KRAUSER TOP RACK and K5 Luggage issue

[snubnose]

Hi everyone, Having an issue with the krauser top case (k5) and top rack system. I purchased it from Riderhaus some 18 months ago, used it about half that, half of that without the top case on.

Well, I have problems, BIG Problems. I noticed the other day that the thing was wobbling and nowhere as secure as it once was. On further inspection, I noticed that there was a crack on my rear cowl top section where the rear grab rail is (the TC-rack).

On further inspection, and after taking my seat off, I noticed that the Metal brace (the TC-rack) that holds the screw casings that enable the rack to be secured to the bike, is cracked on one side and pulling off slowly from the frame at the back of the bike, hence the wobble. I have never had any more than 5-10 pounds of maximum weight in the K5 case itself, and mostly less than a couple of pounds in weight, So overloading the case and putting excess strain on the brace was never an issue. I dont know how this has happened, but I did notice last year that the k-wing rack would cause "creaking" in the surrounding parts of the bike when grasped on to at all.
I am going to have to take the rear cowling off and hopefully get the metal bracket, RE- welded to the frame and on the one side where it is actually cracked in two, welded together.
I can see no other reason for the damage other than the rack and top case not being able to be sufficiently supported by the bike frame,and fatiguing prematurely causing fracture.
In the event I am actually able to get the repair done, I am hesitant to put the k-wing and top rack/top case back in use, as I am concerned of the same thing happening again, knowing fully well that generally speaking, when welded again, the fix is generally stronger than before, even still, I hesitate to re-apply.

I sent this concern to twistedthrottle.com for consideration, as the "riderhaus" site I bought the equipment off no longer exists as a distributor/dealer, and all previous e-mail/links I had was automatically forwarded to them. They in-turn sent off my concerns and pics to krasuer in germany.

I got the following reponse from Krauser...

Hello,
the TC-rack of the Bandit 1200 from 2001 on isn´t very strong.
It can be loaded only with 5 kgs. / maximum speed 130 km/h.
If the driver loads too much and/or drives too fast, there is
the danger, that the rear frame will break.
On the mounting instruction, there is an indication to the
maximum load of 5 kgs.

Best regards
Rainer

I e-mailed Twisted throttle back with a second e-mail, and asked that it be forwarded to krauser, They have indicated that they will help as they are able. Erik at Twisted Throttle mentioned to me that "Twisted Throttle Ltd is only a dealer for Krauser; Riderhaus was a separate dealer for Krauser." and that " We will do our best to facilitate an information exchange between you and Krauser, but please understand that product technical performance is something we as a dealer do not have control over."

So, I e-mailed Krauser directly after a prompt reply from Eric at Twisted throttle with the necessary contact info.. with the following...

Dear sirs At Krauser.

Presumably, you have been aprised of my predicament via Twisted throttle Ltd out of the U.S.over the damage done to my motorcycle by your product which was purchased via Riderhaus approximately 20 months ago.
I would like for you to know that I too am also very aware of the load parameters and speed restriction with the unit. However, I have never had more than 10 pounds of weight at ANY one time ( 5 Kg equal to exactly 11.02300 lbs, and that very rarely. Also, I have never taken my motorcycle past 120 Kmh with the case on.
With these restrictions adhered to via personal responsibility to stick to the manufacturers guidelines and recomendations, I am perplexed that this would still happen. I also dont recall any fine print or other warning with regard to the TC-rack being weak anywhere displayed in your advertising, and definately not from the previous riderhaus website, or twisted throttle for that matter.
I certainly am not in the businesss of making an investment of over $500 CDN with the full knowledge that that investment will be made redundant and rather valueless within 2 years after the purchase and use of that product, As I am sure neither are you . ( Note: The motorcycle with the case attached has been used less than 6 months, and the rack without any case attached, less than 12 months as ther are 5-6 months of NON-RIDING weather here in Canada.)
I will ask you for a response "other than" information as to the weakness of the motorcycle manufacturers TC-rack. That and the assumption that the product was not used within manufacturers specs, as I have stated, which is not the case.
Damage has been done to my motorcycle via use of your product, Up until now, I have been a fan of your product and was planning on purchasing the side case units this year via your "twisted throttle" dealer in the U.S.
I need a more constructive response with regard to my concern other than the abrupt and presumptous implication that I havent used the product within the factory/manufacture tolerances, (the following examples would be better routes to take, i.e :"suggestions on how to avoid this from happening again, should I decide to take a chance and re-install you product after the damage is repaired" or/and "some sort of Compensatory gesture that will help with regard to the repair of the damage done to my motorcycle as a direct result of your product.)
I have held Krauser in fairly high regard and have reccommeded your product to fellow riders on several occasions during its time via showcase appeal on the back of my bike. I trust this free advertising is not in vain.

