Chinertown
Chinese Carbon MTB => 29er => Topic started by: cmh on February 02, 2016, 02:28:39 PM
-
Starting a build thread for her new bike - ordered from Peter at XMCarbonSpeed (http://www.xmcarbonspeed.com/) she picked it up from the post office today. It's going to be a backup for her Scott Scale 910, which is perfect since the geometry is almost a direct copy. Have all the parts on her old 26er which was a great bike, but she has decreed the 26er to be "dead like Elvis", so it becomes a part donor.
-
Unpacked the frame last night. Looks good, weight is excellent, 960g - lighter than her Scale! Finish looks to be great, and when I pulled the bolts holding the derailleur hanger in place, I discovered that they already had a blue thread locker applied. Nice touch. Included covers for the frame holes look good.
Biggest problem I've encountered so far is I just cannot get the lower headset bearing installed. Should drop in, be a light press fit at most, but it just won't go in. Pulled out the calipers, the bearing measured 51.99mm (same number over about 10 measurements) but the bearing race (molded directly into the carbon frame) measured anywhere from 51.6mm to 51.8mm. I had one measurement of 51.5mm that I couldn't replicate. That's just too small, and would result in an interference fit. I don't think a press should be needed to install the headset bearings, especially since I'm not sure how the bearing would be removed when necessary. Park's page on headset standards and sizes (http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/headset-standards#article-section-11) specifies 52.1-52.15mm for this cup diameter as well as a "slip fit", so it's pretty far off. I'll be contacting Peter but am afraid this frame may have to go back.
-
Biggest problem I've encountered so far is I just cannot get the lower headset bearing installed. Should drop in, be a light press fit at most, but it just won't go in. Pulled out the calipers, the bearing measured 51.99mm (same number over about 10 measurements) but the bearing race (molded directly into the carbon frame) measured anywhere from 51.6mm to 51.8mm. I had one measurement of 51.5mm that I couldn't replicate. That's just too small, and would result in an interference fit. I don't think a press should be needed to install the headset bearings, especially since I'm not sure how the bearing would be removed when necessary. Park's page on headset standards and sizes (http://www.parktool.com/blog/repair-help/headset-standards#article-section-11) specifies 52.1-52.15mm for this cup diameter as well as a "slip fit", so it's pretty far off. I'll be contacting Peter but am afraid this frame may have to go back.
Use a sanding paper to make it fit. I had to do this also on the frame of my daugther. It won't damage anything.
-
Use a sanding paper to make it fit. I had to do this also on the frame of my daugther. It won't damage anything.
I'm sorry, but I've got no interest in sanding a half millimeter off of a frame to get it to the proper spec. I gave it a light sanding before I measured with the calipers, then discovered how far off it was and stopped. I also discovered that it's not quite circular. The bearing is 51.99mm wherever I measure, but the cup in the frame was ~51.8 in one spot and ~51.6 in another.
This is something that should be a precision fit. Hand sanding won't guarantee it's either circular or concentric to the axis of the steerer tube. I'd also be modifying the frame in such a way that I couldn't expect any type of warranty support if it were necessary. Sanding would probably work, but I didn't buy a frame expecting to have to do extra finishing work that should have come from the factory.
-
Perhaps I missed it, but what size is this one?
Also, bummer about the headset. I've heard this complaint from others time to time, but never on the 041 frame.
-
Well that sucks! There's no way you should be expected to make that work. I see no good option but to request another.
-
I remember to have to press the bottom bearing. It didn't go manually.
I did not measure it though.
The top was snug but easy.
But before the brute force, it is probably better to wait for Peter.
Unfortunately it is the holidays over there.
-
I remember to have to press the bottom bearing. It didn't go manually.
I did not measure it though.
The top was snug but easy.
But before the brute force, it is probably better to wait for Peter.
Unfortunately it is the holidays over there.
Yeah, this one feels like it would be a *tight* press fit, like I'd need a hammer or press to get it in there.
Forgot about the holidays. No worries on that, this is to be a backup bike, so I can wait.
-
I remember to have to press the bottom bearing. It didn't go manually.
I did not measure it though.
The top was snug but easy.
But before the brute force, it is probably better to wait for Peter.
Unfortunately it is the holidays over there.
Yeah, this one feels like it would be a *tight* press fit, like I'd need a hammer or press to get it in there.
Forgot about the holidays. No worries on that, this is to be a backup bike, so I can wait.
One thing you could try is to throw the bearing in the freezer for a half hour or so. I have to do that on some bearings at work. Especially when it's a steel bearing going into an aluminum or magnesium housing. Normally the housing is also heated to 150 degrees. Bell Helicopter's technical term is "thermal fit".
As far as a QC standpoint, it definietly isn't right. That seems way off. Sanding down a burr or paint drip is one thing, sanding to change a dimension is something else. Good luck either way.
-
One thing you could try is to throw the bearing in the freezer for a half hour or so. I have to do that on some bearings at work. Especially when it's a steel bearing going into an aluminum or magnesium housing. Normally the housing is also heated to 150 degrees. Bell Helicopter's technical term is "thermal fit".
Yep, have heard of/seen that done - probably f*ked the math but going from ~60F to ~0F would bring me from 51.99 to 51.94mm - still well shy of the 51.6mm ID.
As far as a QC standpoint, it definietly isn't right. That seems way off. Sanding down a burr or paint drip is one thing, sanding to change a dimension is something else. Good luck either way.
