본 게시글은 특정 기업을 비방하거나 명예를 훼손할 목적이 전혀 없으며,
유사한 사례에 대한 정보 공유를 목적으로 작성되었음을 미리 밝힙니다.
안녕하세요. 트렉 마돈 드롭아웃 부위의 크랙 의심 증상으로 워런티를 진행 하였습니다.
그 경과 진행 사항을 알려드리려고 합니다.
6월29일 도싸 질문게시판에 작성한 내용(관련 사진)
■ 사건 요약
- 기종: 트렉 마돈 (1차 구매자, 누적 마일리지 약 8,900km 스트라바 기록)
- 증상: 우측(드라이브 사이드) 뒷드레일러 행어 고정 볼트 주변 원형의 도장 손상 및 실금 발생
- 트렉 코리아 1차 판정(사진 판정): 우측 드라이브 사이드 사진만으로 "고정형 트레이너(로라) 등에 강하게 물린 명확한 외력의
흔적"이라며 워런티 불가 통보
- 트렉 코리아 2차 판정(실물 검사): 위 내용과 동일한 내용에 실물 검사를 통해 "페인트 증과 표면 카본 일부가 손상된 상태"로
워런티 불가 통보
■ 진행 상태
1. 2026년 06월 24일 (수):
- 자전거 체인 교체 중 드롭아웃 부위 실금 및 원형 도장 손상 최초 발견
2. 2026년 06월 25일 (목):
- 구입 대리점을 통해 트렉코리아에 워런티 접수
3. 2026년 06월 26일 (금):
- 트렉코리아는 대리점을 통해 1차 결과(특정 브랜드 로라 거치 시 발생하는 파손 형태) 통보했습니다.
- 고객지원팀으로부터 '로라를 포함해 무언가에 강하게 고정하여 발생한 외력의 흔적'이라며 워런티 불가 최종 답변
통보를 받았습니다.
- 저는 사진 판독 결과에 납득하기 어려워 실물 정밀 검사 요청하였습니다.
- 대리점 & 고객지원팀에서 실물 발송 결정
(이 과정에서 대리점을 통해, 크랙 의심 시 비파괴 검사는 소비자가 직접 알아봐야 한다는 안내를 받았습니다.)
4. 2026년 06월 27일 (토):
- 저는 추가 사진 및 본인의 소명 자료를 정리하여 고객지원팀에 이메일 발송하였습니다.
5. 2026년 06월 29일 (월):
- 저는 고객지원팀에 유선 소통을 수차례 시도하였으나, 회의 등의 사유로 통화가 연결되지 않음
6. 2026년 06월 30일 (화):
- 고객지원팀에서 도장 까짐 및 카본 일부가 손상된 상태이지만, 안전에는 문제가 없으니, 안심하고 타셔도 된다.
(같은 말을 구입 대리점을 통해서도 들음)
- 저는 트렉코리아에 같은 원형 도장 손상에 대한 유사 사례 및 근거 자료를 요청 하였고, 트렉코리아는 해당 자료도
Said they would deliver it together. (Secured related call records)
- If there is no safety issue, I asked to write the relevant text and include it in the warranty notice, and the customer support team said they would add the safety text to the warranty notice.
(Secured related call records)
- I requested an inspection using equipment, but the customer support team said that the equipment is not available in Korea. They informed me that this was decided after reviewing it together with the relevant personnel.
7. July 2, 2026 (Thursday):
- Received bicycle and warranty notice
- The warranty notice is missing the safety-related content from the call.
- Sent an email to the customer support team asking to clarify the facts
8. July 3, 2026 (Friday):
- I spoke with the customer support team, and they said the warranty notice is their final position.
- I received a final response email from Trek Korea regarding the email I sent yesterday.
■ First Determination Explanation Material Submission
1. No history of attachment to stationary rollers and integrity of opposite side (non-drive side)
I have never attached this bike to a stationary roller even once.
Currently, the 11-speed trainer is permanently mounted on a smart roller, and all virtual riding according to Strava logs was conducted with the trainer.
This can be verified. (Strava account forwarded to Trek Korea)
If it were strongly clamped to a stationary roller as Trek Korea claims, there should naturally be traces of lateral pressure on the opposite side as well.
However, the opposite side (non-drive side) of my bike is clean without a single scratch.
