WARNING: ProGear CX400 bikes product 'recall' - faulty/incorrect components!!!

Daniel Plainview on 23/08/2012 - 16:46
Last edited 27/08/2012 - 16:23 by 1 other user

Folks,

I regret to advise that it's come to my attention (thanks Rico!!!) that in my opinion there is a potentially dangerous fault with what appears to be ATLEAST the ProGear CX-400 bikes that I lodged a deal on OzB about several months ago:
http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/73242

In short, these bikes were listed and sold stating that the front derailleur was a 'Shimano C202' - HOWEVER the front derailleur that appears to have been incorrectly fitted to all bikes sent out is 'Shimano C050'

Sounds trivial right?

UNFORTUNATELY WRONG

The CX-400 is fitted with an 8 speed (socket) rear cassette (the gears) - and therefore ABSOLUTELY needs a front derailleur that is suited to work with an 8 speed rear cassette.

The Shimano C202 IS CORRECT - and is in Shimano's own technical documents clearly stated as aintended for usage with an 8 speed cassette. But the C202 isn't fitted!!!!!(as stated in the original listing, which you legally bought BASED UPON)

Instead the C050 is fitted, and this (again in Shimano's own technical docs) is stated as only for usage with a 6 or 7 speed rear cassette.

When this was raised with me it IMMEDIATELY explained why I've been constantly having problems with my front derailleur. Even though I had them professionally adjusted it still did not click in perfectly as it SHOULD.

*** OK SO WHAT NOW ***
I immediately flagged this with the organisation who sold these bikes (Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd) - who seem to trade under Lifespan Fitness and also XDS Bikes.

I have both verbally and in writing advised them of this issue. The National Sales Manager for XDS Bikes, Mr Greg Skals telephoned me but I was left VERY disgusted in his response which in short comprised:

  • At first stated that the bikes were 'clearance models' and sold cheaply so essentially they 'were as sold' and implied any issue I or others had was baseless.
  • Then tried to state that it was the manufacturers fault and not theirs.
  • Stated that it was a typo in the Ebay listing
  • Stated that this probably only affected 'a few bikes' (completely false my wife has CX-400 from several years ago bought through retailer and it too has C050 derailleur, despite the sales listing saying C202 - so appears models sold over several years are affected).
  • Repeatedly stated that I was the only person who has complained about this and therefore it's clearly not a problem (I stated that many users would RIGHTLY assume the bike had properly matched components on it - and so NOT be able to deduce that any gear problems were caused by this - I KNOW I DID!!!!!!)

Mr Skals very reluctantly offered to forward to me two of the correct Shimano C202 derailleur's for my 2 affected bikes.

HOWEVER when I asked him what about other affected buyers of the products he FLATLY REFUSED to do anything at all. I requested that he try to contact buyers who might be affected but not aware via details they have from the original sales, their retail sales network (as these were sold in shops too) and also via a notice on their website.

He flatly refused to do this. He said that if purchasers of the affected bikes contacted him he'd send out the correct part (Shimano C202) free of charge but also refused to pay to have these fitted to affected consumer's bikes - which again I think is poor as the front derailleur came fitted and so people should have to fit it themself is beyond me.

In my personal opinion this is exceptionally poor both professionally and also ethically, as all purchasers of these bikes did so in good faith and yet now when it is shown that knowingly or otherwise incorrect parts were fitted which has caused issues for users (I know of 3 people with these bikes who all have the same problems) and yet if you don't complain directly to them they'll not let you know.

SO WHAT NEXT???
Personally I am lodging a complaint with the NSW Dept of Fair Trading, I'd encourage others to do the same.

I would IF NOTHING ELSE urge all owners of these bikes to check to see if your bike has the incorrect part (Shimano C050 = INCORRECT!!!!) if so send your details and a request that the correct part be sent to:

Mr Greg Skals
National Sales Manager, XDS Bikes
Email: [email protected]
Mobile: <MOD: Personal phone number removed>

As I stated this guy REFUSED to contact ANY BUYERS, despite me putting in writing the faulty part and him agreeing it could be a problem and so should be replaced.

FYI - I just received an irrate call from Mr Skals advising that they would refund me the full purchase price on my bikes and have a courier pick them up to amend the issue - I REFUSED THIS. He was exceptionally rude and in my opinion has no interest in helping people affected by this issue.

Be warned even if your bike seems fine if it has the C050 front derailleur fitted (written on the top of it) then it will NOT work as well as it should have could damage other components of the bike and even lead to a user accident.

Much thanks,

Nikko :-) (shame on XDS Bikes, Lifespan Fitness and Global Fitness & Leisure for NOT atleast contacting your loyal customers and giving them the option of a replacement part!!!! Thats shameful!)

Sports & Outdoors

Comments

  • tatasauce on 23/08/2012 - 17:10
    +3

    Thanks for the heads up. Will contact them about it. Disgusting behaviour by them. Thanks for championing this Nikko.

    • Daniel Plainview on 23/08/2012 - 17:33
      +5

      Thanks for the kind words Tata, I've got to be honest I was REALLY astonished by this company's response - it was rude, unprofessional and unethical.

      If I'd any idea they'd act this way I'd have NEVER flagged what I at the time perceived as a good buy.

      IF ANYONE HAS ANY IDEAS HOW TO LET OTHER AFFECTED BUYERS KNOW I'D WELCOME IT……I will try and do a thread at BNA forums which is popular…any other ideas???

      I tried to post in the original thread here but it won't let me - perhaps if I asked the mods as that'd maybe hit a lot of the buys who bought?

      Ideas welcomed.

  • neil on 23/08/2012 - 18:08
    +2

    Would this fall under a recall? If so, I wonder if you could lodge it via the recalls site

    EDIT: Nevermind, the recalls site links back to Fair Trading/Consumer Affairs.

    I've opened up the original deal for comments if you want to inform people.

  • Natt on 23/08/2012 - 18:18
    +2

    Nikko what a well thought out post and kudos to your for effort

    It does sound awfully like a product safety/recall matter

    You have to wonder sometimes when people knowingly do something that may cause injury to others, not cool!

    • Daniel Plainview on 23/08/2012 - 19:32
      +3

      Thanks for the kind words and support. :-)

      Honestly, the whole thing could have been well handled by the company - instead their National Sales Manager was rude, very aggressive and quite the embarrassment to his organisation.

      Injury could occur under certain circumstances but the almost certain reality is (and I've experienced this myself) the bike will operate less than properly. On certain gear combinations the chain will knock against the front derailleur, which at best is just annoying but at worst could lead to failure of other components etc.

      I consider myself a reasonably confident individual with bicycle components but I NEVER suspected this problem and instead thought the the gears were not setup properly and so spent several hours of my free time trying to stop the rubbing/knocking without avail.

      In the end I went and paid a professional shop to try and correct this but it still has issues getting into #1 and #8 gear particularly when I'm on the #1 and #3 front chain rings.

      I am personal friends with 2 other people with this EXACT bike and they have this issue as well…..on top of this my wife has a CX-400 from ~2yrs ago and it has the same issue.

      I just don't see how this organisation can sell a product SPECIFICALLY stating the components - then supposably NOT NOTICE that its not as they've stated and sold it FOR YEARS and then when its flagged to them EVENTUALLY concede its a serious issue that should be replaced but state catergorically that they will not actively seek to advise their customers of this or contact them.

      Rest assured I'll not be letting the issue go until it's either promoted widely via good folks such as ourselves or the company does SOMETHING to actively correct the issue and apologises to me for their conduct today.