If a mutually satisfactory outcome is achieved for both of us, then this can and will be the end of my problem, However, If, Again, I appear to get the "brush off' from your organization, I will have no choice but to pursue further action. Not the least of which will be posting and documenting my entire experience with your product on the web and within private Motorcycle forums for the benefit of all potential consumers.

Im not sure how customer service works in europe, as it has been many years since I left there, however, Customer service and product support is paramount here in the west I can assure you, This Im sure can be vouched by your U.S distributor/dealer also.

I havent heard back any response yet, then again, I only recently sent the e-mail. So I'll keep this post.. POSTED? and update as things develop. please see below pics of the damage.






later
Snubnose

[snubnose]

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.

(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.”

Erik went on to note that, maybe Krauser could 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 rx 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.


So there you have it, I doubt I'll hear from Krauser again, unless its in a court of law, which will probably not happen, as 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, I'd be worried about a comparison like that.

Until next time.

[Gadjet]

I'm sorry to hear that you are having problems with your expensive luggage.

However, we appear to be reading different things in the correspondence that you have posted from Krauser.

You say they have a defective product that damaged your bike, when in reality it is the rear subframe of your particular bike that is too weak to support any kind of top case.

I suspect that if you had mounted a Give top case in the same way, it would have done the same damage.

The problem is not with the luggage - the problem is with the design of your bike.

From: Rainer Heidenreich [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 4:30 AM
To: Twisted Throttle Ltd
Subject: Re: k wing and krauser top case big problem...help?

Hello,
the TC-rack of the Bandit 1200 from 2001 on isn´t very strong.

Don't take this the wrong way, I sympathize with you, but I think you are going to be fighting a losing battle.

[keysman]

Sorry about the situation. I think maybe their comparison to Mercedes might be in line. Mercedes are not the most reliable cars on the road.

[snubnose]

I'm sorry to hear that you are having problems with your expensive luggage.

However, we appear to be reading different things in the correspondence that you have posted from Krauser.

I'll ask you to do one thing before you detemine where you think the problem lies.. Please do your own homework, just as Krauser should of done theirs before marketing a product that WILL cause the TC rack to fail.

Krauser
Givi

Have a look at the Givi system top rack.. then have a look at the Krauser system top rack. Pay particular attention to the particular mounting differences, and tell me theres no difference in the load distribution?.

Q: what do you think the added load would be when a passenger uses the "optional back rest" accessory that is also offered by Krauser for a mere $50 extra?.. 5?.. 10?? 15 lbs? maybe more?.. probably!. Yet nothing about these additional stressors or limits thereof is mentioned anywhere in the marketing/advertising or instructions about this additional factor to the already "liberal" load tolerances laid out by Krauser. ( I have never had more than a rainsuit and gloves in my case).

The 1st generation Bandit had no problems because the krauser system for it was designed to spread the load on both upper and lower mounts (lower mounts attach to the main frame of the bike). The second generation Bandit did not get the benefit of this design by the Krauser company, why?.. I dont know, I do know that the entire system was supported by the mere sheet metal of the subframe, (something that could of been solved by including a bracket to extend to the lower mounting point quite easily).

If a Roof rack company manufactured a roof rack for your Ford and you adhered by all specs of the roof rack manufacturer, including weight limitations, and the roof collapsed, who would you deem responsible?...Exactly!

[Gadjet]

You're right.

The Krauser rack put undue stress on a non load-bearing part of your bike, causing it to break.

You're right.

The Givi rack wouldn't have caused the same damage to your bike.

The Givi top box also has a completely different mounting setup.

As I stated in my earlier post:

if you had mounted a Givi top case in the same way, it would have done the same damage.

I stand by this statement.

Any top box mounted to your bike in the exact same way as the Krauser setup would put stress on a part of the bike that was never intended to take any kind of load. That structural member was manufactured by Suzuki, not Krauser.

The load limits that manufacturers put on their luggage is to safeguard against any damage to the luggage itself from overloading, not what the luggage is mounted to. It is still the owner's responsibility to ensure that what they are mounting the luggage to can handle that load.

