Author Topic: CS-041  (Read 34876 times)

TedS123

Re: CS-041
« Reply #75 on: August 10, 2015, 09:26:40 PM »
Well, I took the bike to my LBS to have the rear brake bled (one of the few things I don't do myself), but they had a week's worth backlog of repairs.  So I took the bike home and did a few more finishing touches - wrapped the drive-side chainstay with an old inner-tube, attached a bottle holder, put some clear stickers on the headtube to protect from cable rub, and installed my speed/cadence sensor.

I rode it once around the yard, and the initial impression is that the handling seems very similar to my old GF X-Cal (it should based on geometry numbers).  But it will definitely need more seat time to sort out a comparison and ride report.

Here are a bunch more pics.  These show ample tire clearance around a WTB Bronson 29x2.2.  Ultimately want to put an Ikon 29x2.3 back there - should be fine. :

Tried uploading pics, but kept getting error messages.  Will try again later.

TedS123

Re: CS-041
« Reply #76 on: August 10, 2015, 09:31:19 PM »
More pics: Again with the upload errors...

These were going to show the derailleur cable housing.  The rear derailleur housing makes a pretty tight bend after popping out of the frame, but seems to work OK.  For the front derailleur housing, I couldn't get the ferrule to fit inside the lower cable stop on the seat tube - the rivet holding it to the frame stuck out too far to let the ferrule drop all the way to the bottom of the stop.  So I just bypassed it altogether and ran the housing from the top tube directly to the derailleur, which has a cable stop built into it.  That also seems to be working fine.

carbonazza

Re: CS-041
« Reply #77 on: August 11, 2015, 05:44:02 AM »
Do you get a sizing error?
The images must be below 512kb each, and below 1024kb in total.
I look forward for the pics.

MTB2223

Re: CS-041
« Reply #78 on: August 11, 2015, 05:45:01 AM »
Do you get a sizing error?
The images must be below 512kb each, and below 1024kb in total.
I look forward for the pics.
Or you can use my method described in - How to post a picture -

Broady

Re: CS-041
« Reply #79 on: August 11, 2015, 09:12:31 AM »
Definitely considering one of these for a lightweight xc style build, how much did it cost if you don't mind me asking?

TedS123

Re: CS-041
« Reply #80 on: August 11, 2015, 08:13:08 PM »
I keep getting a message saying the uploader is full.  The pics I'm trying to upload are only ~200kb each, and I'm only attaching a couple (2-4) to each post.

TedS123

Re: CS-041
« Reply #81 on: August 11, 2015, 08:30:28 PM »
Definitely considering one of these for a lightweight xc style build, how much did it cost if you don't mind me asking?

Frame was ~$550.  I added a few accessories ($15 for rear thru-axle, $15 for headset, etc.).  Shipping was $80, and there was the 4% Paypal fee on top of everything else.

TedS123

Re: CS-041
« Reply #82 on: August 16, 2015, 09:19:52 PM »
Another attempt at posting pics:




TedS123

Re: CS-041
« Reply #83 on: August 16, 2015, 09:21:29 PM »

TedS123

Re: CS-041
« Reply #84 on: August 16, 2015, 09:24:36 PM »




TedS123

Re: CS-041
« Reply #85 on: August 16, 2015, 09:26:09 PM »



TedS123

Re: CS-041
« Reply #86 on: August 16, 2015, 09:37:21 PM »
That attempt at posting pics seems to have worked!  The bike is currently at the LBS getting the brakes bled.  When I get it back in a couple days it will be ready to ride in earnest.  I did take it for a quick shake-down ride last week.  My initial impressions are that it does indeed seem to handle very similarly to my old bike (2010 GF X-Cal), which is what I wanted.  The geometry is very similar, and I was able to set up the cockpit just like the old bike.  Some more trail time will tell if the carbon rides smoother than the old aluminum.

You can see in the pics the cable routing.  I have two recommendations for Peter (or whoever designs this frame):
  • Move the exit point of the rear derailleur internal cable routing forward on the chainstay an inch or two, so that the housing doesn't have to make such a tight bend to reach the derailleur.
  • Improve the rivet or screw on the front derailleur cable stop on the seat tube.  The rivet that holds the cable stop to the seat tube blocks the cable stop such that a ferrule cannot be inserted into it, making it unusable (at least on my frame).

What does everyone else do for chain-suck protection on these frames?  I've got an old tube wrapped to prevent chain-slap, but don't expect a tube to help much against chainsuck.

