Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Agree 100%.
I’m quite OK
Agree 100%.I’m quite OK where an article reports something currently or possibly shite, such as the proposed ‘Garden Bridge’ in London that might ban cyclists, and seeks a 38-Degrees-style call to action. That way we make a difference.
But hearing of yet another person mown down or beaten up for their bike does nothing at all to make me want to ride more, or to make things better.
rabeynon wrote:I had a
I had a problem with SKS Raceblades. the ziptie from the front mudguard that goes around the brake mount just snapped, dropping the mudguard onto the wheel and locking it up, catapulting me over the handlebars!only my second outing on them, so just assumed it was the 1 in a million dodgy ziptie
You sure they were SKS Raceblades? Sound a lot like Crud Roadracers to me. I have two sets of Raceblades, and no zipties are ever harmed in their application. Also, they only mount on the fork legs.
Wow, that’s unlucky there
Wow, that’s unlucky there Dutchie. Get well.Was once in a shop where the retailer ranted on about never using front guards (despite having the full SKS range on a wall display behind him) – he was terrified of a dropped arm warmer or pump getting stuck.
It’s one of those things that needs context though – I reckon our small club has racked up maybe 20,000 miles over the last two winters-worth of crap all over the rural roads, and the one crash we had (last week) was a guy with new Ultegra brakes grabbing a handful at low speed, locking the front and going OTB.
For the last 6 months I’ve
For the last 6 months I’ve been using a Quadlock + poncho for long rides/navigation, and a combo of Finn mount (+ p0cpac case if wet) for around town / hire bikes. Works brilliantly on a Boris bike.Noting that the Quadlock poncho is *not* 100% waterproof – it’s OK for a shower, but not in sustained wet. For that, Quadlock recommend the Lifeproof cases, with one of their universal mounts stuck on the back.
Gareth W-R wrote:Get yourself
Get yourself on eBay, get a solar storm x2 ( just eBay bike lights and you will get a selection ) have been using one for months now, much brighter than light sets costing 10x the £20 you will spend. I was using a topeak hp 5w before which was good but cost £230 and does not stack up light wise. Run time is not as good but as long as your night rides are not too long you can get 3-4 hours out of the solar storm ones.Another +1 for the SolarStorm X2 at around £25. Been my go-to fast night riding light for a year now. Tons of light, good spread, small-ish, battery lasts well over 2+ hrs if you cycle between high and low for descending/climbing.
Nothing comes close for the money. Nothing.
redmeat wrote:Lezyne Power
Lezyne Power Drive XL/endthreadThe XL’s 475 Lumens isn’t really bright enough for more than about 10MPH, in my experience. Other than that, crackingly good light.
md6 wrote:So in essence you
So in essence you think that something which doesn’t fit you well is faulty? Its not. It might be the wrong size/shape for you, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t fit for purpose, just that it is not the correct size/shape for you. If you bought shoes that pinched your feet after wearing them for a few days in the office, would they be ‘not fit for purpose’ or would you just think they were too narrow (or whatever) for your foot? I really don’t understand why you think Wiggle would refund you for something that you wore and don’t like the fit of, which is all this really is, regardless of you dressing it up as anything else. Long and short, you don’t like the fit after wearing for 20 miles. That doesn’t make it ‘not fit for purpose'It’s not that I ‘didn’t like’ them – they were painful. I wasn’t buying them for anyone else, I was buying them for *me*. The only ‘fit for purpose’ reference point is *my* purpose.
The analogy re shoes is out for two reasons:
1 – shoes only stretch to fit your foot. Some discomfort is acceptable at first. You can tell if they aren’t going to work.
2 – as pointed out above by another, used shoe returns are a well-beaten-path, if you’ll excuse the pun. The hiking/sports industry pretty much accepts them as part of business: http://community.runnersworld.com/topic/return-policy-at-your-shoe-store?reply=53087426016465502
Fundamentally I don’t see the difference in going for a 40-mile ride in £90 shorts or a 20-mile run in some £90 shoes – neither can be resold as new if returned, and if both cause pain after following manufacturer’s fit guides, they should be replaced/refunded. The shoe industry agrees, why shouldn’t the cycling industry?
