Cyclescheme refund - legal advice wanted

[Baggy]

...the first thing I do is thank everyone for their contributions...I don't think that the OP Chuffy has done this?

Post No.6...

Thanks for the comments. I'll see what the shop say tomorrow...

In fact his OP suggests that he is intending suing Kona, the retailer or his employer or any combination of these partys or all of them

No, he doesn't, stop being such a drama queen. The OP asked where he might stand legally in terms of getting a refund and what the definition of not fit for purpose is. Sometimes Crankarm you're like the proverbial bull in a china shop.

As Ian H says, we probably all accept that a bit of compromise is needed, but where do we draw the line? As I mentioned previously (in my post which you chose to ignore but I'm not flouncing over ) I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a bike with rack mounts, designed for light touring should be able to take a rack without having to bodge it on big time.

And thanks g00se - very helpful!

 

[Chuffy]

Thanks for all the sensible and helpful comments. Kona forum duly joined, awaiting a reply...

 

[Crankarm]

Post No.6...


No, he doesn't, stop being such a drama queen. The OP asked where he might stand legally in terms of getting a refund and what the definition of not fit for purpose is. Sometimes Crankarm you're like the proverbial bull in a china shop.

As Ian H says, we probably all accept that a bit of compromise is needed, but where do we draw the line? As I mentioned previously (in my post which you chose to ignore but I'm not flouncing over ) I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that a bike with rack mounts, designed for light touring should be able to take a rack without having to bodge it on big time.

And thanks g00se - very helpful!

Hi all
About three weeks ago I took delivery of a brand new Kona Dew Drop via Cyclescheme. It's a do-it-all commuter/tourer type beast but there is a huge problem.

There are two eyelets on the back for mudguards and a rack. The bike came fitted with mudguards, which fit fine. I've tried fitting a rack but the free eyelet sits on a flat surface of the seat stay. It's so close to the metal of the seat stay that it's almost impossible to fit a rack, the metal around the rack hole fouls the seat stay and stops the holes from lining up. See pic.

The upper eyelet is purely decorative, it won't take a mudguard either. I've tried fitting both rack and guards on the bottom eyelet but only works with the rack on the outside which is dangerous and nasty. Needless to say, I'm very, very p*ssed off.

I'm not after technical solutions.

What I need to know is:-
Can I reasonably claim that the bike is not fit for purpose?
How do refunds work in relation to Cyclescheme?

Cheers,
Chuffy

Quite clear for you Bags?

Anyway it looks like Chuffy is making progress toward a technical solution and is thankfully not pursuing the litigious route as I don't fancy his chances. I'm now out of this thread. Should he wish to look again at my pics of how I mounted my rack on my Kona or for advice then he can PM me.

 

[Baggy]

Quite clear for you Bags?

What is clear to me, and numerous other posters is that he's not asking for advice on how to bodge a rack on, but as the words on the page clearly say, he's asking whether he could reasonably claim the bike is not fit for purpose (as you usually have to do with used goods that you are returning) - and that he's asking how refunds work in relation to Cyclescheme.

It's a world apart from:

his OP suggests that he is intending suing Kona, the retailer or his employer or any combination of these partys or all of them

 

[Baggy]

You've gone and done it now crankers! You've got Baggy wound up....


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO38rf1m0FU&feature=related

Having lived through several sessions of fettling-related sweariness, I'm allowed to get huffy

 

[Crankarm]

What is clear to me, and numerous other posters is that he's not asking for advice on how to bodge a rack on, but as the words on the page clearly say, he's asking whether he could reasonably claim the bike is not fit for purpose (as you usually have to do with used goods that you are returning) - and that he's asking how refunds work in relation to Cyclescheme.

