Deciding between 057, 256, or 041

[cmh]

Hey all-

Need to build up a backup bike for my wife so she's got something in case something happens to her primary bike. Conveniently, her primary bike is a Scott Scale, a bike whose geometry has been copied almost verbatim in several frames, so that'll make the decision easier. Looking at Peter's site, I see that the 057, 256 and 041 all have comparable geometry. I need to do a little research here on the 041 as I haven't kept up on it, but am familiar with the 057 and 256 as they've both been popular here.

As I see it:

057 Pros:
* Peter's site lists the 057 as on sale, and it was less expensive than the 256 last time I checked, so it could be dramatically so if it's on sale.
* A well known frame with a proven track record

057 Cons:
* Heavier - listed weight is ~200g more. She's a weight weenie, so this is a concern.
* The head tube is 10mm taller vs. the Scale in her size, so I'd have to run a pretty agressive negative rise stem to get the bars back to the right spot.

256 Pros:
* Pretty well proven
* Lighter than the 057
* Same head tube height as the Scale removes the need for a funky stem
* More expensive

256 Cons:
* I think I remember some folks having cracking issues near the wishbone.

041 Pros:
* Lighter than the 057
* Same head tube height as the Scale
* Probably more expensive
* 27.2mm seatpost makes more sense for a smaller rider. Always thought the 34.9 post on the Scale was silly.

041 Cons:
* Don't know much about it. (I'll be fixing that)
* 2mm longer chainstay, although I really doubt that'd make a big difference
* Update 6/21/16 Unproven and untested design. I wound up going with the 041 and it cracked behind the seat cluster after a handful of very light rides. If any testing was done on the frame at all, this would have been caught. I'm being told it was a "bad batch" but now to me the entire frame design is suspect.

Thoughts? I think there's a couple folks with experience with more than one of these frames, so I'd be interested to hear your input.

Thanks!

Update 6/21/16: With the recurring cracking issues on the 256, and the problems I ran into with the 041, the only frame I would recommend at all is the 057. I know several big, strong guys who have been riding them for a while with no problems. Unfortunately the same is not the case with the 256 or the 041.

[cmh]

So now that I've got the question out there, I'm going back and searching through, here are some valuable things I've found:

Should I get the 057 or 256??

Sounds pretty valuable, and it's a sticky, but it's pretty dated info as it's back from when the 256 was still pretty new. Not much info that really compares the two, wondering if its time as a sticky has come to an end.

Several posts detailing builds of the 057, 256, and 041. All seem to go well and result in beautiful bikes.

Vipassana's comment here is a winner:

"I think this is the frame to get over the 256 right now.   Both weigh the same, but he CS-041 appears to have slightly better features (like the swappable cable stops) and build quality seems a bit better (some the the 256's are rough around the edges like on the bottom bracket cable cover).  Also, the CS-041 solves the issue some have has with the seatstays to seat tube junction.  I really like that you can run cable housing completely through the frame without drilling/modification."

That's a pretty big reason to go with the 041 over the 256, I think.

This post is referenced by the above and has excellent photos detailing the swappable cable stops.

Break a 256, buy an 041. big thing I noticed is that the 041 is stiffer than the 256.

So, based on that info so far, first choice would probably be the 041, with the 057 superseding it if it's dramatically less expensive, and the 256 coming in third.

One downside of the 041 is that I'll have to get a seatpost. I've got a 31.6 seatpost I got for my fat bike that turned out to be too short (I needed a 400) so I thought I could use that. Such problems.

[trekcarbonboy]

I have no comparison advice to give but Marty's got a 15.5" 057 she could ride to check it out. They are about the same height. It's a rigid SS so maybe not the best test ride but it's a start.
I wouldn't put too much weight on Peters "Sale" price. That's been up forever.

[cmh]

I have no comparison advice to give but Marty's got a 15.5" 057 she could ride to check it out. They are about the same height. It's a rigid SS so maybe not the best test ride but it's a start.
I wouldn't put too much weight on Peters "Sale" price. That's been up forever.

I know from my own looking that the 057 was less expensive than the 256, at least a while back. Guess I didn't look at the 057 page enough to notice the "On sale!" part before. That might actually make the decision easier if the sale isn't anything new and the price difference isn't that much, since the 041 is looking like a winner.

As for Marty's bike, oddly enough, she rides a medium frame - the 17.5". It seems wrong, but as you've seen she rides it well, and when she switched back to her small 26er, she said she felt really cramped on it. Marty's bike would be all types of wrong for her to demo, being a size smaller, and a rigid singlespeed with bars probably 120-140mm wider than hers! Might as well put her on my Epic.

