Speeder Cycling SC-R55D

[bclem05]

Hi, I’m slowly building my frame up but struggling to figure out how to install the shimano di2 battery. Any tips or is there a battery retention mechanism I’m missing?

Thank you

[getmekd]

Hi, I’m slowly building my frame up but struggling to figure out how to install the shimano di2 battery. Any tips or is there a battery retention mechanism I’m missing?

Thank you

You clamp it in the seatpost with the clamp you got, similar to this https://www.ebay.com/itm/389512002262

[bclem05]

Thank you getmekd, i set the clamp off to the side and totally forgot about it.

[Specialf.]

Looks similar to rose xlite

looks nice, has anyone asked the price yet?

[inv]

This frame is very similar to the gravel Twitter v3 in this image.

I didn’t see the gravel Twitter, I saw the road one. I can definitely say that this is a completely different machine

[dmt4500]

this is a completely different machine

Looking back at it, you're definitely right. Seat tube is much less flat and no sort of win fin. I was mainly looking at the headtube as my original observation.

[patliean1]

Question for the experts: How consequential is wheelbase length?

All of my bikes over the years have had a wheelbase between 995 and 1005mm. To me, I've always assumed wheelbase played a large role in how the bike corners and how stable it is at faster speeds or descending.

A size 56 (in reality a 58) in this frame is interesting. Stack of 583, reach of 406, and a front center of 620. No BBC stem required and no worries about toe overlap. The only red flags in my very amateur opinion are the the 73° seat tube angle and 1020mm wheelbase. No details on the standover height either.

Would the super long wheelbase feel like a boat or SUV? Even the size 535 could work too with a 130mm stem and 20mm of stack

Thanks in advance.

[Dark17]

In my MTB experience, I had a shorter wheelbase Giant XTC (alu) and it's much better at handling compared to a longer wheelbase Storck (carbon). At straight downhills, I feel more confident with my Storck, but I had a better experience on trails with my Giant XTC since I can clear the twitchy single tracks without any effort compared to my Storck. Switchbacks are also easier with my Giant XTC. In short, handling on slow speeds will can affect on how short or long your wheelbase is and it is much easier to navigate twitchy tracks compared to bike with long wheelbase. On higher speeds, longer wheelbase rules since it will be more stable compared to shorter wheelbase.

[Serge_K]

I will never miss an opportunity to give my opinion on topics on which i'm unqualified.
# enough with experts
# math is racist
# punctuality is oppression.

afaik, geometry table metrics all exist for a reason
The rear triangle matters (in this context, especially chainstay length). BB to fork / headtube angle matters. And so, wheelbase matters. As well as BB drop because if you sit very low to the ground, or very high, things obviously differ.
And ofc you have the question of how the rider is perched on top of that. if you're super fwd, that's going to impact how the bike feels. In fact, the modern over the BB position raises questions around downhill handling.

An analogy comes to mind: the Terminator 2 motorbike, and the gang bikes that have even weirder front ends. Idk if these bikes have longer wheelbases overall, but they obviously place the rider differently, and the front end could hardly be less nimble.

I hope this was as inconclusive as i feel it is


Edit. case in point from .
"And while usually those are characteristics that you would find on an endurance bike, this bike is paired with 410 millimeter long chain stays, and bear in mind, that is the same length of chain stay that you'll find on an S-Works Tarmac. So, I was finding that when I was jumping out of the saddle and I was going for a sprint and I was attacking, the back felt really, really good. It really followed you and it felt tight, and it felt nippy and whippy, it felt really, really good to get out of the saddle and give it an effort. Equally, the front end complemented it quite well because it's a little bit slacker, it felt really stable and predictable."
See screenshot: race bike chainstays, slacker headtube / longer front-center / longer wheelbase. Wheelbase alone doesnt tell the whole picture.

[Sakizashi]

Question for the experts: How consequential is wheelbase length?

All of my bikes over the years have had a wheelbase between 995 and 1005mm. To me, I've always assumed wheelbase played a large role in how the bike corners and how stable it is at faster speeds or descending.

A size 56 (in reality a 58) in this frame is interesting. Stack of 583, reach of 406, and a front center of 620. No BBC stem required and no worries about toe overlap. The only red flags in my very amateur opinion are the the 73° seat tube angle and 1020mm wheelbase. No details on the standover height either.

Would the super long wheelbase feel like a boat or SUV? Even the size 535 could work too with a 130mm stem and 20mm of stack

Thanks in advance.

In isolation wheelbase isnt that important. Mostly longer wheel base has a larger turning diameter thats it.

In terms of an overall bikes design, it’s a variable that drives stability, so longer wheelbase + slack HTA + High BB will make for a very stable bike. They contribute in slightly different ways but the thing you want to avoid is having a bike thats so stable that you are exiting the stable condition at higher speeds when there is more energy in the system. You either want to enter the stable condition and stay there or enter the stable condition and exit it early enough that you dont risk getting speed wobbles.

IMO, more important than any one variable is how weight is distributed; but thats both a fit and a bike geo thing.

The current meta is a slightly relaxed HTA and longer bike for weight distribution in the aero position + a lower BB to balance the handling.