Quote from: carbonazza on October 07, 2016, 02:32:26 PM

Quote from: multispoke on October 07, 2016, 12:02:16 PM....So if it works with the XT, I suppose it will work with the lighter XTR derailleur also.

Sure, they are interchangeable.
Beware, 60g less for 120€ more is about 2000€/Kg

Oh yeah, it's super easy to slip into the WW rabbithole! Heck, I'm drilling holes in my seatpost bolt holder to save 3 grams :/
Fortunately, I'm not in a rush to buy, so I'll only get one if I find a deal
Actually, the weight savings are even less that you quote. XT is listed at 270g, and XTR is 225g.
Kicking myself for missing out on a SRAM XX1 RD for $85 on eBay yesterday! But then, I'm not sure if it would've worked with a 46T. Wolftooth make it sound like it would...

Quote from: carbonazza on October 07, 2016, 07:05:18 AM
I've installed an 11-46 XT cassette with the XT RD-M8000-GS(short cage) on the bike of a friend.

It is the first time that I put the cable on the derailleur with a little tension, and nothing else.
Perfect shifting the first time without fiddling with the shifter barrel.

We did align the derailleur hanger before as it was a bit off.

Thanks all for pitching in. This is what I was looking for. So if it works with the XT, I suppose it will work with the lighter XTR derailleur also.

I know I'd need a xD driver to run a 10-42, but what about running a 11sp SRAM RD with a 11-46T cassette? The cassette will not need a xD driver in and of itself. My question is will the SRAM RD handle the 46T cog? And, afaik, there are no 10-46T cassettes (wish SRAM would release one in 11sp).

I would like to run a 11-46T cassette (SunRace), but need to pick a RD that would work with it.
On the product page, Shimano claims that the 11sp XTR and XT RDs can only handle 40T at the most. Interestingly, they released their own 11-46T cassette and claim that it is compatible with their XT and XTR drivetrains. Would I need to do any modifications to the derailleurs to handle a 46T rear cog?

Similar question on SRAM offerings. All of their 11sp RDs are listed as 10-42T compatible. Would they be able to handle a 46T cog without some kind of mods? Anyone have experience?
As a data point, WolfTooth claims their 49T cassette expander will work with SRAM 11sp RDs.
http://www.wolftoothcomponents.com/collections/cassette-cogs/products/49t-gc-cog-for-sram-and-sunrace

Is this just a case of manufacturers (Shimano and SRAM) being overly conservative and/or protective of their own product lineups?

Quote from: carbonazza on September 21, 2016, 08:15:30 AM
The BB shell of my PF30 frame is only carbon.
Nothing is glued or any aluminium part(from what I read in this thread, I prefer this).

Actually, that looks really good! I was planning to use my existing GXP X1 crankset, but this photo may prompt me to find a PF30 setup (don't want to add a ton of weight with 30->24 BB adapters or converters, or spend a bunch on a special BB).

I'm pretty close to settling on the M062 frame, but have one final consideration about the bottom brackets.
I'm going with the 24mm spindle, so the choice is between BSA threaded or BB92. What's the current consensus?
I've read a few posts earlier in this thread, and also asked for some more info from Workswell. The images they sent me show the BSA insert molded/glued in the frame, while for BB92 they glue in aluminum adapters (that will hold the BB92 press fit cups) on the outside of the frame.
Generally, you'd go with BB92 since that allows the downtube to be wider at the BB junction, and therefore laterally stiffer. But in this case, the frame is essentially the same, width wise. I think actual BB92 setup is about 10-20g lighter than a BSA BB, and the difference in the way Workswell makes the interfaces can also save a few grams over the BSA.

The downside with BB92, as I see it, would be in the greater potential for cups' misalignment. With the BSA you have one shell that the bearing cups thread into. So as long as the shell's edges are parallel to each other (easy to achieve on a lathe), the bearing surfaces would be, too.
With BB92, there is 1) possible lack of parallelism between the aluminum adapters that Workswell presses into the frame, and 2) the BB92 cups may sit slightly un-square in each side. So the possible error and tolerance stackup is greater.

That said, I'm not dissing the BB92 concept in general. I run those in my Scott road frame and my alloy Rocky Mountain MTB frame without issues. But in both cases, the BB92 is integral to the frame design, rather than tacked on, as in the case of many Chinese frames. I believe the newer frames (CS-041/LCM904) come with BB92 only that's molded in, like it should be.

