Apollo "Mountain Bikes" False Advertising?

hednesfordxcer

I notice halfords are advertising there Apollo range which are currently being sold at half price as Mountain Bikes, surely Trading Standards should sue them for false advertising, I've heard nothing but horror stories about the Apollo range

SiLvEr_SnAkE

Technically they are mountain bikes.

HJ1976

Are they the ones which advise the owners not to ride off road with the bike?

supersonic

They are the not the only ones, many other budget brands and stores are the same. We have to define what a 'mountain bike' is, or an 'all terrain bike'. Not many bikes can ride 'all terrains' and there arent many mountains in England either. Sometimes disclaimers are put on the bike as a sticker: I believe the term MTB is just a accepted name for this style of bike as say different from a road bike or BMX.

deanvw

thats right. it could be classed as false _but_ they arnt promoted as a MTB only a ATB

stu8975

Are you having a go at halfords because you are/were having problems with the bike you bought from them? I work at a sports store that sell equally crap bikes that dont last that long when you take them off road and give a bit stick to, but are described as "leisure" bikes, there are countless different brands that are the same as appollo, sad thing, these cheap and cheerful brands probably outsell the decent stuff by 5:1. My LBS is a main giant/commencal dealer as well as doing yeti and other high end stuff, but i can quite easily outsell them in terms of quantity of bikes sold, they make more money though.

Blundell

It all comes down to their cheap prices and the fact that most peaple thay buy 'all terrain' / mountain bikes' don't really intend to ride them on the more brutal trails off road.

Most people buy the as said bikes primarily because they don't want a hybrid, road or BMX and their main idea about riding off road is either riding on a cycle tow path or a nice flat fire road.
Bottom line - a quick answer to a question. Most peoples perception about mountain biking is completely different from ours, this is due to ignorance and dodgy marketing.

baccaman21

you could say the same about BMX's (Bicycle Motor Cross - how many people actually buy a BMX go racing on them like they were originally intended... their use has changed) or Running shoes (How many people buy them actually go running in?) - it's a non starter as far as arguments go because it comes down to sales, marketing, branding and consumer choice... to us an MTB is a bike you can throw down a hill (or indeed mountain)... to Joe Public it's a bike that you can ride offroad... but invariably will be used to tackle those high kerbstones and dodgy paving slabs...

mr_hippo

You could try suing The Sun as well, that claims to be a newspaper! Before you think about legal action, you will have to define 'mountain bike', 'ATB' and leisure. Looking at their website, the bikes appear to fall into the broad description of mountain bike. What is your definition of 'mountain bike'?

Norco_Hucker

Apollo = corr blimey in my opinion, but they sell like hot cakes, they are absolutley EVERYWHERE, it's normally fire road riding families that buy them!!!

MrGrumpy

stu8975 wrote:

Are you having a go at halfords because you are/were having problems with the bike you bought from them? I work at a sports store that sell equally crap bikes that dont last that long when you take them off road and give a bit stick to, but are described as "leisure" bikes, there are countless different brands that are the same as appollo, sad thing, these cheap and cheerful brands probably outsell the decent stuff by 5:1. My LBS is a main giant/commencal dealer as well as doing yeti and other high end stuff, but i can quite easily outsell them in terms of quantity of bikes sold, they make more money though.

The Appollo bikes are poor quality end of, as my mate well testify, freewheel shattered and now the plastic pedals have fallen to bits ( 3 month old bike) . This bike also sees nothing but pathways. However Halfords have replaced no questions asked the bits so far and from my own experience of the eldest sons bike, the replaced the back sprocket after it packed in through rough usage not well oiled no problem at all out of good faith. Cannae argue with that sort of service !

Father Faff

Well on holidays in France I've occassionally had to make do with what's on offer and often it's very bad. I once rode an Apollo - I think you can see pics at (www.flickr.com/fatherfaff but I might be wrong!) - and it really made some very easy texhnical trails very exciting indeed!

Will Snow

no offence dudes, but mtb is expensive. and your all bein a bit snobbish, i mean, ok so its no santa cruz v10, but i learnt on a two hundred quid saracen that i broke fairly often (still have it aswell) and im pretty sure i could beat some of you guys down a hill.

baccaman21

I daresay a few could beat you too... silly thing to say... and off topic... I think the real point is whether the Appollo bikes in Halfords that are described MTBs/ATB's are FIT FOR PURPOSE... some are... and some aren't... simple... put it this way... the one my dad bought a year ago for a £100 I wouldn't trust it going out on the trails with it - (not the kind of trails I've ridden anyway...) and that's not being snobbish it's an opinion.

