MyDogWally
new member
Reged: 04/11/04
Posts: 12
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
|
Douglas,
With all due respect to all the involved parties, I felt at least as bad for IF as I felt for you. They did, after all, put together a bike using all the available information at their disposal. Had they been even the slightest bit confused about what you wanted, I imagine they would have contacted you, rather than have a dissatisfied customer. I'm sure they meant absolutely no harm when they welded on those Reynolds chainstays. But a little company like they are would have suffered a lot of harm if they'd had a customer like you (with your eloquence and propensity to post your cycling experiences on the internet) who was dissatisfied.
So, there you have it. That's the difference between good companies and bad ones. Good ones take a long-term view of the world and understand that lessened profit in the near term can result in salvaging (or increasing) profits in the long term. As a result, they usually do the right thing by their customers. Bad companies are quick to point fingers and absolve themselves of responsibility. They win a short-term battle for profit margin and lose (at least) one very ticked off customer.
I was pleased to see IF step up and do what it takes to make you happy, even though they had no responsibility to do so. I was actually wondering how your initial dissatisfaction might tarnish the way I feel about them. So for your sake, IF's, and mine, I'm glad you got it all worked out.
--------------------
Is that your little friend in the wood chipper?
|
JackL
new member
Reged: 03/10/04
Posts: 16
Loc: Seattle
|
|
MyDogWally,
Before I read dbrk's post of a satisfactory conclusion, I also had some pangs in IF's direction (though not as great as my pangs toward dbrk).
IF had the joint responsibility of (1) accommodating a customer's input on geometry, (2) satisfying a customer's desires as to final ride characteristics, and (3) producing a frame that maintained the standards of the marque.
IF may have felt the FOCO stays would not give dbrk the ride characteristics he desired. If this assumption is correct, and if IF had communicated this to dbrk, it could have resulted in a lively discussion on the pros & cons of Reynolds vs. FOCO stays.
IF made a simple error in communication; they made things right with the customer. They remain among the small handful of truly top-notch American frame builders.
|
dbrk
contributor
Reged: 12/18/03
Posts: 201
Loc: Finger Lakes, New York
|
|
I agree with My Dog Wally. I too feel badly for IF. I feel like they acted in good faith, that they made a choice based on their understanding of the information I provided. I think IF and I perhaps have a different understanding of what a "stiff rear" means since I made my size, weight, and strength issues perfectly clear to them. When I called them to say that I noticed the Reynolds stays, they told me that they made a bike as stiff as possible in the rear, using the most heavy duty Reynolds stays and that is why they were not Foco. And how stiff does stiff need to be given my size? I think this is where the miscommunication happened. IF wrote to the builder to make it as stiff as possible. That's not exactly what I said, not by any far shot. Now if the current outcome had matched my aesthetic hopes, I may have just let it pass. It is rare that a steel bike can be too stiff nowadays and almost as rare that it is not stiff enough, that is, when you are talking about someone my size and weight. But this current example is a bike suited for a large person on a large frame. This current frame would be suitable for someone over 200lbs, easily. These are the most heavy duty Reynolds stays!! Hello!!! I am a small person (but 5'9.5"/150lbs) riding a 59-60cm frame. Now before anyone goes on to tell me that I have no business riding a frame this large I might suggest you have a look at its set up (since it is set up to fit me, in the Gallery) and that you read Rebour's great old work Le Petit Livre and Grant Petersen and anyone with familiarity with what I call "French fit." But I ramble...sorry for that.
I think IF takes it on the chin here and I really do feel for them. As I have said before, I am sure they acted in good faith and did what they thought was best. There was clearly some level of miscommunication but I respect their integrity and am sure they did what they thought best. They did not, however, consult with me any further nor is it anywhere clear in their literature or website that they deviate from the explicit tubing choices they have previously annouced. Their current statement, viz., that they have evolved further and choose tubes to match their custom ride I take to be honest. However, they should tell us this and tell us as well that these choices will affect the look of the bike as well as its ride. This is not unreasonable; in fact, it is actually smart. The IF website and literature is anything but ambiguous. It specifies exactly what tubes are used in the steel Crown Jewel and leaves unclear only what the buttings might be. Either IF's views have changed and evolved or the website needs a better writer. In fact, I would be glad to rewrite it for them for free---but Lord knows maybe they don't take me to be such a good pal! (It's not like I've not done comparable work---and all for free--- for others in the bike industry!)
