First road bike = epic mistake

henryw

Last weekend, me and a couple of mates decided to go on an enormous 85-mile bike ride across the UK. I'd done 75 miles in a day on my road-tyred mountain bike, so I figured 85 miles would be a cinch. Especially if I got a proper road bike.

On the spur of the moment, I decided it was time for me to buy a cheapish road bike. I bought a Carrera Virtuoso from a nearby Halfords. I had to cycle it the 16-odd miles from the store to my home town, but something didn't feel quite right.

Despite boosting the saddle up as much as it would go, it felt way too small, and my legs weren't extending properly, which, as I understand it, is pretty crucial when it comes to any bike.

The bike ride was a nightmare. I had to give up after 45 miles - I just hit a wall. Hills I would have sailed up on my road-tyred MTB became unforgiving, tortuous inclines. My knees and back were killing me. For the next few days I completely lost sensation in my little and third fingers, which really can't be good. I may not be the fittest man on the planet, but I usually have a whole whack of stamina that's seen me through some of the most undulating landscapes this country has to offer.

Comparing my bike to the other guys' road bikes, it became clear that the frame is simply too small. I'm 6' 4", and although my Carrera MTB is the same size (20"), the Virtuoso is like a monkey bike in comparison.

The bike has a sticker on the back that says 20", and the large Virtuoso is listed on Halfords' site as 21-22". This was immediately a concern, but when I took it back to Halfords having noticed the sticker the guy who assembled it said that the frames come in a variety of sizes, and that was considered a "large". Is that right?

I really want to take the bike back, get a full refund and buy a bike from a shop that's not staffed by clueless cretins. I'm pretty sure that the bike is what UK consumer law refers to as "not fit for purpose" - it's clearly unsuitable for someone of my stature.

Here's the kicker: when I bought the bike, it was sold without a front reflector. I know it's a really minor issue, but under UK law all bicycles must be sold with a front reflector, so I've been sold something that's borderline illegal. Of course, it's up to me to prove that the front reflector was missing in the first place.

To give Halfords some credit, the MTB I previously bought has been utterly reliable and faultless, and I've used it every day. The road bike was from a different store to the MTB, one that seems to be staffed by people who think a bike is basically a two-wheeled car.

TL;DR: Halfords sold me a bike that's too small, WTF do I do?

Alinshearah

Blame Wiggle

Chad_c_Mulligan

What's written on the frame is irrelevant if the bike doesn't fit you. What you need to do is to find a way to get Halfords to return the bike and the best way is to try and show that you were sold a large bike and delivered a medium bike. As the website states that the large frame is a 22" frame and yours has a 20" label I think you've got a good case to take it back.


You're pretty tall, I think you should find a real bike shop and find a bike that fits.

lemoncurd

Get Crimmey to do a bike fit for you.

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12792808&start=0

HebdenBiker

So you decided to do a long, planned ride on a brand new bike you'd never ridden before?
Then you went to Halfords and bought a bike that was far too small for you?

And it's...

...Halfords' fault?

Didn't you at least sit on it before you bought it? Or take it for a spin round the car park? Didn't you do some research on road bike sizing, which bears little relation to MTB sizing?

It's true - Halfords' staff aren't exactly the best trained in the business, but all of the abuse you level at them in your post is uncalled-for. Take some responsibility.

You may be successful in getting a refund, or you might have to sell on Ebay. But I suggest that if you go in there all guns blazing, then they'll tell you where to get off.

MaxwellBygraves

I can understand you're annoyed.

Without wanting to sound all sanctimonious, there a few things you've learnt about buying a road bike.

Sit or ride on it before you buy it. Size and fit are everything. Never plan a 80 mile ride as your first outing. Be careful when buying a bike from Halfords - do your homework first.

Hopefully Halfords will swap for something a bit more appropriate and this won't put you off road biking. Just remember next time you buy don't go straight in for the kill, do some research!

morstar

To the last two posters, may I suggest you ignore the fact the guy has gne straight into an 85 mile ride. That may or may not be a stupid thing to do but it is a side issue to the actual question.

A road bike novice has entered a well known retailer and tried to buy a road bike. It transpires that the bike is too small. Question, is the product fit for purpose? I think, clearly it isn't, you've been mis-sold in my mind.

BillyMansell

morstar wrote:

Question, is the product fit for purpose? I think, clearly it isn't, you've been mis-sold in my mind.

Wrong. The phrase 'fit for purpose' means is the object fit for the purpose for which it was designed and not for how someone intends to use it.

