lightning33 wrote:
I mean, I had my issues when I was in the process and first received my bike, but in the end, now a year and a half later, I still like it and think it is high quality. But, when you read these reviews of various bikes, they very rarely speak to customer service of the bike brand itself and only talk about the bike. And I think Felt has a good product. Look at the AR. One of the best (I think that is an objective statement?) but is rarely mentioned or listed in the best aero bike category. Is this marketing deals at play?
For what it’s worth, my issues were about the specs and social media aspect. For the specs, their own website said it came with a “carbon cockpit” (or something to that effect). Aluminum bars came on it and when asked about it, they said they were supposed to be alu and then changed the website. There were also a lot of spelling errors and inconsistencies with the page for that model (and others). I sent them some of them for their awareness and they did change some of them. As for social media aspect, they advertised a 20% off code that would work on anything (and it did!) but I wanted my LBS to get credit for the sale. According to LBS, their Felt contact said that they would never do 20% off and didn’t believe they had until directed to their very own social media page! So left hand and right hand were not communicating.
I was talking about the Stevens, but I do like some of the Felt bikes too. I bought an IA at the end of 2015. It wouldn't be my choice now 5 years later (newer, preferable options) but I've been happy with it.
If they advertised carbon and supplied aluminium alloy bars of lower value, they owed you the option of a refund (or a set of carbon bars).
Advertising errors should be resolved in favour of the consumer. It's a consumer right in EU, may differ in US.