You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I needed to replace a drybag which was about 4 or 5 years old, and had been used for holding a variety of things (sometimes tools/repair kit, sometimes clothes) in a non-waterproof rucksack.
I bought a 3-litre drybag from Go Outdoors as being the closest thing they had to what I was after; it claimed to be ultralight & waterproof ripstop nylon, and didn't say anything about not using it for anything metal - the box says "protects your *gear* from unwanted moisture", so I read that as being OK for more than just clothes. I used it for one ride, fairly tightly packed with a folding multi-tool, Leatherman and a couple of puncture repair boxes in it - no sharp edges that I was aware of, and nothing I hadn't put in the old one.
When I emptied it after the ride, it had half-a-dozen holes in it, and is obviously no longer waterproof, so I took it back to Go Outdoors and asked if I could have a refund or replace it with something else.
The response was that I'd obviously filled it with heavy tools, and it was therefore fair wear and tear, so they would not refund or replace. When I asked to speak to a manager, he was more interested in the staff member's version of the story and wasn't actually listening to what I said. He said that they would, if I insisted, send it back to the manufacturer, but his whole attitude was that I was being unreasonable to expect to be able to use a dry bag to hold anything metal.
If it is unreasonable to use a drybag for tools, what do other people do? I'd rather not have to keep cleaning the rust off every time I need to use the multi-tool, but I also don't want to have to unpack my kit every time I ride in the rain...
My multi tool lives in a leather case and anything metal gets a soft case.
I'd always say tools, metal items or in fact anything that can puncture a bag need to be wrapped seperately to prevent exactly this sort of thing. It's something we learned years ago in scouts, wrapping stuff in teatowels or small towels when hiking.
Unfortunately, just one of those things to write down to experience.
I've a small Tupperware box or old pencil case, after wearing through drybags.
I just use a zip lock freezer bag. One for tools and one for underwear, wallet and phone when commuting.
They seem to last relatively well and at £1 for 50 I don't really care if they get holes in them every 10 or so rides.
I keep all my camping cook kit in an cheap exped dry bag that cam in a set of 5 and it has lasted years so they might be worth a look.
I would say you mis-bought rather than were mis-sold.
Metal wearing through fabric bag after vibrating for hours on a bike ride...who'd have thought it?
I just use a zip lock freezer bag. One for tools and one for underwear, wallet and phone when commuting.
They seem to last relatively well and at £1 for 50 I don’t really care if they get holes in them every 10 or so rides.
Tut tut think of the planet!
Tut tut think of the planet!
They last longer than the OP's dry bag though so can't be that bad. 😉
If the stuff you put in it damaged it (tools)
I can’t see how that is a fault of the manufacturer or the retailer to be honest.
Unless it was sold as a tool bag obviously.
For the < £8 it cost, I would chalk it up to experience and buy another (and wrap stuff properly when using it)
Put the tools in an old sock, it stops them rattling or rubbing on things.
Also some drybags are tougher than others. eg look at the Alpkit Airlok Xtra dry bags, they are thicker, stronger material than the regular lightweight versions.
I would be wrapping the tools in a bit of rag too. Tbh.
I think for something that was well under a tenner (which I hope a 3l dry bag from gooutdoors was) and made of lightweight material, I wouldn't waste much time on arguing about who was at fault. Furthermore if my common sense wasn't up to figuring out unprotected metal objects would rub holes in said lightweight material, I wouldn't be admitting it on a public forum.
I would be wrapping the tools in a bit of rag too. Tbh.
It’s what I always did, and still do if carrying any multitools or similar, and usually with a strap or similar to stop them rattling, and the rag, cloth or whatever is handy for wiping mucky hands as well. I’d never just chuck a bunch of random tools into a bag and hope for the best.
Even if it was your mistake they should of refunded you as your good will towards them is probably worth more than the cost of a dry bag.
I'd say you were being unreasonable.
I've had all kinds of things in my waterproof Ortlieb pannier, up to and including three bricks. None of these have ever caused any sort of issue whatsoever. I would expect a dry sack to be able to cope with multitools and suchlike, much as the OPs previous dry sack did, doesn't seem unreasonable.