Carbon_Dude

Re: CS-041
« Reply #87 on: August 17, 2015, 06:59:58 AM »
Thanks for the update TedS123, bike looks really good.

For chain-suck protection, I use a SRAM XX1 drivetrain.  Between the clutched derailleur and the X-sync ring, the chain never leaves the chainring.  At that point all I needed is a little frame protection on top of the chain stay, for when you are in the smallest rear cog and bombing down some rough stuff, and I get little chainslap on top of the chainstay. 
2019 Stumpjumper Expert 29/27.5+
2017 Santa Cruz Stigmata
2017 Trek Stache 9.8 (29+)
2016 Specialized Stumpjumper FSR Carbon Comp 6Fattie (27.5+) (Sold)
2016 Trek Stache 9 (29+) w/upgrades (Sold)
2014 -036 Full Suspension Chiner (Sold)
2013 -057 Hardtail Carbon Chiner (Sold)
Atlanta, GA

cmh

Re: CS-041
« Reply #88 on: August 17, 2015, 07:07:17 AM »
You can see in the pics the cable routing.  I have two recommendations for Peter (or whoever designs this frame):
  • Move the exit point of the rear derailleur internal cable routing forward on the chainstay an inch or two, so that the housing doesn't have to make such a tight bend to reach the derailleur.

Funny, that was one of the things I noticed looking at the photos. Maybe they designed it based on Shimano derailleurs? This isn't the first frame I've seen where the rear derailleur cable routing seems like it was optimized for something other than what was installed.

  • Improve the rivet or screw on the front derailleur cable stop on the seat tube.  The rivet that holds the cable stop to the seat tube blocks the cable stop such that a ferrule cannot be inserted into it, making it unusable (at least on my frame).

At least you've got the option to route straight to the front derailleur!

I'm also assuming that you are using 4mm linear cable housing for the front derailleur, right, not 5mm coiled brake housing?

What does everyone else do for chain-suck protection on these frames?  I've got an old tube wrapped to prevent chain-slap, but don't expect a tube to help much against chainsuck.

With modern cranks and chains, chain suck doesn't seem to be as much of an issue as it used to be - at least, in my experience, although I did manage to get some just the other day, which surprised me, since I haven't for a long time, I mean, like - years.

I think many of these frames come with small metal plates adhered to the drive-side chainstay behind the chainrings. If yours doesn't have, then there are some options... you could fabricate something yourself, or a quick search found this: http://www.chainsuckprotector.com/

TedS123

Re: CS-041
« Reply #89 on: September 19, 2015, 09:12:01 AM »
I'm overdue for an update here.  I've been waiting until I had a little bit of seat time to give a ride report, and it took until now.  Work was really busy for a while, then when I was ready to go for my first long ride on the bike, a branch took out my rear derailleur at the start of the ride, so had to wait for a new one to arrive, etc.

Anyway, I've now had several short rides and one somewhat longer ride over my normal trails, plus one long gravel and paved road ride when the trails were wet.  First, I can say that the bike seems like a great carbon drop-in upgrade from my old bike (2010 Gary Fisher X-Cal).  The geometry is very similar, and I'm using the same G2 fork (51 mm offset), but with travel extended from 80 mm to 100 mm.  I've adjusted the cockpit to match my old setup as close as possible, so the handling feels very natural - a slam dunk.  The chinese frames that share this geometry should be a safe bet for a lot of folks.

Second, the stiffness and lightness of the carbon frame are noticeable - it feels very efficient and responsive to pedaling input.

Third, the carbon does seem to have some vibration damping on rough asphalt and gravel.  It may also take a little edge off of larger bumps, but it in no way feels like anything but a hardtail.

I just built my first FS bike this spring - a Devinci Atlas Carbon with 120/110 front/rear travel - so I now have a comparison between suspension and hardtail.  They both have their place, and I can ride either on our local trails, but the FS is more comfortable on the extended rooty sections in our trails.  On rocky, rooty technical climbs the FS is easier to keep pedaling, letting the suspension sort out the bumps and keep the wheel on the ground.  The hardtail takes more technique to keep from getting hung up, but it's lightness and efficiency are apparent.

For short, high-intensity workouts or races, easier trails, or for long gravel rides, I'll go for the CS-041.  For longer or rougher rides, I'll go with the Atlas.  But it's a luxury to have such nice options.  For anyone looking for a very light, raceworthy, carbon hardtail with decent comfort (as hardtails go) and proven geometry, I think the CS-041 fits the bill.  I'll try to post back periodically with any updates on the long-term reliability.

Ted