So Dan Tynan originally wrote an article about the Storm Electric Bike - The Storm eBike: An Inexpensive Answer to Gridlock? - and quickly, if you'd pardon the pun, backpedaled and posted a new article after talking to ONE direct COMPETITOR to the Storm Electric Bike (who has yet to back up their claims they made to Dan in any public venue, but viciously attacked the campaign in the comments on Indiegogo after contributing) called A $500 eBike? Not So Fast.

In the original article Dan says things like

“I got to take one for a short spin outside Yahoo’s San Francisco offices. ”

Screenshot of https://www.yahoo.com/tech/the-storm-ebike-a-500-answer-to-gridlock-109526615029.html

“While the eBike’s 350-watt motor still doesn’t have enough oomph to conquer San Francisco’s steep hills without a pedal-powered assist, it’s a whiz on city streets as well as the twisty canyon roads of Malibu, where the company is based, says Sonders”

Well Dan in the Malibu quote it is quite difficult to see where your thought ends and the quote begins, because well you didn't use quotation marks... that's sloppy journalism and at a casual glance it looks like you claimed to test it in Malibu which is 400 miles from San Francisco.

You also say things like

“ A gentle tap of my thumb on the accelerator, and I was hitting the max speed of 20 mph in less than 50 yards.”

Confirming the claim as to the bike's speed… I am assuming you measured that speed somehow and didn’t just fudge it for your article, that would be bad journalism Dan. In your update to the original article you state:

“The Storm eBike promises impressive specs: the ability to run on sand or snow as well as pavement, a maximum speed of 20 mph,”

Which in your original article you claimed to have operated the Storm at 20mph so cool that fact checks out.. but wait, your new source (a direct competitor) claims that 20mph isn't possible even though you witnessed it via your own operation of the bike!!!

“Those numbers just don’t add up, says David Santos, vice president of sales and business development for Big Cat Worldwide, a New York-based seller of e-bikes.”

Come on Dan, how can you call yourself a journalist? You can't even keep your claims straight! You interview company A and test their product, then company B contacts you claiming company A is a liar and it just so happens company B sells a similar product for a bite more than twice as much... gee, couldn't that be profit? Did you bother to contact manufacturers and see what you could get say 10, 100, 1000 bikes of a similar specification for? No, you didn't? Of course you didn't, that would have taken you what, 5 or 10 minutes to make your article even remotely researched?

Then you contribute to the project and run over to the comments section

Screenshot of https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/storm-electric-bike/x/481805#comments

Let's see here Dan you took the bike for a 'short spin outside Yahoo’s San Francisco offices', and 'A gentle tap of my thumb on the accelerator, and I was hitting the max speed of 20 mph in less than 50 yards' and ' Hydraulic disc brakes brought it to a swift stop' meaning you verified the speed over a measured distance during your operation of the bicycle you continue by noting 'The battery is removable' sounds like a review to me!

Now in your Indiegogo comments you also said "failed to note the $500 price was temporary" yet in your original article you mention 'At an introductory price of $499,' Lets take a look at the word 'introductory'

“adjective: introductory

serving as an introduction to a subject or topic; basic or preliminary.”

and lets take a look at the word 'temporary'

“adjective: temporary

lasting for only a limited period of time; not permanent.”

aha Dan, 'introductry' seems to imply 'lasting for only a limited period of time, not permanent' just like the word 'temporary' which means that the $499 (not $500 as you claim in your Indiegogo comment) price was in fact TEMPORARY. But Ryan I said 'And both Storm and Jonathan failed to note that the $500 price was temporary, which was not revealed until this campaign went live.' yes sir you did, and your article mentioned this TEMPORARY price, meaning now you're just whining because you have egg on your face. You wrote an article, did no research then a competitor contacted you and (as far as we can tell) offered no evidence to back up their claims that the Storm bike is an impossibility and you quickly vomited out another article backpedaling on the original (and again, no evidence you verified those claims either) but you DID test the Storm even if you chose to use a word other than TEST.

“noun: test; plural noun: tests

a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something, especially before it is taken into widespread use.”

Just stop Dan.