`[Photos of undamaged opposite non-drive side and stationary roller mounting attached]`
2. No evidence of right-side drop or impact
If the dropout had received an impact severe enough to break it from something bouncing off externally, a drop, or a crash,
I believe the derailleur or hanger that protrudes furthest outward could not possibly remain intact.
As you can see in the photos, the Ultegra derailleur surface, the bottom of the pulley, and the hanger all show no traces of external impact.
(Daily use scratches do exist.)
`[Detailed photos of derailleur and hanger attached]`
3. Storage and transport environment without frame compression
Indoors, only an L-shaped stand (resting style) and a post-type hanger that hooks onto the top tube are used.
When transporting by SUV, the rear seats are folded flat and the bike is laid down safely without using a carrier that applies pressure to the frame.
This has been the consistent practice.
Even when checking the inside of the dropout (caliper mount side), there are absolutely no marks indicating that paint was pushed aside by something gripping it.
`[Photos of indoor storage environment and inner mount attached]`
■ Inquiry regarding Trek Korea's 1st official document (email sent with questions only about the circular stamp marks after inspection by photos only)
1. What is the specific path of external force as determined by Trek? (What exactly is "something"?)
- Is it the clamping pressure of the thru-axle? Contact with the hub end cap? A lateral impact on the derailleur side? Pressure from a storage stand or hanger?
2. Based on which part and what kind of marks in the photos was the determination of external force damage made?
3. Which contact point — the trainer adapter, axle, hub end cap, or storage stand — do you believe the marks correspond to?
4. What is the basis for concluding drive-side external pressure damage even when there are no clear damage marks around the derailleur and hanger?
5. How was it taken into account that this bicycle was not actually used on an indoor trainer, and that the trainer had an 11-speed bicycle mounted on it?
6. How were the possibilities of manufacturing layup defects, bonding issues, or internal delamination ruled out?
>>>>> No response was received from Trek Korea
■ Inquiry regarding Trek Korea's 2nd official document (email sent with questions about partial physical damage to the surface carbon after in-person visual inspection)
1. Difference in position regarding carbon damage
Official document: Officially acknowledges physical damage to the carbon layer by stating "the paint layer and part of the surface carbon are in a damaged condition."
Phone call: The customer support representative strongly denied the carbon damage itself, saying "There is no crack or damage to the carbon itself."
2. Difference in assessment of the extent of damage
Official document: States that the extent of the damage goes beyond the paint layer and reaches "part of the surface carbon."
Call content: The manager said "We are currently only assessing it as having some pressing or scratches on the paint itself," and the damage
is being downplayed and explained only as a simple paint issue.
Additional call content: The manager also said that if there were cracks, "the inside of the inner V would have to be completely broken," but
since there are "no traces of any cracks inside," the manager insists there is no problem.
3. Differences in driving safety (operational) guarantees
Official document: Only states that the damage is physical damage caused by external factors and is not covered by warranty, without any confirmation or guarantee
regarding driving safety or any warranty coverage.
Call content: The manager reassures by saying "There shouldn't be any problems with your current use," and repeatedly
emphasizes that there are no problems and verbally guarantees safety in use. The manager stated they would add safety language to the official document.
■ Trek Korea's final email response to the second email
(Screenshot)
■ Comparative analysis of differences between call recording transcript and Trek Korea's final email response
(Screenshot)
- The phone consultation was about completing a visual inspection and informing the customer about the warranty status.
■ My questions
There is no external impact (derailleur is intact) and no crushing (opposite side is intact, mounting environment is confirmed), yet damage only appeared around specific bolts in a pinpoint manner.
(My claim, photos, and Strava records)
1. In the opinion of experienced seniors and mechanics, does the circular mark really appear to be
'consumer error caused by being squeezed hard from the outside,' as Trek Korea claims?
2. I'm curious if you have experienced similar cases of cracks or paint chipping around the dropout on Madone or other carbon frames.
3. Shouldn't this be inspected using equipment such as X-ray or non-destructive testing?
4. The document states 'partial surface carbon damage,' and I was told over the phone that it means 'damage is not at the level of cracks.'
I'm curious about the difference in meaning between these two expressions and why the document was changed.
The current Trek Korea internal warranty process has been finally closed with a 'not covered' determination.
I plan to escalate this to the global headquarters and pursue an objective investigation of the root cause through the Korean Consumer Agency's remediation procedure.
The call recording, photos, warranty results, and other documents have been submitted to the Korean Consumer Agency.
Thank you for reading this long post.
