Sondors Fact Finding. Due Diligence. Scrutiny.

Yes, I spoke to an assistant to the Vice Chairman in person, filed a "safer products concern," and reviewed the regulations. The Storm-Sondors bike does not conform to US standards and it certainly does not conform to EU standards where the bike is illegal for import!

Chinese products leak into the US on ebay or alibaba and they can be obtained by you (or Storm) directly and cheaply.

According to US standards the bike needs reflectors front, back, wheels; It also needs the inner triangle free from obstruction; hence the big yellow box puts the bike out of compliance; the bikes need to have a manufacturers mark, date of manufacture, and serial number but these elements are likely to be omitted. The CPSC also lists engineering tests which have to be undertaken and these tests are likely to be omitted.

The CPSC has the authority to take safety complaints based on injury and then take action such as demanding recalls.

This is where pre-sales and post-sales diligence and support comes in. When you front-load the majority of your sales why would you want to stick around for the fallout?

Why stick around especially when you are selling a cheap product? Why are ebikes expensive and we covered some of the reasons above.

The bike is a strict liability product, which means that manufacturer needs to carry costly insurance works out to about 4.5% of gross. Is the company going to carry insurance? What happens when someone gets injured and killed? Who is there to sue?

As to the battery; to sell and ship a legal battery in the US, the product needs to undergo a series of destructive tests. I have a non-disclosure agreement with a battery company so all I can tell you is that this process is expensive. I am sure that certification of the battery will be omitted. This is why good US batteries cost $500-$700.

At the high end of the risk curve a battery can catch fire or explode and on the low end of the risk curve (common with Chinese products) is that it can under-perform to specification.

All these question are not going to be answered because addressing them destroys profit margin.

A person wanting to sell an electric wheelchair would have to test the product and then file with the FDA; a person selling a bike does not have to file with the CPSC. Failing to comply to CPSC standards would become a major negligence issue were there an injury or a death. With 6000 cheap bikes and strict liability there will be injury lawsuits. Therefore failing to comply with CPSC standards is "bad business." "Bad business" is not illegal, it is a way to make money unethically.

False advertising is illegal and here the false claims are not just implied they are literal and easily provable. False claims in advertising is also something that occurred, they are not a future hypothetical. If you want to do something constructive file an FTC complaint per the template above.


Getting back to the specifics of this thread, there is an open question of whether Sondo will ever own anything. There's no company, no company address.

In an early part of the interview with Court, Storm talks about two warehouses, east and west coast. The only way he could (normally) warehouse the products would be if he owned them. In fact, all the evidence suggests he will not own them. The factory, in China, will own them until they are shipped to individual buyers. If I order something from China, it eventually gets to a US delivery service. There are duties, in some cases. But the product transits smoothly from China to Utah. Storm needs to address this because he can't really claim stuff on the dock and put it in a warehouse if he doesn't own it. Nor can he distribute it from a container somewhere in LA, unless he received them as a delivery agent.

(Current IGG Page:

Can it be picked up locally in LA?
At this point in time we are not offering local pick up, however we are exploring the possibility of offering it in the future.)

I also question the 30 day warranty (Court YouTube video) if they drop ship the bikes from China, direct to individuals. There are third party warranties, but this would have to be a separate contract. I just assume the contributors are not buying from Storm, so how would Storm warranty the items? It would increase his legal exposure to the products.

Sondo has never really answered how this will work, so I don't know what they are saying to the actual contributors. Maybe some bikes will be sent 'in care of' Sonders, for local delivery. But clearly any normal import bike would be subject to several layers of regulation and so forth. These are the costs they have eliminated, obviously. It is magnified because of the batteries, which will ship separately anyway.

Can they really elude any responsibility for liability? Can they really have no responsibility if there is a recall of a part? What parts did they 'design'? If you design a bike, to some degree, does that create a liability trail?

Sondo has a 'brand', but they don't have a company. They seem to want to create other projects, other ebikes, and sell 'direct'. But 'direct' usually means legal importers of wholesale products for sale at a retail, but discount, price. Does Storm mean that kind of 'direct', or more of the drop-ship "whip and flip' model? Whip up sales, flip 'em onto a container ship, walk away?
 
Last edited:
There's no company, no company address.

With four parties involved, and a complex and unaccountable funding structure, there is intentional confusion which provides cover for alleged-potential-malfeasance.

We have a platform (Indiegogo), an agency Agency 2.0, a principal Storm-Sondors, and a "consumer." Then we have perks vs a purchase and a backer versus a buyer. The way to work through this fog is simplicity, keep it simple.

