50 cycles - misleading advertising

[flecc]

Didn't they change the motors? I thought that the original ones had a high torque brushed motor, while as the latest ones have a normal 250w brushless one.

Yes, they've changed at least two or three times, including periods with 180 watt ratings and others with 250 watts. Some were fairly capable though always on the slow side. At one time the motorised wheels popped up on ebay from time to time after the bikes had been scrapped, their 22" motor wheel from one model often causing puzzlement.
.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

The 180w/200w rating never bore any relevance to the actual power. I think they were a very slow wind for 12 mph maximum, but massive torque.

 

[flecc]

The 180w/200w rating never bore any relevance to the actual power. I think they were a very slow wind for 12 mph maximum, but massive torque.

That's right, they were only ever good for 12 mph but climbed ok on moderate hills. I was a bit surprised at Trex finding one not able to manage 5 to 6%, but John Cade knows of a similar experience so maybe some were weaklings.
.

 

[KMG440]

Anyone considering an ebike and finding this forum must wonder if these things are worth the apparent hassle and expense. When out and about one of the first things I am asked is 'what happens if it goes wrong'. The impression folks get is that this ebike thing is still very much in the realm of 'Dads in sheds' who seem to be the only ones who can sort these out properly. It's all very well remote dealers saying 'take it to your bike shop' but most shops will not touch ebikes nor any newish faulty bike not sourced from them.

 

[KMG440]

It probably is an expectation that the bike will climb hills with little or no effort, we often get posts in the introduce yourself section asking for recommendations for e-bikes that will climb steep hills with little or no pedalling.

One problem is the insistence everywhere of using the misleading term Electric Bike instead of Electric Assist Bike. Even in this pedelecs site, the forum names say Electric Bicycle or Electric Bike. I think if the word Assist was included all the time, there would be less chance of a misunderstanding.
.[/QU

 

[KMG440]

Thanks everyone, it has been interesting to follow the discussion and see different view points. Just to put you in the picture, I am a keen & fit cyclist, I enjoy pedalling and would be delighted to own a reliable e bike that I can use as alternative to a car for many routine journeys. My mission is to reduce car use and I would love to see a lot more people on e bikes. I carried out a considerable amount of research including visits to local retailers before deciding to buy from 50cycles. Their web advert was highly influential in this decision. The ASA stated yesterday "we have looked at the ad... and agree that this was misleading" I am still in discussion with 50cycles and am optimistic that, in the light of this ruling, they will do the decent thing and refund the full purchase price.

 

[JohnCade]

I’m a little confused here KM. If the above is so and you are a keen and fit cyclist why did you post this yesterday?

I agree, it is best to test-ride a bike. I went to Loughborough to do just this. However, it is pretty flat around there, compared with the Shropshire Hills, where I live. The problems only showed up on a steep hill. Also, the bike which I purchased was not identical to the one tested.

What were the problems which showed up? Surely you can’t really be saying that you were put off the bike by a few creaks? A keen cyclist would know that many parts of a bike can do that, and it’s usually easy to fix when you identify what it is that’s creaking. The battery was replaced with a new one so it can’t be that. So please tell up what the problem is really.

If you just got buyer’s remorse than be honest and say so. You are basing all of your case for a refund on the wording in the small facsimile stamp on the website. So it doesn’t make any difference to your case if that is the reason.

 

[Wander]

So please tell up what the problem is really.

If you just got buyer’s remorse than be honest and say so. You are basing all of your case for a refund on the wording in the small facsimile stamp on the website. So it doesn’t make any difference to your case if that is the reason.

So agree with this.

KM, come on & tell us the REAL reason why you want to return the bike because many people reading this thread could easily be left with the thought that you just changed your mind & are looking for an excuse to return it & not lose face.

 

[RobF]

What is the point of badgering the OP?

He/she bought a bike on the strength of a misleading advertisement - that is a matter of decided fact - and now wants the company to honour the advertised promise.

Far from trying to impugn the OP's motives, he/she should be congratulated for bringing a major ebike retailer to task over its dodgy advertising.