Last time I checked ortlieb didn't claim to be ultralite ripstop nylon like his drybag.
Now I’ve calmed down a bit, there are two reasons they have lost a customer.
1. The immediate reaction was to try to sell me another drybag by a different manufacturer. A 12l drybag as a suitable replacement for a 3l one.
2. I got a very strong feeling that if Jon had gone in instead, he would have got a rather different reaction. It felt very patronising and not the kind of attitude I would expect these days - like some of the high-end bike shops ten years ago.
I’ve had all kinds of things in my waterproof Ortlieb pannier, up to and including three bricks. None of these have ever caused any sort of issue whatsoever.
Cool story obviously.
But not really relevant in a conversation about an £8 Ultralight ripstop nylon drybag. 🤔
...able to cope with multitools and suchlike, much as the OPs previous dry sack did
Unless the previous bag was also an ultralight ripstop nylon one, then it is no more relevant than your heavy duty waterproof pannier comparison.
My wife had a pair of stockings that were guaranteed not to get ladders in then . Well I used one of them to carry my chefs knives in and the tight wads won't give me a refund . Suitably outraged .
How do they survive with such terrible customer service, what a complete shower!
Thank God I'm not working in retail anymore. Honestly OP sort yourself out mate !!!
Get something made from recycled innertubes from Beerbabe.co.uk
I can see why you went where you did, but, it's a product advertised as ultralight so if you suspected you were pushing it at all with the sort of "gear" you'd put in it- which I think maybe you did- then it shouldn't come as a total shock, mtbing is hard on kit so using lightweight, non mtb kit is always chancy. Just write off the (small) loss and move on, and use the info you've gained to get something more appropriate- it's never a waste to find out something doesn't work.
Might be worth a quick letter to your MP.
Even if it was your mistake they should of refunded you as your good will towards them is probably worth more than the cost of a dry bag.
Everything that is wrong with attitudes towards retail in one sentence.FML
You put sharp pointy relatively heavy metal tools in a lightweight fabric bag (regardless of its waterproof qualities) and now you're surprised it has holes in it?
Have a word with yourself, chap
Whilst I think that keeping metal tools in a fabric bag is pushing your luck, I have never had an issue with this. I think you have learnt more about the shop in question than the perils of lightweight materials. Complaining is going to be waste your time as I think you should have at least suspected what might happen.
<div class="bbcode-quote">
<div class="bbcode-quote">
I’ve had all kinds of things in my waterproof Ortlieb pannier, up to and including three bricks. None of these have ever caused any sort of issue whatsoever.
</div>
Cool story obviously.But not really relevant in a conversation about an £8 Ultralight ripstop nylon drybag.
</div>
Surely this is relevant as the bricks in a heavier weight fabric bag would have the same effect as smaller equipment in a lightweight bag. You would have to check weight, hardness and abrasive qualities of each for accuracy of conclusions, obviously!
Even if it was your mistake they should of refunded you as your good will towards them is probably worth more than the cost of a dry bag.
Everything that is wrong with attitudes towards retail in one <span class="skimlinks-unlinked">sentence.FML</span>
Patronising a customer for the sake of £8 everything that is wrong with retail these days. FML
My tools have been in a dry bag for the last 8years or so. It’s not worn through.
I’ll check the brand for you.
So a retailer should replace anything a customer doesn't like if it's low enough value?
This will just encourage the customer to be even less realistic
Why would you keep your tools in a watertight wrapoer?
If mine get wet i dry them. If you get them wet mid ride frim use they'll not dry in the bag. So you have to take them out and dry them and the bag.
Buy a decent tool and it won’t rust, then you can forget about the dry bag. I’m not a weight weeny but the idea of carrying a dry bag to keep tools dry is odd to me.
You are part of the problem OP.
Too entitled for your own good IMO.
I’d imagine you’ll complain and feel aggrieved at reading 90% of the posts on here that counter your grievances.
And:
I wouldn’t be admitting it on a public forum.
So a retailer should replace anyrhanya customer doesn’t like if it’s low enough value?
If i found myself in the same situation as the OP i would expect a refund/credit/replacement I would not expect someone to be rude to me. I they had been more focused on customer service there is every chance they might of be able to turn this situation into the sale of a more expensive dry bag.