  • infinity89 on 23/08/2012 - 19:55

    Seems that the CX 400 Bike is still for sale on their Ebay site. I did note the description has been changed today, the Front Derailuer described is now Shimano C050. The back cassette is still an 8 speed though, so if the C050 is never intended to be used with an 8 speed, there's still an issue! Pretty poor form.

  • ilikecheapcrap on 23/08/2012 - 20:10

    Pluck a duck! Thanks for letting us know Nikko. My bike stand (arrived yesterday - also from lifespan), and was going to tune the gears this weekend! Mine is also C050.. I will send them an email now.. hopefully they can resolve/replace..

  • Daniel Plainview on 23/08/2012 - 20:19
    +5

    Yes, they're trying to cover their tracks! I knew they'd do this as one of the first remedies they TRIED to have me accept was just changing the listing - I've saved a copy of it for lodgement with my complaint with Dept of Fair Trading.

    This is how poor the service at Global/XDS/Progear is - once they found out I wasn't going to simply take what they;d offered me and go away they refused my subsequent email requests for the email addresses and contact details of the person responsible for this issue.

    I only got it by 'tricking' the PA into giving it to me.

    Very poor.

    I just find it disgusting that they agree to resolve the issue for me but when I ask them to do it for anyone else they flatly refuse unless they're asked……this is SO POOR and should erode any confidence people have in the integrity of this company & its products.

    I wish I could recount all the stupid stuff that their 'National Sales Manager' rattled off today TRYING to fob off responsibility for this issue…….the best one BY FAR was when he stated that they started selling this model before he commenced employment with them and so it wasn't his problem. :-D

    It was pretty hilarious this guys SERIOUSLY went through and tried everything from saying they were cleared at a low price (implying you get, what you get!) to saying it was a typo, to the guys in the factory made a mistake to the always classic 'No-one else has ever complained'.

    Anyway - I do look forward to hearing back from DFT about it, its great having email and phone records showing that you've raised these issues with the vendor and the ball to explain this all lands right in their court.

    Could be an expensive recall if they have to pay for the original advertised/or other suitable derailleur to be fitted to all affected bikes. :-)

    • ilikecheapcrap on 23/08/2012 - 20:27

      I noticed they changed the add now.. shifty! But ebay is smart enough to keep the original advert for the bike, so I have copied/pasted the original and sent an email to Greg..

    • jdr on 23/08/2012 - 21:33

      Thanks so much Nikko!

      This -> On certain gear combinations the chain will knock against the front derailleur, which at best is just annoying but at worst could lead to failure of other components etc

      Exactly, this has really given me the sh*ts. Are you going to DFT NSW because you live there? I always thought you had to go to the organisation in the state where the seller was but I guess I was wrong.

      Ok, just checked and C050 confirmed. As if it is only a few, it must be the lot of them!

      Thanks again mate.

    • jdr on 23/08/2012 - 22:21

      "Anyway - I do look forward to hearing back from DFT about it,.."

      When you hear from them, ask whether they want the contact details of others to support your case. I imagine that it won't be hard to find a decent number of buyers even just from ozBargain.

      Hopefully Greg will sleep on it and make a smart decision about how to rectify this situation.

  • c64 on 23/08/2012 - 21:15

    easiest to raise paypal dispute?

    • jdr on 23/08/2012 - 22:12

      wouldn't you have to give the vendor a chance to rectify your individual claim first?

    • cwongtech on 27/08/2012 - 12:08
      +1

      Paypal dispute never works if you've received the item, they will ask you to send it back at your cost before you get a refund (Send a BIKE at your cost!), and even then the seller can say they never received it.
      The only way to sting the seller is to put a rock in a box, send it via registered post (with tracking an everything)
      By this method,
      To Paypal, you have sent back "the item" (…a rock not the box) and the seller has received it, hence the refund will be forced in your favour. In this case, the deal was posted 22/06/2012, which means its a tad over 2 months, the days you can open a paypal dispute is within 45 days of payment, and hence it looks like bad publicity, spamming GregSkals with requests and showing the power of the OzBargain Mob is all this group has for now.
      I haven't done the rock-in-a-box with registered mail before but theoretically it would work. I usually put "Item not received" if the item I paid for.. is of extremely low quality and would cost way too much to send back for a refund, it's just easier (yes legally it might not be right but honestly I'd feel gipped to pay $10 for something that doesn't work to an acceptable quality, and also feel even more gipped to pay $7.50 to send it back to say China to get a refund of $2.50 and simply lose $7.50 out of my own pocket for nothing)

      • Daniel Plainview on 27/08/2012 - 15:09
        +1

        I agree a Paypal dispute is a bad idea. I don't want to digress or go offtopic but just quickly….

        I made the mistake of doing one on the basis of 'fake/counterfeit product' - (bought a 'new' Samsung 500gb portabe HDD which ACTUALLY was a rebirthed Seagate 160gb in a fake enclosure with firmware amended) - turned into a NIGHTMARE getting what Paypal demanded to reverse the sale.

        So yes, you're 200% right if you ever need to reverse the Paypal process ALWAYS go with 'Item not received' if you can…..otherwise its will be a mess & can be a bugger to prove your case. :-)

        • Trance N Dance on 29/08/2012 - 20:50
          -1

          Well technically if you got a fake, you haven't received the item you paid for….

  • c64 on 23/08/2012 - 21:35

    .

  • Davo1111 on 23/08/2012 - 22:08

    FYI - I just received an irrate call from Mr Skals advising that they would refund me the full purchase price on my bikes and have a courier pick them up to amend the issue - I REFUSED THIS. He was exceptionally rude and in my opinion has no interest in helping people affected by this issue.

    take the deal, i'm not sure if you're looking for compensation or something, but if it goes to court, the best case is your money back minus court fees.

    • jdr on 23/08/2012 - 22:15

      why? I don't think Nikko wants rid of the bikes, he wants them to be equipped as specified. That's perfectly reasonable.

      • Davo1111 on 23/08/2012 - 22:36

        hes getting his money back, thats the BEST case scenario.

        • jdr on 23/08/2012 - 22:44
          +2

          and that ignores the bigger issue that it wasn't a general offer to all affected, it sounds like it was an offer to shut Nikko up so that the others affected by this error wouldn't generally start making enquiries.

          Luckily, Nikko isn't that selfish.

        • Davo1111 on 24/08/2012 - 14:30

          Unless he only gets the refund on the condition that he has to delete this page, then yes, i agree. However it doesn't seem that's the case.

        • cwongtech on 27/08/2012 - 12:09

          If it goes to court, a global recall could be enforced.
          I think O.P. wants his original deal that he saw on the ebay listing, and by a refund he wouldn't get it, just he money back.

        • Daniel Plainview on 27/08/2012 - 15:16

          Ummm I want 2 things….for myself I'd be very satisfied to have the proper part (or equivalent) fitted to the bikes I bought.

          And I'd like the vendor to make AN EFFORT to flag to as many folks as possible that have bought these bikes that they didn't put the proper front derailleur on and hence if they are having issues with this to contact them for replacement part fitting.

          I've discussed the refund issue several times already - not of interest to me - maybe others different. :-/

          In itself its an issue as the vast majority of these bikes were bought through retail outlets and these vendors would see this as a manufacturer/importer issue. Anyway as I've said this won't play out FAST as first we have to go direct to vendor, but rest assured based on what they've said to me they're willing to do nothing more than posting out the proper parts.

