I think this is not okay can I get some expert advice

[cyberknight]

I have what looks like a very similar post on my bike and there is no gap on mine .

 

[fossyant]

There should be no gap, what ever the material.

 

[silva]

That story mentions only one side of the coin.
The buyer from China wants to pay a price not more than X, and in China they say OK to get the order and do whatever (cost cutting at expense of quality) is needed to be able to sell at that X.
That "whatever" is thus a consequence of buyers demand.
Why does for ex a US company chose China instead of US as a source: because China does it cheaper including shipping and whatever trade costs.
A willingness to pay more means in China they don't have to cut costs, and quality is accordingly.
For ex lately, sport shoes. My size is EU 47
Brand "Reebok", is well-known, due to advertising, tagged as Made in Vietnam, as EU 47, no material mentioned, but I judge it as leather.
Brand "Polo", never heard of, tagged as Made in China, as EU 45, as 85% cow leather 15% fabric..
Guess what: the Reebok 47 ones were too small, and the Polo 45 suited.
That's how Reebok/Made in Vietnam had cut cost: by falsely labeling 45 as bigger 47.
The outer sole lengths were the same, so some1 just comparing on sight is fooled, but the upper of the Reebok was clearly shorter. A bit less leather/material.
The difference of the curves of the seat clamp parts is too big to be explained as tolerance / quality control. It's more likely that some stock leftovers of different/newer/older models were mixed in order to get rid of a remaining old stock.

 

[Webbo2]

That story mentions only one side of the coin.
The buyer from China wants to pay a price not more than X, and in China they say OK to get the order and do whatever (cost cutting at expense of quality) is needed to be able to sell at that X.
That "whatever" is thus a consequence of buyers demand.
Why does for ex a US company chose China instead of US as a source: because China does it cheaper including shipping and whatever trade costs.
A willingness to pay more means in China they don't have to cut costs, and quality is accordingly.
For ex lately, sport shoes. My size is EU 47
Brand "Reebok", is well-known, due to advertising, tagged as Made in Vietnam, as EU 47, no material mentioned, but I judge it as leather.
Brand "Polo", never heard of, tagged as Made in China, as EU 45, as 85% cow leather 15% fabric..
Guess what: the Reebok 47 ones were too small, and the Polo 45 suited.
That's how Reebok/Made in Vietnam had cut cost: by falsely labeling 45 as bigger 47.
The outer sole lengths were the same, so some1 just comparing on sight is fooled, but the upper of the Reebok was clearly shorter. A bit less leather/material.
The difference of the curves of the seat clamp parts is too big to be explained as tolerance / quality control. It's more likely that some stock leftovers of different/newer/older models were mixed in order to get rid of a remaining old stock.

I guess English isn’t your first language but saying Reebok are saving money buy selling size 45’s as 47’s is just bollocks as they would be getting so many returns.

 

[silva]

I guess English isn’t your first language but saying Reebok are saving money buy selling size 45’s as 47’s is just bollocks as they would be getting so many returns.

Recap: I didn't get it from somewhere - I have both pairs in possession - put them on myself, saw the differences myself. I assumed the Reebok 47's would certainly fit, an the Polo 45 maybe (sport shoes tend to be bigger made than dress shoes). It turned out to be the opposite - the 45 fit, and the 47 were too short.
The Reebok shoes might be falsely branded as such, fakes do exist, I don't see anything on them indicating fake, and whether fake or not is also not relevant here - it was an example case of cost cutting along cheating with the product, regardless who made it.

 

[Webbo2]

Recap: I didn't get it from somewhere - I have both pairs in possession - put them on myself, saw the differences myself. I assumed the Reebok 47's would certainly fit, an the Polo 45 maybe (sport shoes tend to be bigger made than dress shoes). It turned out to be the opposite - the 45 fit, and the 47 were too short.
The Reebok shoes might be falsely branded as such, fakes do exist, I don't see anything on them indicating fake, and whether fake or not is also not relevant here - it was an example case of cost cutting along cheating with the product, regardless who made it.

Again unless you have another pair of Reeboks where there 47’s are different size to your recent purchases of their 47’s. I can’t see how you can prove cost cutting by them making smaller shoes.
To be honest how much they would save by making a shoe a few millimetres shorter would be minuscule.

 

[silva]

Again unless you have another pair of Reeboks where there 47’s are different size to your recent purchases of their 47’s. I can’t see how you can prove cost cutting by them making smaller shoes.
To be honest how much they would save by making a shoe a few millimetres shorter would be minuscule.

Also again: I gave an example case of cost-cutting, regardless by who, based on shoes labeled as size 47, being shorter than shoes labeled as size 45.
You claim here, without source, "a few millimeters"
But according to ISO/TS 19407:2015
https://www.calconi.com/en/shoe_sizes/guide/cm_shoe_sizes.php
EU 45 is defined as 28.7 cm
EU 47 as 30 cm
The difference is 13 mm, which is 4% of the length.
The resolution in the shoe size table has a reason, namely to allow customers to choose a fit that is acceptable. Too big or too small and nothing inbetween = not sold and ppl go elsewhere to find what they want.
My shoe size was 45 until a past.
It became 46, then 47.
Without my feet changing, since old shoes labeled 45 still fit as before.
Left over explanation: cost cutting, here specific less material.
The explanation is obvious: that "Polo" branded pair labeled 45, wasn't been subjected to cost cutting.
And the "Reebok" branded pair was.
It's outer sole was the same size as the Polo pair, but the upper deck was shorter.
To cut pennies on single, pounds on pallets, and hundreds pounds on shipments.
Workboots purchased in 2018, label size EU 47, too small, walking hours unsustainable.
Workboots bought secondhand later on, date on label 2007, EU 47, did fit well, entire working day walking - no sore feet.

The bicycle business is a same cost cutting story.

Remember the example case of electric bikes. Bicycles had been prone to cost cutting for decades, resulting in gradually decreasing lifetime, downto some customer-accepted minimum.
Then, powered bicycles entered the scene. All of sudden alot more power transferred, causing that accepted minimum to not being accepted anymore, resulting in a need for "dedicated for electrical bikes" models.
Which are, essentially, nothing more than a return to the old original quality/material, ofcourse at a higher price tag, excuse named "electric bike application"

 

[midlandsgrimpeur]

To be honest how much they would save by making a shoe a few millimetres shorter would be minuscule.

I would disagree with this, certainly for manufacturing at scale. I do think brands reducing sizes is certainly a thing, I have a few brands where I have bought the same garment multiple times over the years once one has worn out, and the actual garment measurements for the same item in the same size has reduced significantly. I have 3 Rapha brevet gilets in an XS bought over the years, I actually had to return a new one recently as it was too small. The difference in measured chest width from gilet no. 1 to no. 4 was over 5 inches! If you are taking that much material out of one garment and multiplying it by thousands of units and then multiplying that by all your product lines, you are quickly going to rack up a fairly significant cost saving in materials.

 

[scotsbikester]

The manufacturer missed out the word "yet".

People on internet forums do the same.

 

[silva]

Same story for gloves. It started with XL, then XXL, then 3XL, then 5XL, and in meantime even 6XL, in order to keep hiding their cost cutting at end of sizes range as cause.