Thanks - got a reply from Peter who mentioned that they were on holiday but suggested I check here as well. :)
Looking at that Park Tool chart again, old-fashioned press-fit 1 1/8" headsets have 34mm cups, with the frame being 33.8 - 33.9mm. So something designed to be pressed in has a 0.1-0.2mm interference fit - vs. 0.3mm mismatch with this bearing. Wups.
-
Might as well share some of the photos...
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/zrMTFojEZHNi4nCc9iKO3ljdDRxLB22qV5xDdbInoQP5QVR19Z2WRXg0bNAUAhJX_h42blAnW8LQoFV1MQvk_YtxPS1c7_4w95tpu8l7uyHVdGB4M6NnJp4JegvBTpv8Dy3al0jfhE2r63rna3vrsDNZqv-EP7vGoqakVxI4PufCWr2j3Zjdn7O5_wpyuf2-D2aX8noSAtLnNeUdO27xgwJ4qf0drZcq1RAsLypxS2gKx7zxwWKGOPuWXYq6bDr7LWFiXrll9tr3zM7GXfS9FhDLWI1nXeKQk23LJq9jMn2GM0o9oitN8Cb00ug02QkYkpoFMts2_zyo06N_Kx8wxi-qM9MVDiqSQjcxcUE81ojHbzan0JeVsgCgDys2pt3GloPO8bUTb_rI7e5malf8sojomjiKlkDvD6rRyp-mbQ2juCchPRPcprOwpxDR-RLdbkNhaREl6IaI6qaEH3qe-IQWxxi3oQcxj39ZD5YbKzomH9MCOXYvUqUYIAv8pTamCkGpVKBoVt3GqKaHRN43rLhuD5evE7sMwGzBd6KaCpRLTn0j1LapewjrCnFN-mXWWzJbOQ=w877-h494-no)
Looks nice!
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/M2b60tGF5tZo1P6649VKYtYPNvrgx31TiIpi9Bz9wvoRabLFOKKVIJjktk9V_al92jQaGURqPAoEmbfYdkj_1BxQ0NVT03ZxMTx6dPFRn1yTWp3QF-MxjbRNKk3Wllr1NkwpFFAF0aNDgelbZjiMy55ub5rKJdxzOVLQcrLiIt8-kE-UhdkbGOY69hlHCf5UeALKpOHkG4DE0MSSdr0VYkkK7Gh2TbGiuWFbW4jM4ZT-PaRwJvHNB0JLVllriqxaVvlEZQB_Eoyblp4kQC9AL3Jwy-VDbMUMdi3iHjcKOpJ-sedjjJDIJOtyzHXv9fIHdhIoqju4YLqk6_0CfBQpzX1jzMkRSPCkAulylyqnONorNC9AHg61jwbpZQGd-nUkQC4ZPINFw03cnFTeMfdx7zEYibRKnP0Ls4su-ubiLI1HcQfERlLbtEgrOsvSYGRthYzpWoK3pEHaApXb04X2lbyHsJG72Di2ZivzXT3uTF01GgInsmdI5FAqOkTm7hutdH9zvDzj1VuGt4gadvsZ2zaOYuZOO4HjgT7DRcKtXAVSONbYYQEtIDhAbEMCunkmGrPGPw=w627-h1112-no)
Weight is right on the money.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/WEjbimbLQePsBrXdVM3Gx-JJo3Xo2Z5h3b9n0xaMWjDE6rxsC_-oNtZpBQi0z3GBG1ikgyKWXrZ8nmW0eBhgkkWX2G2n6-4YCBu6hE9mipG_6xMIA2wckctydCzL_BgqLSs_F0LvYPbEkKGnFV4AQc4opIPlLmxO4lSiEbT26Q2bAjIQTcSUh8hge_zo-3bccTxbxKJw9uPqKxWHPP9Olz8ix5Y_gzsRKvvye12ezFCACwnv1rxjpAERJSjwdyL9Zaq0IhfxI6zxiPK7cDgErdpTJS6gHA9dS-vkgqLtqXWlJ6aaA88E3ZAuKTE_a-W6ILp040dVjPgWv1OCgS7gUXz11QrBVEca7SOhX5CvVQUekiUNCmbP9SMvECoCcoaFcmaId-EQmJ5nEjY3KKNdJuT7XT0S2A2YybH57f52aRtgzA81Q3VyFXa7LfUfPv4y-BNLAMXfRogcyR64GKV0SmrnX8rGfB8zzkk66XyxJWCNXNLK4w8_SCVy8HJjEOnZCXk4LeBZCXANlH2yuG5GexXTz3_tgf9voaCnYe8KkIjyYT269_h5q16ee_9jurIjQJxI_A=w627-h1112-no)
Derailleur hanger screws came with threadlock already!