          I'm patient….and vindictive…haha so is fine by me if they want to take that approach. :-D

  • kingsville on 23/08/2012 - 22:19
    +3

    I know you guys are pissed but…

    I doubt it is a safety issue, just a quality issue and the gears will click/grate/not shift properly. It won't kill you.

    8-speed chains are thinner than 6-7 speed chains so the 'cage' of the front derailleur is slightly different in width between types. I would think that you have an 8-speed chain for it to work with the 8-speed rear cog, and this isn't going to get caught in the front derailleur fitted any more than it would catch on the originally specified one.

    It sucks they misrepresented their product and cut corners on a part that can be bought for $5 (http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=46846), but i doubt it is worthy of a product recall.

    • jdr on 23/08/2012 - 22:24

      it's worthy of rectification. The specs say one thing but another was supplied. That's pretty straightforward. And it's not as if the incorrect part is working exactly equivalently.

      And buy the way, you need to get someone professional to take your photo … or at least someone who can aim accurately :-)

      • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2012 - 01:10

        I think it shows a remarkable likeness.
        My photo certainly does.

      • m0nkeycheese on 24/08/2012 - 07:28

        Lol that photo isn't him its Ben Stiller in Zoolander. Lol at personal attacks XD

        • jdr on 24/08/2012 - 07:42

          It's not him? Surely that can't be true. I feel so deceived.

        • kingsville on 24/08/2012 - 09:39
          +1

          jdr - you have not been deceived…

          My name is Derek and I like having play fights with petrol pumps.

    • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 12:58

      Safety was always flagged as being a lesser concern, usability is however a realistic problem as a high % of users I know (myself included) have had long term probs with gear changes nd this seems to be directly related and is logical based on what I've had explained to me by them.

      You're right the incorrect C050 does work …..hence they've been able to somehow get away with this for years. BUT it does atleast for a % of people not work as well as it should. As stated Shimano in their technical document on the C050 state that for best results it should be used with a 6-7 speed rear cassette. So yes it will work with an 8, but less than optimally …eg. clunk!!!

      And all this is by the by as its NOT what was listed and they negligently sold it this way for YEARS. Not good enough.

      Ummmm sorry to be picky but its $AUD6……oh and then you have $10 postage. Oh and then you need a chain breaker tool to fit it, thats around $35-40.

      And then you have to fit it……very messy, taking the chain off etc. And finally you are rewarded by getting to retune your front derailleur again….which a LOT of people already paid stores/professionals to do for them.

      Potentially it could cost people $70-100 to have fitted or $50 or so if they do themselves and have to buy the tool (as the other ones are common eg screwdriver, allen keys).

      Hence I think just getting the part sent is not an appropriate remedy and so I'll be refusing this and requesting a better offer be made. :-)

    • jdr on 24/08/2012 - 18:42

      " ……on a part that can be bought for $5 (http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=46846) …"

      Actually, where can it be bought for $5? or any price?

      That link has no option to buy and states that the C202 is discontinued. If that's the case, what model did Greg at lifespan offer to Nikko? Unless they have a stash of these (unlikely) or access to old stock, they likely can't offer the C202.

      We need someone with the knowledge to know what is an equivalent model (in value and function).

  • ozyack on 23/08/2012 - 22:52

    Unfortunately I am away from home for 2 weeks and I cannot check my bike but I have the feeling it's a C050 like the rest of you. It has been 2 months since my purchase and Paypal only allows disputes within 45 days of sale but even if you could I'd say it would result in a return and refund. You might even be responsible for the return shipping as this is Paypal's policy even when wrong item is sent (which has happened to me before in a case, I went furious!). Lifespan offers says under DOA Policy that: "Return Shipping
    If your item arrives damaged, DOA or faulty and you return the item within 14 days, we will pay for the return shipping or reimburse you for any return shipping costs you reasonably incur. If the fault occurs after the first 14 days but within the warranty period, you will need to return the item to us at your own cost."
    This is a little bit tricky as the bike was faulty "to start with" because of a wrong item being assembled on. Well Nikko was already offered reimbursement for shipping back, so I assume that would not be a problem for the rest of us.
    But then, is this the best solution?
    Nikko, do you have an idea why they first agreed to send you the right part then changed their mind? I'd really like to know what outcome you'll get out of this, so that we can all reach a better reimbursement!

    • cwongtech on 27/08/2012 - 12:13

      You might even be responsible for the return shipping as this is Paypal's policy even when wrong item is sent (which has happened to me before in a case, I went furious!)

      As my post above, use rock-in-a-box registered mail method, get your money back for the bike(less the money required to send a rock in registered mail), and use that money to upgrade your mismatched bike :p

      • Daniel Plainview on 27/08/2012 - 15:25

        Whilst its a novel idea I think one would be a tad foolish to do pretty extreme things like this when there's several avenues open to getting a positive outcome & they look exceptionally strong based on the simple facts e.g item sold as having C202, item received had C050 - different part, different intended use.

        I'd be very surprised if they don't seek to settle this ASAP with anyone who contacts them as if this gets to the ACCC and they have to retrospectively contact or atleast TRY and make contact with buyers going back quite a few yrs it's going to MASSIVELY increase potential costs.

        Having been in a senior mgt position thats all these guys are looking at……numbers…….any moron can see they did the wrong thing, hence yanking/changing their Ebay listings almost overnight - so actions speak louder than words at times.

        If they've any nouse at all they'll be checking potential costs and also damage to their brand factoring in the probability of us getting them forced to do this - then weighing this up against trying to contact us and arrange individual solutions etc. Anyway….the balls in their court right now, but will soon be in the ACCC's.

        If we don't get a suitable resolution I'll draft a letter and pop it up here for others to use too. :-)

  • tatasauce on 23/08/2012 - 23:42

    I'd say most if not all of them were fitted with C050. I too want to know what the best outcome is. Would be great if they would pay for the C202 to be fitted, but I guess at the minimum we should ask for it to be posted to us for free?

    Let me know what you guys are going to do. I have a draft email sitting there for Mr Skals, asking for a replacement to be sent.

    • ozyack on 23/08/2012 - 23:45

      Like a post above says the part itself doesn't cost more than 5-10 bucks, but labour will cost way more so I wouldn't be happy with a free part sent only…

  • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2012 - 01:03

    I didn't buy one of these, so i'm not in a position to take action, but i suggest the following:

    1. Nikko, keep taking the lead as you're doing. Everyone who can, help.

    2. Keep good records: screen captures of original deal (if you have it, or others can provide), together with the evolution of any mods that the supplier makes to the eBay ad, or their own site. If someone has a clear screen capture of the original deal with specs, please provide a link.

    3. Pursue recall, or at least that purchasers are advised of 'fault' and provided an opportunity for rectification. Anything that is on a bike, that is not designed for that bike, is likely to be a safety issue. It may also be unlawful for the supplier to sell the bikes with parts not designed for it. In any case the original ad misrepresented what you were getting.

    4. Contact eBay, advise them of the issue, and request that they remove the deal from their site. If this goes past their lawyers, they will very likely pull it.

    5. Put everything that is substantive in writing, which can include email, especially if seeking government bodies to take action. If you want more hard evidence of delivery, use registered post, in addition to email.

    6. Don't take any crap from these guys. If your account is accurate (and i'm not suggesting it's not), then they're probably cutting corners elsewhere.

    7. Ask them who their insurers are. That should make them nervous. If they don't tell you, ring around…there's only so many of them.

    Apologies if any of this is obvious, or i've repeated anything already said.

  • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2012 - 01:23

    BTW, if you're after a decent entry-level mountain bike, i think this is one of the better ones: http://www.cyclingexpress.com/cycle/azzurri-erupt-mtb.aspx at $269 + postage (or you can pick up if in Melb). The frame is made in Taiwan (not China, unless you're the Chinese Communist Party) and is double-butted (framing thicker at the weld points). The components are a little up from base level.

    Anaconda also have a sale starting up with their own 'Method' bike @ $299, but it's Chinese, and not double-butted. Components are base level. I've seen it, and think it's crap. http://catalogues.anaconda.com.au/portal/dynamiccatalogue?Ca…

  • m0nkeycheese on 24/08/2012 - 07:40

    I never bought one of these bikes so its probably not my place to comment but I can understand if you are pissed having that grating sound when changing gears that just irks me real bad. But if offered a replacement part id be happy with that, yes its a little effort to fit but much less then dealing with fair trading etc. Anyways good luck with it all everyone.

  • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 10:44
    +2

    Wow a lot of stuff posted overnight, impressive and I REALLY appreciate the support and assistance.

    However, I've seen somehow a few folks have gotten the wrong idea about a few things, so please allow me to clarify:

    1. The vendor offered to refund me the complete purchase price of my bikes & get a courier to pick them up etc - as they wanted the matter to go away. I refused this as I LIKE THE BIKES, so all I wanted is the incorrect/inappropriate part replaced. Hence I refused this offer outright.

    2. As far as I know the vendor stated that they would mail the correct and originally advertised front derailleur to any persons who contacted them in a similar position (CX-400 owner) - Greg Skals said he'd definitely do this for ALL persons wishing a replacement part.

    Mr Skals however refused to pay, assist with fitting of the replacement derailleur and more dissappointly refused to take any proactive steps to advise potentially affected customers of this information.

    1. Overnight I've been advised by senior persons within the Asutalian cycling community that the ACCC is actually the proper body to deal with this matter, not the NSW DFT. Hence if I take it anywhere it will be there. I'd encourage others to do the same.

    2. I am not, nor have at any time sought monetary or material compensation from the vendor for this issue. All I have asked for is that both myself and any other affected consumers have the part replaced with the proper part (Shimano C202) or an equivalent part that is SPECIFICALLY made for usage with an 8 speed rear cassette.

    3. I know the C050 will 'work' - but the reality is that Shimano themselves specify that it is a 6-7 socket suited item and I think that trumps anything you, me or any other 'experts say'. And of course if that isn't sufficient we all bought based on the specs that the vendor provided, that clearly states the F.D should be a Shimano C202. Very open and shut.

    As I said earlier its an extreme example to say that injury could result from this matter - but it could. Realistically I would imagine a vast majority (if not all) CX-400 owners will not be getting smooth gear changes at all combos from their bike and/or will spend quite a bit professionally trying to minimise these problems.

    1. Personally, I've no ambition to turn this into a shytefyte going to the ACCC, sending emails, getting agro phone calls etc - BUT what really stuck in my grille was that this vendor's senior executive firstly tried to mislead me on the phone in a multitude of ways. This is bad enough but the kicker was that he was willing to solve the problem for me but DID NOT CARE to do it for ALL OF YOU!!!!

    He did not want you to find out and he did not want to help you find out. But if you did he'd do what he legally had to - this is wrong on so many levels.

    1. Haha and just finally I'm almost certain this affects EVERY CX-400 these guys have ever sold (and possibly other bikes in their range and maybe even in the XDS brand range). As stated my CX-400 was bought a few months ago - it has the C050 and is affected - has the chain knock problem, etc etc.

    My wife got a CX-400 (some cosmetic differences but components identical) nearly 2-3yrs ago at a retail shop in Parramatta - has the C050 and chain knock etc etc

    Now call me sceptical but how does a company sell perhaps thousands of a product and not notice that a clearly visible component is labelled NOT as what they're selling? At best its ignorance and unprofessionalism and you can figure out the worst.

    And finally…….SO WHY AM I DOING THIS?
    Like I said its just to let everyone else know - as I said to Greg Skals, I will guarantee there are countless of other CX-400 owners like me who have had issues with their bikes gears and they've NEVER thought that it's an incorrect component.

    Lets be frank, it's a pretty entry level bike - not intended for enthusiasts and folks like us (I'm one too!) aren't going to check the model number on the front derailleur and realise it's not as advertised AND that its not suited to the rear cassette etc etc.

    I'm certainly not that cluey and so I always just thought it was what it was….and so I made the best of the situation and also paid someone to try and get it perfect, but to no avail.

    Greg agreed with ALL OF THIS. But still refused to do anything to flag the issue to any other owners of the CX-400 or other affected models.

    As noted, all they've done (bloody quickly too!) is change the listing to TRY and cover their butts against people who buy the last few CX-400's they have in stock.

    And this to me as much as anything (like more evidence/weight was needed) is a clear inditement that they KNOW they've broken their legal obligations but will do nothing to correct them.

    haha sorry for the long winded rant. Anyway PLEASE if nothing else get the proper Shimano C202 part sent out to you (it should be pretty easy to fit) and do stand up for your rights. :-)

    Thanks again, Nikko :-)

  • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 11:28
    +1

    Ok…………………

    I had thought that it'd be relatively straight forward to put the new/proper front derailleur on the bike - adjusting them is a REAL PAIN - even the experts don't like doing it but I digress.

    Anyway turns out that its not so hard to fit them BUT you need to have a special chain breaker tool - as you need to be able to feed the chain through the bar/frame of the derailleur (you'll see this on your current bike).

    Something like this:
    http://www.velogear.com.au/cycling/bike-accessories/maintena…

    So I really doubt most users like us will have one of these already, hence we're looking at a ~$30+ outlay atleast for that and then you've got a very messy job ahead fitting the derailleur and then also have the royal PITA of adjusting the newly fitted front derailleur.

    So I have to be honest, I'm REALLY thikning we're letting the vendor off VERY EASY if we just settle for allowing them to post a part to us and wipe their hands of the problem.

    As I mentioned Greg Skals has bluntly refused to pay for fitting of the derailleur, even if you asked for it to be done - his stated that the bike came sold as 'needing professional assembly' and as such this covered them against having to pay for this now.

    I found this ridiculous because firstly, the front derailleur came fully fitted on the bike. Secondly, even if it hadn't came fitted and users had paid to have someone fit it originally they'd NOW be forced to pay again …..but at the end of the day this is the vendors problem and not the consumers and so they should have to supply and fit the proper & originally listed part.

    I wouldn't dig my heels in if it was the bell or a tyre, which I can 100% do myself but this is a tad more tricky and to be honest I've little sympathy for this vendor given the comments and conduct they've shown to me and other users.

  • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 12:18

    Ok - tried to call the ACCC couldn't get through - terminated call after 20mins holding. :-/

    Inline with their guidelines I tried yesterday to get formal response on who to lodge a complaint letter with. Didn't get any reply in writing, haha just the agro phone call from Greg Skals who was so frustrated he call me 'Samuel'….saying he wasn't going to give any details and he wanted to refund/return my entire bikes! Yada yada, as explained I refused.

    Anyway just sent the below request to them - first step in getting them to doing the right thing:

    "Mr Samuel Wang,

    I sent the below request to you yesterday seeking the full contact details of the appropriate person at Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd to forward a complaint letter too - in compliance with the recommendations of the ACCC. The complaint pertains to the incorrect/inappropriate front derailleur being fitted to the Progear CX400 bicycle distributed and directly sold by Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd.

    As at the time of writing this email I have still received no reply from yourself or any representative of Global Fitness & Leisure regarding who I can address this request/complaint to.

