zip corrosion on pack

Sounds a bit rank ?. I'ld expect Macpac to stand behind their product for longer than 2 years ?. Can't recall zip corrosion on my gear anytime in the past ?. Odd that you have to pay to get it sent back to you too ?. Did you hand it in over the counter somewhere ?.

yeah took it into a shop, they didnt charge to send to chch to get it looked at but as soon as they said not under warranty, they wanted me to pay, what would have been the extra cost to make it with decent alloy in the first place, its not like i've thrashed it in salt water

friend kindly spoke to Consumer institute for me and they said the pack isnt fit for purpose if the zip is corroding outdoors. the amp series packs were designed for endurance sports like adventure races and multisport which can go into the sea or along the coast, so they have to state if the zips will corode or it makes the packs not fit for purpose. i have been emailing macpac today but no response, rang them and they told me they would get back to me with a response by COB today... must say i expected macpac to just replace the zips under warranty based on my belief they had a good warranty system... based on what other people have told me about them...

macpac rang back, they had their product development team look at the pack and have now agreed to replace the pack under warranty. looking at the latest model online, from what i can see of a blown up photo looks like the pockets on the new model uses a similar brown alloy zip as the main compartment of the one I had

"yeah took it into a shop, they didnt charge to send to chch to get it looked at but as soon as they said not under warranty, they wanted me to pay, what would have been the extra cost to make it with decent alloy in the first place," That's interesting because it's really meant to be up to the retailer to resolve issues under the Consumer Guarantees Act. The retailer's the agent you bought it from, and it should be the retailer's responsibility to resolve problems. Just imagine for a moment if Macpac the manufacturer was completely independent of Macpac the retail store. Does anyone here know the detail of consumer law around this? IMHO it shouldn't be your problem that the retailer needs to ship the product to another city and back to determine if it's covered under warranty. I reckon the retailer should be obliged to take the responsibility of giving a clear Yes or No answer for no cost. If they say Yes then it's up to them to get it fixed, even if that requires them to consult with the manufacturer before they can say Yes. If they say No then you should be within your rights to complain to the retailer instead of having to argue it out with the manufacturer or distributor in another city or country, or even care who they are. I'd be interested to know what the Consumers' Institute thinks about this practice of forcing customers to risk having to pay up merely to have their issues assessed by someone other than a retailer. That should be a responsibility of the retailer, and all you should really need to do is get it back to where you bought it from. I had a comparable incident at a Macpac store several years ago (though not as bad), shortly after everything was restructured. A new raincoat I'd bought lost some teeth on the zip, which I considered to be a serious safety hazard in harsh weather. The retail staff simply refused to give me a Yes or No answer about whether it'd be covered, even though it was obvious to me. It was replaced for free without issue when it was sent back, but that was only after being told that I'd need to pay if "they" deemed it wasn't covered. I thought maybe they'd have changed by now, but I guess not.

when i dropped my pack off the shop made no opinion on the zip fault itself , didnt inspect the fault. straight away it was, "we will send it to head office in chch, and will be in touch when we hear back from them" the retailer were relaying what head office had told them regarding originally not covering it under warranty , after the retail store had rung to advise me that i was liable for return shipping or repair costs, all my communication was then with chch on their webstore email address. once they decided to cover under warranty then it wasnt going to cost me for them to ship a replacement item from head office to either my address or the store.... but i was never told i'd be liable for all costs if it wasn't under warranty, although i felt it should be covered under warranty, macpac have traditionally had a good warranty. but its just kids in the store who often know very little about the ins and outs of these sorts of things.. i did mention i'd be blogging about the interaction online, so i dont know if that affected their decision or not. sounded like it was a different staff member or group of staff members who made the decision about honouring the warranty, the young lady i spoke to on the phone said the person who make the original decision was incorrect. they claimed it was the first time they had seen this issue. but they must have made a batch of packs with the same material. i walk along the coast a lot. if any salt spray gets on it, then its not obvious. the wind is almost always blowing offshore if there is any wind. its an adventure racing pack and other people must be using these packs near or in salt water. whether they don't keep the packs long enough or aren't fused about the small belt pockets to complain, who knows, but other people are likely to have similar issues. the company don't accept liability for bad advice given by shop staff and failed attempts at fitting packs, i've seen one comment about someone having their shoulders rubbed raw by a badly fitting pack. auckland only has one independantly owned tramping shop and their staff are experienced trampers... most outdoor chain stores dont have consistent experience and knowledge in their staff. the design of outdoor gear has been a rapidly evolving one, nz designed gear several decades ago was pretty much all bomb proof if the brand was half decent, and the warranties were good, it was cut and dried if gear was faulty at manufacture and didnt stand up to normal wear and tear. but now brands are selling gear that can range vastly from bombproof if they even make heavy duty gear anymore , right down to ultralightweight gear, which doesnt have anything like the life expectancy of heavy duty gear.. tramping gear has taken materials used for running and converted it for activities like tramping and alpine climbing that can thrash the gear a lot more.... there is a vast array of different material of a range of durabilities and weights and its not clear cut anymore as to what is now fair wear and tear and what isnt... the manufacturers and retailers are trying to have to work out where on a sliding scale a particular item sits on the scale of things

It is up to the retailer to repair, refund or replace within a reasonable time frame. So, be aware they do not have to make a decision on the spot and do have the right to consult with the manufacturer or importer. They also have the right to send the product to said manufacturer/importer (as long as they do so in a reasonable time frame) however the consumer definitely should not be charged for this.

Would it help to spray the new pack's zips with silicone spray?

macpac dont seem to seperate the head office from the retailers, the retailers arent allowed to make a decision.. yeah silicon spray wouldnt hurt , originally thats all head office did with the old pack, but long term that wasnt going to be the answer , zips need to resist salt, because you're handling the zips with sweaty hands if not going near the sea, or with an endurance racing pack actually going in the sea... these zips had minimal contact with salt