Electric Mountain Bikes: No one will buy one?!..

[Deleted member 4366]

I think people need to keep things in balance. It would be reasonable to invalidate a warranty if it could be shown that a modification contributed to a failure, but it's not reasonable to cancel a warranty because somebody modified something. Where do you draw the line? Fitting a rack or a different bell? What about swapping the knobbly tyres for thin higher pressure ones and fitting SPD pedals? That will also help the bike to go faster. When a wheel bearing or spoke fails, should it be covered?

As already said, the dongle doesn't change the power or any other motor characteristic. I would say that a bike used for off-road use (for which many are designed) will be operating the motor under much harsher conditions than a guy riding his bike to work at 20 mph. Should the vendor invalidate the warranty for both ? If not, which one, if either?

There was a despatch rider cyclist who bought a Woosh kit online for his bike. He did a lot of miles very quickly on his bike until his pedal sensor didn't work properly. His bike was in a right state. Due to crashes, his bottle battery studs had been ripped out and his wiring was all in a bit of a mess, with signs that it had all been a bit stretched, presumably from the battery assembly going down the road. It had also had the speed limit adjusted to the maximum. Woosh were happy to provide him a new pedal sensor free of charge and without quibble to get him going again.

As far as I've heard, there was one dealer that refused a warranty claim because somebody not only fitted a dongle, but then let everybody know through this forum. That dealer/supplier is well known on this forum. As a result of that, a lot of hysteria was stirred up. I would like to think that most dealers are reasonable, maybe not over-reasonable like Woosh, but at least they'll be on the customer's side when things go wrong rather than looking to profit from them.

The title of this thread is "Electric mountain bikes. Nobody will buy one". I must admit that there's so many scares on this forum about warranties not being covered on high-end bikes, that I find it difficult to recommend one. I think that the supply chain needs to get its act together and give the customers a bit more confidence.

 

[tillson]

I think people need to keep things in balance. It would be reasonable to invalidate a warranty if it could be shown that a modification contributed to a failure, but it's not reasonable to cancel a warranty because somebody modified something. Where do you draw the line? Fitting a rack or a different bell?

1/ Why then the need to quickly whip the dongle off the bike before taking it back to the dealer?

2/ Is fitting a bell different to modifying the characteristic of the motor's power delivery?

I don't think these questions need addressing, because ultimately we each know the answer. It's what we do in practice that counts.

 

[Vasilis_Pap]

Exactly. Warranty should be valid so long as misuse can be proven. I have been told in the past that my mobile device had no warranty due to water damage and went to a dispute with the manufacturer as their stickers that prove water damage were not altered. Their service said they did and even after my proof (photos taken before sending the device) they still didn't budge. So excuse me if I am in disbelief as to what a warranty should or should not have. The majority of the times consumers won't go through the hassle of a minor court procedure as it's not worth it. That's where manufacturers sit on when they claim warranty is void. Hence why I rather choose a reasonable dealer I can communicate and clear from the beginning what could/would be covered rather than try and go directly to the manufacturer.

As for the law, it's there and all of us know it's being broken from vehicles, motorbikes etc. In every society it's usually one small detail that media will like to emphasise out in order to make a point and I agree in such situations ebikes alone, let alone a dongled one could be one of those points.

 

[RobF]

It would be reasonable to invalidate a warranty if it could be shown that a modification contributed to a failure.

Same applies to insurance claims, as it might because a warranty is a type of insurance.

We are in the complicated - but regulated - world of claims 'redrawing'.

An insurance company can only redraw - reduce - the claim if they can show the modification/circumstance they were not told about contributed to the claim.

Happens occasionally with motor polices, often where a car has been modified by the owner without telling the insurance company.

If the claim is not related to the mod, the insurance will still cover it, although it may be reduced.

For example, if you tweak the ecu and the car is stolen from your driveway, you will still be covered for the theft because the insurance company cannot reasonably say an invisible mod made your car more likely to be stolen.

It's all still a risky business, and an avenue you don't want to go down if you can avoid it.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

That's interesting. Has there been a change? I can remember a case in the '70s where a guy had a 3 litre Ford Capri that should have been fitted with V-rated tyres. To save money, and because he didn't drive it at over 120 mph, he fitted H-rated tyres. He was T-boned by somebody who came out of a junction without looking while he was driving at about 30 mph. His insurance wouldn't pay up.

 

[RobF]

That's interesting. Has there been a change? I can remember a case in the '70s where a guy had a 3 litre Ford Capri that should have been fitted with V-rated tyres. To save money, and because he didn't drive it at over 120 mph, he fitted H-rated tyres. He was T-boned by somebody who came out of a junction without looking while he was driving at about 30 mph. His insurance wouldn't pay up.

Always difficult to be sure of knowing the full circumstances.

But more recently, I've read of some cases where the insured has been treated better than many people would think he deserved, after lying to the insurance company on the proposal.

Equally, some people have found themselves on the wrong end.

There was a teacher who retired during the currency of his policy, but didn't tell his car insurers.

He was involved in a bump in a supermarket car park.during the working day.

The insurance sought to avoid the claim on the basis they thought he would have been at work at the time.