    I therefore would ask that this information be provided to me in full and by close of business today, 24th August 2012. I wish to formally document my request and give Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd an opportunity to resolve this matter for both myself and other affected purchasers of this bicycle.

    If I do not receive the full contact details (full name, position, employer name, email address, telephone number and postal address) I will have no other recourse than to again follow the ACCC's recommendations for dispute resolution and lodge my complaint directly with them.

    *** Important: Please ensure all communications are only made in writing. ***

    Please note this communication and all previous communications have been retained and will be utilised to verify that sincere efforts were made to bring this matter to Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd's attention and seek assistance for affected consumers.

    I look forward to your speedy reply, "

    Personally…..I'd hold off making the requests for JUST THE PROPER PART (Shimano C202 or equiv) and trying to fit yourself as it does look kinda tricky and getting it professionally done is prolly $70+ in labour. If you bodge it up you may have no recourse.

    If you're like me your bike will still be usable (albeit with issues) but you can still use whilst this plays out.

    I would do NO MORE than emailing XDS/Global etc and advising you are aware of the problem and you want it resolved, I would also settle for nothing less than having the proper part supplied and fitted.

    There may also be the option of having your bike returned and the full price (inclusive of delivery) refunded - Greg Skals tried to force me to accept this option but I refused, however some folks may want to do this.

    Also I would welcome if people could lodge a complaint, via phone or electronically at the ACCC. Weight in numbers will have us heard.

    Thank you. :-)

  • Moderatorscotty on 24/08/2012 - 12:40

    Sorry have to remove the phone number from this page. For those who need the phone number to contact XDS Bikes, please PM Nikko for it. The email address stays as it's their business email.

    • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 12:50

      No worries Scotty. I did confirm with the PA at Global Fitness that this number was the business mobile number, rather than it being a personal number just used at work.

      That said I do think everyone should put their complaints in writing to ensure they are properly documented - thus email is the best choice to ensure you get a fair & appropriate resolution.

      Thanks, Nick :-)

  • ilikecheapcrap on 24/08/2012 - 13:06

    Wow.. this is going to be a saga! I totally agree with Nikko, unfortunately for noobs like me, replacing bike parts may become an ordeal & a little costly.
    Personally I would be happy to drive to Campbellfield(there store location in Melbourne - understand this isnt an option for all), thus saving the vendors cost for shipping both ways, and have their "professional" undertake this 10 min replacement/fix?! Ofcourse if lifespan wants to provide a "tune up" of the bike as a gesture of good will for the inconvenience caused due to this erroneous part, it would be highly regarded.

    I contacted Mr Skals last night via email, yet to have a response (still early I realise), just wandering if anyone else (besides Nikko) has had a response from Lifespan on this issue?

    Ideally I do not want to raise this with ACCC if an amicable resolution can be provided to all.

    Thanks
    Sam

    • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 13:38

      Sadly I have to agree that it will possibly be a bit of a saga.

      With a good vendor this problem when raised would have lead them to check their side of things and then put some recovery mechanism in place to rectify the problem and ACTUALLY make the whole exercise into a positive e.g Wow, they tried to hard to fix the mistake, I'm impressed and will buy from again.

      IMHO GFL (what I will call Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd) are doing the near opposite. As such I would recommend people avoid their products until given reason to do otherwise.

      So yeah, this could be super simple and handled at minimal cost and hassle to all but they've nailed their colours to the mast………haha and lets just say I have a hammer in my hand as well. :-)

      PS. Your suggestion is a great one if you can do it - there's NO conceivable reason they wouldn't take the 5mins extra to ensure everything is running 100% perfect….simply physically fitting the front derailleur and not properly adjusting it would be an act of bastardry. :-)

      • ilikecheapcrap on 24/08/2012 - 14:29

        Sweet Nikko, I will piggy-back my email suggesting they replace on-site, and if they also provide a quick complimentary tune, all the better.. I understand your (our) frustration, we aren't bike enthusiasts to undertake finicky part replacements.. Alternatively if they provided exact video footage of the fix, and the necessary parts & tools, I would accept this too….

  • lifespanaustralia on 24/08/2012 - 16:08
    -5

    Hi guys,

    The Progear CX400 was introduced early 2005 with a highly successful history and reputation.

    Some bicycles may feature a higher grade front derailleur of Shimano C050/C051, which is still suitable for your CX400 8-speed hub.

    If you are unhappy with your purchase, you can lodge a complaint to [email protected] or call us at 1300 351 420.

    • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 16:49
      +1

      Where is your evidence to support your claim that the Shimano C050/051 is suitable (or more to the point SPECIFICALLY INTENDED) for use with an 8 speed rear cassette???

      Shimano themselves clearly state in the technical docs for the C050 that for best results they recommend it is used with a 6-7 speed cassette only.

      So don't just make a claim, I want to see specific information.

      And I'd also like to know HOW and WHY the C050 is a higher grade front derailleur to the advertised component that EVERYONE here bought - the C202.

      So please provide evidence of this………….because you have very little credibility at this point in time and its exactly what would be expected that you would say given the circumstances.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2012 - 17:21
      +5

      This contribution by lifespanaustralia is significant for what it does not say.

      It:

      1. Does not provide any evidence or links to back the assertions made.

      2. Does not commit to replacing the part, let alone installing them at their cost. It merely provides details of where to make a 'complaint'. The issue is clear - there should be no need for any further complaints.

      3. Does not acknowledge that the ad misrepresented what was actually provided.

      And yes, the ACCC (the consumer, not competition part) should be able to help. They are governed by commonwealth legislation (no state jurisdiction issues), and carries a very big stick (massive legislated powers).

      The big stick is important: they only need to use it now & again, as their usual strategy is to approach a firm and say "look at my stick, look how big it is, now explain to me how you are going to resolve this via an enforceable undertaking".

      The enforceable undertakings are a very useful implement: once agreement is made, if the firm does not accord with the agreement, the ACCC can sue on the basis of breach of that agreement (often very easy to prove) rather than a breach of the Act itself (sometimes harder to prove, and usually more expensive). The relevant Act is fat: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/caca201026…

    • jdr on 24/08/2012 - 18:01

      Dear lifespanaustralia (is that you Greg?),

      I emailed [email protected] yesterday evening but have had no reply. I have now forwarded that email to [email protected] as mentioned by you. I'll give it one more business day for a reply.

      • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 19:50
        +2

        I'm pretty sure you'll find that the 'Lifespan Australia' staff member monitoring things on here is not Greg but instead Samuel. He's not overly helpful, so I'd count on some generic PR nonsense with no substanciation or evidence.

        I'd expect them to be in damage control about this and they won't send any communications out until mid-next week.

        They were very unprofessional in their communications with me and said all kinds of quite outlandish things over the phone but then when I sent that quite formal email again today stating the ACCC action I got a quick reply and in a very formal tone.

        I'd keep all communications in writing and ask for anything said over the phone to be confirmed in writing.

  • c64 on 24/08/2012 - 16:27

    the bloke has offered a full refund. that is about the best you can hope for if you are dissatisfied

    • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 16:53
      +4

      Mattgal,

      Are you talking about what they offered to me or someone else?

      I've covered it earlier but I was only offered on one bike and this was essentially an attempt to get me to shutup and not publicise this matter.

      As such I declined it……..apart from the fact I've over two hundred dollars worth of accessories on the bike since new and have spent countless hours tweaking it etc and I'll be buggered if I'm going to strip all that etc etc.