I mean, you do all want to see honest advertising, don't you?

 

[trex]

I don't think anyone is trying to badger the OP. If anything, the OP uses the forum to badger the supplier to obtain a full refund rather than a partial refund.

 

[RobF]

I don't think anyone is trying to badger the OP. If anything, the OP uses the forum to badger the supplier to obtain a full refund rather than a partial refund.

No, the OP - quite shrewdly some might say - used the Advertising Standards Authority to put pressure on 50 Cycles to refund.

As soon as that judgment was made, the game was effectively over.

Had the ASA found the advertisement to be fine, the OP may have had to resort to other options - such as the forum - to gain satisfaction.

 

[JohnCade]

Yes, trex that’s what I think. She is trying to make them give her a refund through bad publicity. The ‘misleading advertising’ is just an excuse IMO.

 

[JohnCade]

No, the OP - quite shrewdly some might say - used the Advertising Standards Authority to put pressure on 50 Cycles to refund.

As soon as that judgment was made, the game was effectively over.

Had the ASA found the advertisement to be fine, the OP may have had to resort to other options - such as the forum - to gain satisfaction.

The ASA is not a court of law. A small claims court judge works mainly on the principle of reasonableness when he makes a judgement. I don’t believe she is being reasonable, and I very much doubt a small claims court would think she was either.

 

[oldtom]

The ASA stated yesterday "we have looked at the ad... and agree that this was misleading" I am still in discussion with 50cycles and am optimistic that, in the light of this ruling, they will do the decent thing and refund the full purchase price.

Any empathy I may have felt towards your position in this impasse KMG, disappeared with your latest dribble of information above.

You are attempting to harness the weight of the advertising watchdog to force 50Cycles into a corner over an issue that is entirely of your own making. This nonsense about a misleading advert or description is irrelevant to your contention that the bike is unsuitable for your requirements. If I were Mr 50Cycles, I'd now hide behind the legal term, 'Caveat Emptor' in response to your resorting to your current direction of attack.

You chose to buy a model of bike that you hadn't test-ridden, rode around on it after receipt, then decided it wasn't what you really wanted. You hinted that the terrain in your particular area is much hillier than the area of your test-ride on a different model and that swayed you to decide to reject the bike. If you hadn't also told us that you are an experienced cyclist with previous experience of EAPCs, I could almost buy your story. As an experienced cyclist and previous EAPC user though, you ought to have recognised very quickly if the model you ordered offered sufficient power simply by comparing the spec figures on paper against the model you test-rode and those EAPCs you had previous experience of.

You have chosen to join the Pedelecs forum and almost straightaway embarked on an attempt to destroy the reputation of a long-standing and highly regarded EAPC dealer while hoping to garner sympathy from the forum membership to bolster your case. Even now, after almost 70 posts in this thread, you still haven't made clear exactly what the problem is with your bike. Neither have you specifically named the model you deem inadequate over your local terrain. You may find some support among the naive or the uninformed but I'm sure a lot of readers fail to understand your seeming reluctance to get down to brass tacks and state exactly what your issue is.

I really don't think sellers should be held responsible for the stupidity of, shall we say - someone who lives in a very hilly area yet buys a bike unsuitable for that kind of use.....without actually riding it!

Please tell me the model concerned here because I can't imagine a Kalkhoff EAPC that cannot manage hills comfortably, with the exception perhaps of the Groove model though, as has been pointed out, that isn't a 2K bike.

If I'm missing something glaringly obvious that might cause me to say, 'Ah, now I see what you're on about!', please tell me. Information is knowledge and I want as much as I can get from this forum.

Tom

 

[flecc]

I mean, you do all want to see honest advertising, don't you?

C'mon Rob, as adults we all know that honest advertising is virtually an oxymoron.

The honesty is always somewhat qualified, truth stretched to it's limits. E-bike range for example?

That's why the law recognises that despite all the consumer protection legislation, caveat emptor still applies.
.

