The Strange, Unlikely Saga of the '$500' Storm eBike

Is this article complete?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 1 50.0%

  • Total voters
    2

Ravi Kempaiah

Well-Known Member
Oh boy.

I happened to see a Sondors bike owner few days ago and he was cruising at 21mph.
The bike looked nice and for the money, if it holds up, is a good value.
This campaign amidst all the outcry has brought tremendous visibility to E-bikes in general.
Only thing I still can't wrap my head around is the incessant negativity purported by members here even after 5 months.
 

FTC Complaint

Active Member
good value.
The right word or phrase to use is "responsibility" or "selling something responsibly" respectively.

Look at it from a parallax perspective;

Hopp's point of view "having prototyped" a product at his expense and having nothing to show for it
The "Fat Bike Frame Manufacturer In Florida" that had his design used by Sondors and then transferred into the public domain in China. The geometry of the bike being an embodiment of the design.
Agency 2.0's point of view whereby they have not been paid $600,000 and then had to file a lawsuit
Prodecotec's viewpoint where their trademark got infringed
Of someone who bought into the false advertising echoed by an irresponsible press
The fellow who could not assemble his bike (or who had to pay extra for it)
The fellow who has not received his bike
The fellow that asked for a refund and could not find a responsible party IGG, Sondors etc
The person who needs a repair
Anyone that is injured by the bike and find they have no recourse
The small manufacturer that has to pay $300 per unit more in costs to be responsible
Companies that actually pay for certification and testing

Crowd funding puts the consumer at a distinct disadvantage (they are the last paid and absorb all the risks). But in this "strange" case some consumers were given consideration first when the received a product while those not "getting paid" or compensated were business partner vendors, and some percentage of the consumers.

Forbes and the LA Times are totally irresponsible in failing to mention any of this as they are the captured mouthpiece of consumerism. A consumer who gets something is generally happy, they are a feckless and irresponsible lot. Consumers are easy to oppress because they can be paid off by trinkets.

(eg see the Vegetti, a 13c razor blade in a $1 funnel costing $20 retail with and endless number of satisfied customers.)

Omissions in responsibility may not be readily apparent to a consumer but in this case they are there and are directly assignable to recognizable business costs. Someone pays those costs whether or not they are included in the price.

Jon Hopp, Agency 2.0, competitors, retailers and a myriad of consumers are paying the price here.
 
Last edited:

pxpaulx

Well-Known Member
Oh boy.

I happened to see a Sondors bike owner few days ago and he was cruising at 21mph.
The bike looked nice and for the money, if it holds up, is a good value.
This campaign amidst all the outcry has brought tremendous visibility to E-bikes in general.
Only thing I still can't wrap my head around is the incessant negativity purported by members here even after 5 months.
Agreed! @FTC Complaint and others act not like they have been personally wronged (which in most cases isn't even true), but have assumed the plight of Arya Stark from the game of thrones books, i.e. their family and closer friends have been murdered with impunity by sondors and/or the Facebook group. At the end of the day it is just a bike, many of which have actually been delivered.

The civil court issue is just that, and will be dealt with in the court system and is really none of anyone's business but the parties involved. Civil suits for many reasons occur countless times on a daily basis.