Author Topic: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame  (Read 267223 times)

fcs01

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #315 on: July 27, 2021, 05:37:14 AM »
Have been waiting basically 5 months for my 099 replacement, but finally I received the 168 this am. With EMS HK, it took 3 days to London from when it appeared on the tracking and no extra VAT/duties. ;D

First impressions are quite good overall: aside few imperfections on the paint, it seems that it shipped with all the pieces. One thing I noticed straight away though, the bar's drops have a slight odd inward curve, see pic. Did anyone notice it? (400/100 with screws)

Weight painted:
56cm frame 1130g**
uncut fork 428g
axles 80g
bearings 63g
headset, no spacers 38g
fork plug 59g
400/100 bar 311g
seatpost with bolts 235g


EDIT: the frame was supposed to be a 56cm, but it turned out to be a 54**

« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 10:47:44 AM by fcs01 »

jokage

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #316 on: July 27, 2021, 06:56:05 AM »
One thing I noticed straight away though, the bar's drops have a slight odd inward curve, see pic. Did anyone notice it? (400/100 with screws)

I haven't received mine but I was totally aware about it when ordering.

For 400, it should be 390mm C-C at the furthest reaches and 410mm C-C at the ends. So, they are actually flared.



I am welcoming it as they don't have the 380 option. I mounted my brifters inward on my current bike's 400 bar. For me, it's more comfortable that way.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 07:00:45 AM by jokage »

fcs01

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #317 on: July 27, 2021, 03:06:29 PM »
While building it seemed on the small side for a 56cm frame, so i measured it: I believe it's a 54cm  :o seriously though..

Gonna ask for a confirmation, but if it's a 56cm the geometry is completely off.


« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 03:35:13 PM by fcs01 »

1Sigma

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #318 on: July 27, 2021, 05:43:59 PM »
While building it seemed on the small side for a 56cm frame, so i measured it: I believe it's a 54cm  :o seriously though..

Gonna ask for a confirmation, but if it's a 56cm the geometry is completely off.



I mean, wait to hear back but it miiiight still be right
The 56cm corresponds to the effective to tube length.
From the geo diagram, that appears to be a straight line from the center of the top-centet of the top tube to the center of the seat post (as opposed to seat tube)
Since the seat tube runs at a 73.5 degree angle, which would make the effective length longer at the corresponding point on the seat post.

Try measuring as a straight line parallel to the ground to the seatpost. 
Could still be 54 cm. I dunno.  Worth a try.  Lol

See line B on the pic.


Better than average - Extra Average

hazzer19

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #319 on: July 27, 2021, 06:21:38 PM »
I haven't received mine but I was totally aware about it when ordering.

For 400, it should be 390mm C-C at the furthest reaches and 410mm C-C at the ends. So, they are actually flared.



I am welcoming it as they don't have the 380 option. I mounted my brifters inward on my current bike's 400 bar. For me, it's more comfortable that way.

I couldn't find the answer to this here. Does anyone know why some of the 168 handlebars are now coming with external bolts/screws? Is the wedge design not good? That's what I have and so far it's been ok.

fcs01

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #320 on: July 28, 2021, 02:18:53 AM »
Try measuring as a straight line parallel to the ground to the seatpost. 

Hi, yes I did that looking at the geometry table, although from the pic it does look like I measured the top tube and non the effective. Also the head tube and seat tube measure like a 54cm, 13cm and 47.5cm respectively, and not 15cm and 49.6cm.

I'm glad I'm in between sizes and was originally undecided between the two, so as much it is not ideal, it's okay, but it shows lack of precision while having waited that long.

I couldn't find the answer to this here. Does anyone know why some of the 168 handlebars are now coming with external bolts/screws? Is the wedge design not good? That's what I have and so far it's been ok.

Back in mid February, when I asked for a replacement, they suggested a two bolt system: looks like they moved completely to this system since May, not sure for what reason, but it looks solid. Maybe a bit soft, as the one I had on the 099. Surely not looking as sharp with those bolts (which I'll black out), but I remember the vbr099 handlebar expander being really heavy. For comparison sake, what's the weight of that handlebar+plug?

1Sigma

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #321 on: July 28, 2021, 08:13:28 AM »
Hi, yes I did that looking at the geometry table, although from the pic it does look like I measured the top tube and non the effective. Also the head tube and seat tube measure like a 54cm, 13cm and 47.5cm respectively, and not 15cm and 49.6cm.

I'm glad I'm in between sizes and was originally undecided between the two, so as much it is not ideal, it's okay, but it shows lack of precision while having waited that long.