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/oY57ImHgwGRwjkisBaukP70V2wA_jp5_9wcyEWttQIijYBolrdN813496iQUliApVlisX8aK9c0BGjf-yhghseDn-5UK6KDI-q0AriVTQTWoYUMTgXQI70DTnJ7_0P56S-TnCz_tgGTbiWJt1qyfGm_Fd97Ru0ZeG0tcOjmi60WRBS0AbSlhFXNnCCiNcVIDM7hwYruouospKH22uVEgohunVbqsYu8a73uJfDIeUpwjtzTdgNFtVLR8Bnm5WIPZ1AYth7CxxtNx2ZkLJIcCipNZ_aW25wnhOkjyR5YXkBclSRAMChJLVr1Ib2nOd_UqflGpaWnpr7BsDQ_62np-5jwN6Kfq4q_mV76mcv6BX0xsZSdbAkzPcPiPjt62AYK0dDJQsQkk7OXxh3ABzwEvOAB18Z0Xdk16Pb0SszsOW-Ol2c2o6oN6ZQOT1G3mF1QLkdVufobRrO215j1r75_GYjafC-EpHgaSel1wL-R9AJPLO9ppPI8qUAZ1q41fPUYAIPhcvPSDC3IXacL6RJzCIXpPBkTKIuH17HY_egB0O1FQ7L524DIihV7YWcfmzZ2NNryUQA=w877-h494-no)
...and here's the problem. The Park Tool site says this diameter should be 52.1-52.15mm. I measured around the circumference and got no dimension more than 51.8mm. That's an interference fit. It looks like the calipers are tilted, but they're not. The measurement is legit - and either way, the headset bearing does not fit in there.
-
Thats a good looking frame...bummer about the bearing.
-
Thats a good looking frame...bummer about the bearing.
Yeah, it sure is. Spent some more time with it today, and I sure hope we can get this ironed out, because it's damn nice looking. I took the time to check the upper bearing today (which fits) and I don't remember the numbers, but the diameter of the cup is only 0.1mm larger than the bearing - so that makes the amount that needs to be increased not quite as much... but I'm not doing anything else in the way of modifying the frame without the ok from Peter that the warranty would remain intact... and that'll have to wait until they're back from holidays.
One thing that irks me a little is that the cable entry for the rear derailleur housing is on the right (drive side) of the frame - same side as the shifter. I much, much prefer having the cables run from the shifter to the opposite side of the frame as it makes for a much nicer routing. Also, the replaceable cable entry ports are cool, but the ones that allow for the full-run housing that I'll want to run are just slightly oval holes, so the angle they make going into the frame is nowhere near what I'll want. Once I sort out the headset issues, those parts are going to have to be heavily modified to improve the cable entry angle. One guess regarding those stops is they're designed around Di2, which would handle sharper bends with less issue. The frame must have Di2 in mind, as there's a hole above and slightly ahead of the bottom bracket that can only be a battery hookup - it has no purpose in a mechanically shifted bike that I can imagine.
FWIW, the Scott suffers the same shifter/cable side issue, but I wind up using the front derailleur stop on the non-drive side. The FD stop on the 041 is not one of the replaceable covers, but similar to the brake hose routing, and it's mounted up on the top tube, so even if I ran the RD housing in there, it would have to take a strange angle after entering the frame to head towards the down tube. If I could have run it down the top tube and exited from the top of the drive-side seat stay, that would have been pretty cool, but there's no holes for that.
Sounds like I'm nitpicking, and I am, but I can be a fussy bitch about bike stuff, and this is what I'm noticing even before the build starts. I still think it's gonna make a wicked bike.
-
So I haven't done anything else with the bearings, but did spend some time with my good camera and the frame today, and took some better photos:
XM CarbonSpeed CS-041 album (https://picasaweb.google.com/118048517346415993560/XMCarbonSpeedCS041Frame?authkey=Gv1sRgCMjy0erukYeRqAE)
The design of this frame is really starting to win me over. I have become such a fan of the seat cluster:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-30-ORgS43pU/VraiU8QLCOI/AAAAAAAAi20/fJkewWGSPWQ/s720-Ic42/dcp-20160206-121148-d7k-9507.jpg) (https://picasaweb.google.com/118048517346415993560/XMCarbonSpeedCS041Frame?authkey=Gv1sRgCMjy0erukYeRqAE#6248360013678184674)
As I said in the album description:
"The seat cluster on this bike is gorgeous. The top tube is flattened, and takes a straight path to the rear wheels. The top tube splits into the seat stays in a very fluid way - it almost looks like the top tube was poured down over the seat tube, and the flow splits evenly into the two seat stays which mirror the profile of the top tube. Plus, the extra reinforcing rib running from the top tube to the seat tube, it just makes for a really, really pretty junction. I love the visual design of this frame."
Also, I complained about the cable routing, but while taking photos, I noticed something I hadn't noticed before:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-_uL0oG2_WeA/VraiUOlqGQI/AAAAAAAAi20/mF8_6-xznrI/s720-Ic42/dcp-20160206-120850-d7k-9500.jpg) (https://picasaweb.google.com/118048517346415993560/XMCarbonSpeedCS041Frame?authkey=Gv1sRgCMjy0erukYeRqAE#6248360001420269826)
There is a housing running through the frame for the shift cable that should make running the cable much easier. Get the shift cable inside the orange tube, and push it through until it comes out by the rear derailleur, easy peasy. I still prefer a full run of housing, but this looks to be bonded in place, so won't rattle. I still wish it was run on the non-drive side of the frame, as well.
-
Looks like a really nice frame.
-
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.
-
Any luck with a resolution?