I believe that IF thinks they built the right bike but understand too that it is not the one I wanted. I also entirely confess that my choice is more aesthetic than functional (think of that what you will, it's my choice). I also believe that my choice is also likely better suited to a smaller, less strong, certainly less heavy or powerful rider like myself and yet will produce a sufficiently stiff rear end. The stalwart frame they constructed is a lovely ride, that has already been my experience. I will indeed find out if I like my own choice better and I will be entirely honest relaying my experiences. I will have no problem in telling IF that they were right and I was wrong. If I am really really wrong then I'll offer them whatever it is that subvents their loss. No kidding.
One thing is for certain: they won't make this same mistake again. When there are aesthetic changes resulting from design choices, these will cause a red flag to appear and lead to further consultations. That would be a vast improvement for all parties involved. As it is, we live, we learn, we move on. I'm happy and I honestly hope they are happy too. I have NEVER before caused such a fuss. I generally abjure from such incitements but I believe that at this point, having spent a bloody fortune and tried a million things, I know exactly what I want and that my own opinions about bikes are neither ambiguous nor ill-informed. Crazy maybe, but not stupit [sic].
dbrk
|
MyDogWally
new member
Reged: 04/11/04
Posts: 12
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
|
-- "I know exactly what I want and that my own opinions about bikes are neither ambiguous nor ill-informed." --
Douglas,
Again, with all due respect (and there is plenty coming due), I would assert that IF must have found your opinion at least somewhat ambiguous. Since they aren't the type of folks to intentionally ignore a customer request, they must have felt they understood what you wanted.
So, the question has to be asked: when you swing your leg over that bike and settle onto the seat, what will you likely be thinking? Do you imagine that you'll be ruminating on the "event" surrounding the purchase? Or will you more likely be anticipating a sweet ride?
--------------------
Is that your little friend in the wood chipper?
|
JackL
new member
Reged: 03/10/04
Posts: 16
Loc: Seattle
|
|
MyDogWally,
I respect your opinion, but don't think dbrk was the least bit ambiguous. It was perfectly reasonable for him to assume (as he well should - from IF literature) that FOCO was the one and only chainstay material, no clarification necessary.
Since IF knew something that dbrk couldn't have known (that FOCO wasn't the only option for chainstays), it seems the burden was on IF to clarify this.
JackL,
|
dbrk
contributor
Reged: 12/18/03
Posts: 201
Loc: Finger Lakes, New York
|
|
Quote:
JackL wrote:
... from IF literature) that FOCO was the one and only chainstay material, no clarification necessary.
Since IF knew something that dbrk couldn't have known (that FOCO wasn't the only option for chainstays), it seems the burden was on IF to clarify this.
JackL,
JackL has said it better than I have tried saying three or four times. I think _he_ should clarify IF's website, not me! Nice going.
My Dog Wally's point is well-taken. I feel poorly for this "event" and I hope it all fades in memory or recollection. But I had a viseral response: I saw the bike, I saw their choice, I said, "why the heck did they do that without telling me!!" to myself, I _knew_ that I would always look at the bike and think, "geez, this is not the look I wanted," and then I'd sell the bike in a year at a huge loss, sad from the outset. Then I called IF to say as much. Their first reply sort of compounded the disappointment feeling and while I believed they acted in entirely good faith putting the ride first, we had not communicated clearly enough to one another what was at stake. After all, _their_ website is not the least bit ambiguous, so my presumption was that I didn't need to mention my preference (like JackL said). I made this situation public not to evoke any sympathy nor to pressure anything but to say to any and all who order a CJ that you must specify your aesthetic choices as well as your ride design choices or they will be made for you (and unbeknowst to you). It was also to offer the original frame for sale because initially that was IF's idea of a solution. Anyway, that's what happened.
I still feel poorly about this though it might have been entirely avoided if (1) I had told them specifically to use the foco stays, though I believe I had ever reason to think this was their only choice, (2) they had consulted me before making a design choice that affects aesthetics as well as the ride, (3) IF had offered first just to take it back and do what I wanted, after we had discussed it. Throughout everyone involved was entirely civil and seeking a solution. Alas, I feel good about two things. First, from this point forward I think IF will put the aesthetic effect of a design choice into their conversation and not fail to communicate changes that cause such changes. Second, I think they will change their website and be clear about what they are precisely offering.