With the advertising being clearly false, and easily provable, that in itself cuts through all the fog especially since the FTC has told us that crowdfunding is not exempt from truth in advertising regulations.

Indiegogo, Agency 2.0, or Storm-Sondors can chose to take responsibility or fail to do so, as they have. Having a chat board war is not going to force anyone into taking responsibility.

"The Federal Trade Commission makes and enforces rules to protect consumers from unfair or deceptive business practices, and its consumer protection principles apply to crowdfunding sites in the same way they apply to things like catalogs, direct mail and TV commercials, according to Helen Wong, an attorney with the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection." Smithsonian Magazine.: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innov...ig-tech-gadget-180951754/#eHQu268qtijF5qPY.99

The way you can take personal responsibility is by doing your part by filing an FTC complaint with a basis in fact (e.g. 50 miles is not 12-15, quite a simple distinction that is easily understandable.)
 

Attachments

  • misleading.PNG
    misleading.PNG
    202.7 KB · Views: 580
FTC, you are forgetting Storms business partner , the person who designed / built the bike... this seems to be a very common thing, nobody is mentioning him as he stays very much in the shadows.
 
FTC, you are forgetting Storms business partner , the person who designed / built the bike... this seems to be a very common thing, nobody is mentioning him as he stays very much in the shadows.

I don't think there is much of a "design" here as you can find (or even build the same bike yourself) from multiple sources as these bikes are prolific in China (hundreds of thousands or even millions). The fact this is a known commodity means that the factual performance would be known upfront especially by self-described "expert manufacturing geniuses."

There are innovative ebike builders and innovative ebike system makers (Falco, Bosch, Bionix or even Bafang which produces a total system with torque sensors controllers etc) and even with those systems the parameters are finite, clearly represented, and known.

I would prefer to speak to the "fact" rather than the "people" involved. If the facts were truthful the people would be true.

Anyone riding an ebike would know the lie about the range; folks buying this bike have no way to know about that lie; it is too late to clear the air on that issue because now folks are either locked down by bias or a non-refund policy. If you bought the bike and feel you have been mislead you can ask for a refund. If you object to lies in advertising file a complaint with the FTC, if you feel the press did a poor job on this issue send them a note, if you own an ebike business and feel you have been damaged sue under the Latham act. If you are Court test a bike to clear the air. Just do something! take responsibility. (a chat board is not the way to take responsibly)
 
Last edited:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/sondors-electric-bike#comments

On the indie / storm home page, they have a section for Perks, and how much each perk costs you... The bike is currently "selling" for $599 (plust P&H) , BUT the "Reserve now, pay later" perk costs $199 now and $500 later.. (plus P&H)..

To my way of thinking, they are charging $100 interest for persons who pay later. Am I reading this correctly?

Can any business in the US charge interest when they are not a bank, are there not rules for this kind of thing
 
interesting news from the Storm "owners " forum....

(user name and icon removed by request)
Sondors Storm Owners Group

9 mins · Los Angeles, CA, United States · Edited ·

This just in, from the latest pair of updates:

Sondors is extending the campaign another 30 days. Raising the price from $599 to $649. Manufacturing schedule still on track. Existing backers are in first production run, new backers are in second production run. They say the maximum amount they can produce is around 12,000-14,000 eBikes.

Thoughts? I dunno about you, but I'm excited.
 
The latest update....

To be fair to our current backers, we will be raising the price by $50 for the next pricing level instead of the initial $100 stated. This is our commitment to being the most affordable eBike on the market.
 
Fact: one bike has been seen and is in existence, the series of demo days has never transpired and now Sondors is going to China on March 13th there will be no more demo days before the 30 days extension to the IGG campaign ends - you have to pledge your money on a non-refundable basis and get what you are given, if anything.
 
As a matter of fact the first red flag I noticed when I viewed the Sondors page was the wheel spec description.

Mounting a 29" x 4" tire / tube combo on a 26" wheel is not possible, 29" is 622mm BSD (bead seat diameter) and 26" is 559mm BSD . In fact nobody makes a tire or tube larger than 29" x 3" (fatbike plus size).

The most common fatbike wheel size is 26" x 3.8" but there are some 26" x 4.8" tires coming out now and that is the size most likely on the Sondors e-bike.
 
Indiegogo 5th March 2015

With an additional 30 days on the campaign, we will be limiting the first run production of eBikes to our first backers and begin a second production batch that will be deliverable at a date 60 days after the first production batch, approximately July-August 2015. Should we be able to deliver sooner, we certainly will.


