I can start another thread about the Bigrock road frame, but curious to know if you had run across thoughts out there comparing the two.

I dont know if Waltly would do it, but you could ask for a 3d printed yoke or another machined design that allows for fully internal routing. The cost probably wouldnt be worth it though and upgrading to run a Sram AXS system might be cheaper.

https://road.cc/content/news/wiggle-reportedly-heading-towards-administration-304591

To answer the question, they are headed towards the equivalent of chapter 11 after their PE owner pulled their funding commitment. They likely need to clear inventory off the books to try and find a new source of funding. I would use a credit card you feel comfortable doing a chargeback on.

This is the part I have my eye on. Should be ~150g
https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/us/p/prime-primavera-x-light-pro-carbon-handlebar?color=black&roadHandlebarWidths=36cm

Woops. Hit send too quick.

Its not perfect in terms of what I am looking for but would love to add it to the list. Which frame is this?

If anyone can figure out who makes it (I doubt it's a fully custom frame), the Fezzari Veyo might fit the bill.  At retail, it's probably too expensive (though not bad as a full bike), but if you can find the mfr, it looks close!

https://fezzari.com/products/veyo

For some reason I thought Fezzari's were all closed molds , but also 32mm clearance.

At 32mm clearance, the road frame from Bigrock looks interesting. 730g. Light fork, seems like a nice blend of carbon. Dont love the downtube logo but otherwise seems interesting: https://item.taobao.com/item.htm?spm=a21n57.1.0.0.471d523cOdYnYL&id=722965987747&ns=1&abbucket=7#detail

Carbonda CFR 1056, i read it can handle a bit than more than the 32 claimed.
On this video () a guy runs with schwalbe g-one, probably the 35mm version.

Thanks an interesting suggestion. It doesnt meet my Stack or HTA requirements though. I also agree with @johnnyrabbit that clearance is also suspect.

I like rhinowalk saddlebags, risk titanium bolts, towild lights.

I dislike anything from og-evkin.

Any thoughts on RISK vs. Wanyifa bolts? I have had the latter in my cart for while.

Interesting take on the pulley wheels; I'm using a pair of cheap alloy ones with ceramic bearings on both my mountain bikes (one SRAM GX and one Microshift Advent X derailleur). No problems with either of them and they look great. Have been using them for a few months now. I'd rate them as decent value but mostly an aesthetic upgrade.

I am pretty hard on my bikes. Ridden in the rain and mud then hosed down with one of those Muc Off pressure washers, ive trashed a few sets of stock sram jockey wheels as well. I only have sram groups at this point so the ones with 689 bearings use reducers. Between those reducers, the shields, and the questionable quality of the bearings there is a lot of play. They also died really quickly.

Kogel is pretty average IMO regarding bearings but their design work is good and the 688 bearing size has a lot of great bearings available for it. Eventually the plan is to swap these out for Enduro XD-15 bearings. Curious to see if they really are a tough as their reputation.

I can recommend the 70mm long version from Deda Elementi. Not available in the US though, IIRC.

Also, it’s not only about having support against the clamping force of the stem. Most shorter expanders provide this as well as the stem obviously sits on top of the steerer and has a stack height of max 40mm. It’s also about providing stability against the bending forces that occur when going over bumps or pulling on the bars. Ideally, if your frame is the correct size and you’re not using a humongous tower of spacers underneath the stem, the expander will protrude all the way or almost until the upper headset bearing. This provides maximum stability.

This for instance is also why Specialized provided super long expanders in their Tarmac SL7 recall. The steerer movement under load meant that the compression ring of the upper headset ate into the carbon steerer until it snapped. The new expander limits this. In my opinion this issue is not isolated to the Tarmac SL7. It’s a problem of internal cable routing designs per se.

The end result is correct, a longer plug is helpful. The reason why isn't correct. It's sort of off topic, but it's worth thinking about in the name of safety of internal routing systems. I've been working on trying to make <2mm over bearing options possible (largely for my own use) and it's really hard because of what's involved and the potential risks of not getting it right.

The majority of the bending forces are borne by the carbon tube. Carbon is exceptionally good at managing loads like that and the expander is fit via a very small amount of friction. It's not going to do a whole lot in terms of keeping that tube rigid and preventing bending. What it does do is that it prevents the carbon tube from shearing locally as it preloads the carbon tube.

Historically a long expander wasn't as critical because the steerer made contact with the compression ring nearly 360 degrees and was held relatively tight against the upper bearing. Even if you lost preload and the bending got worse, the typical symptom was your steerer developing the "ring of death." This meant eventual failure but more often than not seems to be spotted before it led to an accident when riders checked on chronically loose headsets.

The SL7 failures also start with the loss of headset preload. This causes three things to happen. First the bending moment increases exponentially, second the steerer is now facing local impacts against the compression spacer which in the SL7s case was a relatively small surface area part, third the steerer can get worn via movement against the metal spacer and because of the design of that spacer would rapidly develop the "ring of death." These three meant that fork failures happened much faster than on other bikes. The SL7 fix therefore needed to address all three: improved plug, extension hanging off the bottom to limit the effect of those impacts, and a metal ring to be a new wear surface and further distribute forces around the steerer

This is less of a problem for other systems like the FSA ACR because their compression plugs use a different design that's heavier but less likely to lead to preload loss and their C ring has more contact area. Its even less of a problem for the current gen Deda DCR because it uses a nylon spacer that will wear the carbon less and it's designed to fit tightly to the steerer. It's also 15mm deep which has even more contact area.

With all of these systems you should check them every few thousand miles or so even if you have never had any issues with preload to look for wear. If your headset can't hold preload, I would chuck it and replace it with either the FSA or Deda system that fits.

TLDR: Headset preload is more important than ever. Don't ride with a loose headset. Using a high quality insert / expander will certainly help!

Short answer: It kind of can be done, but you'd need rather special road cranks for it. The issue is not chainring size; it's cranks being generally weird.

At the absolute minimum chainline position, there is space for a 46 or 47 t chainring no problem. The issue is not chainring size, but that there is virtually zero lateral space between the ring and the stay. Meaning, you'd need a crank with the spider offset to the right side of the chainring. That may sound very trivial from an engineering standpoint ... because it totally is. But being bound by what you can buy off the shelf, you're now basically looking at frankensteining together a very custom crankset from modular crank parts. Or having stuff machined. Or go very wide (which nobody wants, because it sucks ass, in a bad way).

I see, that's another tradeoff that I wouldn't make. It would change the chainline and again violate the frame fit specs from the groupset manufacturers even for 1x. At shorter chainstays you have even less margin of error to play with in that respect. You have a min 395mm CS length to be compatible anyway. IME violating the frame guidelines quickly degrades shifting quality and leads to dropped chains, ghost shifting and all sorts of fun.

For a single speed setup like in the photo; sure it doesnt matter and it looks like it would be an interesting bike to ride.