So, was the bicycle fit for purpose as a bicycle? As the OP was able to ride it without mechanical failure then yes, it was fit for purpose. That it was the wrong size could be the responsibility of either the shop or the OP or both and is up to them both to resolve the matter rather than play the blame game.

jam5ie76

BillyMansell wrote:

morstar wrote:

Question, is the product fit for purpose? I think, clearly it isn't, you've been mis-sold in my mind.

Wrong. The phrase 'fit for purpose' means is the object fit for the purpose for which it was designed and not for how someone intends to use it.

So, was the bicycle fit for purpose as a bicycle? As the OP was able to ride it without mechanical failure then yes, it was fit for purpose. That it was the wrong size could be the responsibility of either the shop or the OP or both and is up to them both to resolve the matter rather than play the blame game.

The size and shape of the rider is an integral part of any bike, so 'fit for purpose' has to include a bike that fits (arms, legs and back being part of the machine).

Take it to the extreme and imagine that Halfords had attempted to sell him a kids bike, would that have been fit for purpose? Not even across the car park. Halfords offer bike fitting service and they failed.

desweller

Chad_c_Mulligan wrote:

As the website states that the large frame is a 22" frame and yours has a 20" label I think you've got a good case to take it back.

Wot he sed.

20" is not a large. My medium Planet X is 20", so they've just sold you what they had in the shop by the sounds of things.

I'd go in and start off by saying, 'I was after a large, but I think this is a medium, can I do a straight swap please?' and only start getting annoyed if they fob you off.

rolf_f

http://www.tellyads.com/show_movie.php?filename=TA9241

Halfords trained experts will personally adjust your bike for you

OK, an oldish advert but I don't think the current ones are much different so I think they are claiming expertise - so you don't have to!!.

What is your inside leg length? For the 20 inch frame, the Halfords size chart gives inside leg as 35-36 inches. If yours is longer, they'd have to argue that you went against their advice in taking a 20 inch frame. (It also suggests 6 foot 3 and above for the 22 inch frame).

http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stor ... ory=245301

morstar

jam5ie76 wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

morstar wrote:

Question, is the product fit for purpose? I think, clearly it isn't, you've been mis-sold in my mind.

Wrong. The phrase 'fit for purpose' means is the object fit for the purpose for which it was designed and not for how someone intends to use it.

So, was the bicycle fit for purpose as a bicycle? As the OP was able to ride it without mechanical failure then yes, it was fit for purpose. That it was the wrong size could be the responsibility of either the shop or the OP or both and is up to them both to resolve the matter rather than play the blame game.

The size and shape of the rider is an integral part of any bike, so 'fit for purpose' has to include a bike that fits (arms, legs and back being part of the machine).

Take it to the extreme and imagine that Halfords had attempted to sell him a kids bike, would that have been fit for purpose? Not even across the car park. Halfords offer bike fitting service and they failed.

This! thank you jam5ie76.

giant_man

This is a classic case of Halfords sales techniques, not caring it the bike fits the rider or not, they made a sale and that's all they care about imo.

Of course the bike was fit for purpose, it's a bike and it's made for cycling. The OP should have gone into the transaction with more understanding of measurements and made sure the bike was the correct size.

I'm not surprised he struggled on the ride, fit is THE most important thing particularly in a road bike. to the OP - hope you get it sorted out, and this experience hasn't put you off the immensely enjoyable pastime of road cycling ....

The OP made the classic mistake, as a lot of people do, of mistaking Halfords as a true bike shop, which they're not. They are a car accessory chain who happen to sell bicycles. There is a difference.

MattC59

morstar wrote:

jam5ie76 wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

morstar wrote:

Question, is the product fit for purpose? I think, clearly it isn't, you've been mis-sold in my mind.

Wrong. The phrase 'fit for purpose' means is the object fit for the purpose for which it was designed and not for how someone intends to use it.

So, was the bicycle fit for purpose as a bicycle? As the OP was able to ride it without mechanical failure then yes, it was fit for purpose. That it was the wrong size could be the responsibility of either the shop or the OP or both and is up to them both to resolve the matter rather than play the blame game.

The size and shape of the rider is an integral part of any bike, so 'fit for purpose' has to include a bike that fits (arms, legs and back being part of the machine).

Take it to the extreme and imagine that Halfords had attempted to sell him a kids bike, would that have been fit for purpose? Not even across the car park. Halfords offer bike fitting service and they failed.

This! thank you jam5ie76.