-
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:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/3GqyWvlpuVM7BcHLOMyyDy5zB0-jYtrz8s_v8YyhDWF0k7ektMYphgjeYvzw2Ku5nLF_HMff_twA7QZwOh0YngaRpAv1AJfNuz5bHrYVtkIoJdcz9c1dbtqAxSVYLSOSBzU8_XK_MpH66_Mj0VMoKEhgfvqGw_G2KNIWs4nxedleK5kcU53oQbuqbNMivSuJUj8Wf5b7B0i8M-w1AOIXgIFPxreSMnd_HVPgpGIKDN8tSvRKr6RzlvBo5WqTxsqh3OZbTrs4_Pq2Oo6qo2nx1hva_gCUprLYEFiGBNL_90cO-jNyAYId84Kr1LErvv6WcoPORmDqi2Ot1KZD8y2_AAtu2WWCT-3C-F5FywcUs4uHRMgFVTynlN8BZzsyLSQ5WNIilz93ClcbtwjnvbBznqlwBavSpwaw1wdcPNWHdBnFQMKqz0C2xiuBOpGGNlJ5TVsyerhAULDBaBRWaaiSLU-dQbuOq-rju4HSw7USHbOESzkerY424q_PcFM0xz_R9nDu7v-pcPzw4W_B5yS4NM3yjQY7a1AFC7jfU3s4Ate5Y9L0YIrZHBIE7yEqhFiTKkrmBQ=w877-h581-no) (https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipPsjWoA9W2eP2xmJbqU_j50W5-8-1ujphJrND4D/photo/AF1QipPJUbX16EycRfP3GMLLjWlHSFeiAK1WyMVg8B5l?key=CMjy0erukYeRqAE)
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?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/1d_ohf4PPs4PT9SWr4khBmRfX_-TeJbg9ZM69yfKYUhW09v8z-1tQoSvatAXc5Rar59Ya5Q3r50uT5NyFyf6152jgKyocYMKdmLKszQAyaUu5c_WLaABNZGFgOoqNoIdbKMOf_6iKwnsnnwIIpKZkstRC_N-7TydUBc8SGRaeKfwX2kqQwXXdKFUntDiYfJqUjdUyB9UY0kDa5m8vu0FNdyIXjh0ugQqKbkMJRAK7_SPBr4mfEPQhJpPKh5XWWXXQvlUbENqkZtLABLyNLhPz75hVPELYxvblX4-q5-VPXXYY842r_SCHRxXvDwllmJqT7qcH-sthJkNd0QcvTvT65WMK6anHCQXv8SmWbiuwJfwRBWzrilMdEYeks0lw7S7zpn0QmCt_dK_pzVOjVfCHmVC4YIoHUQec_c22IXtq_Dzom4MttYKQOpSbTw8arXtgaTGyJ4jwp5zkGXyREnP7V68tRhE0Y5CUWk0djUClPXa-eG6WBe6rXOscivWZ5T8xlh1mgloAQc97YPCq4FB0CNhWiBEoRmCQeb2pqbKtEjAK8gwmrJx8UVm15f7fdczKbkI0A=w877-h581-no) (https://photos.google.com/album/AF1QipPsjWoA9W2eP2xmJbqU_j50W5-8-1ujphJrND4D/photo/AF1QipP8QS_MiiYwzqw5XuAgZbNdKass1ck2c9BtdbW3)
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 (https://goo.gl/photos/jcSpmQ7gVmCnMMfF7)
-
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!
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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. >:(
-
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.
-
Looking good.
-
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:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/DkbANDKXgK6Ozao9kYYjF7IEh9-er1FX3mALvpoE7PmF8GoxrGdtIqz6DGwPBkApdYvR8UR-kSzlhx90yjJkCNMmgul3BgHSatGiwxLOAnXpYreXs3U91epBbofC_8P2Bdduoz712r0tLItyTz3RLs8lmOq16uO4_hVMGjAUD1CEBecu7g6eskHzPUlQwMdm1PTmTmXGMovH3xgQM-g0F1x95C-ph0VydqxDkpqae6mi6Z_ajRfmFQ4y5RJEytf7-hJZ3L2jylAVvN0sHOBx_Ub0D7dQOC_QQTZjmvzrBCURpuLEmvWLAttM-kLt76lEIEpyC_ssIkyn6TkBPA_8fFzr4FeYyLjnkFvBJvaa9K7og-AbQbpSt0FaEqQVWYPZ_hjq993nBM6xwFqrjaJBqEaiSPE7EaE1YxiaYeMqBrWq8jMZXI0yyJPEUtR0_rZpZEysSCZHzsZ-KbKj3FYWsNkWVjpeDf_72zh-olMJvm6VBf0FfXS7mAAJ7h237COl4G9pNzS5qZuJybS7VjJMQ3oQsNiKHy878yCc1AIeRQ-Te9NIMt_dfbJiuUQyOeHWn7LbFA=w768-h1158-no) (https://goo.gl/photos/KSDQVs5NXBez9miP9)
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:
(http://brimages.bikeboardmedia.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Scott-Scale-700041713_0340.jpg) (http://www.bikerumor.com/2013/04/18/scott-tips-the-scale-towards-650b-introduces-limited-edition-710-and-740/)
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Not sure if you have headset figured out yet ? I put bearing on fork directly ( make sure it is in right direction) then slide fork into frame, cups are integrated into frame so no pressing required . and finish top with bearing then race as normal .
-
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.
Hahahaha - no, no - not at all! I was referring to when I had the issue with the headset and the suggestion was made to "just sand it till it fits". Swapping out cranks and spacing out pedals to try to fix the leg strike issue sounds like working around the real problem.
Haven't done anything else with the frame since she rode it, she hasn't been back on it. I think part of the problem is her seat might be too far back - her comments about it feeling too long and the setback post that is on there right now I think has the seat too far back, which would put her farther down the wide bit of the frame. Need to have both bikes available at the same time to properly compare the setup on both, then we'll give it another go.
