Author Topic: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail  (Read 20043 times)

grebnet

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2016, 09:06:32 AM »
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 .

cmh

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #31 on: February 22, 2016, 11:56:03 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.

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.

maui400

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #32 on: February 23, 2016, 08:31:50 AM »
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.

Carbon_Dude

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #33 on: February 23, 2016, 12:24:13 PM »
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.
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 #34 on: February 24, 2016, 09:19:29 AM »
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 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.

maui400

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #35 on: February 24, 2016, 10:07:54 AM »
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.

cmh

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #36 on: February 24, 2016, 10:55:51 AM »
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.


Measuring the width of the seat stays behind the seat tube:



This is probably the most telling, showing almost a full inch to either side of the seat tube:


A couple more photos available on my CS-041 album.

cmh

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #37 on: February 24, 2016, 11:12:18 AM »
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?

RS VR6

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #38 on: February 24, 2016, 04:46:14 PM »
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.

cmh

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #39 on: February 24, 2016, 06:05:20 PM »
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 27.2 - 240g, 31.6 - 254.

Enve carbon straight 400mm 27.2 - 205g, 31.6 - 210g.

KCNC SE Pro Lite AL75 Offset 350mm 27.2 - 211g, 31.6 - 226g

RaceFace NextSL 400mm 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.

Carbon_Dude

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #40 on: February 24, 2016, 07:38:20 PM »
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.
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

RS VR6

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #41 on: February 24, 2016, 08:06:20 PM »
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 27.2 - 240g, 31.6 - 254.

Enve carbon straight 400mm 27.2 - 205g, 31.6 - 210g.

KCNC SE Pro Lite AL75 Offset 350mm 27.2 - 211g, 31.6 - 226g

RaceFace NextSL 400mm 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.

cmh

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #42 on: February 24, 2016, 08:10:25 PM »
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!

TANDELL

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #43 on: February 26, 2016, 04:23:07 AM »
glad to know so many cyclist support and love carbon bike products made in China
Chinese Carbon Bike Parts
www.tandellbikes.com

DirtyForks

Re: My wife's CS-041 29er hardtail
« Reply #44 on: March 09, 2016, 10:48:52 AM »
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