Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - xenograft

Pages: [1]
1
I actually emailed them about price when i saw the thread...
US$719 /set including frame/fork/seat clamp/SP18 seat post+headset+spacers+storage bag+front&rear thru-axles +integrated bar/stem HBR18.
Shippingf to me in Sweden was quoted $153, and regarding paint:
https://www.lightcarbon.com/decal-painting_n43
Standard Pantone & YS color painting:US$120/set 1/color ; US$140/set/2 colors ;US$160/set/3 colors ;
Chameleon :  US$140/set / color; US$160/set/2 colors; US$180/set/3 colors ;
Crystal effect painting :  US$180/set / color; US$200/set/2 colors; US$220/set/3 colors

I really hope this frame clears 54mm WAM tires..

curious if they mentioned a timeline on when the frame would be ready?

2
Ive heard there are problems with running too many spacers. What those problems are I dont know but Ive heard to just size up vs adding more and more spacers. For the folks who dont need a ton of reach that gets tough.

I do feel like frame builders should just offer different geometries. IMO stuff like the 130mm stem Im running shouldnt be so popular. Frames just need to be a little longer. Sizing up doesnt even help as the next size of my frame only has 10mm more reach and a 15mm longer TT, which I feel like gets eaten up by the fact that I will be running the seatpost much shorter. I really need my frame with like 30-35mm more reach to run a "normal" stem length.

I think he meant handlebar/stem solutions such as integrated bars with rise (like tavelo, lightcarbon), or more slack angles, -7 vs -17 for example. As an added convenience of one piece stems, some you can just flip to get the positive angle, even up to 35 degrees for example.

3
A 15mm offset seat post combined with pushing your saddle back 20mm would be an apparent STA of approx. 71° to 72° when starting from 74°. Unfortunate as moving away from round seatposts means this is entirely dependent on the frame manufacturer or expensive bespoke solutions.

4
I use a different calculator. Two actually, but they’re are already plenty out there.

Its a good call to validate using parallel methods. If you share, I'd be happy to try them as well if they are free. Of course comparing frame geo is the starting point, I'm just trying to help him dial in the components. The assumption is just that he also has a 10mm bearing cap on his current bike.


 I am simply trying to validate his belief that the contact points will be similar between his current fit and a size 58 LC, provided he goes with the 100m front stem, handlebar angle on his current fit being the same as the HBR17. It is just nice to have a calculator that can account for frame and component geometry, that is also free  :)

I'd ignore the LC height recommendation if he has a current fit as the starting point.

5
Add 18mm to the stack of the 18d for the bars and mandatory spacer - then add 20mm of stack for the spacers. With a head angle of 72.5 it brings the bars towards the rider.

There is a separate field for the handlebar rise. The assumption is that both fits will have a 10mm headset cap so that is already account for in the calculations. I have also inputted 20mm of spacers for both fits.

Both frames also have nearly identical headtube angles (72.5 vs 72.6). But you also input the headtube angle into the tool for the handlebar x and y calculations.

You can play around with it here: https://bikefitr-3af15.web.app

Of course different components and spacers will change up the calculations, but you should be able to account for nearly all of it.


6
Wow, what a detailed comparison! Where can I find this tool?

Regards

I made it for my personal use, but glad you found the comparison helpful! Happy to share here: https://bikefitr-3af15.web.app

7
The bars have 8mm of stack and the bearing cap has 10mm, so that makes the reach of both frame within 1 or 2mm of each other. (Can’t be bothered to do the actual calculation)
If he keeps 20mm of additional spacers, the stem should remain 110mm

based on his post, i have to assume his current setup has -7 handlebars like LC since he didnt specify. otherwise the comparison is different. 100mm front stem would be closer to account for the reach difference in the bike geo (8mm longer reach on the LC)

8
I shoud have mentioned this: I did - extensively.

For exapmple my current bike:
https://bikeinsights.com/compare?geometries=5d73cc4852f5c300177f105a,69cf428f8679c1001a45a7dc&builds=69f3b5bbc34bfe001b0889a2

Can/should I trust this agreement 100%? I am simply scared of the "194 - 199cm" LC assigns to their 58er frame  :-\

Keep in the mind the Lightcarbon handlebars have 8mm of rise. So same spacers/front stem, the lightcarbon actually has a higher handlebar contact point that is not reflected in the frame stack.

The 8mm difference in reach can be accounted for with a shorter front stem on the lightcarbon as well.

9
Just ordered their carbon rims for $140 USD including shipping to Canada taking advantage of ali may holiday sale. 25mm internal wide/32mm external wide UV shape 65mm deep.

Required thorough communication with the seller to confirm spoke length for internal hidden nipples. They suggested +8mm for my case from the calculated spoke length.

560g per rim for the standard weight with steel spokes is going to be a 1700g wheelset :'( but seller suggested standard weight for durability.

Definitely only for flat crits, but not many 25mm internal wide 65mm deep wheelsets in the 400 to 450 USD range.

10
I installed SRAM BB (DUB T47 Road Bottom Bracket 85.5mm) with SRAM Force E1 2x crankset. Using 3mm spacer that came with BB, my non-drive side has bit of too much empty space. There is no play and I could not move it sideways. Plastic ring is maxed out, and it jumps if tightened more.

Torqued crankset to 54 Nm according to guide. Did I mis something or just need to order extra spacer?

Is there a chance you are using a wide crankset? You shouldn't, since you mentioned 2x, but for DUB non-wide it is just the 3mm spacer. See SRAM spec chart (page 2): https://www.sram.com/globalassets/document-hierarchy/compatibility-map/road/dub-choose-a-road-bottom-bracket-compatibility-map.pdf

11
Gloss clear over carbon.

Over the years I’ve stripped 14 frames down to bare carbon and re clear coated them.
It’s always been my thing, so it was the only choice I was interested in.
Plus it’s lighter and less expensive.

I personally hate logos, or any writing on my frames so it’s as bare as they come.

What size did you go with? If its 52, then we went for the same finish, gloss raw carbon. Please do post photos as well because I don't think anyone has shared these exact specs yet.

12
Finally placed my order after lurking since pre-production, going with size 52 raw glossy finish.

Additional lead time for customizations so will be 50 - 60 days out even with UPS Express.

Beyond excited to build this up with the new SRAM E1! Thanks to everyone for the detailed discussion, was a huge help during the ordering process.

13
The latest update is that “theoretically” it will work with XPLR. They’ve modified UDH (so have Factor) so the new standard is already being changed to suit individual company needs. We might as well stick with regular hangars if that’s the case.

From the recent conversation there were two deal breakers. 1. max single ring size of 42 which is way too small for a road bike.
2. They say it “should” and “theoretically” work with XPLR. It’s all a bit too fluffy to commit to buying a Frameset and groupset to try for myself.

Ah well, gorgeous looking frame.

If the max is 55-42 for a 2x setup, shouldnt the max for a 1x be closer to 50-54? Unless you want a super narrow chainline.

Pages: [1]