Also had to steal the rear wheel as I recently broke three spokes on the rear wheel of my Epic and needed a temporary replacement as I'm going to rebuild the stock wheel with heavier spokes. For now, the Chiner has the rear wheel from my Rumblefish which is... not light. It's probably a pound heavier than the rear wheel on her Scott - just the wheel. :D
So we haven't given up, but it's not getting high priority at the moment. Do want to get it sorted out, though.
-
I was wondering anyways why one would use a set back seat post. It changes the intended bike geo. You would sit too far behind the BB. Plus I would say a 27.2mm set back seat post might flex too much on the 041.
I'm curious to hear from the next test ride.
-
I do hope you are able to get your wife's bike sorted out, I know when you are comfortable on a bike and it just fits you, it's a much more pleasant ride.
I had a set-back post on my old 2004 Epic 26er, it worked fine and was popular for those over 5'-10" to do on the old Epics. I think back then they were still trying to figure out some of the geometry.
-
I was wondering anyways why one would use a set back seat post. It changes the intended bike geo. You would sit too far behind the BB. Plus I would say a 27.2mm set back seat post might flex too much on the 041.
I'm curious to hear from the next test ride.
re: setback post - because the Scott Scale (she's had four) comes with a setback post?
As for a 27.2 post flexing too much, I weigh nearly 2x what she weighs and run waaay more seatpost than her, and have ridden 27.2mm carbon posts on several occasions. One of the silliest things on the Scott has to be their insistence on 34.9mm seatposts, I was actually happy to see that the 041 had a 27.2, as even a 31.6 is more than she necessarily needs.
Bike fit is also a very personal thing. I've got bikes with straight posts, I've got bikes with setback posts, and know folks with the same bike as mine who use a different type of post. It's all about finding the fit that works for the rider.
Part of the "problem" is the XM Carbonspeed SP4 seatpost (http://www.xmcarbonspeed.com/Productinfo.asp?f=1382) is set back pretty far, and then combines that with a VERY long support for the seat rails. This is awesome for working with carbon seat rails, but it winds up limiting how far forward you can go. In order to get the saddle-to-bar reach equal to that on her Scale, I wound up swapping the SP4 out for an older carbon USE Alien that I had on hand. The Alien is a small offset post, and I was able to get it to exactly the right spot with the saddle about midway on the rails.
The stem I had installed was the right length, but a bit too much drop. Had to get a 10mm spacer underneath to bring the bars back up. I have her Scale in the shop so I can check all the measurements tonight, and we should be good for another test run.
-
I was especially referring to the 041 when saying that a set back sp might be too flexy (also depending on the post). I agree with you that the bike setup is also individual, but I would try to minimize the horizontal distance between saddle and bb to achieve a better power transmission.
-
Got some photos to compare the width of the seat cluster between the 041 and the Scale.
Here you can see the CS-041 on the left with the Scale on the right.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/RZ1vfWUGccBeXnHfZavjlImFU6lNu8YtUHzH6BOxucZ6Ep3ypx9sXE54R7VOJdNOVoqRuUeg66_6qxKZ94ly4FrebRaoxz3tq0ofKApoJfGGtNxp2YiYlMhatkTri7Se8RnG7l1s8BwIR1X2x8dG6JInhGLcmZwj54b8iEWNH1WgKr2lZK75kvlf6KRPvpgB9MvcdFb2ZB2kbW_XRcga184HxsnwL4bey78nE3tOJEO1wr-x50ROjPWikLddNIHKmRWejYexumpz2vzbX_B8knG0PRuGs-C5tbM4ZlqvEiHyzc4JDHkh2YNdpdxrk5nVcwgBgQv_iBUZLBacf2UW_cklD7OlS9RzyI2YP4hSfnol8qbn1A8oR0WbEAa7BAl3wVQB9XR8tnluBFE_ylglktBAvKgCNr3hvDJP9_JQ3P1Sgsqs6yVpWlA7wcgqUoRolZ3erYWTWAa-OagdtNk7e9AuQHE7zA4XZ9r-mICIXP4MgGE2JtW8z8RM1O6GmJZ9oIh_EsqQjHh7YxcworUWUjI-BLt-BUOz77aPwYM07t_Qo4EUcLo17Y0uzuqzfSKJu_UwQg=w867-h489-no) (https://goo.gl/photos/jcSpmQ7gVmCnMMfF7)