      I want what I paid for…call me old fashioned but thats my attitude.

    • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2012 - 17:30
      +5

      This is about resolving an issue involving the sale of many bikes, not just the OP's bike.

      If the OP was driven purely by self-interest, then of course he would not have posted. If i was driven purely by self-interest, i would not have posted (indeed i have no personal interest as i didn't buy the bike & have no association with anyone involved).

      The world would be a sad place indeed if everyone was purely driven by self-interest. OB would probably collapse overnight if that was the case.

    • jdr on 24/08/2012 - 17:52
      +1

      Mattgal, please stop clouding the issue with this misinformation. There is no general offer of a refund to each affected purchaser, even if they were prepared to take it.

      • c64 on 24/08/2012 - 19:12
        -4

        what??

        "FYI - I just received an irrate call from Mr Skals advising that they would refund me the full purchase price on my bikes and have a courier pick them up to amend the issue - I REFUSED THIS."

        the consumer made a warranty claim. the manufacturer has offered to fulfil their warranty obligations by giving a full refund. the consumer has refused.

        • jdr on 24/08/2012 - 19:57
          +7

          I didn't suggest that Nikko wasn't offered a refund. I pointed out that this was not a general offer to refund anyone else, only to shut Nikko up. That doesn't address the bigger picture regarding all the other purchasers (who have not been offered a refund and may never know why their gears have some problems if this company gets their way).

          So really all your reply did was to continue the clouding.

    • c64 on 24/08/2012 - 19:10
      -1

      my point is i don't think consumer law allows you to force the retailer to repair something. if they have offered to refund the purchase cost in full then they've done all they are obligated to do. i'm not a consumer law expert though.

      • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 19:41
        +4

        Mate, I don't mean to be that guy but as the above poster stated you're kinda clouding things here.

        Do you mind if I ask do you have one of these bikes or are you just an 'interested onlooker'? No worries if just the latter but I do feel you run the risk of misleading folks who HAVE bought and are affected if you imply that we're effectively passing up a great deal (not that their even IS a deal.

        As stated I've spent a LOT extra on my bike….so a refund isn't an option for me. My wife's bike (also CX400) was bought through a retailer and for over $600, when I flagged this to Mr Skals saying he could refund this then he declined and said he'd only do so on directly bought bikes.

        So thats a thanks, but no thanks from me on both counts. But as the other poster said there is at time of writing NO refund offer to all and sundry.

        My impression is this was a deal made to try and shut me up so I'd move on and not flag it to others, guess it didn't work. :-)

  • Mikinoz on 24/08/2012 - 17:59

    Thanks for posting, aside from a good read might have learnt a few things :)

  • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2012 - 18:48

    BTW, this does not need to be a 'saga'.

    All that really needs to happen is carefully target/craft a complaint to the relevant governmental bodies in order to prod them into action. It's why they are there, and they sometimes love it (the smaller jobs can help them make their performance metrics look good).

    So my point is stay positive, as there are plenty of reasons to be so.

    • jdr on 24/08/2012 - 18:55

      I bought two of these bikes. I wanted to email first and give them a chance to do the right thing. I've forwarded the email from yesterday to the email address given by lifespanaustralia here today. If there is no joy, or no response, then I'll go the next step.

      • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2012 - 19:02

        Yes, as an individual that is a quite reasonable approach, and indeed most gov bodies will usually request that you approach the seller directly in the first instance.

        However those with the time/drive can also approach this on a broader scale given so many bikes appear to be affected. This would seem to me entirely reasonable as well given that, from the formal post from lifespanaustralia above, they appear intent on being reactive, rather than proactive.

  • jdr on 24/08/2012 - 18:56

    Maybe someone can get a C202 if they visit this guy quickly http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/ultimo/bicycles/3-month-new-p… .

    Chances are, it'll be a C050 though :)

  • jdr on 24/08/2012 - 18:57

    This is an interesting ad http://www.gumtree.com.au/s-ad/kensington/bicycles/premium-p… .

    This guy has a C050 front derailleur. And wait, he has a seven speed rear gear set! Funny about that :)

    • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2012 - 19:07
      +1

      Problem is it's in 'very good condotion'…

      In my experience many 2nd hand sellers seem to have bought at top dollar & can't quite get their minds beyond that.

      • jdr on 24/08/2012 - 19:11

        I think I'm missing you're point? I was only making the link between the matching of the C050 front derailleur with a 7 speed set of rear cogs (as per manufacturers spec) as opposed to using a C050 with 8 speed.

        • [Deactivated] on 24/08/2012 - 19:37

          Umm, yeah, i see your point.
          Maybe my brain was still locked into this thread: http://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/77733 and perhaps my earlier comment re mountain bikes.

          It happens…

  • Daniel Plainview on 24/08/2012 - 19:44
    +1

    Just make sure that you tell anyone that'll listen or on your social media pages etc to AVOID LifeSpan products until they prove we do do otherwise.

    These guys also do XDS Bicycles (which appears to be simply a rebranding of their Bicycles division after it flopped or got a pretty average reputation trading at Progear for several years).

    • Kill Joy on 25/08/2012 - 09:25
      +2

      Not an owner of these bikes, but just wanted to say I support what your doing. Best of luck :)

  • jdr on 25/08/2012 - 10:19

    Did anyone get an email reply from Greg or anyone else yet? I'm writing to the ACCC Monday evening if I have nothing satisfactory back by then.

    • tatasauce on 25/08/2012 - 11:54

      No reply yet. How many have actually emailed them regarding this?

  • jdr on 25/08/2012 - 10:37

    Also, I've just emailed Shimano Australia requesting some information.

  • [Deactivated] on 25/08/2012 - 17:09

    Wow, just found out about this. I'm also a purchaser of this bike and regular weekend user.

    I can confirm my bike also has the C050. Very disappointing!

  • Daniel Plainview on 26/08/2012 - 15:30

    Sent this email to Greg Skals, feel free to copy/use if it helps, cheers, Nikko:

    Mr Skals,

    This email is written as formal notification to Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd that I am seeking your assistance in resolving an issue with two Progear CX400 bicycles I have purchased. The serial numbers of these bicycles are: 8DX032134 (bought 12JUN12 - Ebay, 8XD01071 (bought 08MAR09 - The Bike Barn (retail store)) - I've attached an image to further substantiate my ownership (2 x CX400.jpg)

    Throughout my ownership of these two bikes I've had varying degrees of problems with the front derailleur on the bikes - whereby gear changes would not be smooth. This was particularly evident on #1 & #8 gears when using the #1 & #3 front chain rings. At the time I felt this was a 'tuning issue' and so have paid for professional adjustment on these bikes in an attempt to alleviate this problem.

    Both these bicycles were purchased with the specific listing of their specifications stating that they had the Shimano C202 as their front derailleur (refer to attached files showing Global Leisure's Ebay listing and also retailer's description). However it has come to my attention that both my bikes instead have the Shimano C050 as their front derailleur (see attached image as substantiation of this). I was not advised of this component change at any part of the sales process.

    Subsequent investigation has shown that Shimano Corporation recommends the C050 be used with 6-7 socket rear cassettes, whist the C202 is specifically intended for 8 speed rear cassettes. Therefore I believe that the bikes being equipped with the C050 component INSTEAD of the originally specified C202 is quite possibly the cause of my mechanical issues.

    I believe that Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd has clearly breached its legal obligations to myself by providing components in its bicycles which do not match the specifications I based my purchase upon - and furthermore by these unsolicited replacement components being of inferior quality and/or not suitable for use with existing components of the bicycle.

