R&M Recall Packster 70: Recall and immediate riding stop.

[mountaindweller]

Riese & Müller is recalling the Packster 70 cargo bike model to its production site in Mühltal with immediate effect.

All models that have been delivered since the start of delivery and up to and including October 06, 2021 are affected. At the same time, production and delivery of the product will be stopped with immediate effect. To protect our customers, the Packster 70 may no longer be used effective immediately.

The background to the recall is a technical problem with the function of the cable steering, which can severely affect the handling of the Packster 70 and therefore affects all delivered models. In order to ensure the absolute safety of all riders, the model will therefore be completely removed from the product portfolio for the time being. The Packster 60 and Packster 80 models are not affected by the recall.

The immediate worldwide recall of all Packster 70 models is a clear decision for Riese & Müller to ensure maximum transparency and safety for the customers. All customers who have purchased a corresponding vehicle will be informed directly by Riese & Müller about the recall and will shortly receive a comprehensive information package regarding reversal and further procedure with their Packster 70.

Owners who are already registered in the Riese & Müller My Bike service platform will be proactively informed. Non-registered customers are asked to register here or to send an e-mail to [email protected] with frame number, address and phone number.

Riese & Müller expressly apologizes to all dealers and customers for the inconvenience caused.

 

[theemartymac]

Sounds like a dramatic escalation of the previous recall. I smell a serious accident or lawsuit behind that one...

From just 4 months ago:

 

[retiredNH]

Reminds me of the Trek Allant pedal recall. A small number of bikes had pedals improperly installed...

 

[JVBulman]

We got to hear about this from a customer which was fun. Waiting with baited breath to hear their plan as to how we're going to get our five P70s back to Germany from the states...

 

[JVBulman]

Reminds me of the Trek Allant pedal recall. A small number of bikes had pedals improperly installed...

It's a bit different from what I've seen - we did what was asked during the voluntary recall back June and our customers have had continued issues related to steering - the design of the steering mechanism seems to be inherently flawed in some way.

 

[theemartymac]

We got to hear about this from a customer which was fun. Waiting with baited breath to hear their plan as to how we're going to get our five P70s back to Germany from the states...

The wording of the full recall sounds like a "We're not even going to repair this". If it's a fatal flaw that is not practically repairable, I wonder if they might just ask for a local strip and dispose with proof of decommissioning? Has R&M done a no-repair total recall before?

 

[JVBulman]

The wording of the full recall sounds like a "We're not even going to repair this". If it's a fatal flaw that is not practically repairable, I wonder if they might just ask for a local strip and dispose with proof of decommissioning? Has R&M done a no-repair total recall before?

R&M did a voluntary recall back in June where they sent instructions for correcting an assembly issue with the steering to dealers, but this new one mentions the bikes being recalled to the factory specifically... We'll have to wait and see.

It's also worth noting they said production has been halted and if you look, the P70 has been removed from the website.

 

[webcurl]

Just as well they're not a publicly listed company and can do so without too much whinging from share holders!

 

[Alaskan]

It will be interesting to see if they do the right thing and replace the bikes, something well documented that Specialized did with a run of bikes that experienced cracked frames .

Asking people with fatally flawed bike's steering to ship them back to Germany for repair and then wait for the repair and return shipping, being without their bicycle for months on end would be totally unreasonable, especially in the era of interminable shipping delays. This is also especially true for a cargo bike which many people purchase as a vehicle replacement, used to get the kids to school, haul tools to a worksite, fetch groceries, etc.

Will they bite the bullet and do right by their customers? It's put up or shut up time.

 

[JimAndArrow]

I concur Alaskan, asking people to ship them back to Germany and be without them for months would be unreasonable. Hopefully they can and will quickly engineer replacement steering parts and have them installed by qualified service centers here. Otherwise the only options would seem to be prompt replacement or refund.

