Author Topic: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail  (Read 20424 times)

cmh

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2016, 09:22:10 AM »
Looks like a really nice frame.

Yeah, it's a bit of a tragedy for it to be sitting in the stand waiting for Peter to get back from holidays. Anyone know when those are up? I'd really like to get this resolved because this looks like it's going to be a damn nice frame once those issues are sorted.

RS VR6

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #16 on: February 16, 2016, 08:29:45 PM »
Any luck with a resolution?

cmh

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #17 on: February 17, 2016, 09:51:51 AM »
Any luck with a resolution?

Funny you should ask. Couple emails back and forth with Peter, and ultimately, the problem is twofold.

  • As I noted, the spec on the bearing race in the frame is 52.1mm +/- 0.05mm. I measured around the diameter and got a range of 51.6-51.8mm.
  • According to a PDF Peter sent me, the spec for the OD of that bearing is 51.8mm. The bearing that was shipped with the headset measured 52.00mm.

So, we've got a lower cup which is as much as 0.5mm too small (10x the stated tolerance, yay quality control!) and a bearing that is 0.2mm too big. There's the problem right there.

I pulled the lower bearing from my Rumblefish, and measured that. Sure enough, 51.8mm. Popped it in the frame, and it fit. Snug, but removable. Built the frame up with that setup, even though I think the angles on the headset are different between the two. Yay for headset standards! Different diameters, different angles, all that crap.

So Peter is sending a new headset, hoping that one has the right 51.8mm diameter.

But, the good news is the bike has been built, and it looks pretty good. It's a backup bike, so built with her "B" parts and some of my spares, so it's not quite as fancy as some others, but still looks pretty good:



Biggest gripe - the damn cable routing. No bike should have the rear derailleur routing on the same side as the shifter, and this one not only does that but moves the cable entry point down the down tube a bit, making the routing completely horrible. Had some old Nokon segments with clean housing, so used that as it handles shitty routing like this much better than conventional housing. Also, there's a hard plastic tube inside the frame which makes routing much easier, but what happens when this gets dirty?



Haven't run the brake hose inside the frame yet - right now it's zip-tied to the outside of the bike with tape under it to protect the frame. Have I mentioned how little I like internal routing? That explains the velcro wrap around the down tube in the previous photo. Want to confirm no problems before I am bothered with the annoyance of breaking the brake hose to route it.

She'll probably take the bike for a ride tomorrow, so we'll see how she likes it.

Built up with those parts, it's 21.25lbs. Not bad, but not great compared to the ~18lbs of her "A" bike.

Got a couple more photos in this album

Vipassana

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #18 on: February 17, 2016, 10:16:34 AM »
I understand the purpose of competing standards to drive the industry to better solutions, but the stuff like your headset debacle is super frustrating as the two "Standards" aren't that different and really only serve to screw up the end-user. 

This is a very nice looking frame.  The cable routing seems similar to the 256 frame I have with the shifter entering on the same side.  I also don't like this as the housing can touch the frame.  Thankfully on mine, the bars are wide enough and the housing is stiff enough that it doesn't rub under normal use.  If it did, I'd put some protective tape there on the frame.

I would totally buy this frame if my 256 ever bites the dust.

Let us know how it rides!

cmh

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #19 on: February 17, 2016, 11:11:00 AM »
I understand the purpose of competing standards to drive the industry to better solutions, but the stuff like your headset debacle is super frustrating as the two "Standards" aren't that different and really only serve to screw up the end-user. 

It doesn't get any better as time goes by, either. Trying to find a lower IS52 bearing with the requisite 36/45 degree angles is a pain in the ass - even places that specialize in bearings (Enduro fork seals) lists bearings by the brand of the frame, and doesn't fully describe the bearing:

http://enduroforkseals.com/id366.html

How f*&$%#@ hard would it be to give at least the OD of the bearing and the interface angles instead of listing what frames it worked with? I don't see any way to search the bearings based on the dimensions. Enduro is far from the only one guilty of this, but I sure expected folks who specialize in bearings to be able to list such basic information.

This is a very nice looking frame.  The cable routing seems similar to the 256 frame I have with the shifter entering on the same side.  I also don't like this as the housing can touch the frame.  Thankfully on mine, the bars are wide enough and the housing is stiff enough that it doesn't rub under normal use.  If it did, I'd put some protective tape there on the frame.

Yeah, she runs hella narrow bars - she's on old-school Easton EC90s which are - uncut - 560mm. We tried her on 700, then 680, then 660, then she just decided "screw it" and went back to the 560s. It's what she knows and likes, so I don't argue... but that makes the cable routing quite a bit trickier.

Let us know how it rides!

Will do! She's planning on riding it tomorrow, which unfortunately will only be on the road (trails are all melty now) so won't be a great indication.

Vipassana

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #20 on: February 17, 2016, 03:46:53 PM »

Yeah, she runs hella narrow bars - she's on old-school Easton EC90s which are - uncut - 560mm. We tried her on 700, then 680, then 660, then she just decided "screw it" and went back to the 560s. It's what she knows and likes, so I don't argue... but that makes the cable routing quite a bit trickier.


How does she do it with 560's?!  That's quite a wheel to turn, especially at speed, with little leverage.  Impressive upper body strength/control.

I'm running 700 and they are perhaps a hair wide, but I love the control.

RS VR6

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #21 on: February 17, 2016, 04:34:30 PM »
Glad to see you got the bike together. I would have gone nuts to have the frame sit for so long and not be able to build it up. I would have grown my hair back out...just I can pull it out.

I hope the brake hose routing isn't as bad as the 062. >:(

cmh

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #22 on: February 17, 2016, 06:06:56 PM »
Glad to see you got the bike together. I would have gone nuts to have the frame sit for so long and not be able to build it up. I would have grown my hair back out...just I can pull it out.