Having said that, I take my hat off to anyone I see in the middle of the peak district riding a Halfords special... Regardless of my opinion of the bike, at least they're riding the damn thing for what they THINK it's intended for - I expect that when they get home there may be a few bits lose on it, or in need of repair. But maybe not.

Like I said before, ATB/MTB is a moniker for which to describe a certain GENRE of bike that Joe public understands. Not everyone will ride them off road, some will, to varying degrees of terrain 'roughness' and some will just pootle around town in them... and that's fair enough.

I'm sure the majority of 4x4 drivers have never gone proper offroading in them... likewise I'm sure the owners of Rally Inspired motor cars have never time trialled them for real.

Will Snow

no i stick by what i said. Its all very well and good saying that there all terrain, and not mountain or whatever, but what do you think the first mtbs were??? Because they sure as hell werent 10 inch full bouncers!!! Were they less than mtbs because they werent fit for the purpose??? Just because you have a more expensive bike than these people, or me or whoever, doesnt mean you can say that theres isnt a proper mtb!!! What does it matter what you ride anyway??? This is the kind of thing that has happened to road racing, and now there all doped up anyway, they got to snobby!!! It was all about winning, not having fun, having the best bike.

Oh, and was steve peats rigid kona, the one he won the national champs on, was that not an mtb???

baccaman21

I'm not arguing with you WIll... In fact you make a valid point about the early bikes that pioneers of riding mountains used... and I wholeheartedly agree... I remember riding the steps in Woodbank park when I was a kid on my Ellswick Hopper 3 speed Racer... it did it... and I did it all the time... and we're taking a good flight of 30 steps...

Point I'm trying to get over is the fit for purpose aspect. Of course one could ride any bike over any terrain... it's whether it still functioning as well as it did when you first started... I know I bust my rims doing stupid stuff on that old bike...

you can be rest assure I'm certainly not snobby when it comes to riding... In fact if you read my posts on this thread I think you'll see I'm trying to poo poo the argument by trying to use different analogies with the 4x4's and Rally cars...

I guess I wasn't that succesful. :S

supersonic

Another point is that the people who often buy a 100 quid bike do not have an idea on how to maintain it - and they are harder to keep maintained than more expensive stuff. Are we grouping performance and reliabilty under the same banner? Performance wise they may be the same as rigids 10 years ago, reliabilty wise I am not so sure, given many of these bikes are full bouncers with awful pivots and a glut of obsolete parts with hardly any spares. You can have fun on any bike - depends on how you define fun!

dav1

I have fixed a couple of apollo bike for friends, I tend to find the plastic breaks ate useless, they weigh a ton, the forks are horrible (full sus are worse) and they are just not worth the money.

Even for a commute you would be better off coughing up a few more quid for something more reliable and more suitable to what you want to do.

Anonymous

I'm sure the majority of 4x4 drivers have never gone proper offroading in them... likewise I'm sure the owners of Rally Inspired motor cars have never time trialled them for real.

Ah, but they're sold as 4x4s, and they are, in all actuality, four wheel drive vehicles. That's not stretching a point. Also, Focus STs, Imprezzas, Lancers etc, are not actually advertised as "Rally Cars"
In fact they're probably only sold like that to pass homologation rules!

no i stick by what i said. Its all very well and good saying that there all terrain, and not mountain or whatever, but what do you think the first mtbs were??? Because they sure as hell werent 10 inch full bouncers!!! Were they less than mtbs because they werent fit for the purpose???

You're kind of missing the point. Nobody's calling anyone an ass for riding one. The discussion is, are they being mis-branded. It doesn't matter what you ride, we're just pondering whether or not the bikes actually ARE mountain-bikes.

The first MTBs were indeed fit for the purpose. The cruisers they were made from (if you adhere to the californian MTB evolution theory ) weren't fit, so they added drum brakes and so on from motorcycles, to MAKE them fit for the purpose.

For example, you said yourself ...

but i learnt on a two hundred quid saracen that i broke fairly often

Well, there you go, it wasn't fit for the purpose of you riding it then, was it?

Personally, I think thaty're just general "bicycles". But the marketing folk probably assume that if you had two of the same bike (possibly in a different colour) one of which was called a 'Bicycle' and the other was called a 'Mountain Bike', that people would tend towards the mountain bike, because it sounds a little more exotic.

Will Snow

the point im trying to make though, is what is a mtb??? I could quite easily classify it as something you ride offroad. Therefore any bike (including that sketchy as commute thing this old lady near me rides down bridleways...) can be an mtb!!! Of course, they could be classified in different ways, you could a road bike with a more upright stance a mtb, after all, they are still the sam ebasic principle...