Expect a refund AND happy to be upsold a replacement?
Not fit for purpose.
A ripstop drybag that can't cope with 2 small multi tools for one ride is a bit rubbish. Have you tried to re wrap them to see what happened, what was the pokey bit causing the holes do you think?
If you can't see a genuine problem with the packing and tools then it's money back
If i found myself in the same situation as the OP i would expect a refund/credit/replacement
And you would be wrong too.
Why should all the other customers fund your entitled attitude?
Even if it was your mistake they should of refunded you..
No. They should explain that you need to learn not to buy the wrong kit, or actually ask for advice before buying something (If the OP had done this, it would have been fine to demand a refund, and they would have got one)
If I do something daft and damage my kit, I pay to replace it. Why do you think you shouldn’t have to ?
Expect a refund AND happy to be upsold a replacement?
I assume the OP wanted a refund because she would like to put the money to a new dry bag? consider not that many shops sell dry bags there is a strong chance that a refund or credit would then be spent on a more expensive dry bag in Go outdoors.
Advertised as ultralight and tough ripstop drybag Neal. 2 everyday multitools in a tough outdoor dry bag doesn't sound daft. Calling something lightweight doesn't over ride the items description or purpose. Items need to be described properly or expect unhappy customers. Wow some harsh posts in the thread.
Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact you’re buying a waterproof bag for storing tools in. Which don’t need to be waterproofed. Weird.
I would chalk it down to experience and buy a more heavy duty bag. They are cheap as chips on ali express. I got a 3l bag for under a fiver, kind of rubbery (not fabric!) material to go in my bag. It is heavy duty, taken my tools/pump/crashes etc for about 2yrs now and been perfect.
Why should all the other customers fund your entitled attitude?
Unless you are a share holder that is a bit of a silly argument. the loss of a customer is probably going to affect this imagined argument more than the cost to Go Outdoors of refunding a single dry bag.
The loss of a customer with wildly unrealistic expectations is no bad thing.
The loss of a customer with wildly unrealistic expectations is no bad thing.
This times 1000, they take a disproportionate amount of time and energy; normally for little reward. What is a gesture of goodwill this time, becomes the standard expectation every time after that.
I’m sorry to say OP, that I think your expectations are unrealistic. I’m not criticising you - but a lightweight and very budget drybag is not going to survive metal tools pressing against it. Just won’t happen.
It’s also a small amount of £8 you could spend on a discretionary item - so I would write it down to experience and buy something else. I wasn’t there so can’t comment on the attitude of the shop - but you were not happy with that either, so vote with your wallet and go to a shop where the service is comfortable for you.
Better luck with your next purchase!
The loss of a customer with wildly unrealistic expectations is no bad thing.
But in this case the customer does not have wildly unrealistic expectations a dry bag described as 'tough' did not prove to be that tough.
Heavy metal objects rattling around in a bag are going to cause wear- especially if there is more and one and there are other hard objects for it to bang against Calling it tough does not remove that fact of life.
Infact sounds like the op needs a Tesco bag for life , they will replace it when your tools wearthrough it.
Man there are some snowflakes around.
Descriptions must be interpreted. You read "ultralight" and "tough" on a low price product and think "oh yeah, those are entirely compatible"?
:Rollseyes:
Call people Snowflakes who don't agree with you?
Rollseyes:
Tough crowd this morning.
The bag sounds like a piece of crap.
I would expect a refund.
Nope a dry bag is generaly used for soft items you don't want to get wet, maniac!
But in this case the customer does not have wildly unrealistic expectations a dry bag described as ‘tough’ did not prove to be that tough
Pretty sure it wasn't designed as a tool bag. It's probably perfectly tough enough for keeping underwear etc dry.
Unless you are a share holder that is a bit of a silly argument. the loss of a customer is probably going to affect this imagined argument more than the cost to Go Outdoors of refunding [b]a single dry bag.[/b]
So now you are suggesting a large national chain or retailers should have a refund policy that only applies to one customer?
Because earlier it sounded very much like you were suggesting that inexpensive stuff should just be refunded regardless of the circumstances just “because”
which is it ?
