Online bike purchase

[PaulSB]

I'd disagree, sticker aside, he's received, as advertised, a bike in the 9.9 spec.

I don't see why. I asked the same question as you. At that point it wasn't clear if the OP had received the advertised spec. If he/she hadn't received the advertised spec then asking for a refund on that basis is perfectly reasonable.

 

[fossyant]

Some manufacturers do the grade level, some will do the same frame and different kit. It's impossible. Spesh do some frame grades, like the S-Works. Slightly better carbon... Lots of other manufacturers sell the bikes as say 1.1, 105 equipped, 1.2 Ultegra, 1.3 Dura Ace, 1.4 all bells and whistles...

I just look at the frame and groupset. And condition....

 

[Katana]

Does the 9 and 9.9 share the same carbon lay up ?

Yep both use 600OCLV

 

[Katana]

I don't see why. I asked the same question as you. At that point it wasn't clear if the OP had received the advertised spec. If he/she hadn't received the advertised spec then asking for a refund on that basis is perfectly reasonable.

To be fair bike came equipped with the same spec as advertised.

 

[Dan Lotus]

That's an odd one isn't it - they weren't checking things very carefully when you specifically asked what model it was.

That wouldn't bother me as such, but as you rightly say, as and when you come to sell it, you'd need to advertise it as an upgraded 9.0 rather than a stock 9.9.

Only you know how much of an issue that might be, and no one knows how much money (if anything) that could potentially cause you to lose on a sale.

I'd be inclined to drop them a friendly message stating that overall you are content with the bike, but the fact that you asked a specific questions about which model it was, and another one being stamped clearly on the top tube is a bit of an issue, and I'd reference the potential resale issue of it not being a stock model.

I'd not suggest a remedy, I'd be inclined to say this is the issue, is there we anything you can do to remedy the situation, and see what they come back with.

This is not the same as such, but pre ashley I bought 3 bikes from Evans.
I won't bore you with the horribly damaged one, but basically 2 of them came with incorrect parts, ie one had an alloy seatpost when it was clearly specced with a carbon one, and in fact thinking about it, it was an identical situation for the other one too. Both were Dales.
Happily I spotted this (I wonder how many people do not) and contacted them to point out the errors, one they sent out a new post, another one I sourced it and they refunded me for the amount once I provided proof of purchase as they had no stock.

Your situation is clearly different, being a used bike, but the fact remains that the model stamped on the frame is not what you thought, and were critically told, you were buying.

It's worth an ask at least.

 

[Katana]

That's an odd one isn't it - they weren't checking things very carefully when you specifically asked what model it was.

That wouldn't bother me as such, but as you rightly say, as and when you come to sell it, you'd need to advertise it as an upgraded 9.0 rather than a stock 9.9.

Only you know how much of an issue that might be, and no one knows how much money (if anything) that could potentially cause you to lose on a sale.

I'd be inclined to drop them a friendly message stating that overall you are content with the bike, but the fact that you asked a specific questions about which model it was, and another one being stamped clearly on the top tube is a bit of an issue, and I'd reference the potential resale issue of it not being a stock model.

I'd not suggest a remedy, I'd be inclined to say this is the issue, is there we anything you can do to remedy the situation, and see what they come back with.

This is not the same as such, but pre ashley I bought 3 bikes from Evans.
I won't bore you with the horribly damaged one, but basically 2 of them came with incorrect parts, ie one had an alloy seatpost when it was clearly specced with a carbon one, and in fact thinking about it, it was an identical situation for the other one too. Both were Dales.
Happily I spotted this (I wonder how many people do not) and contacted them to point out the errors, one they sent out a new post, another one I sourced it and they refunded me for the amount once I provided proof of purchase as they had no stock.

Your situation is clearly different, being a used bike, but the fact remains that the model stamped on the frame is not what you thought, and were critically told, you were buying.

It's worth an ask at least.

Many thanks for your input, yes I have sent an email to them drawing their attention towards what I have found and not to complain as such. As for your experience of buying bikes from Evans, it shows that if you don’t check and especially if you don’t know your stuff then at times bike shops can get away with murder. I wonder how often general public the ones who don’t know much in terms of the components etc get stitched? I have also bought 3 bikes from my local Evans shop but in my case I was lucky that I had no issues and the staff are amazingly good 😊

 

[AlexanderWhitcomb]

Hi guys, just wanted your thoughts on a recent bike purchase from Cycle Exchange. As you may know that last month I bought a second hand bike(Trek Madone SLR 9) and traded in my bike also. Bike at the time of sale was advertised on their website as Trek Madone SLR9.9 2018. Now here are couple of discrepancies I found while I was searching for some original replacement parts on Trek website under bike serial number. Firstly it came as 2017 model and not 2018! Secondly it showed up as 9.0(entry level model)and not 9.9(top tier model). The main difference between two models is that 9.0 came with Ultegra mechanical groupset whereas 9.9 was equipped with Dura-ace Di2. Also 9.9 has one piece integrated handle bars whereas 9.0 came with usual two piece stem handle bars. Also different wheels. Apart from that both bikes share the same frame with proprietary rim brakes.
Right enough when I checked the small sticker on the top tube it does say Madone 9.0 and not 9.9!
At the time of the purchase I did confirm that whether it was 9.9 or else and it was confirmed by an email reply that it was 9.9 as it’s equipped with Dura-ace.
Now the most plausible explanation here is that bike was maybe upgraded later by changing the groupset and handle bar. As for the wheels it has after market Richey carbon wheels too.
To be honest other than that I cannot fault the bike and overall equally happy with the seamless experience with the bike shop. I am not suggesting here that I was deliberately mislead but my expectation was that all due diligence would have been carried out by them before it was put up for sale? I am personally not bothered as such that bike started its journey from the factory as 9.0 and later became 9.9. Equally it doesn’t matter to me if the sticker on the top tube says 9.0 instead of 9.9! However if and when I decided to sell the bike and if the buyer was quite anal about things then it could be an issue!
Therefore do you think I have a case here to claim some money back?
Eagerly awaiting to hear back from you 😊 win casino лучшее онлайн казино

I’d say you’re somewhere in the middle on this - you did get what was advertised spec-wise, but it’s not actually a factory 9.9, which is a bit misleading.

 

[Katana]

I’d say you’re somewhere in the middle on this - you did get what was advertised spec-wise, but it’s not actually a factory 9.9, which is a bit misleading.

Yeah I agree. I had a reply from the shop, they apologised for the confusion as bike had all 9.9 components so it was assumed that it was 9.9. To be honest as I said before I can’t fault anything else so decided to just accept their apology and take it no further.

 

[Katana]

If there’s a frame number on it Shirley you can check with Trek how it began life.

Yes I did and they confirmed that it left factory as 9.0.

 

[Katana]

Does the 9 and 9.9 share the same carbon lay up ?

Yes they have exactly the same lay up 600OCLV