(Sorry if i sounded / sound a bit ar$ey, but im just trying to play devils advocate...)

WillGTJumper

God, if you want the defo of Mountain Bike type it in on Wikipedia!

Anonymous

Will Snow wrote:

the point im trying to make though, is what is a mtb??? I could quite easily classify it as something you ride offroad. Therefore any bike (including that sketchy as commute thing this old lady near me rides down bridleways...) can be an mtb!!! Of course, they could be classified in different ways, you could a road bike with a more upright stance a mtb, after all, they are still the sam ebasic principle...

(Sorry if i sounded / sound a bit ar$ey, but im just trying to play devils advocate...)

You bring about an interesting point. However, back to the car analogy, I can drive my peugeot 306 off-road (to a degree), but I wouldn't sell it in autotrader as an off-road vehicle.

So, by that measure, I would say that a mountain bike would be a bike that was intended to be ridden primarily off-road. Not a bike that could be ridden off-road.

EDIT:
Wikipedia? where's the fun in that? and besides I could edit it to read whatever I wanted it to, for the purpose of winning an argument!

jummer

i have to say i bought an apollo for £120 last year to try and get fit ,at the time i didnt want to spend much as i wasnt sure how much i would ride it but i have been riding it most weeks when i get the chance and lately i have been doing some much harder and rougher trails around cheddar gorge it has held up surprisingly well ,i have decided that i now need a new bike and am going to spend ALOT more this time now i know i will use it and get the most out of it ,my point is if it hadnt been for my cheap apollo i might not have realised how much i would enjoy it , having bikes at these prices does bring people like me into the sport ,so they have thier place
jer

Will Snow

yeehaamcgee wrote:

You bring about an interesting point. However, back to the car analogy, I can drive my peugeot 306 off-road (to a degree), but I wouldn't sell it in autotrader as an off-road vehicle.

So, by that measure, I would say that a mountain bike would be a bike that was intended to be ridden primarily off-road. Not a bike that could be ridden off-road.

Very good point. I think that is the difference, actually, i couldnt have put it better myself.

Steve_F

My friend won a full sus Apollo, no idea which model.

I'd been telling him how good Glentress was for ages so after a few road rides to get used to the bike again I took him for a trip there. The only gears that worked were on the big cog and they slipped like mad (luckly he is super fit and didn't need smaller gears!).

The thing lasted round one trip of the red route and got confined to the garage as it was barely up to road use after 9 miles off road! Hopefully he'll try it again and finish it off for good sending it where it belongs!

genus

Not designed to do what they are advertised to do, stay away! I've seen a teenager at Cwmcarn make his nads disappear when the plastic cranks on his Apollo Outrage snapped. It was about an 18" huck, hardly DH level and it may as well have snapped in half. He certainly did.

Don't buy anything less than a GT Avalanche or upwards. It's so false to be true!

adamskib

Yet... sorry to bang on about them again... Decathlons cheapy is an awesome bike!
£99 and they go on for ever.... loads of abuse and a little care and attention afterwards and it is still almost as good as new!

I use it if a friend is stopping over and wants to come out with us now.. totally fit for what they say it is... off road but not racing.

My son had one of the dreadful Halfords bikes... it was a relief when it got taken... I hope the thief was impaled on the poorly crafted piece of poo when it finally folded in half!

Macberni

It all boils down to what you want from a bike and who these things are aimed at. As said before cycle paths and fire trails maybe, but also not surprising how long these things last seeing how neglected most of them are. Take a look next time you shackle up next to one. Yeesh !

dav1

Macberni wrote:

It all boils down to what you want from a bike and who these things are aimed at. As said before cycle paths and fire trails maybe, but also not surprising how long these things last seeing how neglected most of them are. Take a look next time you shackle up next to one. Yeesh !

Neglected is an understatement. A friend of mine had one where the breaks had seized, his tyres were flat for so long the walls split and the tubes were destroyed. There was a layer of old oil and crap on the drive system and the shifters were dead.

That said he only used it to cycle to and from wherever he needed to go which was never more then a couple of miles. Still in this case why don't they buy a hybrid bike or a cheap commuter which would suit this purpose better. The Apollo bikes are just there for people that don't know any better.

supersonic

People just dont/wont look after them. They expect you can ride them all day long, leave them in the garden in the rain, and get on them again and it will work flawlessly. When I had to sell the things I made it very clear to people its limitations, the maintenance needed etc.

Will Snow

did anyone see the mbuk article, where mountain bikes all have to pass a certain eu (or similar) regulation??? Well, maybe this could prove what a mtb is after all...