Lightcarbon: LCR018-D (endurance all-road)

[casper.f]

Finally my build is complete.
Pretty happy with results, I think it looks pretty sweet. I hope I get it fully try out on the road tomorrow. I hope that it rides as good as it looks .

Size 58, 400x130mm handlebars specs.
Saddle height on photos (bb-top of saddle) 820mm (another 2cm available to min insertion line), drop between saddle and top of handlebars is 10.5cm with 15mm of spacers.

Weight is 8.5kg with pedals, varia radar and elemnt bolt (like it is on photos) witch is something like 300g lighter than my Aeroad with same config, I doubt I will be able to feel that, but that was pleasant surprise

Those logos on rims and frame are made out of reflective material so it has nice "glowing" effect out on sun.

Love the build, love the weight
(Looking at a black 58+105 Di2 myself)

I dug a little deeper in your build but found one concerning specification:
The tyre width on your rims:
Your run Michelin Pro 5  F32mm/R35mm on 28mm internal right?

Michelin states a range of internal rim witdh of 16-25 for the PRO5 32mm tyres
and a range of internal rim witdh of 17-27 for the PRO5 35mm tyres

These recommendations are based on ETRTO

Source:https://dgaddcosprod.blob.core.windows.net/b2c-experience-production/attachments/cm9qnyggr0be401ocfimmhwg6-2024-12-bicycle-michelin-2025-dealer-book-brochure-digital-pages-a4-master-196-201.pdf

Altough these tyres seat fine in the driveway, i personally wouldnt trust these in high speed decents.

[KRoser]

Rebel_Yell: Yes, those are LightCarbon HBR17 handlebars

casper.f: Yes, you are right with my setup and I know it is not exactly per recommendations, but since those rims have normal hooks and Iam running latex tubes Iam not worried at all about safety. I was running GP5000 30mm with latex tubes on 28mm internal rim width for whole season with no problems.

I think i would not risk it with tubeless thou.

[POTOOOOOOOO]

I’ve over 3000k on a 35mm pro5 on a 32mm internal.
Apparently I’m not dead, and they’re a struggle to dismount from a hooked rim.

Frankly ETRTO is mostly aimed at beginners using hookless.

[casper.f]

Glad neither of you has had issues so far, but dismissing ETRTO as a guide for beginners overlooks its role as the independent, well-funded body that sets global engineering standards for bicycle safety. Their regulations stem from rigorous industrial testing and massive R&D budgets rather than anecdotal success.

Two positive stories do not override technical regulations. It follows the same logic as a lifelong smoker arguing that cigarettes are harmless simply because they are still breathing.

I am not looking to convince either of you to change your tires, as that is not my goal. However, my concern is that rookies might read these posts and think that ignoring safety standards is the norm. Experience doesn't alter the physics of high-speed impacts or the mechanical limits of the materials you are riding.

The 50-gram penalty and slight increase in frontal area is a trade I would take every day if it means complying with ETRTO standards.

[POTOOOOOOOO]

I put over 3 decades of ridding experience and my own protocols above an extremely flawed “standard”.

ETRTO is for those who lack common sense and ignore pressure rather than width. Specifically with hookless, but hooked got lumped in there too.

I’m sure as you’re such an expert on the matter, you’ll be aware of Josh Poertner , his position within the ETRTO and what he chooses to run himself.

It’s important to remember they are flawed guidelines, and not rules. Choose to follow them or not, I really don’t care, but  flagging them as “concerning” 😀 that’s just dramatic.

My comments are aimed squarely at hooked rims and not hookless. Hookless has always been a stupid system and will hopefully die away and be quickly forgotten.

[casper.f]

I put over 3 decades of ridding experience and my own protocols above an extremely flawed “standard”.

You still sound like a lifelong smoker, arguing cigarettes are arent harmfull.

I’m sure as you’re such an expert on the matter, you’ll be aware of Josh Poertner , his position within the ETRTO and what he chooses to run himself.

I am not an expert, the people at ETRTO are.
I am aware of Josh Poertner. But citing an expert to dismiss safety standards is like saying, "my doctor smokes, so it must be fine." Even experts take calculated risks they wouldn't recommend as a universal baseline for the general public.

Choose to follow them or not, I really don’t care, but  flagging them as “concerning” 😀 that’s just dramatic.

"Concerning" is actually a very conservative word choice. I’m not saying it's lethal: I’m pointing out a mechanical mismatch.

