Author Topic: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame  (Read 25853 times)

Serge_K

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #225 on: April 17, 2024, 06:46:10 AM »
Norcal style "aero testing" is a waste of time

Very constructive comment, i guess you didn't pick your username randomly.

jcr

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #226 on: April 17, 2024, 06:53:39 AM »
How do people like the Mavic speed release and wheel compatibility?

RasmusWH

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #227 on: April 17, 2024, 06:57:00 AM »
How do people like the Mavic speed release and wheel compatibility?

There should not be any wheel compatibility problems with Mavic Speedrelease as the axle dimensions are equal to normal thru axles. That said I was very close to getting the 168 in stead just to get rid of it.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2024, 07:04:40 AM by RasmusWH »

Benbenben

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #228 on: April 17, 2024, 07:40:48 AM »
What a beauty, really gorgeous looking bike.

How was mounting the calipers? Well faced? Also gone er9 on mine, you use the included adapters or did you need to buy a separate set?


Thank you! I used the adapters that came with the er9. 140mm rear. That might be why I don't have clearance issues. However, no space on that frame to tighten/loosen the rear caliper to bracket bolt for er9. Once it's on the frame, I can only access the lower bolt. That was enough for me to get proper alignment.

No rubbing on brakes. I managed to align the calipers without any further actions on the frame.

patliean1

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #229 on: April 17, 2024, 10:31:40 AM »
Using the same wheels, could you do a NorCal kind of video on a loop you know well, swapping 2 or 3 bikes? You have to use the same wheels for any credible kind of comparison. Your times would be interesting, but equally interesting would be your impression.
I take issue with the "because it's 500usd it can never compete with a 1500usd frame", given the 268 is t800&1000, EPS moulded, proven geometry & shape: it's latest best practice afaik. Now yoeleo or the likes are, afaik, just taking oem frames and branding them for a premium, just less of a premium than western brands. Having looked at their specs sheet, manufacturing methods, reputation for QC, the reason why I don't buy them is because I don't see that my money would go into the frame.
I'd like to be proven wrong, because I can afford to pay 1500 for a frame, or 5000 for that matter, but i care about relative value.
Last, i saw you have a colnago video, any chance you would test ride that with your own wheels for comparison?
Colnago Vs velobuild video would break the internet :D

Based on the hundreds of messages I received over the years, the typical viewer of my channel isn't looking for VeloBuild to be an equal alternative to one of the major brands. What they want is assurance their money won't be stolen, and that their collarbones won't be broken from a random catastrophic failure. Basically is the frame good enough all things considered. I try to keep my videos light-hearted and sensible. Save engineering and race opinions for the engineers and racers.

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is human nature. Whether VeloBuild or Specialized, we all want to believe we've made the best purchase. No harm in that.

toxin

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #230 on: April 17, 2024, 10:50:29 AM »
Very constructive comment, i guess you didn't pick your username randomly.

I've explained how it's bad like 5 times, cba for a 6th so just look at peak torque or dan bigham with ineos
« Last Edit: April 17, 2024, 10:54:55 AM by toxin »

Sakizashi

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #231 on: April 17, 2024, 12:07:52 PM »
I don't really get worked up by "testing" that norcal does. He doesnt make scientific claims and seems to just be making videos about the testing that he does to try and decide what equipment he is going to run. He even says stuff like "i think i get better traction over crappy roads on wider tires and therefore for my riding ____ is the best for me." Is that theoretically valid argument? No. Grip on an ideal surface is only a function of normal force and CRR, contact patch has nothing to do with it. In the real world is he right? Maybe?

Reality is that this stuff is really complicated and trying to create repeatable results that are distinct enough to make an unqualified claim is hard even with better experimental design and better instrumentation. You hear that from Peak Torque now too in the way he discusses results. Its a change from a few years ago despite his experimental design and instrumentation being among the best of the popular you tubers.

This is a very long winded way of saying that I think experiences are still worth sharing and discussing even if they aren't "scientific" as long as you acknowledge the limitations of your insights.

trytogo

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #232 on: April 17, 2024, 01:07:14 PM »
Based on the hundreds of messages I received over the years, the typical viewer of my channel isn't looking for VeloBuild to be an equal alternative to one of the major brands. What they want is assurance their money won't be stolen, and that their collarbones won't be broken from a random catastrophic failure. Basically is the frame good enough all things considered. I try to keep my videos light-hearted and sensible. Save engineering and race opinions for the engineers and racers.

Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance is human nature. Whether VeloBuild or Specialized, we all want to believe we've made the best purchase. No harm in that.

9:10 in the video - "If you are expecting a $500 frame to compete with a 1000-1500 dollar frameset" Why not? As serge points out Latex moulding, t800/t1000 build up. Evolution of a frame that was well regarded to be punching above its price point anyway.

"If you're looking for a frameset to compete with a winspace or Yoleo, this is not it." Why not? In what regard and how do you know on your first ride?

Section at 9.46: " How does it feel in relation to 168 and 177?" Your builds are completely different, with too many non-standardized parts to differentiate between the frames. Esp on the 68, which is essentially the same geometry

"It's def stiffer than 168." Maybe so with the layup and tube size changes but again different bars, wheels, etc

"More refined" Again, different wheels, bars, tyres

On constructive note, I like the sections with how the build goes, the ordering process, the finishing quality, the service etc that's all really useful and as you say useful in letting people know that these companies are producing very good products.

