Use as intended depending on the design? I don’t think it’s a vague definition. This is why warranties typically contain clauses about this sort of thing. If you huck a 5-foot drop on your Tarmac, that isn’t normal use.
I’m not a materials engineer but there’s some fairly simple physics involved here. It’s extremely unlikely that a rider will subject a well-built steel or Ti frame to its fatigue limit if it’s ridden under its intended use.
Sure, it’s a baseline to reference and of course a bike will not have uniform construction. Though ideally a good frame design will minimize local stresses within conservative margins to avoid aberrations. Doesn’t matter the strength of the material if there’s a failure to account for stresses at welds and such. This would be a reason for a warranty claim.
Lifetime guarantees are one of those ‘everyone knows better’ marketing lies that only has teeth when it suits the manufacturer, and we basically have to accept that it’s an acceptable lie.
depends entirely on how turdly you want to make the buttways. A 7/4/7 wigglebiek frame most definitely has an expiration date on it. A surly with a light rider, maybe not.
Every time I ride my Kogswell, I’m all, “is this the ride where the frame crumples under me?”
That thing is the wiggliest of wigglers and it feel so goooood
oh no it’s only their choice to set up shop someplace with a “low cost of living” where there aren’t competitive wages, which then Lynskey tripled down on