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

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!)

Comments

        • -1

          "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!!!!"

          I remember it well. They said that they had internal communications problems between departments and that it was a mistake.

          Bullsh*t!

        • -1

          Yup, my thoughts exactly……they upped the prices by 50% as they were now selling more that 2-3/month!!!! And then when people rightly started screaming blue murder and the whole thing threatened to be a PR nightmare they made that bogus excuse and put them back.

          I'm a big believer in actions speaking louder than words and when a company does that kind of thing it tells you so much more than their mea culpa's afterwards.

          I'm sensing that no-one has had ANY response from this mob yet? None for me either. :-/

  • No response from Greg.. :( looks like ACCC path. Has anyone besides our fearless leader received any sign of life from this mob?

    • nope, two full business days and two email addresses ….. nothing. I think it's looking very like formal action time very, very soon.

      Maybe they are putting something in place and just not in a position to say anything yet? If that was the case, they'd be smart to announce that they were doing something. But they haven't. I think that speaks volumes.

      • HMM.. I will give there helpdesk a call tomorrow.. will get back on here to see what happens!

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

        • Please let us know what you learn.

    • No signs of life at my end. I wish e-mail could alert you when it had been viewed automatically.

      • I'm sure it's been viewed. I think the problem is with the comprehension.

      • should get the mobile number and then use whatsapp to message it. will definitely be able to see if they have seen it or not ! haha

      • When you sent your email you didn't have the ability to ensure that a 'delivery status notification' &/or a 'return receipt' was enabled?

        I use Thunderbird as my email client and when I send emails like these (well ones where I don't want the recipient to simply be able to deny receiving) I ensure both these are enabled.

        That said I THINK the recipient can quite often read the email and refuse to enable the sending back of the 'confirmation' - BUT on the email I sent to Greg Skals I received a confirmation of him reading my emails at 9.03am the morning AFTER I sent them (sent at around 11pm).

        So I'd be almost certain he's read the vast majority of emails they've received.

        Like I theorised on the previous page they're in 'damage assessment' mode and are trying to figure out the most cost effective strategy to solve this thing.

        ALSO I would recommend that folks give them a few more days.

        I KNOW that from a professionalism point of view you'd LIKE to have gotten a response by now but I think you'd be complicating and also undermining your own case if you pre-emptively went to the ACCC.

        The ACCC have clear guidelines on dispute resolution and don't want to have people coming to them IF they can resolve the matter through the vendor. Hence you have to allow these turkeys a reasonable amount of time to come back with a response.

        Now if that response isn't palatable (and this is an individual judgement call) then you can either try and negotiate a better resolution or escalate it to the ACCC or similar.

        But if you go to the ACCC after just 2 business days without a response I think you're going to risk the ACCC saying you didn't give the vendor ample opportunity to respond etc. This is only my logic based on reviewing the ACCC site etc. :-)

        Bear in mind Global Fitness & Leisure will not be wanting to resolve this any quicker than they need to……very common tactic as every day they delay a re folks will think,"Ah bugger it"

        However, it also ensures this discussion/problem stays active - hence I STRONGLY encourage people to put posts on their Facebook/Twitter/Blog stating their disatisfaction with the CX400 and Global Fitness & Leisure (Progear/XDS bicycles) and with a link to this thread as it will result in us getting hits and this will make this issue more VISIBLE (both to unaware CX400 buyers but also prospective future customers of Global/XDS etc) - and the company will want to resolve this ASAP & fairly. :-)

  • Oh cool so id like to get a refund coz the bike is a tad too big.im 5ft and the 15" is huge!!! Ebay listing is wrong on this count too haha
    but, I like the bike and it is a great bargain so I would like to keep it. Could I change anything to make it fit like the frame or wheels?

    • I had to read that three times.

      No - the frame is obviously of fixed size, and made for wheels of a certain size.
      The frame & rims (& tyres) set the distance from the top bar & your treasure while standing.

      Take it back if you wish to preserve your personal integrity.

      The only other alternative appears to be discouraged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distraction_osteogenesis#Cosmet…

      • Id totally do that for ezra (my bike).

        3 times..? But yes I purchased the bike through these guys, same as everybody here. Now I might have a chance to get my money back as its too big and they wouldnt have accepted a refund on those grounds (or any after reading this thread). Fingers crossed? But im thinking if they offer a suitable fix/part ill take it and sell the bike for profit.