Sorry Morstar, BillyMansell is correct on this one. eg. The childs bike is fit for purpose, even if it's been sold to an adult. It's purpose is that of a childs bike. If it's being used by an adult, it doesn't matter, it's still fit for purpose.

In the OP's case. If a Large is advertised as 21-22" on the website, he's ordered a Large, but been delivered a 20", then it's up to the store to sort this out. Good luck though, I suspect he'll have more luck herding cats !

freehub

Unfortunately that is what you get from Halfrauds, ****.

rolf_f

MattC59 wrote:

Sorry Morstar, BillyMansell is correct on this one. eg. The childs bike is fit for purpose, even if it's been sold to an adult. It's purpose is that of a childs bike. If it's being used by an adult, it doesn't matter, it's still fit for purpose.

I disagree here. If you buy a childs bike and tell the vendor that it is for you and you plan on riding coast to coast on it, you should expect him to query that. Of course, you might just be wierd and really want to do C2C on a childs bike but, generally, when an adult buys a childs bike the presumption is that it isn't for themselves.

If an adult buys a bike from a shop that considers itself a professional cycle retailer, you would expect that the staff would (as advertised) ensure that the bike was the best fit for the purchaser.

From the Office of Fair Trading http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/t ... fgoodsact/

The Act says that to conform to contract goods should: be fit for purpose. If a customer says – or when it should be obvious to you – that an item is wanted for a particular purpose, even if it is a purpose the item is not usually supplied for, and you agree the item is suitable, or do not say it is not fit for that purpose, then it has to be reasonably fit.

In other words, if the OP stated that the bike was for himself to ride, and Halfords agreed it was suitable, then the OP has a pretty clear legitimate claim for a refund/replacement.

giant_man

Rolf F wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Sorry Morstar, BillyMansell is correct on this one. eg. The childs bike is fit for purpose, even if it's been sold to an adult. It's purpose is that of a childs bike. If it's being used by an adult, it doesn't matter, it's still fit for purpose.

I disagree here. If you buy a childs bike and tell the vendor that it is for you and you plan on riding coast to coast on it, you should expect him to query that. Of course, you might just be wierd and really want to do C2C on a childs bike but, generally, when an adult buys a childs bike the presumption is that it isn't for themselves.

If an adult buys a bike from a shop that considers itself a professional cycle retailer, you would expect that the staff would (as advertised) ensure that the bike was the best fit for the purchaser.

From the Office of Fair Trading http://www.oft.gov.uk/business-advice/t ... fgoodsact/

The Act says that to conform to contract goods should: be fit for purpose. If a customer says – or when it should be obvious to you – that an item is wanted for a particular purpose, even if it is a purpose the item is not usually supplied for, and you agree the item is suitable, or do not say it is not fit for that purpose, then it has to be reasonably fit.

In other words, if the OP stated that the bike was for himself to ride, and Halfords agreed it was suitable, then the OP has a pretty clear legitimate claim for a refund/replacement.

Well surely they must have done, otherwise they wouldn't have sold it to him? Mind you it is Halfords ...

JimboM

So if two 5'9" people go into Halfords and one decides that the medium size is best for him and the other decides he prefers the large are you saying that Halfords should refuse to sell one of them a bike ?

Only the OP can make the decision what the correct size is for him, Halfords can't be expected to tell a customer what feels comfortable - that's a purely personal decision

MrChuck

MattC59 wrote:

morstar wrote:

jam5ie76 wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

morstar wrote:

Question, is the product fit for purpose? I think, clearly it isn't, you've been mis-sold in my mind.

Wrong. The phrase 'fit for purpose' means is the object fit for the purpose for which it was designed and not for how someone intends to use it.

So, was the bicycle fit for purpose as a bicycle? As the OP was able to ride it without mechanical failure then yes, it was fit for purpose. That it was the wrong size could be the responsibility of either the shop or the OP or both and is up to them both to resolve the matter rather than play the blame game.

The size and shape of the rider is an integral part of any bike, so 'fit for purpose' has to include a bike that fits (arms, legs and back being part of the machine).

Take it to the extreme and imagine that Halfords had attempted to sell him a kids bike, would that have been fit for purpose? Not even across the car park. Halfords offer bike fitting service and they failed.

This! thank you jam5ie76.

Sorry Morstar, BillyMansell is correct on this one. eg. The childs bike is fit for purpose, even if it's been sold to an adult. It's purpose is that of a childs bike. If it's being used by an adult, it doesn't matter, it's still fit for purpose.

