Chinertown

Other Resources => Component Deals & Selection => Topic started by: henri.a on September 20, 2014, 08:11:42 AM

Title: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: henri.a on September 20, 2014, 08:11:42 AM
Tomorrow I'm going to the LBS, maybe they know a better way. Maybe a direct mount from SRAM?

Otherwise I'm put a small ring around the tube to prevent wear in the frame and looking after each ride if there is wear on the tube.
If there will be a lot if wear, I'm going to replace the tube with a external cable hose

Hello!
I'm building a HM-256, I orderd from Honsen.
Does anyone know about the compatibility of the SRAM direct mounts? Does the S1 Low direct mount or S3 Low direct mount fit? Or should I go with clamp mounting?

Thanks!
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: ErikGBL on October 22, 2014, 04:39:26 PM
It is obviously not the S1  Low Direct Mount type you need because the bolt distance of your frame is 22.1 mm, while the S1 is used on frames with 42.7 mm bolt distance.

However, both the S2 and S3 types will fit a frame with 22.1 mm bolt distance. I am also going to put a SRAM Low Direct Mount FD on my 256 frame, but I am not sure if I shall use S2 or S3 type, or will both types fit if the 5 mm spacer on the bolts are either kept or removed?

If this is correct, what type should be used without the spacers, S2 or S3?
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on October 22, 2014, 09:02:32 PM
I'm using a Shimano FD-M785-E2 XT (http://www.shimano.com.au/publish/content/global_cycle/en/au/index/products/mountain/Dyna-Sys_Deore_XT/product.-code-FD-M785-E2.-type-..html) derailleur, which is a S2 model.
Because I didn't like the angle the FD cable makes with the frame, I went to the lbs for a SRAM solution, but there wasn't one. See http://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,184.msg2620.html#msg2620

So, I'm very curious which one you guys are going to use and about the angle of the FD cable makes with the frame. Please post some pictures when it's installed.
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: ErikGBL on October 26, 2014, 05:42:22 PM
Quote:
I'm using a Shimano FD-M785-E2 XT derailleur, which is a S2 model.
Because I didn't like the angle the FD cable makes with the frame, I went to the lbs for a SRAM solution, but there wasn't one.
...
End quote.

What exactly was the problem by using the SRAM low mount, down pull S2 or S3 FD?
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on October 27, 2014, 03:25:51 AM
The FD screw holes on the frame are positioned horizontally. The holes of the Shimano E2 (S2) fits on these screw holes. The holes of the SRAM low mount FD got the rght distance, but are not positioned horizontally, but with some offset. Despite of that, the bottom pull of the SRAM is going the same way as the Shimano FD. The cable is making a half circle starting on the bottom pull of the FD at the left, going up, to the right, down into the frame. Te get a correct angle, is had to start on the right, going up, to the left and then into the frame. I couldn't found a FD that pulls down this was and had the holes positioned horizontally.

Some images to show the hole positions:
Shimano
(http://s21.postimg.org/d8x9c0hbr/shimano.jpg)

SRAM:
(http://s23.postimg.org/pksrg29pn/sram.jpg)
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: carbonazza on October 27, 2014, 05:01:09 AM
Peter from Iplay said they designed the 256 frame, may be send him an email to know what FD they had in mind by putting the hole this way.
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: ErikGBL on October 27, 2014, 05:52:52 PM
According to the SRAM XX Frame Fit Specification (https://sram-cdn-pull-zone-gsdesign.netdna-ssl.com/cdn/farfuture/Gx-ODVGbSsyBuBMS8-F21QKffpd9QqcQsrsg00Vq3U0/mtime:1380571047/sites/default/files/techdocs/xx_frame_fit_specifications_0.pdf (https://sram-cdn-pull-zone-gsdesign.netdna-ssl.com/cdn/farfuture/Gx-ODVGbSsyBuBMS8-F21QKffpd9QqcQsrsg00Vq3U0/mtime:1380571047/sites/default/files/techdocs/xx_frame_fit_specifications_0.pdf)) it seams  that the SRAM S2 FD could fit. The angels and distances on the right figure on page 4 (frame right side) looks identical to my frame and lowest right figure on page 5  indicates that the wire will run smoothly to the "Front Derailleur Cable Mounting Point". S3 has a sideways offset for the front bolt and will probably not fit so well without some extra spacer.
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: ErikGBL on November 20, 2014, 03:40:33 PM
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Ker8nICtg1M/VG4bpVG39cI/AAAAAAAABGg/i_BHgPer8L8/s400/20141120_093913.jpg)(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-PViJpB2Rmns/VG4bqGT7ucI/AAAAAAAABGs/uiXVhbkNSls/s400/20141120_093959.jpg)
Finally a received a direct mount SRAM front derailleur (S2, 39, down pull) and mounted it on my 256.
The verdict: A perfect match!

