and a half now and am yet to have ONE SINGLE DROP come through. I mean not a drop!
I have never been soooo impressed with a jacket before.
Food for thought either way.

[Max Preload]

I'd make the call that any referee at the Disputes Tribunal would agree with me that a reasonable period is 3-5 years

I would tell the tribunal to stick up there arse if they expected me to warranty an item after 3+ years.

But 3 years lol no way...

...after 3-5 years you would get zero remedy on any item of clothing, wont matter if its a pair of levis or a motorcycle jacket, and if some weird stupid mediator did hold the supplier accountable after 3-5 years it would be a pro rata basis, meaning that three years of use was gained so only a partial remedy would be provided.

3-5 years is a reasonable period of time for an item of clothing.

I wish you'd make up your mind. If you're going to try and argue you need to take a contrary view to the person with whom your are attempting to argue and stick with it.

[cs363]

If it's sold as (and stated on attached labels etc) as being 100% waterproof then it damn well should be, barring any mis-treatment by the owner that may compromise the waterproofing.
Sparky Bills is on the money with that Sport Wash product - it's the shiz for high tech garments. Also, spraying textile garments with a product like the Silicone spray from the same company (it's all from the folks who make Sno Seal) is actually recommended by most manufacturers as it helps repel water from the outer surface, making the membrane's job easier. As long as you use a product intended for this purpose it categorically will not harm the membrane.
What will harm it on the other hand is washing it in normal household laundry detergent (with the exception of Lux flakes as that is pure soap) as that will build up and block the pores in the membrane (just take a look at the crap that builds up in your washing machine for an idea on how that works..)
Also excessively dirty garments if left will eventually damage the membrane via abrasion.

If you buy cheap ass gear, then you get what you pay for and it's a hit or miss affair as to whether they will actually be waterproof. But if you buy good top end gear like Alpinestars/Dainese/BMW etc with genuine Gore-Tex membranes then they will keep you dry -period. Gore-tex is guaranteed by its maker for five years independent of the actual brand of the gear. These companies often offer their own brands of membrane gear which are usually very comparable to Gore-Tex (though nothing is quite as good as the original), for instance I have Alpinestars Dry Star gear and it's awesome, not a drop of water gets through.

On the CGA, the basis of that is that the gear should last and work as intended for a fair and reasonable period - that's where the small claims tribunal comes in as some folks have difficulty discerning what fair and reasonable actually is. For instance a motorcycle courier who uses his gear 5+ days a week in all weathers and perhaps doesn't keep it clean and maintained as above, might expect say, 2 years of continuous use as being fair and reasonable whereas an occasional weekend rider would easily double this time period especially if the gear was looked after correctly.

Don't quote me on these figures, they are representative only but should give you some idea.

[mv.senna]

Hi Grubber -
I totally sympathise with you....I lost count of how many times "dri-rider" or similar branded theoretically waterproof textile gear let me down over the years...in the rain, skating down the road head first, and they did nothin for my figure either

....Then, about 3 yrs ago I got a shift textile moto-r jacket, and it absolutely rocks - best armour, warm lining etc.. I've ridden in pissing rain the distance of tga to akl and only got slightly damp around the collar and cuffs...(of the jacket). I no longer bother with (textile) trousers, as I found that the bottom half of my leather 2pc (that wd be the pants) keep me drier than the fkn waterproof textile trousers ever did...apart from the occasions where i'm surrounded by hot guys on hot sprot bikes (mv's especially lol).

[Max Preload]

If it's sold as (and stated on attached labels etc) as being 100% waterproof then it damn well should be, barring any mis-treatment by the owner that may compromise the waterproofing.

Exactly. If the claims as to suitability for the stated purpose can't be met, that needs remedying.

On the CGA, the basis of that is that the gear should last and work as intended for a fair and reasonable period - that's where the small claims tribunal comes in as some folks have difficulty discerning what fair and reasonable actually is. For instance a motorcycle courier who uses his gear 5+ days a week in all weathers and perhaps doesn't keep it clean and maintained as above, might expect say, 2 years of continuous use as being fair and reasonable whereas an occasional weekend rider would easily double this time period especially if the gear was looked after correctly.

Don't quote me on these figures, they are representative only but should give you some idea.

In the couriers case he wouldn't actually be covered by the CGA anyhow as it's business use, which is specifically excluded from the CGA. At least it is if he is honest.

While I sympathise with the businesses in terms of the far reaching implications of the CGA (especially when they're buying from an importer/distributor who just wants to pedal what they can get hold of at maximum profit) I also have much sympathy for the end user too spending his hard earned cash purchasing motorcycle gear touted as 'waterproof' only to find it leaks 13 months down the track in the first downpour they've gone out in when the theoretical warranty has expired. There are many unscrupulous traders happy to say 'you're paying for backup and support' and then offer none when there's a problem that in reality is fair and reasonable for the consumer to assume they'll remedy. At the end of the day the consumer just wants the promises made to be honoured for a 'reasonable time'. There's a degree of good faith between retailers and consumers and the CGA only comes into force when that is broken.

[Quasievil]

I wish you'd make up your mind. If you're going to try and argue you need to take a contrary view to the person with whom your are attempting to argue and stick with it.

