Miss selling of a bike?

Johnwaynebobbet

This is my first post on here after lurking for a bit and I have a question regarding a bike I bought in January.

If you bought a bike that was sold to you as having say 160mm of rear wheel travel but recently the manufacturer had come out and said it actually only had 150mm of rear travel would you be a bit pissed off? Does anyone think you would have grounds to return it on the basis that its not what it was sold as? I have had a quick scan over the miss sale of goods act but I am not sure where I stand really.

welshkev

does it affect the way you ride it? have you had any problems with it only being 150mm? would you even have noticed if you hadn't read it?

then don't worry and continue to enjoy riding your bike

prawny

BMC?

You might have a case, but they'd argue whether you really needed all that travel, and would you not have bought it if it had said 150mm on it.

nicklouse

links?

how were things measured?

How do you know it is different?

how was it bought?

bike or frame?

Johnwaynebobbet

nicklouse wrote:

links?

how were things measured?

How do you know it is different?

how was it bought?

bike or frame?

It was bought as a frame only from a UK shop. In post 104 below Hans from Ibis confirms it:

http://forums.mtbr.com/ibis/mojo-hdr-859517-5.html

hanssc wrote:

By the way, in reality the old 140 was closer to 130, we never checked the actual vertical wheel travel until recently when we were working on the HDR mod. We had incorrectly assumed it would be the same as the SL and SLR, but not exactly due to changing the part of the wheel travel that we were using.

nicklouse

Johnwaynebobbet wrote:

It was bought as a frame only from a UK shop. In post 104 below Hans from Ibis confirms it:

http://forums.mtbr.com/ibis/mojo-hdr-859517-5.html

hanssc wrote:

By the way, in reality the old 140 was closer to 130, we never checked the actual vertical wheel travel until recently when we were working on the HDR mod. We had incorrectly assumed it would be the same as the SL and SLR, but not exactly due to changing the part of the wheel travel that we were using.

i do not see anything there confirming that it has 150mm

and what was the axel travel?

Johnwaynebobbet

nicklouse wrote:

Johnwaynebobbet wrote:

It was bought as a frame only from a UK shop. In post 104 below Hans from Ibis confirms it:

http://forums.mtbr.com/ibis/mojo-hdr-859517-5.html

hanssc wrote:

By the way, in reality the old 140 was closer to 130, we never checked the actual vertical wheel travel until recently when we were working on the HDR mod. We had incorrectly assumed it would be the same as the SL and SLR, but not exactly due to changing the part of the wheel travel that we were using.

i do not see anything there confirming that it has 150mm

and what was the axel travel?

I was using that as a example. It was 140mm travel and they say it is actually 130mm travel

Quote on the spec from Ibis:

Ibis website wrote:

FEATURES OF THE MOJO HD 140
140mm rear wheel travel (vs 160mm w/HD)

nicklouse

so what have you actually bought?

you are talking in riddles. what has that got to do with anything?

Johnwaynebobbet

I have a ibis mojo HD140 that is meant to have 140mm of rear wheel travel but according to the guy at Ibis it actually only has 130mm of travel.

I was not going to mention the manufacturer so that's why I used the 160/150 in my original post.

supersonic

Still no confirmation on what it actually is.

Johnwaynebobbet

supersonic wrote:

Still no confirmation on what it actually is.

How do you mean? From me or from Ibis?

Johnwaynebobbet

It's this that I have:

http://www.ibiscycles.co.uk/bikes/mojo_hd140/

supersonic

They say closer to 130, not it is 130. It might be 134, and within tolerance. Need to find out more.

Johnwaynebobbet

supersonic wrote:

They say closer to 130, not it is 130. It might be 134, and within tolerance. Need to find out more.

If I put it on my stand static then measure the travel none compressed then the travel fully compressed with no air in the shock then that should do it shouldn't it? Or are there other things to take into consideration?

97th choice

Out of interest did you want to return it before you read the forum post about its travel?

Johnwaynebobbet

97th choice wrote:

Out of interest did you want to return it before you read the forum post about its travel?

Where have I said I want to return it?

whyamihere

Johnwaynebobbet wrote:

Does anyone think you would have grounds to return it on the basis that its not what it was sold as?