Lots of arguments there - holidays, sickness, etc - and I believe it was sorted in the insured's favour in the end.

But it illustrates how things can get complicated.

My car is parked in the enclosed rear yard of my house.

The yard has no roof, but the only entrance is secured by a roller shutter door.

Out of an abundance of caution, I did explain this to the insurer because the only option on the proposal was 'on street, driveway or garage'.

My yard is not a driveway, it's certainly not a street, but neither is it exactly a garage.

I was careful in this instance because theft of a car during a burglary to get the keys is one of the more likely ways the car will be stolen.

Modern immobilisers are hard to get around, so the other, much rarer, way is a carjack while you are driving.

With this in mind, if your car is stolen, one of the first questions you will be asked is where are both sets of keys?

One set may have gone with the car.

But if you don't have the spare set, make sure you have a good explanation.

 

[EddiePJ]

Two quotes from you Dave.

"People are only worried because people like you are stirring them up and misguiding them."

And the second.

"The problem comes when a pedestrian jumps out on you without looking and you break their arm. Then the police will certainly check you bike, and when they find that it's illegal, you'll be automatically to blame and they'll charge you with various motoring offences, which could put your driving licence in jeopardy. The injured party would be able to sue you for about £10,000, for which you'd have no defence. Also, if you get knocked down by a car when the driver doesn't look, it'll still be your fault and you'll have to pay for his damage and stress because you shouldn't have been there. That's the main problem with illegal bikes!"

Sounds like reason enough to stay legal to me, and also reason enough for the likes of KTM, sportive/sportif organisers and trail centre owners to be very concerned over aspects of liability.

I am right in thinking that you were once knocked from your bike, and rewarded compensation? I seem to recall that who ever it was, was overly vocal in various threads, about how the bike that they had been riding was legal. I hadn't really given much thought to this, until it clicked a couple of days ago, that anyone riding a legal bike, wouldn't have even felt the need to mention this aspect, and wouldn't have given second thought to that of their bikes legal standing.



.

 

[Gubbins]

The problem with pedestrians is that after a quick glance at a licra clad , insect eyed cyclist their brain registers this as fast moving object, whereas that same glance at an old man on a sit up bike their brain could relegate this to an inconsiquential slow moving object thus discounting it as a hazard. Which often happens to me?
But I don't think it would be a legal issue as the police around here have no idea and have probably never seen an e bike and how would they test one? Where could they go to test one, and if you rode off how would they trace you?
I agree that 16 mph is fast enough but it don't think going ileagal would present any problems.

 

[Alan Quay]

I am right in thinking that you were once knocked from your bike, and rewarded compensation? I seem to recall that who ever it was, was overly vocal in various threads, about how the bike th.....
.

I think that was D8ve, not D8veh. Easily confused.

 

[Deleted member 4366]

Two quotes from you Dave.

"People are only worried because people like you are stirring them up and misguiding them."

And the second.

"The problem comes when a pedestrian jumps out on you without looking and you break their arm. Then the police will certainly check you bike, and when they find that it's illegal, you'll be automatically to blame and they'll charge you with various motoring offences, which could put your driving licence in jeopardy. The injured party would be able to sue you for about £10,000, for which you'd have no defence. Also, if you get knocked down by a car when the driver doesn't look, it'll still be your fault and you'll have to pay for his damage and stress because you shouldn't have been there. That's the main problem with illegal bikes!"

Sounds like reason enough to stay legal to me, and also reason enough for the likes of KTM, sportive/sportif organisers and trail centre owners to be very concerned over aspects of liability.

I am right in thinking that you were once knocked from your bike, and rewarded compensation? I seem to recall that who ever it was, was overly vocal in various threads, about how the bike that they had been riding was legal. I hadn't really given much thought to this, until it clicked a couple of days ago, that anyone riding a legal bike, wouldn't have even felt the need to mention this aspect, and wouldn't have given second thought to that of their bikes legal standing.



.

Unfortunately you have made a mistake, so Oldtom needs to unlike it too. The first quote is from me. The second is not, and no, I didn't get knocked off my bike, neither did I beak my arm. That was the guy who's quote you took, who was also often trying to stir up hysteria.. Please edit your post accordingly because I don't want people to get the wrong idea about my views.

 

[EddiePJ]

For the record, you did in fact write second quoted piece.

http://www.pedelecs.co.uk/forum/threads/how-do-i-make-it-go-faster.8171/page-2#post-102301

You're right about the unlikelihood of getting stopped. The problem comes when a pedestrian jumps out on you without looking and you break their arm. Then the police will certainly check you bike, and when they find that it's illegal, you'll be automatically to blame and they'll charge you with various motoring offences, which could put your driving licence in jeopardy. The injured party would be able to sue you for about £10,000, for which you'd have no defence. Also, if you get knocked down by a car when the driver doesn't look, it'll still be your fault and you'll have to pay for his damage and stress because you shouldn't have been there. That's the main problem with illegal bikes!

I posted the statement to highlight a threat that even you have openly admitted to, but seemingly now choose to deny having written. Admittedly the thread was a long time ago, so you could be forgiven for the oversight, but the sentiment of the words behind it must surely still be valid?