        Lesson learned again… It has reinforced my view that eBay is merely an outlet for dishonest scumbags to make a buck or two. Burned too many times.

        But should be fun trying to find the right bike in a store that isnt run by hipsters. Grr

        • Only had to read this one once.

  • They are definitely fully aware of this problem. They have now changed the specs on their progear page and removed c202 from front deraileur. It now displays only Shimano. Maybe they are well aware of the legal consequences and are changing things to cover their tracks. Hope to hear from them soon.

  • I'm sensing that no-one has had ANY response from this mob yet? None for me either. :-/

  • We have sign of life!!
    The description of the bike is not in the same light as it was marketted - in-fact if it was described like it has been below, I wouldnt not have bought it! The fact that its discontinued shouldnt impact the option(s) for resolution. No mention that clearly the wrong part was supplied, regardless if its "discontinued" or not, as previously highlighted here, the correct part is currently sold..
    Anyways, I have to go out now, but thought I would post the response that I received from Global Fitness & Leisure…
    ..and the saga continues!!!

    ———————————- Response to my queries ———————-
    We apologise for the delayed response regarding your enquiry with our Progear CX400 bicycles. As this is a 7 year old model with outdated designs and components, our investigation will take longer than expected. To further elaborate, this model is discontinued and so are its components, however to fully determine the main cause of the issue we will require testing and analysis before any course of action.

    We aim to provide our customers with the best quality products and service, and that said, you can be assured that we will maintain this record in the times ahead. Please understand that your enquiry has been prioritised and noted, and for this matter it will require shipping of specific parts from our suppliers for our technicians to test, analyse and derive at a conclusion to answer your enquiries.

    We thank you in advance for your patience, and likewise, we aim for a swift, reasonable resolution to your registered enquiry.

    • I got the exact same e-mail 3 hours ago.

      • Nothing received here.

    • Have to agree with the gist of Nikko's comments below:

      1. Buying time (why they're not really talking to you all) - "prioritised and noted" is piffle.

      2. Delay re supply of alternative parts & testing. This is a bit of a joke - they will almost certainly have a sample of alternative parts (they are a large outfit), and in any case the question is whether a part is recommended by the manufacturer to interwork with another part, not whether their "testing" says it's OK. I would not rely on any of their declared testing outcomes.

      Nikko gave them a couple of weeks in his letter for them to deal with it, so that's his timeline. There's a case for hitting ACCC etc with the paperwork at about the same time - harder for them to ignore multiple queries that essentially say the same thing.

    • Haven't had any replies yet. Anyone else besides ilikecheapcrap and scytherbladez received a response from them?

      • Late today, I received :

        "Thank you for contacting Global Fitness & Leisure Pty Ltd Customer Support.
        Your request for assistance has been received. Case #ID1xxxx - "BIKCXxxxxxx" has been created for you. A member of our customer care team will respond to your case as soon as possible."

        • Did you email Greg? Or global fitness' support email?

  • +2

    "….for this matter it will require shipping of specific parts from our suppliers for our technicians to test, analyse and derive at a conclusion to answer your enquiries."

    If the aim was to prove that the C050 was fit for purpose, you would expect them to test the hell out of that and attempt to prove that it could operate correctly with an 8 cog set at the back. But "…will require shipping of specific parts from our suppliers for our technicians to test…" may imply that they at least acknowledge that the part is not as per advertised spec and that they need to find something equivalent to the C202.

    Or am I reading too much into that?

  • +1

    Personally I think they're just buying time.

    The regulating authorities don't care that:
    - its an old model
    - that you want to conduct testing and analysis (yeah right!)
    - 'Promises' about providing the best quality products and service to customers!!! (haha that must be why Greg Skals refused to contact anyone when I asked him to do this!)

    The advertised and SOLD a product after SPECIFICALLY stating its components (C202 front derailleur) and it's abilities (24speed).

    They've instead delivered to customers a product with different parts and the potential for less than normal usage problems.

    So I really don't see WHAT any amount of testing/analysis could achieve…..as even if they had an independant 3rd party say the C050 is just as good people can under my understanding of the trading rules still push for a remedy.

    Testing etc is just a joke as Shimano makes these parts and knows them better than ANYONE and they specifically sold the C050 for 6-7 socket cassettes , whilst the C202 was for 8's. This is reinforced in all the website listings I've seen of individual the individual parts and ALSO other bikes that feature them as components.