I have to find a rubber protection hose to prevent dirt from entering the hole.
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on November 20, 2014, 03:45:01 PM
Awesome !!! Do you have an exact type indication of this SRAM FD ? Maybe an url?


Much better than a XT FD like I have :(

(http://s25.postimg.org/jx5h1ul6n/image.jpg)
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: Ken4 on November 22, 2014, 04:28:04 AM
After 2 months of riding the IP-256SL (20 rides), I must agree with MTB2223, the design of the FD cable routing is a failure. Im using the XT triple chainring E type FD, I can never get the FD dialled in. The moment I think I have it perfectly tuned, the next moment the tuning is off again, I have to live with rattles and noises coming from FD. The unnatural bend of the cable routing just creates too much cable friction for smooth operation.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v400/Ken4/IMG_3190.jpg) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Ken4/media/IMG_3190.jpg.html)
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: Vipassana on November 23, 2014, 07:03:09 PM
This thread makes me glad I went with 1x11 for my 256.  This pairing seems like a headache.
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on November 26, 2014, 08:13:31 AM
Erik, are you sure this SRAM FD will work ? Do you have already some experience ?

The holes for the FD in the frame are positioned horizontally. The SRAM FD required the holes NOT horizontally, but with a little offset, as you can see on the image below.

(http://s29.postimg.org/c57wgwmrr/2014_11_26_14_35_05.jpg)
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: ErikGBL on November 27, 2014, 01:22:48 AM
The holes are not horizontal on my frames, but have a vertical offset of 5 mm. They looks similar to the geometry drawing and pictures that you posted yourself June 5, 2014, MTB2223, the third post in this thread: http://chinertown.com/index.php?topic=96.0 (http://chinertown.com/index.php?topic=96.0)
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on November 27, 2014, 03:00:46 AM
ehhh, you're totally right.  :-[
How on earth could I think that they were positioned horizontally. Even on my own pictures I can see they aren't.  :o

Changing my mind ...  8)

So, the SRAM FD's will fit. Only (?) the XX model is down pull at the left, not at the right as the XT FD.

Do you know if there are more XX FD S2 direct mount models around (left pull or right pull) ?
Does your SRAM XX FD has a (extra) model number, like 'FD-M785-E2' for the Shimano XT ?
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on November 27, 2014, 04:15:34 AM
I have to find a rubber protection hose to prevent dirt from entering the hole.
Shrink tubing (https://www.google.com/search?q=shrink+tubing&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=lfh2VJ_DAcWE7gbZ7IC4BQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=946) ? Maybe that works ?
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: ErikGBL on November 27, 2014, 03:07:08 PM
There are six different  SRAM XX S2 derailleurs: bottom and top pull of each of the three dimensions corresponding to the chain ring sizes, 39-26, 42-28 and (not so common) 45-30. I have not seen any model name. Each model is characterized by its features, e.g. SRAM XX FD S2, 39, bottom pull. The bottom pull is also often called down pull

The bolt distance is the same for S2 and S3: 21.7 mm. The measure 22.1 mm is the projection of the bolt distance om the perpendicular on the seat tube axis. This distance is also the same for the S2 and S3. This is why I think that the S3 FD also may fit the frame by just putting a 5 mm spacer between the frame and the mounting plate at the front hole. However, I have not tested the S3 on the frame.

S2 bottom pull is only available as XX, but the S3 bottom pull is also available as X0.
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on November 28, 2014, 05:11:16 AM
The holes of the Shimano E2 (S2) fits on these screw holes.
Erik, thank you for your clear explanation.
I made another mistake by thinking the Shimano E-Type2 was a S2 model, but it is a S3 model (and that's why I needed to use a 5mm spacer).

So, the difference between a S2 and a S3 model is the 5mm offset in the mounting plate:
(http://s14.postimg.org/p9ecew1w1/S2_S3.jpg)

Some information about the difference:
 http://www.cannondaleexperts.com/Cannondale-Flash-Carbon-Direct-Mount-Front-Derailleur-Spacer--KP123_p_803.html

Now I'm going to buy a SRAM X0 FD (S3, 39T, down pull) with 5 mm spacer or a SRAM XX FD (S2, 39T, down pull, EAN/SKU: 00.7615.065.100 ), which is twice the price of a X0.
I'm happy that there is a FD that fits this frame :)
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on December 17, 2014, 09:34:57 AM
Finally I found a SRAM XX FD (S2, 39T, down pull, EAN/SKU: 00.7615.065.100 ), not new, but unused for the price of a SRAM X0.

I'll replace my Shimano XT FD with te SRAM XX FD tonight.

