Problem: anyone like steep seat tube angles!?

You probably have seen old JPG of their geometry charts (US distro had loads but I think they went under) on the Google and yeah, 76 has never ever featured at any point

Ideally you’d find someone with the same model and size and measure theirs. If they’re different then you can definitively go back and say this is not the normal and it needs changing.

As an update on this:

I've found apparent confirmation that the steep angle is intentional - another company that used the maker's frames as a base model with their own logos confirmed the geo. It's not clear though, how long this has been the case - whether or not older models used this geo.

I'm going to request a replacement or refund based on the below grounds, in short (though my email to them is much more detailed!)

• It affects riding comfort, balance, handling and even safety for a normally proportioned rider on an appropriate frame size.
  
• It is unusually steep as compared to tens of other bikes of the same type in equivalent sizes. It is more commonly associated with a different type of bike (TT, tri).
  
• It is a significant enough difference to comparable bikes that it should be mentioned as a feature, as it increases the likelihood of fit issues for normally proportioned riders.
  
• Other builders consulted have confirmed that it is unusually steep and would normally only be a special request in that size frame.
  
• The stated point of this steep seat tube angle - to avoid toe overlap - has not even been achieved! It is a needless compromise.
  
  

These bases give me an argument under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically around fit for purpose and satisfactory quality.

Additionally, the geo isn't published on the website. Even without knowing the implications of the numbers in isolation, this would allow buyers to compare against other models of a similar nature, notice this discrepancy and seek advice from other knowledgeable cyclists.

I guess I'm still posting on here because I almost don't have the energy to argue it - it's distracting from real life and work - but I can't allow myself to be ripped off, and I saved up for a once in a decade luxury purchase - so any supportive / constructive voices are really welcome.

My preference at the moment would be for a refund, as the relationship has been soured - they seem to be implying I'm nitpicking and I don't feel good about dealing with them for another couple of months on another build.

I'll keep this updated on how it goes - I'm not out to name and shame the company yet as I hope they will sort it, and so will avoid associating their name with a negative thread on google searches for now.
However I won't hesitate to do so if they refuse to budge.

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.

2 reasonable options, which I will now consider.

Which are what?

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!

Welp, I’m not inspired by the response or dialogue with this company. Especially as I held their reputation in high regard and would have considered using them for a once in a lifetime purchase in the future. Not anymore.

I would point out they are taking the p*ss and £250 is the retail price of some braze ons and paint, not the cost price.

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

This

So many things I don’t get about this whole situation,

• How they sell any frames even at the base price without publishing a geo chart.
  
• Why, as the kind of rider who would be fine with 74.5deg but not 76deg seat tube angle you’d spend around £900 (I presume, from looking at the options) without seeing a geo chart.
  
• That the supplier has come up with what I’d see as rather imbalanced options of throwing £250 down the drain and you having nothing to show for it or having a replacement frame made where you could confirm each and every detail before progressing.
  
• That given those imbalanced options anyone would chose to just throw £250 down the drain and walk away.
  

^ yeah. Mainly the spending £900 without checking that the bike would fit you first.

I did spend a fair bit of time thinking about the fit, having owned several bikes the I same size, a bit a smaller and a bit bigger. Within typical parameters, i.e. the typical range of seat tube angles on the vast majority of road bikes of an equivalent size on the market, I've been able to get appropriate setback. 74.5 is perhaps pushing it but doable. I checked the head tube length and BB drop (related) and that the geometry was 'square', i.e. not a longer top tube. You can argue I should have checked the SA, but had no reason to think it would fall so drastically outside of what is typical as compared to every other similar model on the market.

I agree. It really stings. anBut if I take the refund I should be able to get something else decent for the summer and move on and not have to deal with the stress of worrying that if there are further unforeseen problems, the company will maybe refuse to deal with them. It's not actually clear that they were offering to build another frame for free - the message was a bit muddled - they might be expecting £250 as well for a new build to cover their claimed costs of returning the original frame to standard spec. As an aside, not sure why they'd do this personally - if they stand by the design, the geometry aside it's a bloody nice thing! I think I could pursue it for longer for the full amount, but life's too short. I say that despite not being loaded, by any means. But I'd rather spend my summer evenings on my bike than emailing legalese.

Has this been resolved?