    To rectify this situation I would therefore request that Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd provide and fit at your expense to my bicycles the proper advertised front derailleurs for this bicycle (Shimano C202 or an equivalent graded front derailleur specialised for use with an 8 socket rear cassette).

    It is an essential component of this resolution that Global Fitness & Leisure Pty fit &/or arrange for a 3rd party to fit these parts to my bicycles as both bicycles were purchased by me with the front derailleurs ALREADY FITTED (albeit the incorrect ones). Furthermore fitting of the front derailleurs requires specialist bicycle mechanic tools e.g chainbreaker tool - it is unreasonable to expect me to possess these. As a purchaser of the bikes I have paid out of my own pocket for the 'professional assembly' of them each already, but as this incorrect component is Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd's responsibility I feel it highly unacceptable that I be forced to bear this expense again.

    I would like to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible. Hence should I not receive a suitable resolution from you by 5pm Friday, 7th September I will be lodging a formal complaint with the ACCC and/or other relevant bodies.

    For the purposes of transparency & professionalism I would respectfully ask that all communications be undertaken and/or confirmed in writing however I can be contacted upon xxxxxxxxx to expedite communications.

    Should you require any additional information regarding my request please do not hesitate to contact me, I await your reply and a speed resolution.

    Regards,

  • jdr on 26/08/2012 - 16:17

    "I await your reply and a speed resolution."

    Is that some sort of gear humour? :)

    • Daniel Plainview on 26/08/2012 - 19:09

      Ah bummer missed that - shoulda read over it again before sending but these jerks are a PITA so I just spell checked and sent.

      Went for a 25km ride yesterday and again having odd issues with my front derailleur. It just gets the shytes with several gear combos - I find I have to give it a 1/2 push or change down and back up to get the knocking to stop.

      Anyway, thankfully both bikes are completely usable whilst this crap is being sorted out as I've no false illusions of Global Fitness/Progear/XDS starting to show any professionalism or genuine interest in fulfilling their legal obligations any time soon.

  • jdr on 26/08/2012 - 19:24

    "It just gets the shytes with several gear combos - I find I have to give it a 1/2 push or change down and back up to get the knocking to stop."

    Yes I've been experiencing this too. I did 33km today but there is a fair bit of nursing involved in that.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/08/2012 - 19:49

    I'd already sent my e-mail before you posted that above.

    Luckily my flat road riding isn't affected much by the issue (only use 3 gears). But on hill climbs I really do need the gears to change and operate safely and smoothly.

    And I want to do more hill climbs, because I've found the limitations of a hybrid bike vs the road bikes already :(

  • jdr on 26/08/2012 - 23:27

    The lifespan auction for the 15" CX400 seems to have been pulled early without any additional sales. This was the auction noted earlier in this thread that had the FD description changed to C050.

    • Daniel Plainview on 27/08/2012 - 15:57

      Well spotted.

      Now, I wonder what would the impartial 3rd party construe from this?

      To me it looks like a very deliberate damage limitation and they may as well have yelled, "Oops!!!" Clearly someone quickly said to get the listings down, amending them wasn't good enough…they had to be yanked entirely.

      Is it just me or does anyone else think that the ACCC will look at this (like they NEEDED ANY MORE evidence) as everything but an admission of guilt & wrongdoing????? :-D

      A-M-A-T-E-U-R
      H-O-U-R ;-)

    • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2012 - 02:24
      +8

      This is your first post since you joined on Saturday.
      Generally newcomers focus on the deals section, rather than the forums which are a little in the shade.
      You seem remarkably calm with the component mismatch having "[bought] a few of these bikes".
      My suspicion is that there may be more to your decision to join than you're letting on…

      I thought "this Nikko guy" was pretty clear from the start, when he said within his opening post:
      When this was raised with me it IMMEDIATELY explained why I've been constantly having problems with my front derailleur.

      So i guess that means:

      1. He didn't know about the component mismatch, until someone raised it with him (perhaps while having it professionally adjusted).

      2. He's been having trouble with it since purchase, and this may explain why.

      Derailleur's are often a hassle anyway - they generally need regular adjustment to operate properly. I'm pretty sure i'd have assumed it was the right part as well.

      I think his account of his call to the seller is more than sufficient to explain why he made the decision to take this on.

      I look forward to your future posts, on all sorts of topics.

    • jdr on 27/08/2012 - 07:18
      +2

      Oh dear, did you join specifically just to post this? That's unfortunate that you have a few of these bikes with the incorrectly specified front derailleur.

      On the upside though, as you are located in Melbourne, it should be reasonably convenient for you to load them all in a trailer to take back to the Lifespan office when decide to "rectify the situation where they see fit" (whatever the hell that means). Even better, I'm guessing that it is quite likely that you can just take them into work with you one day at Lifespan.

      Nikko still praises the bikes, in general they are really decent quality. He, like others including me, is having problems with the front derailleur operation and, after trying to rectify it through adjustment, has discovered that the part fitted is not the part specified and is in fact a part that Shimano lists as suitable for 6/7 rear sprockets.

      I'm really hoping that Lifespan rectify this promptly without being forced to. However, as far as I know, no-one is even getting replies to emails to Lifespan as yet.

      Out of interest, what has been your experience with the performance of your bike fleet?

    • Flibbs on 27/08/2012 - 09:05
      +3

      Attacking a person's credibility to distract from the subject at hand rarely works and in this case only serves to leave one pondering your motive.

      • ynot1985 on 27/08/2012 - 10:46
        +3

        I dont own any of these bikes but from observation

        I find it funny how this so called 'My gym' dude has a few of these bikes.. but has no stated a single thing about this bike or the performances of the bike in general

        besides the fact the has brought a few of these bikes, Life span is a great company and that Nikko might be lying…

        if he doesn't work for them I dont know who does

        • Moderatorneil on 27/08/2012 - 10:59

          Debate is fine and encouraged but let's move away from accusing new members of any accusations.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2012 - 16:46
          +2

          I agree with the mod - though i think expressing a suspicion is kosher.
          I deliberately chose not to neg the post.

    • Daniel Plainview on 27/08/2012 - 10:46
      +3

      My Gym,

      Despite the fact your post has been negged into oblivion I'm going to address your comments/allegations:

      In no particular order:

      • I resent your sarcastic description of my forum post as a thesis. Suffice to say my primary focus was on providing detailed and specific information to others……preserving your time in reading it was somewhat down in my list of priorities :-)

      Perhaps I could have trimmed it and done several 'drafts' to achieve this - but c'est la vie. Seems you managed to struggle through reading it anyway. :-)

      • You bought 'a few of these bikes' and partially credit my recommendation of them a few months back, well I'll take that as a thank you. Though you've a funny way of showing it, haha a thanks in the original post is perhaps more common but each to his own. Only joined last night I see. Curious but not a big deal in itself.

      • "Makes me wonder from the day you so proudly spoke about this bike, what has happened up till now?"
        Ah I don't know whats to wonder about…..both bikes I bought have worked reasonably well - the primary reason I posted the deal was at that price (~$220 delivered) they were a great buy. Seems others agreed, yourself included.

      Both bikes had minor chain rub on the FD - but like I said this as always been hard to nail down the exact cause of and as such we've just lived with it and assumed it was an adjustment issue.

      • "It's seems you quoted "you brought this bike over 18 months ago for your wife! "Seems the bike preformed ok those whole 18 months yeah?"
        See above answer. My recommendation was based on the value of the bike at that price, not that it was a perfect bike. :-)

      • "I really don't understand how someone can go from praising a product that he has so proudly brought >for his wife 18 months ago to completely slamming a company that has been in the bike business for >years, even if they are in the wrong…"
        I don't know what to say, perhaps you just don't have the faculties then as its pretty basic to me and many others.

