Commencal Owners Club
Home Forum Index Help Search Login Register
Neon Orange Neon Green Carbon

User

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 22, 2012, 06:04:56 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Latest Poll

What is the main type of machine you use to surf the site?
Desktop
- 112 (28%)
Laptop
- 158 (40%)
iPhone
- 51 (13%)
Android phone
- 29 (7%)
Tablet
- 24 (6%)
Other
- 14 (3%)
Total Voters: 287
+  Commencal Owners Club
|-+  Forum
| |-+  General Category
| | |-+  General Discussion
| | | |-+  Commencal geometry and tolerances - is there a Quality Control problem?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Commencal geometry and tolerances - is there a Quality Control problem?  (Read 1088 times)
iain1775
Moderator
Meta
*****
Posts: 3800


iain1775
View Profile WWW
« on: September 20, 2008, 08:56:51 PM »

Ok so I just got a lovely new frame - a second hand but brand new (it has been used as a display demo at a trade show only apparently) Commencal Flame Titanium Special Edition in what is supposedly a medium
When it came it looked pretty small so I got the tape measure out and consulted the Commie website, thinking the person I bought it off maybe listed it incorrectly

The measurements would seem to indicate it is indeed closer to a medium than a small however several measurements are way out from the quoted dimensions
Quoted dims stated first, (actual dims in brackets) -

Seat tube length - 450mm (430mm) - a difference of -20mm (5%), a small frame is quoted at 400mm so this is almost half way between a med and a small Huh?
Head tube length - 120mm (110mm) - a difference of -10mm (10%), again a small is quoted at 105mm so again half way between the med and small Huh?
Top tube length - 580mm (570mm) - a difference of -10mm (2%), and again exactly half way between quoted dims for a medium and a small at 560mm  Huh?

The only other dimension that varies with frame size - wheelbase, is spot on as a medium (1069mm against 1048mm for a small), all other dimensions head and seat angle and chainstay length are exactly as quoted in the catalogue

So what is going on? Are the dimensions listed on www.commencal.com and in the catalogue correct? If so then Commencal mustn't have very good quality control cause these are some large discrepancies and not at all what you would expect on their top of the range £1400 frame!!

End result, I will build the frame up and see how it fits, I think it may be slightly on the small side for me, (its very slightly smaller than my existing hardtail) and I will have alot of seatpost exposed, a large would have been better however at the price I paid I wasn't going to leave it on the shelf!!

I am not normally one for checking figures or getting hung up on measurements and angles, if a bike rides well thats fine by me, so earlier this year when the magazines (MBR) where slagging off the Meta's angles and questioning how their test bikes differed so much from quoted angles etc I ignored it all and just got on with riding and grinning, this however makes me really wonder if something is amiss at Commie HQ?

Logged

2008 Commencal Meta 5.5.1, 2009 Commencal VIP Flame Titane, 1996 Voodoo Hoodoo, 2009 Trek X0-1 Cyclocross, 2004ish On One Inbred (fell off the back of a car!)
http://vimeo.com/user2099725
mc
Administrator
Meta
******
Posts: 1526


theoneandonlymc
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2008, 09:01:24 PM »

My suspicion would be that it could be a prototype if it was only used at a trade show...
Logged

vipvip
Normal
*
Posts: 21


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2008, 02:31:28 PM »

I believe I have read somewhere that Commencal makes these frames on request, and that custom sizing is possible.
My suspicion would be that your frame has been custom made for someone, and that person didn't actually buy the frame Huh?
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
TinyPortal 1.0 RC1 | © 2005-2010 BlocWeb