Hi, guys, following closely on this topic as this bike made my short list.

Understanding the difficulty of sourcing groupsets and parts, I think the full bike offering from Dengfu seems reasonable

So I got a few questions that I hope you guys can answer before I hit Dengfu
- Are the prices negotiable as with other Chinese sellers?
- I cannot find customized painting in their website.  Do they offer it?
- What about their hubs (Chosen)? They seem to have selected a CX model. I just don't want to service hubs after a wet ride, which is a complain with some hubs.

Schumo, beautiful pics. Where were they taken?  Question, what was the seat post length from the clamp to the bottom? May try to make some modifications.

I'm building the 177 as I type this LoL. So far there are tangible differences between my Dengfu R12 and VeloBuild 177:

1. The EPS latex molding that VeloBuild uses on the 177 makes a HUGE difference when routing cables though the frame. No rough edges for the cables to catch on.

2. Velobuild seems to have put more "thought and care" into frame accessibility for cable management.

3. Paint quality is good although no real world tests yet obviously. Granted I did paint my Dengfu at home, but the VeloBuild paint is obviously better.

4. Overall VeloBuild paid more attention to smaller details. Dealing with them felt more like they were actually bike enthusiasts rather than just a company wanting to sell me a generic frame.

My first impressions video on the 177 will be later this week. I'll keep everyone posted

Thank you guys for your input.

I'm doing the geometry check and I find the L very close to the "54" bike I had previously.

All lower measurements are almost identical:
Same chainstay (410), 2mm shorter Front-Centre (596 vs 598 in VBR177), BB drop is 69.5 vs 70,  same fork offset (45mm)

Angles are very similar: Head tube (73 both), Seat tube (73.5 vs 73.3)

Reach in my "54" bike is 391mm vs 395mm

The main difference is the head tube (170mm vs 155mm in VBR177) which yields to a higher stack in my old bike (570 vs 556) and explains the 4mm reach difference.
Am I wrong saying that the difference here comes down to one spacer?
---------------
Regarding the other bike (I don't have the geometry), I took manual measurements, giving longer seat tube, but slacker angle (~72)... Plus a shorter Head tube (160) gives a longer reach (I remeasured today at 405mm), The stack is actually 560mm.
I have ridden this 56 bike for 4 years.  I have played with the saddle position, it feels more aggressive, and have had 7hour rides on it.  But yeah, upon changing one to the other I feel the difference on the reach

----
The VB-R-177 M has significantly lower stack (536 vs 556), Reach is not compromised (392), so it has a smaller head tube (135mm) and the wheelbase is reduced.  The seat tube is also 20mm shorter.
Here I'm afraid I need more flexibility.

I'm going with the L

So, here is my version of VB-R-177.

Order placed in January, delayed by Chinese new year, procurement of spokes and hubs and a lockdown.

Custom paint and decals by Velobuild
Wheels are also from Velobuild (50mm), but customized with sapim CX ray spokes and Bitex 312 hubs
Groupset is all Shimano 105 hydraulic, with left crank PM (Xcadey)
Both rotors are SM-RT70-SS 140mm (also Shimano 105 series)
Tires are Conti GP5000 TL
Saddle is Selle Italia Flite FM Flow manganese rails

I didn't build it. I asked the LBS to do it for me as it.
They didn't report issues in the compression bolt, but did report misalignment in the front wheel brake caliper too, as well as they said it was the "wrong rotor".  I fixed both things:
- I flipped the caliper mount as per Shimano manual
- When aligning the caliper, I used the business card method, but also inserted a 6mm allen key between the rotor (closer to the hub) and the caliper mount, before tighten the lower screw.  The one on top I left it at 6Nm.