So when you tried it on it fits fine but only after a ride of 20 miles then it starts to bunch up?No, it didn’t ‘bunch up’. Yes, they fitted fine.
I have bought many bibs before long or short and if it is too long you know it immediatelyAgreed – leg length was fine. I wouldn’t have ridden them if it weren’t.
Not sure how you manage to get it to fit perfectly and then suddenly it starts to stretch to a point where you feel like bunch up sock.Me neither. Hence why I think they are faulty.
hsiaolc wrote:If sizing
If sizing doesn’t fit then you should know once you have tried it on and not after you taken a 20 mile ride?
Sorry but I think once you’ve already used it then you shouldn’t expect a full refund especially on under garments.Sizing did ‘fit’, to the inch. Felt great at home and on bike in garage. See OP.
Had already purchased the next size down following reviews that had said the legs may be too long and the fit was slim, and sent back after trying on as they ‘felt’ too small.
tomisitt wrote:Blah blah blah
Blah blah blah blah. It’s the Test Valley CC I feel sorry for!Mike, you asked for opinions, many were offered, mostly along the lines of “no, retailers shouldn’t have to accept returns on used bibshorts”. You have your answer. Take the 75% refund and move on.
{adds ‘Should you be able to return bibshorts?’ to list of Things Not To Discuss At Cycling Dinner Parties}
…Still intrigued by the logical argument why so many people accept one kind of kit as being OK to not work as described despite costing £90 and being sized correctly, no right of return, no consumer rights, at the whim of the retailer to offer a partial refund. Yet the same folks would probably scream blue murder if a £90 tyre only lasted 500k, or a £90 bike computer was only visible at night, etc. etc.
The ‘it’s underwear so it’s special’ canard has been debunked – retailers can’t resell *any* item of kit that’s been returned used, except on eBay. Where you’ll see plenty of pairs of bibshorts up for auction.
Anyway, it’s with Castelli/Saddleback to review now.
indyjukebox wrote:Have you
Have you perhaps considered that it is your nether regions that are not fit for purpose?Ok, jokes aside, I think you are mad. And I think it is commendable of Wiggle to offer a 75% refund. The fact that you are still whining after getting decent CS, I am at a loss for words.
Its underwear, it is not refundable. Otherwise we would all be enjoying someone else’s skid marks.
You cannot return ‘underwear’ under the Consumer Contract Regulations if you simply change your mind – http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/distance-selling-regulations
But all retailers accept bike shorts back, and you are indeed recommended to try them on and can return if they ‘don’t fit’ – AKA ‘change your mind’ – as many have said so here. So by the retailer’s own standards, these are not ‘underwear’.
*ANY ITEM* that has been used and returned cannot be sold as-new by a retailer. Be it shoes, a Garmin, a 105 shifter or a pair of bibshorts. So no, you are incorrect to suggest that if Wiggle accepted returns on shorts that they would then be illegally repackaging them so you would then “be enjoying someone else’s skid marks”. To say that is to also suggest that every other item returned under the Consumer Contract Regulations is then also repackaged and sold as-new.
The law doesn’t get all juvenile over the fact that yes, it’s been near your arse. It’s simply A Product, that has Been Used, and then returned because it Didn’t Work. A surprisingly hard concept to grasp, apparently. Not sure why, perhaps because significant personal discomfort is harder to quantify than, say, a failed battery, defective screen or cleat ripped out from a shoe. That doesn’t make it any less of a ground to request a replacement product or a refund on.
mrmo wrote:thing is i suspect
thing is i suspect the longs are fine, and it is a bit like saddles, not everyone is the same and some shorts and some saddles really do not work as a pair. It wouldn’t shock me that if the OP changed their saddle that the longs become comfortable.Are you kidding? nearly 10,000km with that saddle (Charge Spoon) and never a saddle sore or problem, sitting up for a 16hr Audax or doing a 1hr deep-in-the-drops TT-of-Death. No way am I risking that relationship 😉
mattsccm wrote:Surely the OP
Surely the OP is pulling our plonkers ? A 5 second fit is plenty. They cannot now be sold as new so why should they be replaced.