It’s important to remember they are flawed guidelines, and not rules

Yes these are guidelines with high probability of some safety margin baked in. If you have any better safety standards that aren't just bro science, please let me know. Until there is a proven alternative, I will keep advocating for ETRTO, especially in a forum where there also are newcomers who might not realize they are trading structural integrity for a few marginal aero gains.

I'm sorry if I overuse the smoking analogy, but it's the most accurate way I can think of to describe why "it hasn't failed me yet" isn't the same thing as a system being technically safe.

[POTOOOOOOOO]

You still sound like a lifelong smoker, arguing cigarettes are arent harmfull.
I am not an expert, the people at ETRTO are.
I am aware of Josh Poertner. But citing an expert to dismiss safety standards is like saying, "my doctor smokes, so it must be fine." Even experts take calculated risks they wouldn't recommend as a universal baseline for the general public.
"Concerning" is actually a very conservative word choice. I’m not saying it's lethal: I’m pointing out a mechanical mismatch.

Yes these are guidelines with high probability of some safety margin baked in. If you have any better safety standards that aren't just bro science, please let me know. Until there is a proven alternative, I will keep advocating for ETRTO, especially in a forum where there also are newcomers who might not realize they are trading structural integrity for a few marginal aero gains.

I'm sorry if I overuse the smoking analogy, but it's the most accurate way I can think of to describe why "it hasn't failed me yet" isn't the same thing as a system being technically safe.

We’re adults. We can do whatever you like.
I’ll continue to enjoy riding the 11 bikes I currently own which all adhere to my own strict safety standards.

Please review ETRTO as an organisation in full, and their lack of clout in the industry. There is still a massive variation in 700c tyres and rims as they’ve achieved very little in unifying the industry which is why we still have super tight, and very loose tyres.

It’s far more important for an individual to test their own tyre and rim combinations for themselves, rather than rely solely upon a fake standard.

Technically a Panaracer tyre can be ETRTO width compliant, but I would never use one because they’re baggy on the majority of rims, and don’t remain seated when deflated.

In your world that’s a safe combination because ETRTO said so. In reality, it’s absolutely not safe.

You do as you wish.

[casper.f]

[jstrawks]

Has anyone here requested and received logos under clear lacquer?

[Reyltz]

Has anyone here requested and received logos under clear lacquer?

I thought that was standard practice, as I had specifically asked about it, and Jim told me, ‘The logo is located beneath the surface paint, so replacing it requires grinding off the paint.’

[Reyltz]

I appreciate the effort you're putting in and I've seen your videos, but I'm still shocked by your limited technical knowledge and remain convinced that you've chosen the wrong size frame 🙄

Therefore, I unfortunately expect little that is truly interesting or informative from the video, and rather a lot of trivial and irrelevant content 😬

But that's just my personal feeling 🤷🏻‍♂️

First of all, thank you @zealot128 for the effort you put into your videos and for sharing these insights - most of us genuinely appreciate the work behind them (as I do)
That said, criticism should be specific, respectful, and fact-based. Framing a dismissive or disparaging remark as a “personal feeling” does not make it constructive, nor does it excuse its tone. Questioning someone’s competence or dismissing their work in advance, without engaging with the actual content, adds little to a meaningful discussion.
I am particularly surprised that such a comment comes from a very active member of this thread, and that it remains online even in its revised form.

[palanski]

Here are the results of my unscientific poll.



Jim from LightCarbon, I implore you to get involved here if you can. I will be messaging Wendy with this information in the coming days.

Here is the latest exchange with Wendy and my reply after I collected some poll responses

[jstrawks]

Well done.

[jstrawks]

I thought that was standard practice, as I had specifically asked about it, and Jim told me, ‘The logo is located beneath the surface paint, so replacing it requires grinding off the paint.’

It would take some digging through this thread but I seem to recall someone observing that their logos were on top of the clear lacquer. I'd be pleased to be mistaken about this.

[jstrawks]

Couldn't resist ripping it all open to get a quick look - the raw carbon finish has exceeded my expectations, its beautiful!
Hard to photograph the effect, but took a few snaps to try and show it off.
The frame looks to be finished to a very high standard - and I love the little storage door!
One tiny point is the decals are on top of the lacquer, I would have preferred beneath for a lovely smooth finish and no chance of getting them damaged, but its only a small point.
Overall im delifghted and can't wait to get it built up.

This is the post that mentions decals on top of the lacquer.