Change bike size by changing parts?
09-11-18, 02:22 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Greece
Posts: 7
Bikes: Ideal Hillmaster
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Change bike size by changing parts?
Recently I was browsing at the Ideal Bikes website, about the differences between the Hillmaster 2016 (black one) and 2017 (white one) models. I realized that the company has not changed the frame geometry for the last 3 years, except of some minor changes at some parts. The seat tube angle of both bikes is 73 degrees. The 2016 has 24mm seat post offset, while the 2017 has a 0 offset seat post. Also the 2016 has 75mm stem and the 2017 has 60mm, both at +7 angle. The hand bar is at 72cm length for both and the cranks have the same 170mm length too.
What I realized as I was searching about them, is that at 2016 the medium size was the one with the 440mm seat tube, while at 2017 the 440mm has been labeled as small size, and similar for the other sizes too. So from what I see here for the 2017, the company changed the seat post and stem of the medium size 2016 bike and they named it small, because with these 2 changes they reduced the reach by 24mm (seat post offset)+ 15mm (sorter stem)=39mm less reach, so they reduced the effective top tube length with this way.
These changes have moved the rider's position far closer at the BB and this doesn't seems right, as I have measure the saddle nose to BB drop of 2016 model and it is about 50mm with the 24mm offset, so the 2017 model has now a 25mm saddle nose to BB distance, that it will make you sit too much forward.
Do you think these changes are right or wrong?
Can you really change the size of a bike, by changing the seat post and the stem of a long bike?
Doesn't these changes affect geometry and comfort of a bike?
PS: I have created 2 pictures, that I have put the 2 bikes the one up to the other, so you can see the differences between them.
2016
2017
compared A
compared B
What I realized as I was searching about them, is that at 2016 the medium size was the one with the 440mm seat tube, while at 2017 the 440mm has been labeled as small size, and similar for the other sizes too. So from what I see here for the 2017, the company changed the seat post and stem of the medium size 2016 bike and they named it small, because with these 2 changes they reduced the reach by 24mm (seat post offset)+ 15mm (sorter stem)=39mm less reach, so they reduced the effective top tube length with this way.
These changes have moved the rider's position far closer at the BB and this doesn't seems right, as I have measure the saddle nose to BB drop of 2016 model and it is about 50mm with the 24mm offset, so the 2017 model has now a 25mm saddle nose to BB distance, that it will make you sit too much forward.
Do you think these changes are right or wrong?
Can you really change the size of a bike, by changing the seat post and the stem of a long bike?
Doesn't these changes affect geometry and comfort of a bike?
PS: I have created 2 pictures, that I have put the 2 bikes the one up to the other, so you can see the differences between them.
2016
2017
compared A
compared B
Last edited by Arvacon; 09-12-18 at 03:03 AM. Reason: PS input
09-21-18, 08:15 AM
#2
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Greece
Posts: 7
Bikes: Ideal Hillmaster
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Guys, I see no one paid attention to the main point of this topic.
I am not asking here to tell me your opinion about these 2 bikes, if they are good or bad or anything that has to do with this brand at all.
What I am asking here is, do you think that what this manufacturer has done, is right or wrong?
How is it possible to change the size of a bike by just using a 0 offset seat post and a shorter stem, and name the medium as small and the large as medium with just these 2 changes?
Doesn't these changes affect the geometry and make the riding position totally wrong? The offset was there for some reason, as there was also a smaller frame size at 2016 model for a reason too..
I am not asking here to tell me your opinion about these 2 bikes, if they are good or bad or anything that has to do with this brand at all.
What I am asking here is, do you think that what this manufacturer has done, is right or wrong?
How is it possible to change the size of a bike by just using a 0 offset seat post and a shorter stem, and name the medium as small and the large as medium with just these 2 changes?
Doesn't these changes affect the geometry and make the riding position totally wrong? The offset was there for some reason, as there was also a smaller frame size at 2016 model for a reason too..
09-22-18, 12:28 AM
#3
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,528
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3886 Post(s)
Liked 1,938 Times
in
1,383 Posts
I think the point here is, do we care? Manufacturers offer product. Consumer either buys or does not. Personally, I don't see it as a moral issue. A bike will either work for you or it will not. Usually it's necessary to change out some parts which come on a new bike. That's not a moral issue either.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
09-24-18, 01:05 PM
#4
Senior Member
Or put a little more diplomatically, the only thing that is consistent about how bike companies measure bikes is inconsistency. You might check out some of the YouTube videos on fitting a bike, they often give more consistent ways to measure and fit a bike to a particular individuals anantomy.
09-26-18, 09:33 AM
#5
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Greece
Posts: 7
Bikes: Ideal Hillmaster
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
09-26-18, 01:26 PM
#6
Senior Member
I think Arvacon is making the point that often marketing and advertising tends to obfuscate rather than clarify, by design. Many times advertising/marketing is designed to counter what the marketing people have determined are negative “talking points” concerning what they are attempting to sell. Often the companies attempting to sell products are the ones who decide labeling rules and regulations. It may be in their best interest to make labeling confusing.
I am not saying that all companies partake in trying to confuse their perspective clients, unfortunately it is often the better companies who suffer from this sort of obfuscation.
Certainly such confusing information does not help those who are tryng to figure out how to fit a bike to their unique anatomical features and issues. It may be tough to figure out how the bike one just test rode in a paved parking lot, will work for them after 10-50 miles on a variety of differing surfaces......
I am not saying that all companies partake in trying to confuse their perspective clients, unfortunately it is often the better companies who suffer from this sort of obfuscation.
Certainly such confusing information does not help those who are tryng to figure out how to fit a bike to their unique anatomical features and issues. It may be tough to figure out how the bike one just test rode in a paved parking lot, will work for them after 10-50 miles on a variety of differing surfaces......
Last edited by McMitchell; 09-26-18 at 01:29 PM.
