An incident recently has motivated me to make a formal post for the Australian windsurfing community to be aware about the warranty issues regarding RDM Powerex masts in Australia.
During a recent trip to Gnaraloo I broke my 400 RDM Powerex mast at the connection while been taken by a broken wave. Whenever I rig my sails I have a technique of jamming the mast in the ground and pulling the sail down. I’ve found this reduces this risk of the male and female sections of the mast separating and it gets the sail on the mast quicker. Therefore, more time on the water.
I’ve just gone through the process of trying to warranty the broken section and was informed by the Australian distributor that all Powerex masts broken at the connection, engaged correctly or not, will not honour the warranty under the premises that they are “not designed to break there”.
The sleeve you receive when purchasing an RDM Powerex mast specifies the following warranty conditions;
Only Surf, Z-Taper, Z-Wave and RDM-designated masts will be replaced if broken in surf conditions
Breakage due to misuse like over tightening the boom or failure to completely engage the 2-piece ferrule connection or the mast base extension connection will not be covered.
Breakage due to obvious abuse occurring outside of the water will not be covered.
It also states that if a Powerex mast breaks under normal use due to defective materials, manufacturing or workmanship, MQC will replace or repair the product upon it’s return.
It seems the stance adopted by the Australian distributor is in breach of the warranty conditions as specified by Powerex.
For instance, what is the difference between breaking the mast at the connection or anywhere else if it’s due to defective materials, manufacturing or workmanship.
Consumers in Australia should be aware that if your RDM Powerex mast breaks at the connection, no matter if the 2-piece ferrule is engaged correctly, it’s warranty will not be honoured.
I don’t want to see other people buying these masts without being fully informed about the assumption of “unconditional warranty”.
BUYER BEWARE.