You are reading a single comment by @PhilDAS and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
PhilDAS-
I say reasonable - I stepped down and said I would accept a refund minus the value of the deposit, just to sort it swiftly. They have offered:
- a new frame, with the seat tube angle to my specs, and no liability if I get toe overlap (I have it on this frame anyway) or other issues caused by a slacker seat angle.
OR - A refund less about £250, which they estimate to be the cost of returning the bike to its off-the-peg spec - adding braze-ons back on and respraying, etc. I don't know if they actually intend to do this, but fair enough. They seem to be implying having back a frame in OS 853 is a drawback for them - perhaps they are more likely to sell an audax model in standard tubing with an inch steerer. The deposit is £200.
Anyhow, I'll have a think. I'm a bit wary of going for the replacement, as any further issues are just going to exasperate me and them. What I didn't mention on this thread was that there had already been an issue with fork length/brake drop, which they agreed to sort straight away (though did state they didn't think it was an issue). Another small (in their view) thing like that and they might stop answering my emails!
- a new frame, with the seat tube angle to my specs, and no liability if I get toe overlap (I have it on this frame anyway) or other issues caused by a slacker seat angle.
sb88
I've covered this more on the Cycling UK (CTC) forum, but in short:
My initial request for a refund/replacement laid out: the impact on proper fit and riding for someone of normal proportions; the parameters for seat tube angles on several similar bikes in the closest sizes; that the steep angle is more commonly associated with a different type of bike, with examples; that toe overlap has not even been avoided by this steepening, which made it a needless compromise.
I referred to relevant legislation touching on fitness for purpose and adequate descriptions, particularly an item differs significantly from other items of the same type.
They rejected this request, but after further discussion have offered 2 reasonable options, which I will now consider.
I would like to state that I'd still recommend the company for their swift turnaround and value, and the paint is lovely. However I and many others disagree with this aspect of the design, a view which is supported by the design of vast majority of similar items currently on the market, and the views of other knowledgeable cyclists, designers, builders and users. Going forward I would hope that they would provide more information prior to or on order and the reasoning behind and possible implications of, such design features. If it is intentional and they believe it's the best way to do things, despite what the majority think, why not enthuse about it in the same way other builders enthuse about their minority design decisions - e.g. Rivendell raving about inch steerers and quill stems, Tom Ritchey favouring non-tapered headtubes for compliance. Anyway - cheers for advice all.