Last, I hope to say glorious things about this bike for years to come and have IF repaint my cross bike.
dbrk
|
MyDogWally
new member
Reged: 04/11/04
Posts: 12
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
|
Jack,
I'm not blaming dbrk for the problem. But based on the info he gave them, I'm also not blaming IF. A lack of ambiguity would have been, "Please give me foco chainstays." Or even the beginning of a dialog, such as, "I'd like a stiff rear triangle, and I'm thinking of foco stays. What would you recommend?" Unless you say something like that, there's the possibility you're not going to get what you want.
Again, I'm not blaming Douglas. I suspect he thought he was being crystal clear, based on what he'd read on IF's web site. Hell, when I bought my ti Crown Jewel, I provided a lot less information than Douglas did, and the results were fairly predictable.
This has become a discussion about semantics, and I'm sorry it's come to that, because it takes on the taste of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Ultimately, though, it was settled with class -- on the part of both of the parties.
--------------------
Is that your little friend in the wood chipper?
|
dbrk
contributor
Reged: 12/18/03
Posts: 201
Loc: Finger Lakes, New York
|
|
I would agree too with My Dog Wally here though I think JackL and I are both saying that given what is printed in the IF literature, clearly and unambiguously, the burden would fall to them to say that a design choice will effect the aesthetics and the presentation of the bike. This may not have even occurred to them. If this incident causes that relationship between ride and aesthetics to be part of their conversation with customers then it will have served a very constructive purpose. The Reynolds stays give the bike a decidedly different flare---not a bad one at all, just not the one I was after.
I can hear the silent voices saying that dbrk wanted a poser bike rather than the best ride that IF thought that they could provide. Heck, I can even imagine that to have merit! But the fact is, whether builders or riders like it or not, the tubing choices made create a _whole_ bicycle that includes its aesthetic appeal. There is no reason why one must or should come at the expense of the other. To wit, you change the aesthetics you change the bike as much as when you change the ride characteristics. If you don't think that that is true then ask yourself why anyone would ride a Sachs rather than a Romulus since both ride brilliantly though the work and paint and appeal is quite different (as is the price!). My point is that we are fooling ourselves if we state with some sort of TheRideTheRideTheRideFIRSTABOVEALLONLY while the rest is JUSTPOSING attitude that aesthetics is a poor, nay, foolish long second place. That's just not true. People who love bikes care about how they look. At least some people do. It's not just a tool to me.
Now I am not suggesting at all that anyone here exhibits the notion that wanting a certain look is mere posing. As for me being a poser, well, we can discuss that out on a ride but I'd suspect that my job and interests put me on a bike for more hours every week (we do have winter here, unfortunately) than almost anyone I know who isn't a pro. This situation may make me a princess with a pea but when you change the look of the bike, you change the bike. Every bike geek in his or her heart knows that that is true. The "Just Ride" view is only _another_ posture. At least in my opinion...
dbrk
|
mtbr297
new member
Reged: 05/15/04
Posts: 20
Loc: Ft. Worth TX
|
|
I ordered a Ti Planet X March 26 and don't expect delivery until June 12 I was told. Seems there is a shortage of titanium tubing. How long ago did you order your bike? I know it is going to be an awesome bike when it is done but man it sure has been a long wait. I had considered Seven until I meet Matt in Frisco, Tx. He came down for a sale the store was having. The selling point to me was the paint and shoot peening. I speced my bike with disc brakes, no cantilever, just a clean looking frame. 
|
Climb01742
journeyman
Reged: 12/22/03
Posts: 71
Loc: Concord, MA
|
|
be patient. hard, i know, but worth it. i've just put my first roughly 100 miles on my spanking new ti CJ and it is perfection. absolute perfection. i don't believe your IF will disappoint.
--------------------
When in doubt, shut up and pedal.
|
fdpiton
new member
Reged: 02/15/04
Posts: 11
|
|
They explained to me up front that one of the Titanium manufacturers is no longer in business.
My bike took 8 weeks.
Yes it is a long weight, but I just got my bike about a 10 days ago and put a approx 150 miles on it so far. It just keeps getting better with every ride!
You will be so hapy when you get it. You will not be sorry.
|
mtbr297
new member
Reged: 05/15/04
Posts: 20
Loc: Ft. Worth TX
|
|
Yippe, my bike is in transit, it will arrive at my lbd on 7/14. Three months and 11 days after I ordered it. When I recieve it I will post some photos.
|
LowCel
new member
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 44
Loc: Charleston, WV USA
|
|
That is awesome!! Congratulations and be sure to let us see it. I am so excited about getting mine I can't stand it!
|
|
Previous
Thread Index
Next
Threaded
Re: IF Kudos
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
Bike arriving