Quote from: jn46 on October 27, 2026, 06:15:15 AMAren't these marginally different frame moulds though in chainstay and subsequent wheelbase length? 435 Vs 430 on the 376. Unless it's just how they've been measured.

Spcycle G028, G029, Mondince FM346 and Meinier GRL15 are basically the same frame (with small tweaks in the seatpost for the Meinier).

Mondince FM376 is a different frame (it has different shape in the headtube, different position of the storage box, it has an indentation in the downtube, etc). But the geometry is almost identical, except for the chainstays length (430 vs 435).

Quote from: warthog on October 26, 2026, 03:15:12 PMI see the frame storage as a gimmick and a source of problems
I am thinking the Meiner or SPCycles G028 for the better water bottle position. Just put some silicon on the storage cover and glue it shut.
.
W

https://www.sp-cycle.com/Spcycle-G029-Carbon-Race-Gravel-Bike-Frame-Max-Tire-700x57C-UDH-Hanger-T47-BB-Carbon-Gravel-Bicycle-Frameset-p7424092.html

I just found out that they have the G029. It's the same as the G028 but without the storage box and without mounting screws.

Quote from: gaisdergerman on October 10, 2026, 04:55:59 AM
I don't really understand why the bottle cage has been positioned so high on the frame. Personally, I find it quite disappointing, as I often use a frame bag.

It seems like it should be fairly straightforward to mount the bottle cage on the storage compartment cover instead.

To be honest, this design choice is one of the reasons why I decided not to purchase the frame. Had the bottle cage been positioned differently, I would likely have bought it.

Was there a specific design reason or consideration behind this decision?

The FM346 has the same geo as FM376 with the bottle mounted on the storage cover.

This headset has 3 different compression rings for different heights (which seems to be very similar to the one from SPcycle):

https://aliexpress.com/item/1005009240746293.html

In the product details, they show a picture recommending one compression ring or another based on the bearing seat depth.

I haven't tried it, though.

In their charts, they measure stand-over from the ground to the height of the top of the head tube.

Assuming size M and 55 mm gravel tires:
Wheel radius = 622/2 = 366 mm
Tire height = 55 mm (will depend on the tire, of course)

Standover height as defined by Mondince = Total tire radius - BB drop + Stack

For a size M, that is (366 + 55) - 80 + 574 = 860.

In their charts they say 863, so I'd say that's close enough.

The thing is that most manufacturers don't measure stand-over height at the top of the headtube, but somewhere in the middle of the top tube. When the top tube has sloping (as it's the case here), the real stand-over height is quite a lot lower. In the middle of the top tube it'll be somewhere around 800 mm

With similar height/inseam as you, I went with a size S + 80 mm stem and I'm quite happy with it.

It seems also the same as TanTan / Seraph GR257:
https://www.seraphbikes.com/2026-carbon-gravel-disc-bike-frame-cr257-max-tire-700x57c-udh-hanger-available-size-485154565861cm-p7046250.html

Thanks for replying. It's a pity, I'm very happy with the 180 rotor in my SPcycle G026.

I guess the SPcycle G028 will have the same 140/160 as the Meinier.

Hi,

Quick question: what brake rotors are supported in the fork? Is it 140/160 or 160/180? Is it the same for SPcycle and Meinier?

Thanks in advance!

Quote from: anqry on August 07, 2026, 03:46:53 PM
It's a frame built on a new geo confirmed to me today by Mondince through Whatsapp. I also thought it might be prototype frame when I saw the pictures, but it seems not. It should look longer, right?
I updated my earlier post to include info about the geo.

Intersting. I've tried some image measuring tools, and I get somewhat close numbers to the new geometry (although I wouldn't call my quick method very precise  ), so I guess my eyes were deceiving me.

Quote from: anqry on August 07, 2026, 03:30:22 PM
Here is FM366 in size M with 2.25" tyres. Would probably fit 2.35" by the looks of it.
But am I being crazy or something about the frame looks off? It might be a visual illusion because of chimney worth of spacers, a paint choice, or just chunky tyres, but to me it looks short, tall and too front heavy.
It's most likely just me being too undecisive about the frameset I want, but I'd love to hear opinions from more established gravel enjoyers. 

It indeed looks tall and short. I guess that's a prototype from the old geo. The new geo is clearly longer.

I think it is ok how you have it. Just make sure that the bearing sits nicely with the chamfered part of the fork.

The crown race is not needed, because the fork already has that integrated in the carbon.

Quote from: v0llhirsch on May 09, 2026, 03:05:09 AM
Very nice, reminds a bit of the Colnago color pattern.
FWIW, on tires: I tried the Schwalbe RX Pro (in 50mm) for the FM326 and they have been a blast so far.
They have been on the bike since January, so they have seen everything from snow to deep mud and now the dried out paths.
I am riding them with about 1.7 bar in a tubeless setup, no puncture so far and no slipping.
RX Pro: https://www.schwalbe.com/en/Schwalbe-G-One-RX-PRO-11654575

If that's too "offrad" for you, the R PRO is potentially a fit: https://www.schwalbe.com/en/Schwalbe-G-One-R-PRO-11654240.01

I'm running both. G-One RX 50 mm at the front and R 50 mm at the rear. I'm very happy with them so far. I use a bit less pressure, around 1.4 bar. They roll very well and with good grip.

Quote from: Horatius on May 08, 2026, 02:47:18 AM
Anyone knows if the clearance on the FM326 is affected by a front derailleur? I asked Jack and he says no, but I doubt that so if anyone has tried I would like to know!

With GRX cranks and mechanical front derailleur it is fine with 50 mm tires.

Road cranks and FD sit 2.5 mm closer, which should also be fine, but I'd say on the limit. Electronic FD are bulkier, so it may be tight, but I haven't tested it.

Quote from: Horatius on May 07, 2026, 12:22:59 AM
I ordered the FM326 with flipchip, Jack just contacted me that there are issues with the fork and are offering the old fork without the flipchip.
This is what was wrong according to Jack: The hub contact the aluminum part only. Did not contact the fork leg. So the fork leg may move during riding under some condition


Edit: apparently they have a fix ready in 25 days

I'm glad I have the non flip-chip fork :-)

I have no idea why these flip chips are popular. Only a tiny % of people will really use it. I'd say, pick one offset, and go with it.