Please let me draw your attention to the purposeful terminology used - "deliverable" refers to a product that is in a state ready to be delivered, presumably in China, not actually delivered. Therefore the first people to pledge can only expect their "rewards" to be in a deliverable state by May 2015. This is a global campaign, so it will be interesting to see how long it takes to deliver 7000+ ebikes around the world at a price "much less" than $194/$250 - however the text on the website has now been revised and the phrase "much less" has been removed.
 
Indiegogo 5th March 2015

With an additional 30 days on the campaign, we will be limiting the first run production of eBikes to our first backers and begin a second production batch that will be deliverable at a date 60 days after the first production batch, approximately July-August 2015. Should we be able to deliver sooner, we certainly will.


Please let me draw your attention to the purposeful terminology used - "deliverable" refers to a product that is in a state ready to be delivered, presumably in China, not actually delivered. Therefore the first people to pledge can only expect their "rewards" to be in a deliverable state by May 2015. This is a global campaign, so it will be interesting to see how long it takes to deliver 7000+ ebikes around the world at a price "much less" than $194/$250 - however the text on the website has now been revised and the phrase "much less" has been removed.

Good find this is definitely the pre-sale of a product
 
Just rather entertaining watching the jackals attack the most successful launch in ebike history.

The only thing successful about this "launch" is that "consumers" have been motivated with urgency to to fork over money based on a lies within a sophisticated and professional (but ethically questionable) advertising campaign that has also duped the parroting press into thinking that a 50 mile range would be achievable.

The same marketing effort (Agency 2.0) and crowdfunding infrastructure (Indiegogo) for this "launch" was also behind the Kreyos watch, another product with limited or no accountability to either fact or promise.

The $3500 Faraday that Court likes is a well considered product, it has reflectors for compliance where needed whereas the Storm bike does not, it has good components where the storm bike does not, but more than that it has a post-sales and business structure that will support not only the bike they sell but also the consumer that buys it. And that is why a bike that costs $3,500 has more value per dollar spent than a $500 lie.

Faraday does not engage in advertising fraud in-order to sell a bike. Faraday is an example of good faith and clean hands. The same cannot be said about Storm-Sondors, Agency 2.0, or Indiegogo. If these three parties had good faith and clean hands the truth would have been expressed within the advertising (and the press releases, communications with the press, and the marketing) and hence there would be no controversy.

Reaching the truth at this point will be a costly endeavor not only for the three aforementioned parties but also for the crowdfunders who will ultimately pay for fact finding as truth becomes realized rather than denied.

In the Kreyos case the product which was ultimately delivered was an abortion. People expecting 50 miles range what are they going to get?




 
Last edited:
Hey @JoePah and @Brambor, I'm surprised and a little hurt that you guys are coming out so strong against this thread and me. Have I demonstrated over the past few years that I am not trustworthy or that I am unfair in dealing with people?

You can ask me anything you want, at any time you want and I will do my best to offer an honest answer that does not violate another party's privacy. Please message me directly and respect the guidelines for specific threads such as this which are about fact finding. If you choose to leave, know that I have enjoyed having you here and will respect your character despite any differences we might have.

Court you are professional, fair, factual, and objective in your approach including the several videos about this bike which you produced. I never met you personally but everyone in the industry I have met has spoken highly of you and they are impressed that you do this work for yourself and others out of an interest in this technology. Not only that it takes a huge amount of time to produce these vidoes and you answer almost every question asked on your blog and on youtube. This is my personal perception, but that is speaking to the person and is not really relevant to fact.

The propaganda has come from several directions; It has come from Agency 2.0 which has cast industry insiders as a nefarious lot; It has come from confirmation bias from people who actually believe the false representations; more than that many people feel that speaking to fact speaks against the odds that they will get a product delivered; some feel they are getting a $1,200 bike for $500 having failed to consider value and not knowing the complexity and risks of the product to person and business (they don't know what it takes to support a legitimate product); and it has also come from Facebook and other chat boards where an incentive exists to speak to the person when you lack the knowledge or integrity to speak to the issue.

Anyone with integrity, objectivity, or fact has become a target. Realization of the lie is painful and that is another source of push-back, people expressing rationalization and cognitive dissonance are angry at you not themselves hence they fail to take personal responsibility for their own decision making process.

When Dan Tynan issued a retraction he took tremendous heat, but that retraction showed that he had integrity, the same integrity that you have. Dan to his detriment relied on Storm and Agency 2.0 and turned lies into knowledge and honesty.