 

[soundwave]

you still haven't made clear exactly what the problem is with your bike.

its ****

 

[shemozzle999]

Any empathy I may have felt towards your position in this impasse KMG, disappeared with your latest dribble of information above.

You are attempting to harness the weight of the advertising watchdog to force 50Cycles into a corner over an issue that is entirely of your own making. This nonsense about a misleading advert or description is irrelevant to your contention that the bike is unsuitable for your requirements. If I were Mr 50Cycles, I'd now hide behind the legal term, 'Caveat Emptor' in response to your resorting to your current direction of attack.

You chose to buy a model of bike that you hadn't test-ridden, rode around on it after receipt, then decided it wasn't what you really wanted. You hinted that the terrain in your particular area is much hillier than the area of your test-ride on a different model and that swayed you to decide to reject the bike. If you hadn't also told us that you are an experienced cyclist with previous experience of EAPCs, I could almost buy your story. As an experienced cyclist and previous EAPC user though, you ought to have recognised very quickly if the model you ordered offered sufficient power simply by comparing the spec figures on paper against the model you test-rode and those EAPCs you had previous experience of.

You have chosen to join the Pedelecs forum and almost straightaway embarked on an attempt to destroy the reputation of a long-standing and highly regarded EAPC dealer while hoping to garner sympathy from the forum membership to bolster your case. Even now, after almost 70 posts in this thread, you still haven't made clear exactly what the problem is with your bike. Neither have you specifically named the model you deem inadequate over your local terrain. You may find some support among the naive or the uninformed but I'm sure a lot of readers fail to understand your seeming reluctance to get down to brass tacks and state exactly what your issue is.

I really don't think sellers should be held responsible for the stupidity of, shall we say - someone who lives in a very hilly area yet buys a bike unsuitable for that kind of use.....without actually riding it!

Please tell me the model concerned here because I can't imagine a Kalkhoff EAPC that cannot manage hills comfortably, with the exception perhaps of the Groove model though, as has been pointed out, that isn't a 2K bike.

If I'm missing something glaringly obvious that might cause me to say, 'Ah, now I see what you're on about!', please tell me. Information is knowledge and I want as much as I can get from this forum.

Tom

If you watched the IdealWorld shopping channel tonight you would have seen exactly what the OP is arguing about - the Viking EAPC was on offer for £479.99 with a no quibble guarantee - try it for 2 weeks - if you didn't like it then you could return it and get your money back.

 

[trex]

most people would find 'two week no quibble' in the shopping channel TV ad very different to 'no quibble' where it was in the website.
There may be some serious issues with the bike, that I don't know, but misleading ad? No.

 

[Wander]

What is the point of badgering the OP?

He/she bought a bike on the strength of a misleading advertisement - that is a matter of decided fact - and now wants the company to honour the advertised promise.

Far from trying to impugn the OP's motives, he/she should be congratulated for bringing a major ebike retailer to task over its dodgy advertising.

I mean, you do all want to see honest advertising, don't you?

But did (s)he really buy it on the strength of those particular few words or is (s)he just trying to find an excuse to renege on the deal.

I have no affinity with 50 cycles, never been there, probably never will, don't like Kalkhoffs BUT as far as I can work out they are not a huge conglomerate employing dodgy tactics nor are they attempting to have people over with dodgy advertising.

What little I know about Scott & Tim Snaith, admittedly based on internet research & following the progress of their company over the past few years, they, similar to most of the Trade members of this forum, come across as hard working individuals trying to make an honest living.

I've little doubt that the reason they've changed that particular little roundel on their web site is to avoid the sort of stretched interpretation that the OP has put on it. I share the exasperation that they, no doubt, are experiencing over this matter.

In this court of public opinion, at this time I find in favour of 50 cycles!

 

[shemozzle999]

When I did a search on 50 cycles site with "no quibble" it returned many pages, it appears the no quibble was across the whole range of bikes but has now been removed probably due to the OP making inquiries with the ASA. If it was on offer at the time of purchase it should be honoured.