Why would they do this? The Dolce geometry has changed.

I've been thinking about (maybe) getting a new Specialized Dolce, so yesterday I visited the Specialized site and was happy to see the 2015 models are posted. New colors, graphics ... and geometry. The seat angle is about 1 degree shallower, making the horizontal top tube measurement almost 15 mm longer. They shortened the stem about 5 mm, but still. Maybe I'm reading the chart wrong. It just doesn't sound good.

There is a shop about 80 miles from here that has some 2013's left over (at a discount) and I'm thinking I need to take a road trip. But why would they change a good thing?

2015 geometry: http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bik...rt-eq#geometry

2013 geometry: http://www.specialized.com/us/en/bik...mpact#geometry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muirenn

Hmmm. Looks like the stand-over is much lower than before. That TT is significantly longer, less compact geometry all around.

Maybe they wanted the smallest size to be longer and shorter? The stand-over just over 19 inches for the smallest size. I can think of a few people on here who are looking for a 25 inch or shorter standover, but not sure what TT they need. 511 sounds quite long for a petite person (Were you one of those? Can't remember).

---

Yes, I am one of those ;) I have the 48 cm Dolce now and while the "lower body" fits well (standover, pedal alignment), I'm too stretched out. I was able to ride a 44 cm a few weeks ago and definitely felt better in the upper body.

I'm 5'0", wear a long bathing suit, and have a short inseam. None of the local shops sell Specialized anymore. The man who sold me the Dolce a couple of years ago had all good things to say about it. Now he has nothing nice to say about it (I understand there's been some problems between Specialized and smaller shops?) and speaks highly of Felt. The petite Felt was also a comfortable fit.

http://www.feltbicycles.com/USA/2014...ries/zw95.aspx

I'll be on the road next week and will be near the Specialized dealer with the older models still in stock. I guess I'll just have to drop by.

I was imagining it with blue bar tape. Unfortunately, the white is no longer available. The 2015 is mint green.

I'm glad you mentioned the looks. I've been trying to get beyond that. But I can't help it. I want a good-looking bike.

Wow. That's quite the change. Old geometry, I'd probably ride a 51 or 54. New geometry, the 54 would be almost too long (ideal reach on a road bike for me is 370mm or just under), and I could ride either the 48 or a 51. I'm 5'7". I should not be riding a 48cm bike. Also, the reach is identical on the 48 and 51, which makes no sense.

[QUOTE=IBrakeforPastry;696614]The seat angle is about 1 degree shallower, making the horizontal top tube measurement almost 15 mm longer. They shortened the stem about 5 mm, but still. Maybe I'm reading the chart wrong.

So the effective change in fit is
2 mm longer for size 44 which will STILL require me to lower and lengthen the stock stem for the majority of riders
4 mm longer for size 48
2 mm shorter for size 51
6 mm longer for size 54
9 mm longer for size 57

So ONE size has something CLOSE to to a ONE cm longer frame. I don't see what the panic is.


On balance people have been trying to get a bike TOO LARGE because the correct size for them is "CROWDED"
Witness the preponderance of "look at my new bike" pics with an awkward and totally wrong configuration.
A little extra space in the reach is probably a good thing.
Sure, if you ride a 48 and insist on buying a 51....you will want a shorter reach....but you should consider not buying the wrong size in the first place.

WOW, that's a HUGE change. Old geomentry I HAD to ride a 44 because the standover hight was to high for anything else, but for me the top tube was way to short and I felt to compressed on it. Now I might be able to comfortably ride a 44. However, I found a men's bike at the time I was looking that fits me great.
My road bike is a Felt F5 48cm, it's standover height is 681 and it's top tube length is 510. I love the bike.

I read the difference as follows:
13mm (about 1/2") difference for 44cm size, (511mm - 498mm).
16mm (about 3/4") difference for 48cm size. (522-506)
15mm (about 5/8") difference for 51cm size. (530-515)
7mm (about 1/4") difference for 54cm size. (539-532)
10mm (about 3/8") difference for 57cm size. (566-556)
So, only the 48cm and possible the 51cm sizes would possibly require a stem more than 1cm shorter. The slightly shallower seat angle could be more comfortable on rougher roads, and since the saddle would need to be a little further forward to position the knee over the pedal spindle, it's likely that most people wouldn't even need a shorter stem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muirenn

The stand-over just over 19 inches for the smallest size. I can think of a few people on here who are looking for a 25 inch or shorter standover, but not sure what TT they need.

---

If their smallest frame has a standover of 19 inches, I'm wondering if it has full size wheels? Or maybe the 504mm standover is a typo. I have a Terry mixte in a 16" frame with a 700C rear and 24" front wheel and its standover is 23.4 inches.