Integrity is something journalists such as Julie Bort and Charles Flemming lack having published false-articles in her case after knowing about the lies, and in his case not being bold enough to issue a retraction in the Los Angeles times. Hundreds of journalists have parroted press releases and propaganda on a viral basis without a single fact check; they have not echoed the retraction for they lack integrity. The correct thing to do here is to take the heat and have integrity.

Yes, it is a bit repetitive to echo a lie being repeated in a prolific advertising campaign; but is is more repetitive to listen to the drone of confirmation bias that can do nothing but express through personal attack. It hurts to have integrity and it hurts to be a leader; but 50 miles is not 12-15 as was proved by you in a video and known by anyone with even a cursory knowledge of this product. That needs to be said over and over and over again until it sticks because that lie has not and will not be corrected.

sand viper comp800.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your thoughtful reply @Clark, I also appreciate your contributions to this space @Brambor. I'm going to have to delete all of these recent comments including those by @EULITTLB and @wa5 for being off topic but this is not a strike against anyone. I appreciate an open dialog and that for the most part this has been a civil discussion. Please continue to respect each others' person regardless of your views on a topic.

I would like to create more organization here and reduce repetition and cross posting etc. but simply do not have the man hours and am choosing instead to focus on productive output like reviews or YouTube comments :)

I realize this thread and the Sondors section of the forum has been very active and that may be annoying or distracting. @Brambor please ignore any members who are causing you distress, the tool can be accessed by clicking on their profile icon and choosing "ignore". You may also choose to not click on those stories based around the Sondors Ebike (in the case that I add a comment and you are still following me) and you may also avoid visiting this section of the board entirely and continue your own productive output which we all enjoy.

I created this new section and this separate thread as a way for those with energy on the topic to express it without overrunning others. Unlike some other online platforms, individuals will not be booted based on their ideas or opinions and some repetitive behavior will be tolerated because I simply cannot police it and do not want to target one individual while others may go unchecked. Also, different people have different communication skills and I do not want to focus on that aspect of their involvement. Individuals may be suspended if they make personal attacks and I will contact them directly with thoughtful warnings (including evidence of misconduct and possibly phone calls if they need to speak directly). I am doing very my best.
 
From little more than a "prototype" Agency 2.0 created a brand, the copy, the campaign, the dream. Remove Kreyos and substitute with Storm Sondors and you will find the brains behind this "operation."
 

Attachments

  • kreyosreach.png
    kreyosreach.png
    385.6 KB · Views: 427
At the very end of the Court video there is an interview with two riders (20:40). During the interview, the male says that he talked to Agency 2.0 personnel who told him they had changed their standards, that now A2 would only do projects in an advanced stage. This was because of the Kreyos watch. The man said that A2.0 (told him) they had made a lot of changes because of Kreyos.

This is contradicted by the A 2.0 video on Facebook, which flat out encourages projects with minimal end stage development. The video was posted early December 2014. The Kreyos problems date back to last summer.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2683138/kreyos-smartwatch-were-not-a-scam-just-a-trainwreck.html

See my post here:

http://electricbikereview.com/commu...ogo-is-that-it-is-based-on-flawed-ideas.1281/

The exact relationship between A2.0 and IGG is very murky. The A2.0 spokesman, in the Facebook video, basically speaks for IGG. So when someone hires A2.0 for a campaign, how does this work, as it connects to IGG.

Storm Sondors is a humble man with much success in his life that not many know about… Storm lives a simple life, enjoys the outdoors, the ocean, traveling but an off the grid in a sense lifestyle. Not much for computers or cell phones…just the great outdoors. (Campaign Website)

You have to wonder if Sondors has made any decisions about this campaign, given that he is 'off the grid'. What does he know of the various elements in the campaign?

Second Point:

Since Mr. Sondors said there would be a warranty for this bike, I have not been able to find any reference on IGG. If you search for the word "warranty" it doesn't show up.

Third Point:

The campaign has racked up 11 'bike pledges' since the extension and bump in price.
 
The exact relationship between A2.0 and IGG is very murky. The A2.0 spokesman, in the Facebook video, basically speaks for IGG

The email trail with Indiegogo is quite amazing, and outrageous. I might consider releasing it at a later date; The complex business relationship between 2.0, Storm-Sondors, and IGG creates advantage for those three parties as they can finger-point to each other rather than take responsibility, while putting the consumer at a distinct disadvantage.
 
Back