Hahaha - that's quite some visual!

I hope the brake hose routing isn't as bad as the 062. >:(

Yeah, I dunno, we'll see. I have to shorten the hose anyway. Just want to make sure everything else is good before I go down that road.

trekcarbonboy

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #23 on: February 18, 2016, 09:46:49 AM »
Looking good.

cmh

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2016, 12:33:13 PM »
So, first ride report is in, and I've got some work to do. Best summed up by her comment on Strava:

"Lap 1: new bike
Laps 2-4: favorite bike *ever*"

So there were a number of problems related to me not having her "A" bike as a reference during the setup.

  • 041 felt too long
    need to verify position against the "A" bike. Geometry was identical but the stem isn't, so that might be part of the problem.
  • Pedals would release at inopportune time
    Older set of eggbeaters - the backup set of eggs is in the toolbox in her car. easy swap.


So those are just some minor annoyance things that can be addressed by me. As for the other observations:

  • 041 felt notably stiffer than the Scale, but in an "I no longer feel like I've got rear suspension" kinda way.
    This was also only on the road, so we'll see how this pans out once the bike hits the dirt.
  • Frame hits the inside of her legs, especially in corners.
    This is a real big potential problem, and as soon as she mentioned it, I thought of the pretty-looking but very wide seat cluster area where the top tube spreads to turn into the seat stays. The frame *does* get really wide around the seat cluster, and then gets even wider after that:



    While it looks really cool, she said that she could feel the contact as she was pedaling, and if it were a long ride, it would develop into a sore spot. That aside, she also said that when she was cornering, that section of the frame would press into her leg in a pretty uncomfortable way.

So the first things aren't a problem, just an incomplete buildup. The third - the extra stiffness - is interesting since the 041 is slightly lighter than the Scale, but the layout and size/shape of the tubes may be contributing.

The last one, well that's a bit more of a problem. Funny how the thing that I thought was coolest about the frame turns out to be the biggest problem.

Compare the above image of the 041 to this photo of the seat cluster area on a Scott Scale:



Notice how the seat stays of the Scale don't start getting wide until after the seat cluster, vs. a couple inches in front.

In retrospect, it's a total - wow, that should have been obvious - kinda thing, but it wasn't something that crossed my mind.

Anyone want to trade a 256 for an 041? Suddenly that monostay design looks a whole bunch better.

Carbon_Dude

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2016, 01:29:12 PM »
If her legs just barely rubs the seat stays, would you consider doing a 10 cent fix and just space out her pedals a little bit or move the cleats on her shoes out a bit.  I know it's cheating a little and you need to consider the bio-mechanics of doing so, but it might help a bit.

I know they make various Q-factors on cranksets, maybe it's a matter of moving from a Q-156 to a Q-168 crank.  Increasing the Q-factor works for some people anyway.

I'd be curious to know how much wider the CS-041 is over the CS-256 or my CS-056 is in the area where her legs rub.  Also makes me wonder how this isn't an issue on Fat Bikes.
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: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2016, 02:06:23 PM »
If her legs just barely rubs the seat stays, would you consider doing a 10 cent fix and just space out her pedals a little bit or move the cleats on her shoes out a bit.  I know it's cheating a little and you need to consider the bio-mechanics of doing so, but it might help a bit.

I know they make various Q-factors on cranksets, maybe it's a matter of moving from a Q-156 to a Q-168 crank.  Increasing the Q-factor works for some people anyway.

Both of those sound like a very much more involved and expensive version of the "just sand the brand new frame until it hits the right tolerances approach.  ;D

Especially since this is someone for whom the "princess and the pea" analogy has been made on more than one occasion. The one who asks if her tire pressure is wrong if i inflated to 20psi instead of 19.

I'd be curious to know how much wider the CS-041 is over the CS-256 or my CS-056 is in the area where her legs rub.  Also makes me wonder how this isn't an issue on Fat Bikes.

Re: fat bikes - same way as the Scale - my fatty is an aluminum frame so it's a normal tube until the seat tube and then two tubes for the seat stay go from there just like any other frame... not several inches ahead of the seat tube. How wide it gets is less relevant than how wide it is to either side of the seat cluster.

https://goo.gl/photos/xwrcRNrFkxosMRCN7

Carbon_Dude

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2016, 02:15:41 PM »
Quote
Both of those sound like a very much more involved and expensive version of the "just sand the brand new frame until it hits the right tolerances approach.  ;D

Are you saying you would sand away layers of carbon on the seat stays?  I mean if you are only needing to take off 0.5mm on each side then I can understand but if you need to remove 2-3 mm per side, I am not too sure I would be removing that much material from the frame.

My cheap fix of adding a washer to the the pedal to space out her shoe a wee bit is even easier but it may or may not do the trick.

Again, I'd be curious about how much of a difference there is between frames and how much interference there is between the rider and the frame.  It's difficult for me to picture in my mind that her leg rubs right at the junction of the seat stay and the top tub rather than somewhere else further out along the seat stay.


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

helio

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2016, 08:03:36 PM »
I've got zero issues on my 041. The frame doesnt rub my legs- maybe a question of bike fit.

How much does your wife heights? im 1,70m, and im running a M size frame, but sometimes it seems a bit too large.

trekcarbonboy

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #29 on: February 19, 2016, 09:05:16 PM »
I get that it rubs. I occasionally notice my leg hitting my frame at the seat tube in certain handling situations. Add nearly an inch to both sides and I imagine it would be much more noticeable and annoying.

I'd take a stab at exchanging the frame for another model. No harm in trying.