What's wrong, now?

Ok, so now you have basically talked yourself out of your prior reason(s) for being against 650 wheels. Excellent.
side note- you keep mentioning 650A and 650B. There is 650C too, just to be clear.

I'm just saying, ride whatever you want. I don't care.

+1

650c wheels would certainly help with fitting the smaller riders, but for whatever reasons they have virtually been phased out.
I know a smaller woman who would benefit from a 650c bike but actually doesn't want one anyway. I think she sees them as kids bikes and would rather put up with a less than ideal fit on a 700c bike.

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. What I mean is that Jamis is boasting about size-specific geometry details the same way Specialized is boasting about the carbon layups - like it's something new and special. It's not, having proper geometry for every bike size (including chainstay lenght, BB drop and fork rake) is something that manufacturers have done for decades. Effectively, Jamis is just boasting that they are not cutting costs in this area like many other current manufacturers do, while conveniently ignoring the fact that numerous other manufacturers have quietly been doing this for longer than the Jamis has been in existence.

For the most part, I would not say that size specific BB drop is common. This seems like the extra mile that Jamis is claiming.

Of course, I'm not sure why you would want a size specific BB drop, aside from concerns about longer crank arms and pedal strikes.

Imo size specific geometry*, is a very reasonable selling point. It may be Jamis is not unique, but as a buyer of smaller size bikes (usually 52cm) I can say that weird geometry in the smaller sizes its not uncommon either, even among expensive "high end" bikes. For instance ppl rave about the CAAD12, but look at the smallest one. - Head angle 70.5* and 7.3cm trail ... Is it a mountain bike in disguise :-) Cannondale could at least have put on a different fork to reduce trail a bit.

*You could argue almost all bikes have size specific geometry as they tend to get steeper and steeper seat tubes ans slacker and slacker head tubes as they get smaller, but some manufactures do seem to devote more effort towards proper handling in the smaller sizes, compared to others that seem more concerned about just getting rid of toe-strike and reduce SKUs.

The funny part is that Cannondale used to be excellent at this. 25 years ago their smallest bikes had 70.5° head tubes, but their aluminum forks came with 58mm rake forks. Either SR was making that many versions of their Prism fork, or it was permissible to cold set them to different rakes.

But you can't bend a carbon fork, and Cannondale is only using 45mm rake forks in all CAAD12 sizes, probably because they would need molds for every different fork rake and don't want to spend the money.


Generally, modern bikes are more expensive to offer in more frame sizes, so they frequently are not - XS, S, M, L and XL with one or two fork rakes. And that's because of the molds. And the Jamis does pretty much the same thing by only offering 50 and 43mm rake forks. Actually, the small sizes aren't all that small when you consider how long a 505mm TT is when paired with a 75° STA.

Jamis is just marketing baloney - there is nothing to celebrate about its sizing program.

Definitely all true, and it is commendable that Jamis pays more attention than some other manufacturers, but the way they promote it just doesn't work for me.