I don't think that Kocevelo parts being proprietary and rubbing are an issue with the also proprietary FSA parts. Mixing and matching parts like this is inadvisable without a clear plan and a lot of measuring. FSA is a good option for a lot of people because they make adapters in addition to their own stems and bars, and many Chinese companies will provide an FSA-compatible option, if asked, since FSA headsets are by far the most common ICR headset on the market (though ACROS appears to be gaining ground).

If we suggested common bearing sizes, we are still dealing with proprietary C-ring and headset covers that are designed to match.

Please enlighten me about the the common standards, but why do the LT bearings seem to work with the Kocevlo, Lightcarbon etc. spacers/compression rings but not the FSA ones? Is there a difference in standard concerning the inner camber of the top bearing? I tried to understand what I was doing when I was ordering Headset and Bars, but eventually gave up, since there is basically zero information about the slight differences there are.

No doubt, that 530€ is a bit steep for the LTWOO Groupset, but as discussed previously, even on AliX the electronic part of a 105 (STIs, FD, RD, Bat) is 700€ and Ultegra 900€. The 200/400€ price difference is still quite significant Id say.

Does anybody know what the matter is with 80DesignerStore charging 530€+114€ shipping for a ER9 group set without brakes? This isn't normal right? Might this be related to the changes in EU taxation?

The Toseek bar appears to come with a split ring. The question is--is it the right one? There are no specs for it, so you need to ask.

If you bought bearings with the frame, see if they match. In particular, you care about the ID and the chamfer. The bearing should list its size as either something like MR127 (which you can look up) or 40x52x7 (InnerDiameterxOuterDiameterxHeight in mm) and then 36x45 (InnerAnglexOuterAngle in degrees)

Just as GravelMaxxer I wonder about the Headset compatibility. I am about to order the FSA N55 Headset (36° inner Camber) and wondered if it will fit the split ring of most generic cockpits from AliX or if they usually use 45° camber instead for their split rings. Is there a defacto standard?

I use leese crankset with direct mount chainings which is the lightest option and does not require a spider and a ztto ultimate full steel cassette. Extremely happy with the setup

I am planning to go for a Leese crankset with the same chainrings as you together with an ER9 groupset on my new build. However there is basically no review of th Leese chainrings out there. I would appreciate a lot, if you could elaborate a bit how happy you are with this combination, especially the shift quality. Which chain are you using btw?

Hello,

I am in the course of selecting the parts for a LTK266 build using the Ltwoo ER9.

One of the parts where I will splurge a little bit, will be the crankset, for comparibly cheap weight savings.

It seems like the Leese Carbon Crankset with 24mm shaft (https://a.aliexpress.com/_EQ5sI2Q) seems to be a decent option.

Considering that cranksets with 4 hole mounts can look a bit unclean, I considered going with the Easton interface version. Another advantage would be, the availability of adapters to different mount systems.

Now my questions:
Is there a downside of getting a crank with an Easton interface?
And does anybody have experience with the 2x Easton Chainrings of Leese (https://a.aliexpress.com/_EvjXIdM). I really like their look and the seem to have a good price/weight ratio as well. However I was not able to find any proper reviews about them. However I read quite a bit about bad experience with chain rings that are not from Stone or PassQuest. Unfortunately those two manufacturers don't offer Easton 2x chainrings.
I am a bit afraid of ending up with bad shifting performance, especially since I am already mixing Chain, Derailleur, Cassette etc from different manufacturers.

Some advice and insight would be highly regarded.