Gotta love the armchair warriors.
If the product carried warnings to the tune of not using it for anything metal or only being suitable for clothes then I'd agree, it's the OPs own fault. But it didn't, it said it was to "protect your gear." Using it in a manner that the OP had previously used with an older bag seems entirely reasonable to me.
The Consumer Rights Act states that goods have to be fit for purpose and of reasonable quality. Whether it cost £8, 50p or 50 quid is by the by - it's demonstrably not fit for purpose, which is to "protect your gear." An £8 pouch that died after one use arguably isn't of reasonable quality either (is it reasonable to expect it to do what a previous similar product did? Perhaps so.)
In any case, for the sake of eight quid and probably less than half that in terms of what it cost GO to buy in the first place, I'd have thought they'd have exchanged it without quibble simply for the sake of PR / goodwill if nothing else. It's probably cost them more than that in staff wages arguing about it.
Is it suitable for camera, phone, watches, car keys, puncture repair kits etc etc? normal things to keep stored in a small tough drybag while camping and cycling. You would have thought the description would say Soft goods only rather than the wildly unrealistic description
refund please
the alpkit one recommends the 1 litre for your 'valuables' i don't think they mean al's very tight sand filled knickers
Jecca 😁
Cougar what makes you anything than another armchair warrior? Are you<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> a professonal consumer lawyer? </span>
Fitness for purpose is not just about a description. It does not overide commonsense either. On your basis you could return lots of products with optimistic descriptions. These are just a part of sales.
<div class="bbcode-quote">
Unless you are a share holder that is a bit of a silly argument. the loss of a customer is probably going to affect this imagined argument more than the cost to Go Outdoors of refunding <strong class="bbcode-strong">a single dry bag.
</div>
So now you are suggesting a large national chain or retailers should have a refund policy that only applies to one customer?Because earlier it sounded very much like you were suggesting that inexpensive stuff should just be refunded regardless of the circumstances just “because”
which is it ?
I think you are clutching at staws a bit. The reason i used the word single is because form reading the OP original post i deduced that she had only brought one dry bag from go outdoors.
"If the product carried warnings to the tune of not using it for anything metal or only being suitable for clothes then I’d agree, it’s the OPs own fault"
Excellent At no time when I bought my new car was I told it was incompatible with a wall. Now it's a write off . Perhaps I will return it under your professional consumer advice.
Cougar what makes you anything than another armchair warrior? Are you a professonal consumer lawyer?
Of course not. I do however know a bit about consumer rights and that's what I'm referring to, rather than just lining up to stick the boot in for the lulz.
Fitness for purpose is not just about a description. It does not overide commonsense either. On your basis you could return lots of products with optimistic descriptions.
Leaving aside the third part of the CRA's requirements which is "as described,"
Fit for purpose means that a product should be up to the job it's sold (not bought) for. This includes any descriptions offered by the retailer (or at least, it did under SoGA, I've not checked the CRA but assume it's still the same).
So, if you needed to fill some cracks in a wall and bought a tube of toothpaste, then "fit for purpose" doesn't apply (because you're an idiot). However, if you went to a store, asked for wall sealant and was sold toothpaste, it is absolutely not fit for purpose.
Excellent At no time when I bought my new car was I told it was incompatible with a wall.
Is it reasonable to assume that a bag sold to "protect your gear" will, in fact, protect your gear? Yes.
Is it reasonable to assume that your new car would be compatible with walls? No.
More like using a car to transport a demolished wall to the tip, then complaining the interior got scuffed up. Maybe putting the bricks into containers or using a van would have been a better choice.
More like using a car sold as being suitable for carrying bricks to transport a demolished wall to the tip, then complaining the interior got scuffed up.
FTFY.
The crux of this, really, is how you define "gear."
<div class="bbp-reply-author">Cougar
<div class="bbp-author-role"></div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">just lining up to stick the boot in for the lulz.
</div>
It looks like that's just how you describe those who have a differing view here? You'e not the only one with some knowledge.