In the OP's case. If a Large is advertised as 21-22" on the website, he's ordered a Large, but been delivered a 20", then it's up to the store to sort this out. Good luck though, I suspect he'll have more luck herding cats !

I'm with Matt and BillyMansell here. It doesn't sound like there's anything wrong with the bike other than that the rider is too big for it. IMO 'Fit for purpose' doesn't cover people buying the wrong thing, it covers whether the bike (in this case) is intrinsically fit for the purpose it's been made for.

Anyway, back to the OP- as somebody said above it might be best to just take it back and be reasonable, at least to start with! It would have been a good idea on your part to maybe put a bit more into finding the right size but Halfords do have some responsibility here as it sounds like it's nowhere near the right size, so someone hasn't done their job properly.

Good luck and don't be put off road bikes, although I would say that even when you get the right size sorted expect a few rides* to get used to the gearing and position.

*Perhaps of a bit less than 80 miles

meanredspider

The bike has to be fit for the purpose for which it was sold. If a vendor sells you something for a purpose different from which that it was designed for, that's the vendor's responsibility if he says it will be OK for that purpose.

In this case, assuming Halfords told him that this was the correct size for him, it's Halfords responsibility if it turns out to be wrong.

I was once sold some brake pads for a car. They were brake pads and there was nothing "wrong" with their quality or manufacture. They even fitted the car correctly. Under the "Fit for Purpose" definition by a previous poster, that should be the end of the matter. It transpires that the pad material wasn't correct for my car - they weren't fit for the purpose for which they were sold - that last part makes all the difference.

Halfords sell bicycles and should be competent to determine the correct size - especially as it's critical to the function of the bicycle and the health of the user.

esspeebee

MrChuck wrote:

IMO 'Fit for purpose' doesn't cover people buying the wrong thing, it covers whether the bike (in this case) is intrinsically fit for the purpose it's been made for.

The OFT disagrees with your opinion -- the product must be fit for the purpose for which it was sold, not for which it was made. This does cover buying the wrong thing, if the person who sold it told you it was the right thing.

If I walk into an electronics shop, ask for whatever cable is needed to connect two devices together, and am given the wrong cable, then I've bought the wrong thing. But it was sold for the purpose of connecting those two devices, and it wasn't fit for that purpose, so the shop is at fault. I'd say there's a good argument that the same principle applies here -- the OP asked for a bike for him to ride, and the one that he was given wasn't suitable.

At the very least, go back and ask them to swap it for a larger size. They might well agree without trying to argue specifics of trading law.

meanredspider

To add to my point, here's the guidance to vendors from the link posted above

be fit for purpose. If a customer says – or when it should be obvious to you – that an item is wanted for a particular purpose, even if it is a purpose the item is not usually supplied for, and you agree the item is suitable, or do not say it is not fit for that purpose, then it has to be reasonably fit.

If a 6'4" guy turns up and says he wants a bike so he can ride 80 miles and you sell him a medium frame, I'd say that wasn't "reasonably fit"

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

To add to my point, here's the guidance to vendors from the link posted above

be fit for purpose. If a customer says – or when it should be obvious to you – that an item is wanted for a particular purpose, even if it is a purpose the item is not usually supplied for, and you agree the item is suitable, or do not say it is not fit for that purpose, then it has to be reasonably fit.

I already quoted that bit Not that it stops people from disagreeing with it........

meanredspider

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

To add to my point, here's the guidance to vendors from the link posted above

be fit for purpose. If a customer says – or when it should be obvious to you – that an item is wanted for a particular purpose, even if it is a purpose the item is not usually supplied for, and you agree the item is suitable, or do not say it is not fit for that purpose, then it has to be reasonably fit.

I already quoted that bit Not that it stops people from disagreeing with it........

I'm not sure quoting it twice will help either

petejuk

JimboM wrote:

So if two 5'9" people go into Halfords and one decides that the medium size is best for him and the other decides he prefers the large are you saying that Halfords should refuse to sell one of them a bike ?