Back in mid February, when I asked for a replacement, they suggested a two bolt system: looks like they moved completely to this system since May, not sure for what reason, but it looks solid. Maybe a bit soft, as the one I had on the 099. Surely not looking as sharp with those bolts (which I'll black out), but I remember the vbr099 handlebar expander being really heavy. For comparison sake, what's the weight of that handlebar+plug?

That's a shame to hear. I'm glad it should still work out for you.
I would say Velobuild is reputable, bit organization and supply chain management do not seem to be strong suits.  As though they couldn't adequately scale up with the increase in pandemic demand. 
Hope.this isn't happening to others.
Better than average - Extra Average

jokage

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #322 on: July 28, 2021, 10:08:51 AM »
Received mine. I believe that I received all the components. With the 2-bolts bar.

Size 49, frame + axle is 1060g. Other components are around the same weight as others'.

The only disappointment is the computer mount on the bar that is not well aligned.

jokage

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #323 on: July 28, 2021, 10:46:32 AM »
I couldn't find the answer to this here. Does anyone know why some of the 168 handlebars are now coming with external bolts/screws? Is the wedge design not good? That's what I have and so far it's been ok.

My personal guess, it's probably cheaper.

hazzer19

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #324 on: July 28, 2021, 01:46:19 PM »
My personal guess, it's probably cheaper.

I've heard anecdotally that a clamp system is more secure than a wedge, but hopefully the wedge system isn't prone to failing as that's what I got! The clean look is really nice.

Nickk2000

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #325 on: July 28, 2021, 09:29:54 PM »
What kind of weights are your guys’ bikes coming in at? The 168 with mid level groupset is probably in the 18 lbs category right?

AngelDust

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #326 on: July 29, 2021, 01:39:28 AM »
What kind of weights are your guys’ bikes coming in at? The 168 with mid level groupset is probably in the 18 lbs category right?
]

If the frame is 980gr and Fork 400gr
with my equipment (105 r7020 with ultegra crank,Cassette,Rotor) + winspace hyper x 50mm
i would likely get it to 7,5 kg something

AngelDust

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #327 on: July 29, 2021, 01:41:12 AM »
Received mine. I believe that I received all the components. With the 2-bolts bar.

Size 49, frame + axle is 1060g. Other components are around the same weight as others'.

The only disappointment is the computer mount on the bar that is not well aligned.

is it painted ? so 80+- gram for paint?
i'm about 167-168 cm height will size 49 good for me? if you don't mind how tall are you?
 ;D

fcs01

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #328 on: July 29, 2021, 02:32:22 AM »
What kind of weights are your guys’ bikes coming in at? The 168 with mid level groupset is probably in the 18 lbs category right?

My 54cm vbr099 was 8.30kg, with no pedal and bottle cages. The 168, 54cm and weighting at 1130g just the frame, with full Ultegra 8020 which I moved from a frame to the other, once finished I suspect won't be too far off the vbr099.
 
I must admit that I have a pair of Fulcrum 400 DB which are definitely on the heavy side at 1690g.

Would be interesting to see the difference in weight if anyone has a 54cm not painted  ;D 
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 02:41:44 AM by fcs01 »

jokage

Re: Velobuild VB-R-168 Frame
« Reply #329 on: July 29, 2021, 03:45:36 AM »
is it painted ? so 80+- gram for paint?
i'm about 167-168 cm height will size 49 good for me? if you don't mind how tall are you?
 ;D

It's plain matte finish. I didn't ask for any customizations. Note that it included the axle and 4 cage bolts which all are already installed when I opened the box.

I am 169cm with an inseam of approx 77cm, saddle height 66-67cm. The sizing tool from Specialized suggested me to go for the 52 but I decided to get the 49. My decision was primarily based on the effective-top-tube length. Fixing a stack that is too low should be easier than fixing a reach that is too far.

I haven't actually started my build, but I've already temporarily set them up to check things in the box and to get some idea of the finished build.

Reach-wise, with the 400/90 bar, I am pretty much satisfied with it. I am pretty sure that I won't need to stretch my upper body to access the hoods, and it doesn't feel too small. I'd get a bar with a longer stem if so.

The stack might be the one that is not ideal. It's simply aggressive* even with all of the provided spacers. If it's preferred to get more of an upright position, you might want to ask for extra spacers (it's probably ugly, but...).

I can't provide any real confirmations for now.

Hope that helps.

Edit: by aggressive I mean that there will be ≥5cm diff between top of the bar and top of saddle.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2021, 04:17:24 AM by jokage »