If the bike manufacturer says not to exeed 2.5kg of load on that frame member, then that is what the limit is, regardless of what the luggage manufacturer states in their documentation.

Perhaps, before purchasing that particular rack, you should have done your homework and checked with the bike manufacturer to ensure that the mounting point was strong enough to handle the load.

[snubnose]

You're right.

Hmmm, I wonder why Krauser woud choose to design a rack system that "puts undue stress on a non load-bearing part of my bike", I know, its a conspiracy!.. yeah.. thats it!.. targeted toward me personally! LOL !

I'm not sure why you (WhyteGryphon) chose this forum to express your particular chip, however, everyone, including sometimes those who like to be argumentative, are entitled to their opinion.

Your comment

"if you had mounted a Givi top case in the same way, it would have done the same damage."

statement... Q: why would I mount any other case the same way?.. The fact is Givi's design IS different, THATS why I said it would be a better system!...

no matter, its not worth the hassle or getting into a p**s**ng match with you over a difference of opinion. We'll let your average everyday potential consumer, decide for him/herself which luggage to choose,if in fact that peson is in the market for such, and lets not forget the purpose of this post shall we?.. it is for all those unaware individuals who can now perhaps make a better informed decision on their purchases.

In Hindsight, sure this situation probably could of been avoided had I "done my homework", but if we all did our homework, we wouldnt need forums like this to help each other out would we, ... besides, by your own admittance, if EVERYONE did their homework, (this includes Krauser), common sense says that they SHOULDN"T of designed their system the way they did, unless of course, they were a non-reputable company...Hmmmmm?

Good luck with that!

[Gadjet]

You're right.

Hmmm, I wonder why Krauser woud choose to design a rack system that "puts undue stress on a non load-bearing part of my bike

if EVERYONE did their homework, (this includes Krauser), common sense says that they SHOULDN"T of designed their system the way they did, unless of course, they were a non-reputable company.

Looking at the specs for the K5 top box and rack, that particular rack was designed to fit a "wide variety of bikes"

A modular carrier system, which is designed and manufactured particularly for the most different motorcycle types

this is a google translation of the text on the official Krauser site regarding the K5 rack setup

It just happens that that particular mounting setup isn't right for your bike due to the lower strength of the mounting point, but it works just fine on lots of other bikes.

I have nothing against you, and I don't mean to be argumentative. Krauser did not intentionally make a defective product for your bike. They made a universal system to fit a lot of bikes, and unfortunately like any universal system, they don't always work out the same for everyone.

I sincerely hope that you can get this situation resolved to your satisfaction.

[snubnose]

You're right. It just happens that that particular mounting setup isn't right for your bike due to the lower strength of the mounting point, but it works just fine on lots of other bikes.

Yes you are right, It isnt suitable(or designed well) for the 2nd Generation Bandit, however, it is marketed as such, with a specific model number for the 2001+Bandit.
Yes I know that Krauser did not intentionally make a defective product for my bike, i was joking, hence the LOL?.
Rainer from Krauser did say that others who have my bike experienced the exact same failure, I bet those other individuals also opted to purchase the advertised, co-ordinated back rest to go with the unit. Its very existence dictates... back..rest.. as in ..rest...back!.. which equals pressure that the brace cannot stand up to.

Maybe we'll see a revision to the design to include extended braces that attach to the lower mounts in the near future, that would be good indeed. doesn't help me any, but good nonetheless.

As far as getting this resolved to my satisfaction?.. I doubt it, you know how big companies are. However, It merely is my obligation as a member of the bike riding fellowship to let others know my findings, in the hopes that something good comes fom it all.

enough said.

[High_Side]

One look at the mechaninal advantage that the mounting points put on the grabrail mounting stubs, and it's easy to see the problem. The rear sub-frame of the Bandit would likely never fail hauling a 200lb rider, but when you leverage a large load off of a "stem" engineered to handle the force of a grabrail, it is just a poor design. When I installed my hardbags, I went overboard and cut the rear cowl to get a good mounting point (I have a spare cowl, so it's all good). I then ran all-thread rod right through the motorcycle sub-frame, made my own brackets out of aluminum stock and mounted up to the exaust and foot-peg mounts as well. I can't bring myself to trust one-size-fits-all manufacturing to save my life.....
I'm sorry to see what happened to you, and yes, I believe the saddlebag manufacturer is at fault. Suzuki could not have had any idea that someone would have leveraged that kind of weight off a grabrail mount when they were designing it. Hope you get some retribution.
High_Side