Measuring the width of the seat stays behind the seat tube:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/bQsyNXuWi8Slt-R01Kj-Ur6Jj0amXsSEwNX_t9zxtBGX0yZCNSu7bMwOSnhv2F9Ex_cHXBkMtaYXrwCYiBQVlXlHEa8Axo9Q2i0Ar6TU7McPW2BlG6SkdTS54D5SCdcCuqqkyLlHCLWBjLmS_a_2DfoAn9W9wvK5JWr4iu2c_C3_gbcelI35akllvg54XiEGIlUBrCVOhcyZYYl1BPf6YubdiCMcvlrlMOeFRiOMud8616jazxCT1j7tFaV2YHLAlr9e48i83Kf0oDsr3MNhotwcXxT0kEwlFFiceVzS7vGx_11nU-y1bAjXZQa2i0c5JfDUwgNlS94IBYQ8eKy1YIHhyP_SYzl_uCLdpfjeBKXg-P50tPtKUCZTyBO62hAQnqXP1KWe1QG13HipXpiw16IEjWVSYMWWwYkR_sgyPJJyqnMMeYibb1UhPfCvl_6TPpHmDh_WwcIPzrn6O-Big2CrWl49YUAfOXd7VOuINpYspxjin3p3UqlNOqN0mGcBRbbRoEe4fdb2ZZoEpq9F3enQLu3fDA3wKrvdog2WtI_yauHi2Vf8-8zyMbXwiB2b2RBofA=w867-h489-no)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/XVnwQfZMEcUVqjQwOFu3-Bqlr3OwaNqS8pWN4aWk_yR1P6LEzdjYZ9egnfQgSzngyEnshAe04JpjOvmJ5jp_NteWeeK4K1Wajn6mKHlFrD77NI_cQJvIS2xtT7vpJ1IVJiBa595zZ3eyRg_lBzMvYWb9m31nakUeqVqzrWPwC121wNJezpRYCS7IA3kSvr7Z8Y_ZQ0Vbp1Lyg3Au-Jxu-Kp-DwCadUp1wYGVn7O_ZUgs89A9YXnRl0hRNbiQ4MiEqmZFHGLrw9T46sVEJ6cgIVG3UjNA3jZAc-cliEQtOAs2P4YlCmwGgS14wbq5UWwcQ16nRlPoY9xK0JrOVU7XJPo57ahw6kt24h37dDabpri3iPHopbIIfTSJw9tZhtsVm5vl3k8KRVmi4OT_mHGB08dvMnsImXjriF_lPqi7q3f4XEY97Tp-lgaLewQxv9hImvc3-C5QwVDx87Wya9TsLgw2F1JbErT-5lVdh474NEJxGkbZ6npyXXKsL-LadkAZLrLeIe30ue-G6jrE7zPWc3Wjy4RcPeMSpjm9cuNV2RorygwSqHMeCC76AMvgrvbs2uCJzg=w867-h489-no)
This is probably the most telling, showing almost a full inch to either side of the seat tube:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/kjAi_ve2bsXY2hxvGPSY0TnkVgrqJ41Uoalohz0ZnCtIMS_uzxpmKe8FdxAleGRrkfGgSm7l5Dtst8goPNBNzjEdyk2mYKOwAPIIDn0nUSEcHycd3N3ev9FI1tYqFWEjUR6RLVUdA3-ZbhiWA4Bk-X7dn57yck5EypKlpWe3pcU-IuZF50bxxtr6uCVyWVQ25cKhzO9sWI3dmOKd0zBT9VQ4kkfgBpYnvc6pslkM22zL7YvwpWJPDeQUsPB13k4vgXyVfIitV3npRKBiSrmEtP3WBlLxFAQRAZK0mZdHBfUlA4qXt9lu13BIoMqyj6A8rRE2988fJmzAIdXTh7JFAz-Ich5GlWCxBI9CC724eHo974DPiguOqNrwY9yTBAz6tbpcBbp5CZp2oUtjyBquiuDBtzQH6waF7GAxpRRviDrWyLesNMZb6GzaNzFeaCwMe3VepBqJFBTwxeEd1nV-wJwXfJDi0k8n_67F1iUBLswUXJYCFkzW5BRqQpx4A8UhLlHHMhBu-aYQYSKPm94aCDpjrwqfdKdnY5LhRv2JymUktmcHxGlk1M64VfNNIGqTk0UvHw=w867-h489-no)
A couple more photos available on my CS-041 album (https://goo.gl/photos/jcSpmQ7gVmCnMMfF7).
-
I was especially referring to the 041 when saying that a set back sp might be too flexy (also depending on the post). I agree with you that the bike setup is also individual, but I would try to minimize the horizontal distance between saddle and bb to achieve a better power transmission.
Okay, I'm confused, maybe I'm missing something. What about the 041 would make a setback post more flexible? The extra height of the seat tube and the reinforcing rib above the top tube would leave less post exposed, so less flexible.
I've seen tests of seatpost stiffness and shock absorption, and setback posts are more flexible - which results in more shock absorption - which is usually a good thing. There are carbon posts out there now which are specifically designed to be more flexible, to give a soft-tail ride to a hardtail.
Regarding minimizing the horizontal distance between saddle and BB, again, that's a personal preference kinda thing. Some folks prefer a forward saddle position, some prefer a more rearward position. This isn't a TT bike, so why is getting the saddle all the way forward in some way optimal?
-
Not sure what setback and non setback posts have to do with anything. You need to use whichever post gets your body correctly over the bottom bracket. I run the saddle in a more forward position. It lets me get "over" the pedals when I'm really mashing. I've also found that with the saddle forward...its easier on my lower back on climbs.
People with short femurs will also have the saddle farther forward.
I think the reason some frame manufacturers use such a large post is to get the frame and post lighter. If you look at the weights of carbon (not sure about aluminum) posts...the 31.6 posts will always be lighter than the 27.2.
-
I think the reason some frame manufacturers use such a large post is to get the frame and post lighter. If you look at the weights of carbon (not sure about aluminum) posts...the 31.6 posts will always be lighter than the 27.2.
Wait... wut? :o
3T Ionic 350mm (http://fairwheelbikes.com/3t-ionic-team-stealth-offset-seatpost/) 27.2 - 240g, 31.6 - 254.
Enve carbon straight 400mm (http://fairwheelbikes.com/enve-carbon-straight-seatpost/) 27.2 - 205g, 31.6 - 210g.