It's a world apart from:

You might very well get all huffy . But you or your friend chuffy (huffy chuffy) would not be entitled to a refund just because you don't like the bike or made a bad purchase. His bike is fit for purpose. It's a very nice and capable bike. Should he try and claim it is not, I'm sure the retailer/manufacturer would dispute this vigorously hence what is termed litigation would ensue if the OP were determined to get a refund and the retailer was adamant that a refund was not warranted. Given that Kona probably invests millions into producing safe and reliable bikes of which it sells hundreds of thousands I doubt very much you or he would succeed in a claim against them. Plus most retailers and bike shops will bend over backwards to try and make sure customers are happy, so it begs the question why did you not have them supply and fit one at the start prior to you taking possession of it? Chuffy probably had ample opportunity to inspect the model of bike or even road test one before he entered into the CycleScheme Agreement to purchase one. I doubt your employer will be very happy with you as they stand the cost of the bike as you repay them. Just because he didn't do his reaserch properly or can't fit the correct type of aftermarket rack on the bike doesn't mean it is not fit for purpose. If he throws his toys of out his pram and starts blaming the manufacturer or demanding a refund for withdrawing from the Cyclescheme it won't get him very far. He has received a number of very helpful posts from others one of which was myself offering advice on how he might easily secure a rack to his bike, but he and you have repeatedly dismissed them as bodges. Asserting that you want to know how one goes about obtaining a refund as you don't have the skills or nouse to fit a rack even when given advice or to find a bike shop that can do is totally unreasonable and frankly absurd. What do you suppose the retailer is supposed to do with your bike if they were to refund you - which they wouldn't as it is not faulty and is fit for purpose?

I'm sure the guys on Kona tech forum will try their best to help you as Kona are a pretty good bike company.

Some people .

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The proof of the pudding is whether they're the same on both stays.

I'm sure I've seen ali framed bikes with the same drop out used both sides. Given the mech hanger is a steel bolt on plate surely this would make for economies in the manufacturing process?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

The proof of the pudding is whether they're the same on both stays.

I'm sure I've seen ali framed bikes with the same drop out used both sides. Given the mech hanger is a steel bolt on plate surely this would make for economies in the manufacturing process?

And if it isn't a disc mount that is one of the most over engineered oem 'guard and rack mounts I've ever seen

 

[dodgy]

I reckon it's a manufacturing defect, occurring just as (concidentally) Kona changes the frame design. I am convinced they are brake mounts.

 

[Yellow Fang]

They would be slightly odd brake mounts, because the distance between the two eyelets is less than the distance between the eyelets on the actual brake mount. I think I can see the problem with the top eyelet - there's too much of a bulge from the seat stay.You might be able to get away with a few washers or a bit of metal tubing. The bike shop that fitted disc brakes to my MTB had to put on a bit of metal tubing in order to fit on the rack again. Bike shops often have this sort of thing lying about. When I was looking for audax/winter training frames a while back, I noticed that often they only had one eyelet, so I couldn't see how you could fit both mudguard and rack. I am pretty sure the idea was you fitted both through the same eyelet, as they all seemed to claim you could fit both, and C+ never seemed to criticise them on that point.

 

[g00se]

They would be slightly odd brake mounts, because the distance between the two eyelets is less than the distance between the eyelets on the actual brake mount.

Looking at it, if the top eyelet was a calliper mount - then the other one would have been on the seat stay (the one below would be a rack/mudguard stay mount).

It could be that the top eyelet in the picture was a calliper mounting and part of the casting for the bracket. The other 'missing' top mounting was braised onto the seat stay - which is no longer needed. So maybe they're using old 2009 castings for the bracket but 2010 seat stays?

 

[Chuffy]

The eyelets are far too close to be recycled brake mounts. The actual brake mounting eyelets are about 1-2cm wider. The upper eyelet sits at right angles to a flat section of a very wide chainstay. Shimming the eyelet out with a spacer might help but it would have to be quite long (I think 5mm would be too short).

Goose - I don't think they're brazed on. It's an ali frame and I'm pretty sure the eyelet tabs are part of the frame rather than add-ons.

 

[mickle]

Mounting the mudguard stays under the rack is common practice. I did it on Bettina Selby's bike before she set off for the Source of the Nile, Tom Vernon's bike before he headed off to Argentina and countless others. Not a bodge.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Mounting the mudguard stays under the rack is common practice. I did it on Bettina Selby's bike before she set off for the Source of the Nile, Tom Vernon's bike before he headed off to Argentina and countless others. Not a bodge.

I shall sleep better for that knowledge

 

[Ian H]

Goose - I don't think they're brazed on. It's an ali frame and I'm pretty sure the eyelet tabs are part of the frame rather than add-ons.

Yes, it's all part of the dropout forging.

All my touring bikes have had the rack mounted outside the mudguard stays, even the latest one with double eyelets (see post above). It's never been a problem even with heavy panniers. I can see why you're irritated though.