    So I think people can WAIT….and see what this amounts to - if nothing else I'd be wanting a firm timeline on this…..otherwise it could drag on for eons.

    But personally I think just kicking it up to the ACCC is my prefered option as I have no confidence in them managing this process professionally, fairly or legally. I think they're just going to do whats best for them….all other interests, including their legal obligations are distantly secondary.

    I based this off not having gotten a response and what Mr Greg Skals said to me on several phone calls.

    Anyway folks have options, which is a good thing. :-)

    • Please post the draft letter to the ACCC when you've got one written.

      Lifespans attitude towards this issue is fueling me to pursue this matter further.

      • Haha gawd I've gotta do it all. ;-)

        Is no biggie, yes when I draft a letter for the ACCC I'll happily post it up - a thanks from anyone who finds it handy would be great. :-)

        • Thanks in advance. =)

          I find myself hardly eloquent nor formal when writing up documents like that. And at many times fail to cover all aspects even though I felt it was well thought out at time of writing. Haha.

  • +1

    Please find my response to GF below, I am hopeful they will resolve very soon.

    ———My response to GF response ——————
    Although I appreciate your response, it doesn’t make total sense to me.
    You have described & sold the bike to me as "brand new", yet know when there’s an issue you describe the bike as a 7 years old model, with out-dated design and components, and to further elaborate, the model is discontinued and so are its components.. Surely it would make sense to describe it like this before you happily accepted my money?!

    You mention that to determine the main cause of the issue takes time.. yet from the condition of sale (as advertised) and from a quick search on the internet, clearly the Shimano C202 should have been supplied (for 8-speed drivetrains), rather than the erroneous Shimano C050 (Compatible with 6/7-speed drivetrains) which was provided, thus if you require time to change/test the part that’s reasonable, I would expect/request to replace the erroneous part with correct one and undertake testing, this should not take several weeks or months, so I would appreciate if you could please provide a date for this issue resolution.

    On a more serious observation, I have noted that you have now changed the advertisement for the same bike to now be sold with Shimano C050, yet the bike was originally sold/advertised with C0202, thus given this conscious change was done by Global Fitness, it would imply that you must of already undertaken a level assessment and determined that C050 is the correct part, as I would not think Global Fitness would intentionally deceive its customers by stating that C050 is now the correct part without due diligence.. So please advise what has caused the same bike to now be advertised with the C050 given your investigations are not completed as per your below advice.

    Please note, one simple fix for this issue, is that the correct part is identified & purchased by Global Fitness & Leisure, and for the affected customers to receive a free "swap over" undertaken by GF&L, I would happily drive to your Melbourne office for the erroneous part to be replaced. Failing that, a refund would be in order, if the condition of sale is not satisfied - which currently it is not.

    • Nice post - I think you made very strong and completely valid points. Suffice to say don't hold your breath expecting a response or explanation from them. :-)

  • User lifespanaustralia last logged in today so they are mostly up to date with the comments here.

    • Yes, safe bet but completely to be expected and I know I for one find it amusing that their employees have the time to come on here and check out posts and yet still haven't managed to reply to the original complaint emails from many folks, myself included.

      Sam and Greg, do some work you muppets!

      Truth be known I'd be quite happy to get no response from Global as I'm 100% certain they won't offer to resolve this fairly (which to me would be having the proper part fitted at their expense) - and as such I'd get great satisfaction in going to the ACCC.

      My reasons being several fold, firstly I'm 95%+ confident of getting the FAIR outcome this way - I've a friend who's a lawyer and I ran this through with him and he felt it was a very open and shut case of Global breaking the Fair Trading Act. He reckons the ACCC would find in our favour very quickly and that Global would have a very hard time explaining why they sold a bike for 7+yrs with the wrong component advertised.

      He also felt their actions post this being flagged to them were very damning…..pulling the sale and then relisting with the part changed.

      But the best part is he felt that as part of any decision the ACCC could make Global take reasonable actions to bring this to the attention of past buyers of the bikes and correct it for them if they desired, hence this could turn into a major issue for them.

      And as the saying goes….how do you you like them f&!%ing apples! ;-)

    • User FreckleNuts last logged in today because he likes to observe people taking action in circumstances such as this.