[Oolak]

Did you give consideration to the 062?

[Carbon_Dude]

I've been totally satisfied with my CS-057 but I'd take a serious look at the CS-041 if I were to build a new hardtail today.

[cmh]

Did you give consideration to the 062?

Honestly, based on his reputation and my own dealings with him, I only looked at Peter's XMCarbonSpeed site. I was actually just looking at the Workswell 062 earlier, and it looks like a pretty good design, but the geometry is Specialized Stumpjumper, not Scott Scale. Since she has and loves the Scale, it makes sense to stick with that. The 062 looks pretty damn good, otherwise.

[cmh]

Got pricing from Peter, almost $200 difference between the 041 and the 057. 256 is in the middle, but close enough to the 041 that I think it'll be out of the running. So it sounds like the decision is the lighter but pricier (but still amazingly affordable) 041 vs. the less expensive workhorse 057. Pretty sure there's no wrong answer here, but I think I'll be lobbying for the 041.

[Jerryno]

Is 200grams of weight really that much? If I eat a snack or take a dump my weight changes by +-0.5kg.

I always don't get weight weenies that for example are usually running just 3 brake rotor bolts instead of 6 just to save couple of grams. I would always go for safety and durability even if it's a little more weight.

The question I don't know the answer to is the durability of the 057 vs the 041. Searched about it and not much about the 041 out there. I would take the more sturdier frame. And if the more sturdier just happens to be also lighter that would be a bonus for me.

[cmh]

Is 200grams of weight really that much? If I eat a snack or take a dump my weight changes by +-0.5kg.

I always don't get weight weenies that for example are usually running just 3 brake rotor bolts instead of 6 just to save couple of grams. I would always go for safety and durability even if it's a little more weight.

Oh goodie, the age old "take a dump" argument, yay. Half a pound off the bike can make a big difference in how the bike feels vs. half a pound off the rider. It's about the percentages.

It's not that much, no, but my wife likes to ride, and thanks to my influence, she's now a dedicated weight weenie, and if there's weight she doesn't need to be carrying on the bike, then she doesn't want it there. Her current bike is 18lbs with 1x11 and front suspension, so it'd be nice for the backup bike to be somewhere close to that. If saving the 200g makes her happier on the bike, then it's sure as hell worth it. Conversely - if adding weight improves the ride (like a more durable rear tire) then she'll allow that. (if grudgingly) It's about being smart with being light.

re: 3 rotor bolts, funny you say that since I do exactly that on her bike. If 6 bolts is sufficient for a really big guy running 203mm disks on a downhill bike - why is it necessary for a lady half that weight running 160mm rotors on an XC bike? Answer - it's not. She's been running 3 bolts for years now, always installed with blue Loctite 242 and torqued to 6.2Nm, and she's never had any problem through thousands of miles of rides and races. Chasing grams like that is just part of the fun of being a weight weenie, you don't have to understand it. 

If you think "yeah but still, 6 bolts are safer", I'll ask why you don't safety wire every bolt on your bike, because that's clearly even more saferer. Maybe apply red Loctite 271 before assembling, then safety wire for the saferest! It's only a little more weight.

The question I don't know the answer to is the durability of the 057 vs the 041. Searched about it and not much about the 041 out there. I would take the more sturdier frame. And if the more sturdier just happens to be also lighter that would be a bonus for me.

The 057 is well proven as durable under a wide range of riders, and the 041 is still too new, which is why I'll buy it from a reputable vendor like Peter.

[Jerryno]

I know you have reasons for every gram put off from your bike, but sometimes it can grow into obsession.

I can't feel 200g difference on my bike frame at all, but I can feel every 10gram on my rims and tires for example (and their stiffness too like you said).

Let's put that aside, we have different opinions here. What bothers me are the bolts.

If you think "yeah but still, 6 bolts are safer", I'll ask why you don't safety wire every bolt on your bike, because that's clearly even more saferer. Maybe apply red Loctite 271 before assembling, then safety wire for the saferest! It's only a little more weight.

It's not about making it safererer than designed but about not messing with the engineering of the guy that designed it. If the rotor would be designed for 3 bolts (there are discs like that - even designed for 4 bolts) I would put 3 bolts in. The argument shouldn't be "I am half the weight of a heavy rider so I can cut half the carbon from my frame, use half the spokes in wheels and half the bolts in brakes." The result of less weight is truly less stress but that means just less component wear. I've seen plenty bolts to wear out and snap (not on bikes though).