The non-committal reviewer speak "caveatinging" dubious statements is a huge minus in the vids though.

I don't know what the solution is, honestly; many many people are seeing through all these BS cycle reviews at this point, they are sick and tired of it. These channels are kind of at a crossroads (GCN even seems to be completely swerving reviewing bikes at this point). Your going to get smashed for being to positive or negative or being to safe especially with the current statements and methodology but I and I doubt anyone else is accusing you of shilling like some of the others.  For me I'd be happy to just watch you showcase of these builds, let us know the ordering process, the issues, the finishing, comfort (position geometry) and build etc The builds look beautiful in your vids and the filming and sound is also great.

Frames are the trickiest but don't stop featuring them, i don't think anyone expects you to set up the frames with exact same components and A/B test them, your not a science based tester or someone who pretends to be so and its def not practical for a small channel to build bikes that ways (sucks the fun right out of builds). For frames hold off on the unquantifiable statements I highlighted above and more on that showcase of the product or comment on "this build" and caveat it with stiffness, aero etc is an amalgamation of the parts. For wheels, tyres, bars, tape, seats etc they can be popped on and off one designated test bike to provide a more standardised testing platform with more objective observations which I would enjoy hearing.




patliean1

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #233 on: April 17, 2024, 03:24:36 PM »
Thanks for the support yall. I appreciate the input over the years.

toxin

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #234 on: April 17, 2024, 05:32:52 PM »
I think that learning if the price is worth the headache is way more important for these bikes than aero testing or whatever and you do a pretty great job of that

Benbenben

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #235 on: April 17, 2024, 08:57:06 PM »
Test rode the bike today. Feels great so far. Only issue that came from the ride is the fork plug seems to have moved a bit. I had headset play during 2nd half of the ride.

 I did install a longer plug  (same design as VB supplied but 50mm) and tighten it down to 9 NM. I am surprised that it moved.

Do you guys also add carbon fiber grip paste? What torque do you put so that it does not move? I would like to know what you guys do to make sure it is secured in the fork.

RasmusWH

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #236 on: April 17, 2024, 11:14:32 PM »
Test rode the bike today. Feels great so far. Only issue that came from the ride is the fork plug seems to have moved a bit. I had headset play during 2nd half of the ride.

 I did install a longer plug  (same design as VB supplied but 50mm) and tighten it down to 9 NM. I am surprised that it moved.

Do you guys also add carbon fiber grip paste? What torque do you put so that it does not move? I would like to know what you guys do to make sure it is secured in the fork.

Some people had similar problems with the 168 (se the post on the 168-thread from september 16, 2023) - but the solution was to add a microspacer (1 mm perhaps) between the frame and lowest spacer (the one that fits the frame and also comes painted as the frame), to get a better compression. I think the problem may be that the spacer touches the frame more than the bearing and elevating it 1 mm from the frame solves that. 
« Last Edit: April 17, 2024, 11:35:38 PM by RasmusWH »

hazzer19

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #237 on: April 17, 2024, 11:16:53 PM »
How do people like the Mavic speed release and wheel compatibility?


so far so good for me. I have the two axles on my 268 and one extra that lives on the trainer for ease. The front comes on and off really easy and quick. The back is also not bad but I find that I need to pull it out a bit after it finished unthreading to get it off but no big deal. Highly recommend getting a spare for the trainer as I personally wouldn't like having to pull the whole thing in and out to mount to a trainer as it takes a bit of push to insert the axle for the first time but easy once it's set.


First impression video is live.

My VeloBuild 268 Is FINISHED - First Ride Impressions
https://youtu.be/-we6CsAEaQY?si=f13auTeXKcUV-wwR



Awesome build and videos as usual Patty!

Easyfunk

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #238 on: April 17, 2024, 11:25:37 PM »
Test rode the bike today. Feels great so far. Only issue that came from the ride is the fork plug seems to have moved a bit. I had headset play during 2nd half of the ride.

 I did install a longer plug  (same design as VB supplied but 50mm) and tighten it down to 9 NM. I am surprised that it moved.

Do you guys also add carbon fiber grip paste? What torque do you put so that it does not move? I would like to know what you guys do to make sure it is secured in the fork.

I had the same problem with the expander that VB provided an a similar but longer one. I then bought the SL7 replica expander and tightened it to 8nm using carbon paste. Now it is fixed, no play at all after 1000km with bad roads and some cobblestones. I would suggest to try this route, because you were able to build it without play at first. Not to mention that a micro spacer with head set play might eat up the fork very fast.

« Last Edit: April 17, 2024, 11:27:26 PM by Easyfunk »

jcr

Re: VeloBuild VB-R-268 frame
« Reply #239 on: April 17, 2024, 11:34:11 PM »
There should not be any wheel compatibility problems with Mavic Speedrelease as the axle dimensions are equal to normal thru axles. That said I was very close to getting the 168 in stead just to get rid of it.

I was reading that if a wheelset that was 12mm and 15mm compatible (by changing the end cap) then the Speed release might be an issue but maybe that is less common of an issue for road wheels.