To use your own analogy, if OP had gone to the till and asked "Will this ultralight bag be OK with bare metal tools rubbing on the fabric will that be OK?" he should have been answered "no" (he might not have, given what price-driven retail does to staff quality and training), and if it were me I'd have advised him about the blatant incompatability of "tough", "ultralight" and the price tag, and suggested a more nuanced view was required.
Anyone taking a literal view of adjectives (rather than specifications) printed on packaging are in for a lot of disappointment, and is in my view naive
It looks like that’s just how you describe those who have a differing view here?
A few choice "differing views" from earlier, totally not sticking the boot in:
"Furthermore if my common sense wasn’t up to figuring out unprotected metal objects would rub holes in said lightweight material, I wouldn’t be admitting it on a public forum."
"My wife had a pair of stockings that were guaranteed not to get ladders in then . Well I used one of them to carry my chefs knives in and the tight wads won’t give me a refund . Suitably outraged ."
"Honestly OP sort yourself out mate !!!"
"Might be worth a quick letter to your MP."
"Everything that is wrong with attitudes towards retail in one sentence.FML"
"Have a word with yourself, chap"
"You are part of the problem OP.
Too entitled for your own good IMO."
"The loss of a customer with wildly unrealistic expectations is no bad thing."
"Man there are some snowflakes around."
TL;DR, you can disagree with someone without being a bellend about it in the process. I often wonder where some folk sitting there bashing away at their keyboards would talk to a complete stranger in the same way face-to-face.
I think you are clutching at staws
So which is it then ?
Just this one customer that should be refunded regardless of fault.
Or do all customers who break cheap stuff get refunds ?
Are you here for five minutes or the full half hour?
<div class="bbp-reply-author">
Cougar
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Subscriber</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">Are you here for five minutes or the full half hour?
</div>
IRONY!
Yeah, I knew that was coming. Bite me.
(-:
😀
OP - you previously had a product that was fit for purpose and survived the intended use. Why did it need replacing other than age? Wear? Did you buy the replacement online or in store? When you first handled it did it feel as a robust and durable as the one it was to replace? Did you personally apply a reasoned judgement as to the suitability from what you had seen, felt and handled prior to use or did you rely purely on your interpretation of the words on the packaging? You were not going into this blind - you should have been able to appraise suitability for yourself.
Are you here for five minutes or the full half hour
Mine is a perfectly reasonable question, given that earlier he said that retailers should just stump up refunds for damaged goods regardless of who was at fault.
Do you agree with him?
......or are you just having a dig at me because you want an argument ?
So which is it then ?
Just this one customer that should be refunded regardless of fault.
Or do all customers who break cheap stuff get refunds ?
I think it makes more sense to refund/exchange/offer credit for low cost items than it does to be rude and alienate a customer.
I think it makes more sense to refund/exchange/offer credit for low cost items than it does to be rude and alienate a customer.
I think it makes more sense to do neither of those things.
Refund if refund is due. Don’t if it’s not.
Dont be rude to anyone (but this can be easily achieved without refunding people who aren’t entitled to a refund)
than it does to be rude and alienate a customer.
We only have one side of the conversation to judge if the store staff were actually rude. They did not give the customer the answer they were after. This is a customer who is reactionary enough to make a thread about it and who has potentially marginal value judgment making ability. I'm not taking the rude for granted. And in any case as someone above said, some customers you are best off without. No idea if this one is, but it could be a possibility.
I would say you mis-bought rather than were mis-sold.
Yeah. I can't see how you can argue against that really, without being a pedantic dick about it :-).
OP, I would just chalk it down to experience.
Mine is a perfectly reasonable question, given that earlier he said that retailers should just stump up refunds for damaged goods regardless of who was at fault.
Thats not exactly what i said you have missed out (entirely by accident I imagine) the bit where I said low cost, inadvertently making my point look a bit ridiculous.
Whether you are unreasonable or not, it's an 8 quid bag... Barely worth your time going into the shop to complain.
Thats not exactly what i said you have missed out (entirely by accident I imagine) the bit where I said low cost, inadvertently making my point look a bit ridiculous.
So, anything less than what ? £15 maybe
£10?
Entitled to a refund regardless of fault?.
(but this can be easily achieved without refunding people who aren’t entitled to a refund)
(yeah but she was)