Forces in brakes are enormous even for light riders - the kinetic energy to be stopped depends on half the mass but quadrature of velocity! And I would ques that lightweight rotors are not exactly over-engineered. Even using 6 Ti bolts should be monitored with care because titan is not that strong as steel. I hope you are not using 3 Ti bolts, that would be just stupid even for light rider.



There are spokes in the brake disc and there are usually 6 of them (or more, never less) and they push against the bolts. If some bolts are not there and anchorage points are missing then that creates bending inside the disc that can add to the bending from thermal expansion and the forces on the remaining bolts can be in different directions than designed for.

[cmh]

I know you have reasons for every gram put off from your bike, but sometimes it can grow into obsession.

Heh, sometimes? I was protected from my WW tendencies in the past by simple physics. A guy my size should not be doing WW stuff. Then when my wife got into it, well, just about anything is completely over engineered, so at that point it's a matter of how much you wanna spend.

Let's put that aside, we have different opinions here. What bothers me are the bolts.

If you think "yeah but still, 6 bolts are safer", I'll ask why you don't safety wire every bolt on your bike, because that's clearly even more saferer. Maybe apply red Loctite 271 before assembling, then safety wire for the saferest! It's only a little more weight.

It's not about making it safererer than designed but about not messing with the engineering of the guy that designed it. If the rotor would be designed for 3 bolts (there are discs like that - even designed for 4 bolts) I would put 3 bolts in. The argument shouldn't be "I am half the weight of a heavy rider so I can cut half the carbon from my frame, use half the spokes in wheels and half the bolts in brakes." The result of less weight is truly less stress but that means just less component wear. I've seen plenty bolts to wear out and snap (not on bikes though).

Forces in brakes are enormous even for light riders - the kinetic energy to be stopped depends on half the mass but quadrature of velocity! And I would ques that lightweight rotors are not exactly over-engineered. Even using 6 Ti bolts should be monitored with care because titan is not that strong as steel. I hope you are not using 3 Ti bolts, that would be just stupid even for light rider.



There are spokes in the brake disc and there are usually 6 of them (or more, never less) and they push against the bolts. If some bolts are not there and anchorage points are missing then that creates bending inside the disc that can add to the bending from thermal expansion and the forces on the remaining bolts can be in different directions than designed for.

None of this is surprising to me, I've got a degree in Mechanical Engineering. I'm not just some guy pulling parts off a bike and thinking "Sure, that'll work, why not!" You think it's stupid, that's fine, but I've got loads of empirical evidence to the contrary and always keep a close eye on ALL of the parts on her bike.

There was one time that I had an issue with a brake rotor not staying tight, okay, I admit it. Know what happened? I put a new disk on my own bike and gave the bolts a quick hand tightening - and forgot to torque them down. Even at that, I heard the strange rattling and discovered my fuckup when I stopped to investigate. So, which is more dangerous, a rush job, or running less than the designed number of parts? Based on my empirical evidence, the rush job was far more dangerous.

Pretty sure we won't be agreeing on this one, so I'll just share this: http://forums.mtbr.com/weight-weenies/3-bolts-disc-brake-safe-427825.html - actually saved me the work of doing the math.

[cmh]

Trying to get the thread back on-topic, I just ordered up the CS-041, which Peter said was in stock. Hoping it comes pretty soon, looking forward to the build!

[xcbarny]

Interesting link to the 3 bolt analysis.

As a side note. I got to ride with a very good UK sponsored downhiller and Enduro rider several years ago. He used to run 3 bolts in his discs without issue.

Wasn't a weight weenie thing for him obviously, he just said that he was travelling so much with his bike, that it was quicker packing his bike up with just the 3 bolts to remove the disc.

[cmh]

Wasn't a weight weenie thing for him obviously, he just said that he was travelling so much with his bike, that it was quicker packing his bike up with just the 3 bolts to remove the disc.

I've heard the same thing said for XC racers. The mechanics run three bolts to make swapping disks faster. Seems like a strange explanation to me - pro XC racers have spare wheels with disks already attached, waiting in the pits. They're not going to swap disks unless things have already gone completely sideways, and at that point, the time taken to swap three bolts vs six isn't going to make a podium difference... that race is sunk.

The traveling thing, I can kinda understand, but the bike box we have I can just leave the disks in place and they're fine.