If as I have stated, sportive/sportif organisers, trail centre managers, and even insurance liability companies etc also have this same concern that you have indicated to, and they seemingly do, then the days are numbered for riding e-mtb's off road at public attended events, and who knows after that.

Quite clearly, yourself and a minority of like minded people are happy to see things go that way, but I'm not, and I'm sure that there will be countless current and future e-mtb riders just like myself, that won't be so happy either.

In relation to my question, I merely asked if it was you, and nothing more. I see no reason to remove that question, for the sole reason that a forum user was involved in an accident, and they were evidently concerned about the legal aspect of the bike.

I'm not sure why you would wish either point to be removed, as both are relevant.
In the second quoted passage, I'd have thought that even you would admit that you summed things up pretty well, although I expect that the monetary quoted figures would now be out dated, and very much on the low side.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

This is one of the reasons I love the internet this thread is bumbling along nicely, good bit of infotainment for me and genuinely nearly made me spit my coffee out this morning.

I was already having bizarre flash backs to my previous role as a secondary school teacher and this morning made me realise why. I have to say that d8veh you've now in just one thread reminded me 3 times of the 14 year olds I used to teach in my previous job.

Getting involved in a discussion that really doesn't need to involve you.

I've no problem with this, its a forum, but it does make me chuckle that you feel the need to step in to try to divert the issue away from the one that is actually being discussed and obsess about details that aren't relevant.

instead of responding to the actual issue, you've attempting to divert attention to other dubious misdemeanors of others.

reminded me of a case where I warned a pupil that if he left my classroom with his uniform in such a state, there was a strong possibility he'd have been caught by the head and he'd be in trouble.... Before the pupil had a chance to respond, another... lets call him David... said. "But Sir, Mr (other teacher) has his top button undone all the time"

and then the classic ....."it wasn't me"

which made me laugh the most.

I'm off to find a cloth to wipe the coffee off my desk

 

[selrahc1992]

This is one of the reasons I love the internet this thread is bumbling along nicely, good bit of infotainment for me and genuinely nearly made me spit my coffee out this morning.

I was already having bizarre flash backs to my previous role as a secondary school teacher and this morning made me realise why. I have to say that d8veh you've now in just one thread reminded me 3 times of the 14 year olds I used to teach in my previous job.

Getting involved in a discussion that really doesn't need to involve you.

I've no problem with this, its a forum, but it does make me chuckle that you feel the need to step in to try to divert the issue away from the one that is actually being discussed and obsess about details that aren't relevant.

instead of responding to the actual issue, you've attempting to divert attention to other dubious misdemeanors of others.

reminded me of a case where I warned a pupil that if he left my classroom with his uniform in such a state, there was a strong possibility he'd have been caught by the head and he'd be in trouble.... Before the pupil had a chance to respond, another... lets call him David... said. "But Sir, Mr (other teacher) has his top button undone all the time"

and then the classic ....."it wasn't me"

which made me laugh the most.

I'm off to find a cloth to wipe the coffee off my desk

to me your postings say so much more about you than others

 

[Gubbins]

Absolutely.
There was always something about these posts that I couldn't put my finger on.. Now I know.. it's the headmaster syndrome, no offence intended.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

Absolutely.
There was always something about these posts that I couldn't put my finger on.. Now I know.. it's the headmaster syndrome, no offence intended.

none taken.

 

[JohnCade]

Absolutely.
There was always something about these posts that I couldn't put my finger on.. Now I know.. it's the headmaster syndrome, no offence intended.

Wasn’t d8veh a teacher once? I thought he said he was. The didactic impulse can’t be taken off like a coat. Greek meets Greek perhaps?

 

[RobF]

but it does make me chuckle that you feel the need to step in to try to divert the issue away from the one that is actually being discussed

This thread is a puff for the OP's eMTB club.

The diversion was in post three.

To quote Fawlty: "You started it."

 

[selrahc1992]

This thread is a puff for the OP's eMTB club.

The diversion was in post three.

To quote Fawlty: "You started it."

yup, and a contrived, really familiar diversion

 

[JohnCade]

yup, and a contrived, really familiar diversion

KTM was simply repeating his unanswered question from another thread. Lots of other people have stuck their oars in here, as have I. But the OP has been notable for his complete absence from the thread once he was asked about his position regarding the legality of the devices he sells, and his initial bluster was ignored. If he feels that what he does is fine why doesn’t he say so?

Silence speaks louder than words perhaps?

 

[selrahc1992]

KTM was simply repeating his unanswered question from another thread. Lots of other people have stuck their oars in here, as have I. But the OP has been notable for his complete absence from the thread once he was asked about his position regarding the legality of the devices he sells, and his initial bluster was ignored. If he feels that what he does is fine why doesn’t he say so?

Silence speaks louder than words perhaps?

i think there is a difference between sticking an oar in and hijacking a thread. perhaps the same way there is a difference between expressing an opinion and patronising others in a controlling way. however, that aside, this thread has generated some light (and not just heat), which must be a good thing.