  • +1

    Might just leave this link here to help lifespanaustralia with their research :)

    http://www.wiggle.co.uk/?s=shimano+front+derailleur+8+speed

    or
    Maybe a Shimano Alivio M412?
    Maybe a Shimano FD-2303?
    Maybe a Shimano Alivio FD-M413?

    Is this perhaps the logical equivalent choice?
    http://www.shimano.com.au/publish/content/global_cycle/en/au…

  • Global Fitness & Leisure have investigated your complaint thoroughly and have arrived at a conclusion. Your complaint referred to technical issues arising from the supplied Shimano Tourney FD-C050 front derailleur instead of the FD-C202 as the described front derailleur from the advertised part description. Our resulting investigation involved communicating with our manufacturer and relevant suppliers in determining an answer to your complaint.

    Our investigation showed that the Shimano Tourney FD-C050 is in fact suitable and compatible for use with 8-speed rear cassette. Our manufacturer, Xi De Sheng Bicycle Co., Ltd. has confirmed this via their response to our enquiry, stating the following parts combination is commonly used by them for many of their large international customers without any issues. Also see attached links to examples of other major bicycle manufacturing brands and non manufacturing brands using the same part combinations successfully, such as Giant, Bianchi, Airborne, Trek, Iron Horse and more, which are sold worldwide. It is common practice for bicycle manufacturers to mix different product models or brands in the drive trains and other areas of the bicycle with the component manufacturers Shimano products, which is testament to the versatility and quality of Shimano products that they can work well in many configurations which may differ from Shimano own compatibility charts.

    We have contacted Shimano regarding your issues, and they assert that all entry level front derailleur’s such as the Tourney C050 and the C202 are expected to experience ‘rubbing’ or ‘chain alignment noises’. Please see the attached front derailleur user’s manual for reference.

    While we understand that your bicycle was not fitted with the specified Shimano C202 (which has not been available since approx. 2007), subsequent evidence demonstrates that no loss or damages were created from this situation, and your technical issues were not caused by having a different front derailleur component. In short, replacement of the front derailleur will not be necessary.

    Progear Bicycles recommends that all bicycles are assembled and checked by a qualified technician.

    If you feel that any issues were unresolved in this reply, please feel free to contact us back via [email protected]

    • WOW. Put your hats on everybody, there's a storm coming !

  • Received this reply myself - nice to finally have something. ;-)

    Ummmm well my thoughts are in no particular order:

    • They provided a statement from the Chinese manufacturer of the bikes stating that the C050 is in their opinion not a problem and a suitable replacement for the C202. Anyone surprised that they'd say anything but this? So in itself it means very little.

    • Stated and provided links to other well-known/branded bikes that combine an 8 speed rear cassette with the C050. I'll give them a little credit for this, as it does show its widely done. However, its kind of like saying "Hey look we're not the only ones doing it" - which I don't know if thats much of a defence.

    • They also pointed out that,"…and they assert that all entry level front derailleur’s such as the Tourney C050 and the C202 are expected to experience ‘rubbing’ or ‘chain alignment noises’. Please see the attached front derailleur user’s manual for reference."

    Whilst I'd liked to have seen the actual communications between Shimano & GF&L this is quite understandable as it is one of their very base products and so not intended for perfection.

    TO BE FAIR, and while I assert my right to be a prick 99% of the time the other 1% I'll be fair….I think this is a good response with some valid points.

    THAT SAID I think that anyone who wanted could possibly still go after them for some form of rectification - as the component listed differed from the one that was on the bike. The ACCC or similar may see this as being a problem or they may come to see that it was a like-for-like replacement and it's caused no problems in itself.

    Perhaps if someone wanted to TELEPHONE the ACCC and walk this example through with them to get their feedback this might be a good thing?

    I tried to do this but I've just moved and only have a mobile phone and had to terminate the call after 20mins on hold.

    So whilst I kind of expected a response like this from GF&L I feel that there might actually be a few elements of truth in amongst their usual BULLSHIT…..and whilst we could bang our heads against the wall to get a possible outcome I don't know whatever would be offered would be desired or even helpful.

    If someone wants to call and walkthrough the situation with the ACCC and report back that'd be great - but I do think that we need to be mindful of not trying to fight a futile battle.

    Regardless of how people want things to work out or end up feeling the BEST STRATEGY by far is to voice your opinion on GF&L to your family/friends etc.