The hardest part may be for folks who aren’t near a dealer - getting a cargo bike to a dealer hundreds of miles away is a significant expense and effort, hopefully they are also providing for whatever return packing/shipping is necessary. This is going to be a big cost for R&M whatever they do, so I’ll hope and assume they’re going to do the right thing. I’m awaiting the outcome here with curiosity (and relieved I ordered a Load 75, which has been around long enough to have the kinks worked out!).

 

[JVBulman]

They're refunding P70 customers the full sale price of the bike and offering a 15% discount should they decide to buy a different R&M as a replacement (Load 75s have been a popular replacement so far.)

The bikes are not being recalled to Germany. We've not been told yet where they'll end up, but the first step is getting them back in the hands of the dealers.

As for P70 customers who don't live near a dealer - it sounds like they're working on a solution for that, but it's the responsibility of the dealer who sold the bike to get it back to the store. The customer will not be expected to shoulder the cost of whatever the solution turns out to be.

Lastly, if a P70 customer doesn't want to return the bike, they assume all liability for it.

 

[JimAndArrow]

That sounds like the best possible solution I could have imagined for customers in a difficult situation. Kudos to R&M for handling things with class.

I can’t imagine most automotive OEMs, by comparison, being nearly as responsible and respectful of their customers.

 

[Alaskan]

Although I am not effected, I am concerned that those who are being put in hardship and may not be adequately compensated for their troubles.

I found this thread over at the Riese & Muller Cargo Bike Group.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/RMCargoBikes/permalink/1223203428152060

It appears most people effected are not at all happy with the compensation. The discount for a new bike is all but erased for most by the 13% increase in price since last spring. People will be without their bikes for who knows how long. Some have waited many months for their bikes and now face another long wait. Others depend on their bikes as they were purchased as vehicle replacements and are scrambling to find another bike to get to work or take their kids to school.

The effective 2% discount has many people complaining of less than adequate compensation by R&M for their trouble. The prospect of another wait for many months has some looking for alternatives. At least one dealer is generously offering a load 75 as a straight across replacement but that is a dealer decision, not a R&M offering. Some are suggesting that replacement bikes should be offered at cost (about 50% of the current retail price), rather than at a profit.

It appears that the general consensus thus far is that Riese & Muller has made a minimal offer of compensation and most are unhappy with it. The only ones who seem content are those who were planning on putting their bikes in storage for the winter so being without the bike for six months or more will not effect them. I know if this happened to me and I did not have another bike to ride, I would be very unhappy.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

 

[JimAndArrow]

Seems to me offering a full refund is about all people can ask and better than most OEMs would do though I feel the pain of having to return it.

Asking for cost on another bike on top of having had the use of the Packsters for free strikes me as asking to be double compensated, effectively ending up with a half price bike in the end for the delay, which frankly I think a lot of people would choose if they could. I’m not surprised though and having to wait for a replacement will be irritating for people - folks will have to decide whether to wait for another R&M or look elsewhere. Personally I think they are doing right, though it sucks for everyone for users to have to buy a different bike now.

I’m actually more interested in what exactly happened with the cable steering and whether they’ll try again with it or concluded this concept is unworkable.

 

[Alaskan]

Seems to me offering a full refund is about all people can ask and better than most OEMs would do though I feel the pain of having to return it.

Asking for cost on another bike on top of having had the use of the Packsters for free strikes me as asking to be double compensated, effectively ending up with a half price bike in the end for the delay, which frankly I think a lot of people would choose if they could. I’m not surprised though and having to wait for a replacement will be irritating for people - folks will have to decide whether to wait for another R&M or look elsewhere. Personally I think they are doing right, though it sucks for everyone for users to have to buy a different bike now.

I’m actually more interested in what exactly happened with the cable steering and whether they’ll try again with it or concluded this concept is unworkable.

This is a very new model and many of the people have had their bike for just weeks or a few months after paying for the bike and waiting up to six months or more for it to arrive. Also factor in that, being a cargo bike, a significant number of the owners of this particular bike are not just being mildly inconvenienced by not having their toy to play with but rather, losing the vehicle they depend on to get to work, run errands, etc.