      The CX400's were on paper decent value at their retail selling prices (~$500-600) and so at this knockdown price they were very good value. Leisure/commuter oriented bike that was a major step up from your Kmart/BigW ones.

      I've NEVER had any inkling that the components on the bikes weren't what was stated by the vendor….I guess I just assumed, and to be fair I feel this is fair enough. I noticed the tyres were not Innova but Kenda is just as good and I didn't check anything else.

      The only valid point you make is that the vendor is in the wrong. They ARE, and thats really all there is too it.

      • "I'm sure they will rectify the situation where they see fit."
        Seems a tad presumptous. Thankfully for consumer the ACCC and similar bodies don't have such blind faith in vendors.

      • "Seems there is a lot to this story then this guy is telling us."
        Grammatical gibber aside, if you're trying to imply there's more that I AM not telling then you're sadly mistaken, perhaps you should read the 'thesis' again. :-)

      FWIW as others have said I'm really not sure what your agenda is - you strike me as your garden variety troll just looking to stir up some people. I don't think anyone here's going to bite as such so not sure what we can offer you. :-)

      • tatasauce on 27/08/2012 - 11:26

        Great reply Nikko.

        Seems too coincidental that lifespan sells gym products and this person's name is "My gym".

        Will give him/her the benefit of the doubt, but would be great if he/she can tell us a few things :

        1) Review of the bikes, since they bought a few of them based on their own research. And whether or not their C050s have had issues.

        2) If his/her C050 has no issues, tell us how to adjust our C050s so our bikes can perform as perfectly as theirs.

        3) If his/her C050 has the same issue, are they going to ask for their C050s to be replaced.

        Otherwise I have my suspicions, as do our fellow OZBargainers, that there is a lot more to his/her story than "My gym" is telling us.

  • tatasauce on 27/08/2012 - 11:49
    +4

    You know what gets to me? If not for Nikko's post here, they wouldn't have sold so many of their bikes. Look at the amount of purchases and offers they received after 12pm June 22, and how there was a break because they upped their price, and then when it was down to $249 again the bikes flew out the door. Clearly it was OZBargain that pushed their products.

    Before that, even at $249, they were selling 3 per month (May) on eBay.

    The way they responded to Nikko is beyond me. I hope that was a misjudgement on their part, and they will handle this properly from now on.

    They need to restore our faith, it's about keeping the customers happy. The thing is, we are not demanding something that is ridiculous, we bought our bikes, it didn't come with the stated part, it doesn't work properly and we are asking for rectification. As a seller I would do that as a seller's obligation, if not as a legal obligation.

    Everyone makes mistakes. We do understand it could've been an oversight on their part. But make right what is wrong, learn from mistakes, ensure nothing distasteful is left behind if within your power to do so, and soldier on. Life success 101. Business success 101. Something good can come out of this.

    • Daniel Plainview on 27/08/2012 - 15:48

      Thanks Tata, whilst I agree with all of your points this is nolonger about me but rather about the dozens of OzB members who bought these bikes in goodwill and also potentially the hundreds of other folks who did them same through Ebay and retailers.

      I'll share an amusing tidbit of info with ya'll……my background is management and B2B sales. From this I have a strong belief that if you PROVIDE value to people they should be prepared to return the favour. You scratch my back, I scratch yours etc etc - pretty basic idea and generally most would agree with it.

      Cut a long story short, my hyping their stale little sale did so well that after doing this I'd gone to vendor (Global Fitness) and essentially said, "How about something as a thanks for upping your sales so much?"

      Haha after lowballing the crap out of me by offering a HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE backpack/towel/post-it notes combo (seriously $5 cost price in total if it was worth a single cent!) they max out at offering me a single bike from their XDS range at wholesale price.

      To me this is still NOTHING they've given up to me as it will cost them nothing and actually make them money - but its the best they will do and I recognise when I'm wasting my time. Hence I left the offer sit for several months and never intended to use it.

      Then a friend of mine was wanting to get a new bike and I remembered this offer - I contacted them about it and they very reluctantly said they'd still do it - IMHO the prices they gave were definitely NOT wholesale and I told my mate not to go with the offers.

      Anyway……midway through all this I found out about the front derailleur issue & flagged it with them. Almost instantly I got a call from Greg Skals telling me (amongst other things) that as I'd done this they'd be rescinding their offer of the one-off wholesale bike!

      I have to say I almost fell off my chair laughing as he said it like he thought it was a big deal to me and I'd be like," OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

      Whereas in reality it never was something I'd intended to use and it always was a rubbish offer. Haha I think he was a tad underwhelmed when I told him "No worries, I'll struggle on without it."

      Yes, the funny thing is Global Fitness & Leisure or atleast their bicycles division seems VERY amatuerish in their business practices and antics. The jacking up of their prices when those bikes started to sell like hot-cakes was a disgrace and they never properly explained how this possibly could have happened.

      Interestingly I've noticed that with their XDS range of bikes they have RRP's listed on their website for most models…….HOWEVER many retailers seem to have adopted an odd practice of stating a much higher RRP and then marking this down HEAVILY to give the appearance of a massive discount eg XDS G1 - RRP of $875 but many retailer listing it as ~$1200 and selling ~$699.

      Is this illegal? I doubt it but its a questionable practice which doesn't exactly engender confidence in the product or the vendor.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/08/2012 - 16:34

        Few things:

        1. If the seller took retaliatory action in response to your complaint as you have described, then this is a company i would not deal with in the future, regardless of their pricing & quality of product. There is no shortage of competitors in this particular market.

        2. I've noticed the RRP's seem to be a little inflated pretty much everywhere - they all want to say "half price", at least. Part of the game no doubt.

        3. Re pricing, a retailer is generally entitled to modify the selling price of their product at any time (i say 'generally' as there are some exceptions related to price-fixing, cartels etc). This can include in response to increased demand - in fact this is one of the key factors that dictate price setting (Amazon is no different). It is entirely legitimate & simply the market in action. When responding to an ad, it is the customer that generally makes the legal 'offer' to purchase (the ad is an 'invitation to treat', that is an invitation to the other party to make an offer). Only once the customer makes the offer, and the supplier subsequently accepts, is each party bound. So the supplier can modify their ad at will, and not be bound unless they have accepted offers made in response to the ad. This is a long-winded way of me saying i have no issues with the pricing policy they implemented.

        BTW i only expressed a mere suspicion re 'My gyms' comment - i simply don't have enough evidence to ground a belief. I'm happy to assume they're a new member simply seeking to contribute.

        • Daniel Plainview on 28/08/2012 - 10:56
          -1

          Yes, well they're just a tad unprofessional in a number of their business strategies/practices. To me they're short-sighted and ultimately hurt the business but c'est la vie.

          On your #3 point, yes, legally they did nothing wrong - but it was very poor form and did generate SIGNIFICANT negative PR for them. Hence they made their OzB account and posted to say they'd put the prices back etc etc - and if I recall either gave no excuse or something weak as the rationale for why the prices had in some cases jumped by ~50% overnight!!!!

          Jacking up the price like that was the move of a moron and if I'd be in charge of that business I'd have found out who did it and put my boot right up their backside.

          Yes, at best that 'My Gyms' effort was questionable and one can tend to read between the lines. As they say, the silence is deafening. ;-)

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join