    I'm not saying toss the towel in BUT if someone else wants to check the facts with the ACCC and come back we can reassess…….like i said it would have been VERY surprising if GF&L had said 'Oops! We made a big mistake' so is completely expected.

    :-)

  • +1

    "Also see attached links to examples of other major bicycle manufacturing brands … using the same part combinations successfully, such as Giant, Bianchi, Airborne, Trek, Iron Horse and more, which are sold worldwide".

    I can't see the links, but if true, this is quite persuasive. It's not simply a matter of the firm or their supplier asserting that the combination of parts is compatible.

    If the C202 has not been available since 2007, then that's a long time & begs the question what to use instead.

    I don't have the bike - i'm just a nosey interloper, but my call this:

    1. If you don't care, let it go. This does not mean it's been a waste of time - the firm has been encouraged to respond in a reasonably comprehensive manner. Without this level of lobbying i doubt they would have investigated to the degree that they have.

    2. If you believe that the supplied part is inferior to that stated on purchase, then approach the firm for a replacement with a part of equal or greater quality. They may decline to do so, but if they're smart they'll play ball. They will want this to go away. That is, take them up on their offer that "if you feel that any issues were unresolved in this reply, please feel free to contact us…".

    3. If you simply wish to reverse the deal, then seek a full refund. Again, if they're smart they'll play ball.

    4. If you accept the accounts given by Nikko of his initial dealings with this firm, then this is an outfit that you should avoid dealing with in the future. Based on what i have, i will certainly avoid them.

    Good luck gang.

  • -1

    I'm going to try the adjustment again this weekend to see if I can get the front chain gear shifting to be more satisfactory before I decide about this.

    I was really unhappy about the initial response by Greg and the sudden listing changes(and yes, I accept the general accuracy of Nikko's account). It was consistent with the rubbish that they tried with the bike price (50%) increase once they started selling more after the deal was highlighted on OzB. Blaming that on interdepartment miscommunications was total BS.

    Anyway, I rang Shimano and spoke to a guy there for quite a few minutes. He confirmed that the C050 should be suitable for the 8 ring cassette with 3 chain rings. He said that some rubbing would be expected in this configuration, even with more expensive versions. He suggested that it was always best to maintain a reasonably straight chain and avoiding selection of gears that caused combinations like the large chain ring coupled with the largest couple of rear rings, or the smallest chain ring coupled with smallest of the rear rings. He mentioned imagining the three chain rings approximately matching to the rear rings dived in the thirds.

    I guess it makes sense. I'm still unhappy with the LSA response and that price scam, but I think this is one to let go for me. Perhaps LSA will learn something too.

    • -1

      They still haven't given an explanation why it was advertised with the C202 or given an apology admitting fault. I don't think they read my e-mail either, apart from my first name. I didn't mention any where that I was having technical issues.

      This thread will do some degree of damage to them because they're an "internet brand" and informed buyers who research the name before buying will come across this. I guess that's why ProGears changed names to XDS Bicycles and in a few years time they will change again.

      Anyways I did some reading awhile back on bike gearing and found that there are some configurations (front + back chain rings) on most bikes where the gearing is (near-)identical. And that you should always try and keep the chain as straight as possible to avoid slipping, stretching etc.

      • +1

        The issue that we all understand is they changed the advertisement/part "secretly", yet simultaneously claimed they are still investigating the issue.. clearly a slap in the face for their customers. When the issue was raised, I/we were essentially told "what do you expect, its a 7 year old bike, out-dated design, discontinued components/parts etc" what a revolting response to someone thats just bought a "new bike" and had one query about a wrong part being delivered on the bike.

        So what confidence do I have for LSA's suppport if the frame cracks after 3 months of riding???
        I mean they have now revealed to us that they have sold us an old bike with discontinued parts..

        Sure the facts may indicate that we can use the part, however LSA's attempt to deal with this was laughable. The value of a company or customer service, is how they support there loyal (paying) customers - LSA you have been a joke in this instance, and I can only assume what you have been in the past or will continue to be in the future.

        • No arguments from me :)

  • Did anyone just get spammed by these guys?? Hilarious.

  • Well looking for a new road bike, this is one company I'll be avoiding. Good luck to all of you involved, thanks for the thread!:)

Login or Join to leave a comment