Riese & Muller is fully refunding the bike owner for the invoice price on the bike, including taxes and the dealers profit margin, not requiring the dealer to repay the profit they made on a bike the owner might have for a few months or even weeks.

If the customer opts to buy another R&M bike, Is the dealer entitled to a double profit when the rider ends up with only one bike? Some dealers already recognize this and are chipping in to soften the blow to their customers. They all should be doing so, in my opinion.

It appears that Riese & Muller is actually making a reasonable if not generous offer. To fully compensate the customer, the dealer needs to participate too.

 

[JimAndArrow]

I won’t pretend at awareness of the arrangements between R&M and their dealers but even if your premise were correct I disagree, the dealers did the work to earn what they made on those bikes, R&M should make them whole, there’s no reason the dealers should be stuck having invested money and effort in the original sales and lose it as you demand. An OEM design defect is on the OEM to make good on, to both the dealers and customers.

 

[JVBulman]

I won’t pretend at awareness of the arrangements between R&M and their dealers

That puts you a step above @Alaskan...

Hearing R&M did their best to protect their dealers from assuming the financial loss of the recall and recommending effected customers use it as leverage to a shake an even better deal out of the dealer ontop of the aforemention 15% discount not only demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the financial logistics of being a dealer, but it comes off as opportunistic and frankly, a bit morally bankrupt.

 

[Alaskan]

I won’t pretend at awareness of the arrangements between R&M and their dealers but even if your premise were correct I disagree, the dealers did the work to earn what they made on those bikes, R&M should make them whole, there’s no reason the dealers should be stuck having invested money and effort in the original sales and lose it as you demand. An OEM design defect is on the OEM to make good on, to both the dealers and customers.

I am not demanding anyone refund their justly earned margin on the sale of a bike. I am suggesting that, under the circumstances where the dealer stands to get margins on both the original bike and the purchase of its replacement, that he help his customer by sharing some of the second margin he is earning. Two full margins to the dealer with only one bike to the customer seems a bit greedy to me. There are dealers here in the USA who are telling their customers to bring in their Packster 70 and trade it for a Load 75 straight across, no extra $$$. Clearly they can make that offer because the already have earned and banked one margin and are willing to take less the second time around to keep their customer happy.

 

[Alaskan]

That puts you a step above @Alaskan

I have spoken directly with people inside Riese & Muller in Germany, today, for clarification on this.

 

[Alaskan]

That puts you a step above @Alaskan...

Hearing R&M did their best to protect their dealers from assuming the financial loss of the recall and recommending effected customers use it as leverage to a shake an even better deal out of the dealer ontop of the aforemention 15% discount not only demonstrates a total lack of understanding of the financial logistics of being a dealer, but it comes off as opportunistic and frankly, a bit morally bankrupt.

As does keeping the entire margin on two sales when one is spoon fed to the dealer by recalling a bike and giving them all the money the bike owner paid. As you well know Riese & Muller's customer is not the person who rides off on the bike but rather the dealer they sell it to. Legally, on a recall, all that is required is for them to refund their customer (the retailer) what was paid to them. That R&M recognizes that the issue is no fault of the dealer, they are not asking the dealer to refund their margin. Rather they are refunding to the dealer, what the end user paid for the bike, including taxes, requiring the dealer to either to pay it out to the customer. Should they really be keeping the entire second margin when that customer says keep the money and get me a new bike. Now the dealer has kept two healthy margins and their customer has just one bike. Where is the moral high ground in that? It looks more like opportunism and greed to me. I don't own a packster 70 but if my dealer did that to me, I would be looking for a new one.

Clearly the USA dealers who are giving their customers a brand new Load 75 when they bring in their Packster for the recall are also sacrificing some of their second margin as a gesture of solidarity and care to their customer.