It’s a sad situation that so many shops are put in this stupid situation by a stupid law. +why should people have the right to reject just because they got it wrong or were too tight to go to a real shop and pay a bit more.
I have no objections to returns if a product is defective but otherwise it should be at the sellers discretion. No doubt many sellers would offer returns but to make it compulsory is just another example of the sad and selfish society we live in where no one takes responsibility for anything.You don’t appear to have understood the fundamental point that something that’s been purchased following extensive research and according to manufacturer’s size guidelines, and is then uncomfortable to the point of pain after moderate use is not ‘fit for purpose’. Hey ho.
monty dog wrote:How would the
How would the OP feel if he bought a pair of ‘new’ shorts from Wiggle and found they’d only been used once?Let’s move beyond the fact this is a bit of kit that’s intimately connected to your arse, OK?
A retailer cannot sell you *anything* that’s been used, unless they state as such. That would be illegal. I don’t expect Wiggle to do so, and quite right I’d be cross if I received a ‘new’ item that had been used.
The point being if you buy something – a light, shoes, bike computer, toaster, TV, whatever – if once you’ve unwrapped it, binned the packaging, then find it fundamentally does not do the job you’d reasonably expect it to do, having followed the manufacturer’s instructions, the retailer should give your money back.
If that happens often then the retailer or manufacturer goes broke because they sold a patently crap product. On occasion it will happen that something slips through quality control. You, I and all the keyboard warriors hereabouts don’t know what the case was – maybe the pad was too firm for some reason, or the fit was out, as does happen between plants or design years. That’s not my concern. It’s then that the retailer, distributor or manufacturer steps up and accepts that as a cost of business sometimes shit happens. I’m a businessman. I lost €700 the other day sending an engineer to put right something that technically wasn’t my fault, but appreciating they have a choice and to keep the customer happy we sucked it up.
In this case as a long-time Castelli / Wiggle customer, I expect them to do some sucking up. I’m surprised so many are jumping to defend a £13Bn private-equity-backed retailer for whom a team manager’s time to even look at an issue like this probably cost them more than the reseller purchase price.
glynr36 wrote:KiwiMike
Man learns life isn’t always fair; sulks.Person doesn’t get fundamentals of customer service, brand loyalty, economics in a competitive market, or indeed UK/EU Distance Selling Regulations. Posts comment.
Distance selling regs exclude underwear for a refund, unless faulty.
Not fitting, or you not liking them is not faulty. How ever you try and spin it.
I’d say you don’t understand the fundamentals of the distance selling regs, or just choose to apply it in the way you like, and have cried when you didn’t get the answer you liked.From http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/distance-selling-regulations:
“The goods you can’t return: There are some goods you can’t return if you simply change your mind, including:
…
underwear”This wasn’t a ‘simple change of mind’. This was clearly stated to the retailer at time of return (and in the original post, but never mind). Granted, they may decide not to accept the customer’s explanation that their product caused physical pain when used as designed. That’s when true customer service values kick in. Or not. My experience with Castelli says they are very good at supporting loyal customers / brand advocates who have genuine issues with products that don’t deliver when used as designed.
Nick T wrote:You sound a bit
You sound a bit mental. What retailers are there which accept clothes with the tag removed to be returned used?Christ, would you take half a bag of spuds back to Tesco because the ones you ate didn’t make as good a bowl of mash as you were expecting?
http://www.thenorthface.com/en_US/contact-us/return-policy/
This retailer. You may have heard of them. Maybe they are ‘a bit mental’ as well.
They’ll probably be out of business before you know it, with a customer service/returns policy like that.
But of course, the collective wisdom of Road.CC forum denizens knows better.