I was waiting for this to come up. First off, you all have to read my post: I realize the swaylock is 2 1/2 years old, but I find it pretty sad when a company doesn't offer a replacement part on a 2 1/2 year old item. I am not asking for anything free, I just want what is fair. I will pay for a replacement torsion bar, Key word "Pay for a replacement" Where in there does it say I wanted something for free 🙄

I said I would pay for a new bar, I did not expect one for free or a smokin deal on a replacement bar!!! When they said they didn't make the bar for my system anymore because it kept breaking and they changed designs to fix the problem. My system was 2 1/2 years old, not making a replacement for a bad design and leaving the old customers to hang out to dry is really bad business practice. Some customers had had the old design for less than a year when they stopped making replacement parts. Like I wrote, I called them fully expecting to to pay full price to replace the torsion bar that I broke. I never expected them to give me one for free. Since this was a working automotive mechanical part that was 2 1/2 years old, anyone would expect a company to make replacement service parts for it for a few years after discontinuing the part due to failure rates! In this situation, anyone would have expected a reasonable price on a upgrade kit, not told that they would have to pay full retail for an upgrade kit.

This is by far no comparison to asking to warranty an item that was torn apart by a rock smashing into the side of the rim. I went to Swaylock with full intentions of paying for what I broke!!!

My original post that Fred is referring to

I sent ORO a very polite e-mail last night explaining my issue with them. We will see what type of response I get back. If they don't make an attempt to make things right or offer me a smokin deal on a upgrade kit, then I am going to do my best to bad mouth them on ever forum I can think of. I realize the swaylock is 2 1/2 years old, but I find it pretty sad when a company doesn't offer a replacement part on a 2 1/2 year old item. I am not asking for anything free, I just want what is fair. I will pay for a replacement torsion bar, I am just not going to pay them $500 for an upgrade kit when I gave them $550 2 /1/2 years ago for the one I have now that has broken twice!

"FAM" wrote: [quote="RobD"]I am honestly not trying to be a pain here, but I do not see your logic? "you fully expected a killer deal on the wheel" why? That's the same as expecting that every time you break something when it's your fault, you should get a free or killer deal because you already bought one once?

Sounds like the same logic used in this thread regarding a swayloc - viewtopic.php?f=20&t=4086&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=swayloc&start=324

"RobD" wrote: I sent ORO a very polite e-mail last night explaining my issue with them. We will see what type of response I get back. If they don't make an attempt to make things right or offer me a smokin deal on a upgrade kit, then I am going to do my best to bad mouth them on ever forum I can think of.

There must be some difference between John wanting a "killer deal" (see bottom of page two) and you wanting a "smokin deal" that I don't understand. You both were willing to pay something, but still wanted your respective deals. Seems pretty much the same to me.

The difference was I paid $650.00 for a working mechanical part that broke twice in two years and I tried to buy at full price a replacement part only to be told they no longer supported my product because it was a poor design. There is a 100% failure rate on the old design like I have. It would be reasonable to aske for a deal on a manufacture flaw as was the design of the original swaylock. IE: manufacturer defect not abuse!!!

Mine was a manufacturer defect unlike Johns Rock damage....Now if 100% of the people who have the same rims as John start getting the same damage then I will buy off on all your logic 🙄

"FAM" wrote: There must be some difference between John wanting a "killer deal" (see bottom of page two) and you wanting a "smokin deal" that I don't understand. You both were willing to pay something, but still wanted your respective deals. Seems pretty much the same to me.

You keep throwing out that you used it for it's intended use. Would you help clarify that by posting Procomps advertisement where bashing your rim on rocks is "covered under " intended use""

I know that my OMF beadlocks don't have anything advertising that they are intended for rock bashing. I even looked at Walker Evan, Champion, Trail Ready, and Trail Gear. No where do any of them advertise " Inteded use is for bashing on Rocks. They advertise them as wheels with a beadlock, and their warranties say not covered if abused. Since everyone seems to be under the assumption that having a rock slam into the inner bead and breaking it is not abuse. Please, someone explain what abuse means on a rim?

[quote="JohnDF"]Once again, I'll restate the obvious. I was using the product "as intended" and the same way I've used previous products under even more severe conditions. Yes, I expected it to survive a simple rock incident. It's not like I dropped off a cliff with it.

Anyways, I'm more than happy with the deal I got. It was more than I expected.[/quoteim

I can put a hybrid sticker on my Jeep and take a picture of it. That doesn't make it a hybrid 😀