I think you know what I mean, a term of 3-5 years is a reasonable durability time frame for an item of clothing in that I doubt you would have a successful claim against the supplier of the article after such a term, in fact I know you wouldnt have a successful claim.

But congrats on your soap box moment, but you knew what I was trying to say.

[Quasievil]

his hard earned cash purchasing motorcycle gear touted as 'waterproof' only to find it leaks 13 months down the track

What happened to the 3-5 years.

[Max Preload]

What happened to the 3-5 years.

I thought you'd realise I was referring to your worthless position of 12 months warranty.

[Max Preload]

3-5 years is a reasonable period of time for an item of clothing.

I happen to at this moment be wearing a polar fleece that is 11 years old and it's worn a LOT - like almost every day in winter.

[Ragingrob]

I happen to at this moment be wearing a polar fleece that is 11 years old and it's worn a LOT - like almost every day in winter.

Um, well done?

My waterproof jacket has yet to let any rain in even though it was only 160 bucks. Heck, my quasimoto leather jacket only lets the slightest of water in on the rainiest of rides even though it's not supposedly 'waterproof'.

I agree that if I buy a product claiming something like 100% waterproof then it should be 100% waterproof and that's that. This is very different to expecting that same product to be still at it's potential 2 or 3 years down the track. Shit wears out. It'll wear out faster or slower depending on use and treatment.

Computers wear out within a few years, slow down etc etc, even though omg I'm only using it for what it's intended for, computing...stuff. Gosh if only I could go get a replacement computer every 3 years cause it's not doing what it did when I bought it.

You buy a bike that does 0-100 in 3 seconds flat (stated by manufacturer), in 5 years if it only does 0-100 in 3.5 seconds are you gonna take it back and complain?

[Sparky Bills]

I thought you'd realise I was referring to your worthless position of 12 months warranty.

Are you kidding me!?
How long should the warranty go for since you seem to know soooo much about it...
5-10 years??

[Max Preload]

Um, well done?

Perhaps well done the manufacturers for producing a garment that lived up to all the reasonable expectations of the consumer and much much more. That's clearly a rareity these days.

My waterproof jacket has yet to let any rain in even though it was only 160 bucks. Heck, my quasimoto leather jacket only lets the slightest of water in on the rainiest of rides even though it's not supposedly 'waterproof'.

You mean it's doing what it claimed to? Personally I don't give a shit if a waterproof jacket cost $160 or $500. If it was claimed to be waterproof then that's what it should be. Expectations for how long it should remain that way would certainly vary though. Maybe 3 years for the $160 one and 5 years for the $500 one.

I agree that if I buy a product claiming something like 100% waterproof then it should be 100% waterproof and that's that. This is very different to expecting that same product to be still at it's potential 2 or 3 years down the track. Shit wears out. It'll wear out faster or slower depending on use and treatment.

Wears out or simply falls to bits? And again that would depend on how much one paid for it...

Computers wear out within a few years, slow down etc etc, even though omg I'm only using it for what it's intended for, computing...stuff. Gosh if only I could go get a replacement computer every 3 years cause it's not doing what it did when I bought it.

I bet it still does everything it did when you bought it at the same speed if you return it to it's original configuration (software and hardware). Not many people modify clothing.

You buy a bike that does 0-100 in 3 seconds flat (stated by manufacturer), in 5 years if it only does 0-100 in 3.5 seconds are you gonna take it back and complain?

There are far more variables and unknowns in that particular scenario than come into play when waterproof clothing ceases to be waterproof.

[Ragingrob]

Perhaps well done the manufacturers for producing a garment that lived up to all the reasonable expectations of the consumer and much much more. That's clearly a rareity these days.

I'm pretty sure that making a polar fleece which will still be able to be worn in 11 years is slightly more simple than making a 100% waterproof jacket that will endure rain hail and sunshine at 100kph that will last the same amount of time.

But yes, we all know that quality isn't valued as much as in was back in the day.

I bet it still does everything it did when you bought it at the same speed if you return it to it's original configuration (software and hardware). Not many people modify clothing.

Well I bet if you return the waterproof jacket to it's original configuration (stitching, membrane, fabric, sealant) then it will do everything it did when you bought it.

There are far more variables and unknowns in that particular scenario than come into play when waterproof clothing ceases to be waterproof.

Really? I suppose there are a few. But hey, if a $500 jacket should be in perfect as new condition in 5 years, then surely a $20,000 bike should maintain it's top specs all by itself too.

[Quasievil]

I thought you'd realise I was referring to your worthless position of 12 months warranty.

Okay so when customers ask about the warranty I should say, I dont have one refer to the CGA lol yeah good one, you obviously have no clue. every customer requires a warranty position to be announced, its a warranty contract between the customer and the supplier, one which WILL offer that customer some remedy before needing to take it further if needed to at all, its part of the basis of the sale process.
examples
A/if you buy a item and the retailer says two weeks warranty only what does that tell you ??
B/ if you buy an item and the retailer says 12 month warranty, what does that tell you ??

the retailer is giving you a warranty based on his level of service and what you can expect from HIM if there is a problem.