I'll make before and after pictures. :)
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on December 17, 2014, 04:43:11 PM
Today I took the time to replace my Shimano XT FD with a SRAM XX FD.

Before:
(http://s11.postimg.org/sejgmw4tv/image.jpg)

As you can see the cable is now in a straight line to the FD. I'm really happy with this.
(http://s30.postimg.org/et3gpn61d/image.jpg)

I took the opportunity to made the hole in the frame for the FD cable more dirt proof.
I took some heat shrink/shrinking tube (what are the right words for the dutch word 'krimpkous' ?).
Heated a part of the heat shrink/shrinking tube before installing it.
Put it full with grease and installed it.
Here some pictures:

(http://s9.postimg.org/6qf64qr73/image.jpg)

(http://s12.postimg.org/49i7ahtz1/image.jpg)

(http://s8.postimg.org/6l88qybid/image.jpg)

(http://s17.postimg.org/ve9uhwmbj/image.jpg)

(http://s14.postimg.org/pn1e1z6ap/image.jpg)
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on December 17, 2014, 04:59:48 PM
Okay, next (big) problem.

It's not very clear in the last picture, but the FD is in the lowest position. In this position, the chain should be on/above the smallest chainring, but it is now on/above the biggest chainring.
I looks like I need some spacers on the crank :( And that's not what I want, because the chainline would be horrible, It already make noise when the RD is on the biggest cog and on the front on the biggest chainring. It would be worse.

It now time to going to sleep. Take a good look tomorrow. ... not happy now ....

(http://s14.postimg.org/pn1e1z6ap/image.jpg)
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: Plechovka on January 06, 2015, 03:35:45 PM
Hi, this is my first post on this great forum so I hope it will be useful :)
I think the problem is the "D" dimension in "mounting holes dimensions diagram" on previous page. S2 type has D=14.8/17.3mm and S3 only 7/9.5mm, which means that mounting holes for S3 type on frame are closer to chainrings. So if frame is designed to use S3 type (and I don't know if ip256sl is) and you use S2 type derailleur the same problem as yours shlould emerge. But I must say I have no practical experience with this situation, it is only my theory  :).
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: ErikGBL on March 10, 2015, 05:52:33 PM
Now I have tested both S2 and S3 FD. Only S2 will fit if you want a good chainline. You could possible use some spacers between the S3 FD and the frame and long bolts, but the spacers must be so long that I am afraid it will reduce the FD performance.

Conclusion: use SRAM XX S2 bottom pull version.
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: Carbon_Dude on March 11, 2015, 07:46:09 PM
Thanks for that info ErikGBL!
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: Tiptopperoo on May 02, 2015, 07:48:56 AM
Is this problem resolved?
Did you manage to get yours working as you want MTB? It seemed like you had the same FD specified by Erik, but it was not working for you? I'm looking to build a 256 and hoping to learn from your experience.

Which is the correct FD to be using on the 256 frame?

Cheers,
Dave
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: whitecitadel on June 18, 2015, 09:08:30 AM
I am also interested in how people are getting on, I have a CS-196 frame (650b) on order from Peter and he pointed me to this thread as being the same setup as the 256 29er frame.

I have bought a M785-E2 Shimano FD, so when I get my frame (still in production) I will see how it fits I guess, looks like with the same wrap around cable setup as others have found with the acute angle. I am running 2x10 so I just hope I can get it smooth.
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: MTB2223 on June 18, 2015, 09:15:26 AM
Is this problem resolved?
Did you manage to get yours working as you want MTB? It seemed like you had the same FD specified by Erik, but it was not working for you? I'm looking to build a 256 and hoping to learn from your experience.

Which is the correct FD to be using on the 256 frame?

Cheers,
Dave
Not yet, but I found a SRAM X5 FD which looks like it will fit perfectly, but I have to test this. The lowest position of the X5 is closer to the frame than the XX version.

(http://s25.postimg.org/c1xvtc79b/image.jpg)
Title: Re: 256 Direct mount compatibility
Post by: ErikGBL on September 10, 2015, 05:33:52 AM
Here are two pictures of my 256 bike with a SRAM S2 direct mount derailleur: the first picture with the derailleur position on the  outer chain wheel and the other picture with the derailleur in the inner tposition. Shifting is no problem at all. I am using SRAM chain wheels (39T/26T) on a Lightning crank. I have also used a Specialized crank with same good result.

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jJZprV_df2U/VfFZQ_KymFI/AAAAAAAABWk/950zZcSrBLg/s800-Ic42/20150527_084824.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2IZaA2od72Q/VfFZQ6OHvtI/AAAAAAAABWg/JRmtMKSNOG4/s800-Ic42/20150527_084842.jpg)