KCNC SE Pro Lite AL75 Offset 350mm (http://fairwheelbikes.com/kcnc-se-pro-lite-al75-offset-seatpost/) 27.2 - 211g, 31.6 - 226g
RaceFace NextSL 400mm (http://fairwheelbikes.com/raceface-next-sl-seatpost/) 27.2 - 227.6g, 31.6 - 245.7g
If that were true, the 34.9 on the Scale would be lighter than a bird fart, and I'd be running a 60mm seatpost on my bike! ;D
The larger diameter increases stiffness, so yes, they could run a thinner wall in order to maintain the same stiffness as the smaller diameter post, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I don't think I've ever seen a case where a larger diameter post weighed less.
-
Wow, the junction on the CS-041 is not just wider, it's further forward under/ahead of the seat tube. Now I know what you are saying. I agree it looks very cool but if it doesn't work well for some people, I guess it doesn't matter how cool it looks.
-
I think the reason some frame manufacturers use such a large post is to get the frame and post lighter. If you look at the weights of carbon (not sure about aluminum) posts...the 31.6 posts will always be lighter than the 27.2.
Wait... wut? :o
3T Ionic 350mm (http://fairwheelbikes.com/3t-ionic-team-stealth-offset-seatpost/) 27.2 - 240g, 31.6 - 254.
Enve carbon straight 400mm (http://fairwheelbikes.com/enve-carbon-straight-seatpost/) 27.2 - 205g, 31.6 - 210g.
KCNC SE Pro Lite AL75 Offset 350mm (http://fairwheelbikes.com/kcnc-se-pro-lite-al75-offset-seatpost/) 27.2 - 211g, 31.6 - 226g
RaceFace NextSL 400mm (http://fairwheelbikes.com/raceface-next-sl-seatpost/) 27.2 - 227.6g, 31.6 - 245.7g
If that were true, the 34.9 on the Scale would be lighter than a bird fart, and I'd be running a 60mm seatpost on my bike! ;D
The larger diameter increases stiffness, so yes, they could run a thinner wall in order to maintain the same stiffness as the smaller diameter post, but that doesn't appear to be the case. I don't think I've ever seen a case where a larger diameter post weighed less.
Haha...my bad on that. I just remember looking up weights on posts a few months back and recall seeing weights for the 31.6 being less than the 27.2.
Lol...I know my P6 Hi flex in 27.2 is heaver than the 31.6 version.
-
Wow, the junction on the CS-041 is not just wider, it's further forward under/ahead of the seat tube. Now I know what you are saying. I agree it looks very cool but if it doesn't work well for some people, I guess it doesn't matter how cool it looks.
Yep, that's the problem. Now that I've swapped posts on her bike (and that ups the count of posts I've ordered from Peter and ultimately wound up not using to 2) she's about 1cm farther forward and I'm hoping that gives her enough clearance. We'll see!
-
glad to know so many cyclist support and love carbon bike products made in China
-
I was considering this frame and am grateful for the feedback you have been providing. Never built a bike before so this is great! Sorry to hear about your issues with it though. :(
Do you know if the problem your wife is having with the 041 frame rub is due to her height or physical build re: gender? I know it's not setup for your height, but I'm wondering if it would be an issue for you or a taller male?? It looks like a possible design flaw, but just wondering if it's tolerable for +5'10"
I saw CS has an MB01 listed and am now considering the MB01 vs the 041 if I am going to have the same issue
-
I was considering this frame and am grateful for the feedback you have been providing. Never built a bike before so this is great! Sorry to hear about your issues with it though. :(
Do you know if the problem your wife is having with the 041 frame rub is due to her height or physical build re: gender? I know it's not setup for your height, but I'm wondering if it would be an issue for you or a taller male?? It looks like a possible design flaw, but just wondering if it's tolerable for +5'10"
I saw CS has an MB01 listed and am now considering the MB01 vs the 041 if I am going to have the same issue
I think it's a couple of things... I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a design flaw, but think it's something to be aware of. She runs a frame that is quite a bit bigger than would be expected for her height - guessing it's because she's got a proportionally long torso. (another reason why "women's" bikes are complete bullshit. Women vary just like everyone else) This then means that her saddle winds up being lower than other folks riding the same bike, which effectively raises the seat cluster - which means it's more likely to run into her legs as legs are thicker higher up.
Also doesn't help that the saddle was about 1cm too far back. I've fixed that, but she hasn't ridden it again since then.
Loads of other folks on this forum have the CS-041 and haven't had the same complaints, so I'm going to say she's a special case and wouldn't think it's any grounds for excluding the bike from your search.
In other news, I also finally got the proper headset bearing from Peter, and this one is actually marked 51.8mm, and measures as such. Haven't swapped it in, though.
-
OK - that gives me a feeling of comfort. I noticed you've only got a single gear on the crank in your wife's setup. Is this by choice or will it only accept a single.
Edit - I mean a single chainring. I'm on a very tight budget, so wondering if I can set up the 041 with a single chainring for now and move up to a triple and derailleur later.
-
This discussion makes me wonder about the new CS-M01 frame, check out the top tube. I wonder if anyone would have a problem with it as well.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v193/S2k_Dude/cs-m04.jpg)
-
Back in the day I rode a Klein Mantra which had the single pivot for the URT up on the top tube, and that was pretty wide. I remember I'd occasionally hit my knees on that.
With the M01 frame, though - it's wider, yeah, but the wide part is farther forward, and since the upper leg is working through an arc, it might not be a problem - or it might be an occasional brush kinda thing.
She's supposed to be taking the 041 out today, so hopefully the issue is resolved.