Only the OP can make the decision what the correct size is for him, Halfords can't be expected to tell a customer what feels comfortable - that's a purely personal decision

Ah, this assumes that he has been offered one size over the other. If what the OP says is true, he has been informed the bike he has is a large. He has therefore made the assumption there is no other size bigger and therefore it should fit (since its the largest they have). In fact what has happened is that he has been duped into thinking the bike he has is a large when really it is a medium. It is arguably fit for the purpose in the fact that it is a road bike and can be ridden on the road (assuming the brakes gears and steering work correctly), but not fit for the individual. My argument would start along the lines of it being mis-sold as a large when it is really a medium.
As long as the bike is not damaged, the OP has good grounds for returning and requesting a replacement large bike. My advice would be to give it a thorough clean and make it look new. It may help. Good luck and let us know how you get on.

rolf_f

meanredspider wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

To add to my point, here's the guidance to vendors from the link posted above

be fit for purpose. If a customer says – or when it should be obvious to you – that an item is wanted for a particular purpose, even if it is a purpose the item is not usually supplied for, and you agree the item is suitable, or do not say it is not fit for that purpose, then it has to be reasonably fit.

I already quoted that bit Not that it stops people from disagreeing with it........

I'm not sure quoting it twice will help either

But we'll be pretty safe with three times I think

MrChuck

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

meanredspider wrote:

To add to my point, here's the guidance to vendors from the link posted above

be fit for purpose. If a customer says – or when it should be obvious to you – that an item is wanted for a particular purpose, even if it is a purpose the item is not usually supplied for, and you agree the item is suitable, or do not say it is not fit for that purpose, then it has to be reasonably fit.

I already quoted that bit Not that it stops people from disagreeing with it........

I'm not sure quoting it twice will help either

But we'll be pretty safe with three times I think

Since three's the charm, I'll admit I'm wrong!

BillyMansell

petejuk wrote:

JimboM wrote:

So if two 5'9" people go into Halfords and one decides that the medium size is best for him and the other decides he prefers the large are you saying that Halfords should refuse to sell one of them a bike ?

Only the OP can make the decision what the correct size is for him, Halfords can't be expected to tell a customer what feels comfortable - that's a purely personal decision

Ah, this assumes that he has been offered one size over the other. If what the OP says is true, he has been informed the bike he has is a large. He has therefore made the assumption there is no other size bigger and therefore it should fit (since its the largest they have). In fact what has happened is that he has been duped into thinking the bike he has is a large when really it is a medium. It is arguably fit for the purpose in the fact that it is a road bike and can be ridden on the road (assuming the brakes gears and steering work correctly), but not fit for the individual. My argument would start along the lines of it being mis-sold as a large when it is really a medium.
As long as the bike is not damaged, the OP has good grounds for returning and requesting a replacement large bike. My advice would be to give it a thorough clean and make it look new. It may help. Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Bingo! It isn't a case of the item not being fit for purpose (which it is) but simply a case of the item being the wrong size.

One point the OP didn't explain was why it took him so long to realise it was the wrong size. Did he try riding it before buying? Did he try other bikes for size?

As much as people like to blame Halfords, the OP has to take some responsibility in not ensuring the bike was right before handing over his money.

meanredspider

BillyMansell wrote:

As much as people like to blame Halfords, the OP has to take some responsibility in not ensuring the bike was right before handing over his money.

But how was the OP to know? Imagine going into a sports shop to buy some kit for a sport you hadn't played and the sports shop assistant said you needed a size 37. You then turn up at the sports club and discover that a size 37 is ridiculously small for you. Are you at fault?

Size is one of the attributes of an item that determines whether it is fit for purpose - it's not different.

The only situation where the OP would be at fault is if the shop said you needed size 56 and you insisted on buying size 37.

BillyMansell

meanredspider wrote:

BillyMansell wrote:

As much as people like to blame Halfords, the OP has to take some responsibility in not ensuring the bike was right before handing over his money.

But how was the OP to know? Imagine going into a sports shop to buy some kit for a sport you hadn't played and the sports shop assistant said you needed a size 37. You then turn up at the sports club and discover that a size 37 is ridiculously small for you. Are you at fault?

Rather than make up ridiculous scenarios read the original post. They already had bought a bike from Halfords so they're not new to the sport.

Size is one of the attributes of an item that determines whether it is fit for purpose - it's not different.

I'm afraid I can't help you if you're too choose to misunderstand what 'fit for purpose' means and how it doesn't apply in this situation.

The only situation where the OP would be at fault is if the shop said you needed size 56 and you insisted on buying size 37.

Jeez, what a litigious world some people live in - it has to be someone's fault because where there's a blame there's a claim.

Alternatively, it could have been a mistake by either or both parties that could easily be resolved but instead we get a 'blame Wiggle' type thread' .

Peddle Up!

Perhaps going into Halfords and calmly setting out his side of things could be a good starting point for the OP. Then, depending on what they say decide how to proceede.