There.

pesky_jones

That's not saying he wants to return it lol

All he's asking is if there's grounds for a return, if there's grounds for a return, there may be grounds for a bartering point on another product, or grounds for a discount

Johnwaynebobbet

whyamihere wrote:

Johnwaynebobbet wrote:

Does anyone think you would have grounds to return it on the basis that its not what it was sold as?

There.

Oh forgot I had put that.

It's more that fact that its not what it's meant to be. Would I have bought one knowing its only 130mm travel, no I would not.

97th choice

There you go then, you made a purchasing decsion based on incorrectly supplied information. Get on to them and see what they say. I wouldnt jump straight in with SOGA though, start with a politely worded email or phone call.

cat_with_no_tail

Woah woah woah there.

Did you not try before you bought it? If so, presumably you were happy enough with the way the bike rode to purchase one. So what's your problem?

Assuming you didn't manage to test ride before purchasing (nothing wrong with that btw), and bought purely off the amount of travel quoted rather than more relevant metrics such as angles and sizes......

Were you unhappy with the frame before you read that rather nondescript piece of information?
If not, again, what's your problem?

If you were unhappy with the frame before you read that....

Have you ever been in a situation where you thought "Damn, I really wish this bike had another 1cm of travel, because that would make all the difference".
If not, yet again, what's your problem?

The Rookie

Johnwaynebobbet wrote:

If I put it on my stand static then measure the travel none compressed then the travel fully compressed with no air in the shock then that should do it shouldn't it? Or are there other things to take into consideration?

No and yes.... you need to allow for the compression of any bumpstop which may take significantly more input than you can achieve with your hands.

It's not that unusual for the claculated travel to come up a little out in production.

nicklouse

Johnwaynebobbet wrote:

It's this that I have:

http://www.ibiscycles.co.uk/bikes/mojo_hd140/

So what the bleep has that go to do with the first question? Nothing.

Now note what was stated in the link you gave. It says vertical travel.

Now measure the length of the arc the rear axel defines? What is that distance?

zulu12

Excuse my ignorance, I ride a hardtail which I am bastardising into a freeride setup provided the frame will hold out so not fully versed in the full sus scene although one my mates rides an Ibis. Are you really riding it that hard that you feel the 10mm difference?

paul.skibum

I Mojo HD as I understand it is a reasonably hard riding trail bike - I cannot imagine that a shortage of 5-10cm in the rear travel is detectable BUT if you wanted to go to Ibis and complain then yes you have cause to do so - but the only reason to do so would be if you want to be able to say you have a 140 travel bike for bragging rights or you feel the bike is letting you down because of the lack of travel but then you'd have thought that from day one.

Sounds like nitpicking complaining to me.

njee20

Seriously? If Mr Ibis hadn't popped up would you have identified the shorter travel?

kenan

paul.skibum wrote:

I cannot imagine that a shortage of 5-10cm in the rear travel is detectable .

I think you would . . :P

Briggo

Johnwaynebobbet wrote:

whyamihere wrote:

Johnwaynebobbet wrote:

Does anyone think you would have grounds to return it on the basis that its not what it was sold as?

There.

Oh forgot I had put that.

It's more that fact that its not what it's meant to be. Would I have bought one knowing its only 130mm travel, no I would not.

Of course, more travel = a better bike. (sarcasm)

Why do you 'need' that extra 10mm you're supposedly lacking.

rockmonkeysc

Sue the bastards. I cannot believe that Ibis have ripped their customers like this.

lawman

Oh Jeez, I've had enough of this on MTBR!!

I can see where the OP is coming from, cos I was kinda pissed off to start with. Sure you wouldn't notice unless it wasn't pointed out to you, frankly if you could you're some kind of freak, but it's still disappointing that they just threw a shock on and didn't bother actually measuring the travel, makes you wonder what other short cuts they may have taken.

In all honesty, I'd never wished for more travel. I think its a great bike, so 130mm is fine in that respect, but since it was sold to the owners as a 140mm bike, you can't help but feel a little short-changed. Yes its a good bike as is, but it isn't what you were sold, and in anyones world thats not on.

Had it been from the likes of Trek, Spesh etc there would be a huge outcry from owners, heck imagine if the Orange 5 turned out to have 130mm!!

poah

prawny wrote:

BMC?

You might have a case, but they'd argue whether you really needed all that travel, and would you not have bought it if it had said 150mm on it.

might? if something is advertised as 160 but only has 150 then that is a clear case of false advertisement and you would have all the right in the world to get a refund.