-
So she rode the bike again, this time off-road, which is good. Had some issues with the brakes which was surprising, sounds like the pads need to be either resurfaced or replaced - lots of noise and very little braking. Unrelated to the frame, though, and easy enough to fix.
The big thing, however, the leg strike issue with the wider seat cluster -- seems resolved. Thanks to the really long support rails on the SP4 seatpost, I couldn't get the saddle forward enough. Swapping posts fixed that, and the saddle-to-bar now matches her Scale exactly. When she was talking about the bike, she didn't mention it, and when I asked her, she thought for a second before saying it still happens occasionally but it's not such an issue. So, I think for most folks it won't be an issue at all unless you have the same combination of a low seat relative to the frame size and a very set back saddle.
With the bike set up exactly like her Scott in terms of geometry - and all the parts on the bike having done duty on the Scott before we upgraded to better - it now comes to the comparison of the bikes. She still thinks that the fit isn't quite right, which is odd because the frame geometries are exactly the same and the key measurements are the same, but more importantly, she thinks that while it's nice enough, it's just no comparison to her Scott.
Direct quote: "It's good enough - just not my Scott."
Of course this isn't a direct comparison, even if all the parts have been on her Scott already, it's got far nicer parts (new XTR vs old XT) plus a better fork (new Fox vs older Fox) and massively better wheels. Plus, it's far from a single blind test - she knows which bike she's riding and I'm sure there's some bias sneaking in there.
So, at this point, looks like the Chiner isn't going to be much past "backup bike" status, although hopefully once I take care of the noisy brake issue I can get out on a ride with her and see if I spot anything.
-
Well that sounds like a win for a backup bike.
I was surprised you didn't opt for a FS bike like the .036 for a backup. Something different for the quiver. That would give her a French Creek and Alamuchy race bike while still being serviceable as a "backup" for other races.
But if she is the princess and the pea I guess nothing else will do.
I don't look forward to her kicking my ass on it.
-
Well that sounds like a win for a backup bike.
I was surprised you didn't opt for a FS bike like the .036 for a backup. Something different for the quiver. That would give her a French Creek and Alamuchy race bike while still being serviceable as a "backup" for other races.
But if she is the princess and the pea I guess nothing else will do.
I don't look forward to her kicking my ass on it.
Considered it - and haven't ruled it out - but figured that since she prefers the hardtail and the 041 has the same geometry, this would be a safer - and cheaper - bet.
Already have a 650b fork sitting in a box, and a rear shock that would fit the Chiner FS bikes - so it's still a possibility.
-
Full details here (http://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,951.msg10714.html#msg10714) but after only a couple rides under Grace and two under two of my friends who were interested in trying out MTB, this happened:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/EzKSTXj-LfnlJJU3xxwO5IYxov7NuetGBQLLHxenlOf3d0THakesGDu0BVc7Pa6lg46Rll-EPl3fk0h05NevbORtl-5DfxCyBdBkpUC02HXB8RVd7zwXLJjdbSVL-c09dJc3_sTnCI1-mmyiWQPQL-VEq4pUAuzxwh-FqHN3qmMttUxJtdv8Z9Tv-wgNM8Y8NMDF_udCzp4BmE1EDYW_3iOEKH_WJUpybt39c6wkW-8amPLPUcgGUWpo1BHz0ZOUQRN_qr0JFEF1aYH5nwrq4Kov0UpX1hi81HBLjjP2Dyq6ZDZzwJg9IJWztpGcXfcV7d2f0j8o1Ue71zcxXsJbc9UdA_ooEEgDqKa23SPJMzTzK8EOG4nxEbcCoQhu2QrHwl0nPdrDYLW70gGA1p-94scPrtWPOxw1COqRMV8JMWb5gKclDP4Ga7g34r7AurrvtjNaVlpK2ObxLHIGm2ClDjcm7GNEkZJ7ajW2JvskTbm1jfNQYz82blPpVfWUoE45RxeTSyvWeb6aVSlsNuU1f6R63BCY8veb8L3BlU7b_Y9MPbYrPVCWgyNIOsWTXF8t0XAHflkUdS3y6p7s88azL60ZEjIReUJQ=w1038-h778-no) (https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipNehA2Qft8xp7erDya_mwRRyl4A4HRVMyLTz10ezs0L2IK-cMmWZoQmpMm79teWGQ/photo/AF1QipOoOM8I1Utq_HCquBCSDI2Z4uY68eLzvjU1IqIf?key=cndBSTVKOW5ZWEQxRXZFdUtCUGk2Yzk3ZmYtM1JR)
This truly was a JRA - my buddy hasn't been MTB before and was literally just riding along on an extremely non-technical section of singletrack when there was a loud crack. Found the crack when I got home and checked - thought of it after reading dudliek's post about a crack in the same area on his CS-041 (http://chinertown.com/index.php/topic,951.0.html).
Considering all the issues with this frame, I am coming away supremely unimpressed, and am not sure what I want to do here. Get another 041 which is apparently a crap design? Get the 256 which has shown to have a weak spot in the rear wishbone? Just go with old faithful, the 057?
-
That sucks. They obviously need to re-think this design.
My vote is definitely for the .057 but I think she needs a .036 in the quiver.
-
That sucks. They obviously need to re-think this design.
My vote is definitely for the .057 but I think she needs a .036 in the quiver.
Oddly enough, her interest in another Chiner frame is nonexistant. Her Scott hardtail has seen trails that most folks would think require a long-travel trail bike, both east coast and west. This thing couldn't survive a couple light rides in Nox.