Quote from: Carbon_Dude on September 14, 2016, 08:21:49 PM
My -057 build was 19.5 lbs with a RS Reba fork, full XX1 drivetrain, carbon wheels, carbon bars & seat post, XT brakes.  If you go 1x then you should be able build an XL at around 20 lbs.

That's a good data point, especially since 057 is the heaviest frame out of the 3 I'm considering.
As far as 1x - that's my preference and is versatile enough for riding around where I live. However, this bike will be raced in Leadville 100 next year, and most of the folks who've done it say that 2x10 is the way to go due to the broad range of speeds. But even if a FD setup adds another 1lb, I'll be OK with that, so long as I don't go much over the 21lbs mark.

Quote from: Vance72 on September 15, 2016, 01:11:35 AM
I'm not sure that the 062 has a lot more tire clearance than 057. Activ3 could not use 2.8 650b + on 29mm internal width wheel. Patrick C was using a wider rim. 34mm internal width and the 2.8 tire rubbed the frame.

I'm actually not looking for a ton of tire clearance. I'd be running a 2.1-2.25 in the back, and most MTB frames should be able to handle it.
I was mostly referring to tire pressures, etc. when it comes to effects on comfort.

Quote from: JohnnyNT on September 15, 2016, 05:40:39 AM
If carbon rims are not a must then beside Crest (being obvious option) there are more nice and light rims like Ryda Trace XC, BOR XMD 333/366 or DT Swiss offerings.

Those other ones are nice, and a little exotic here in US. But they also appear to be narrower (19mm) in internal width. If you believe the wider = faster claims, the same tires mounted on a Crest Mk3 should be quicker.

Quote from: cmh on September 14, 2016, 09:36:42 PM

Quote from: Carbon_Dude on September 14, 2016, 08:21:49 PM
My -057 build was 19.5 lbs with a RS Reba fork, full XX1 drivetrain, carbon wheels, carbon bars & seat post, XT brakes.  If you go 1x then you should be able build an XL at around 20 lbs.

Based on that build, with the new Fox 32 SC (step cast) fork instead of the Reba, (around a half pound lighter) you could probably step down from XX1 to X01 or X1 and still hit the 20lb target, as well. Also don't forget that carbon wheels aren't your only option, the Stan's NoTubes Crest Mk3 are listed in the 360g range, which is the same listed weight as the lightest Chiner carbon rims and quite a bit less.

Thanks for the Crest suggestion. I was thinking going carbon for stiffness/weight, but if I can achieve the same with alloy rims for less $, that's even better - more money for light cranks! I've never ridden either the old Crests or the new MK3 ones, but the old ones had a reputation for being flexy. Stans claim the new rims have an improved stiffness, but is it enough? I can't find any ride reviews on them yet. I'm 158lbs, so not super heavy, but I suck at picking lines and often ride over larger rocks than I should Still, Crest MK3s built on the lighter Novatec hubs should make for a ~1400g wheelset, which would indeed rival the lightest Chinese options from Farsports and LB for a couple hundred $ less.

Sorry if this has already been discussed in the thread, but a couple of questions on how the 062 rides.
Particularly those owners that had "brand name" hardtails in the past, how does the 062 compare in terms of lateral stiffness (sitting and sprinting out of the saddle) and vertical compliance (at the rear)? I generally run half a mile of seatpost on everything I own, so with the frame taking a 27.2mm post, I hope that will provide enough flex to make it comfortable on rougher terrain. The tire setup will probably matter the most, but still...

Hello all, another new guy here from Arizona.

I'm primarily a roadie, but getting into endurance/marathon MTB races and interested in building a light 29er HT for that purpose. I currently ride a 2010 Rocky Mountain Vertex 29er, which seems strong and reliable, but is a bit too heavy at 26.5lbs...and that's after putting it on a mild diet of of 1x10 drivetrain and some lighter cockpit. Of course, the 6lbs or so that it has on a nice carbon build is only about 3% of the rider/bike system, but the weight weenie in me is not easily persuaded by that kind of math

Hoping to use the accumulated knowledge in this forum to pick out a frame and wheels for the build. I'd love to end up in the vicinity of 20lbs in size XL with a suspension fork and a carbon wheelset, but understand that may be a bit of a stretch. I'm currently looking at all the usual suspects - 057, 041 and 062 as frame candidates.

Quote from: cmh on September 14, 2016, 01:55:22 PM

Quote from: carbonazza on September 14, 2016, 02:28:38 AM
The 041 had a bad batch with a defect on the seatpost.
It has been fixed now.

...so the question is what will break next. Maybe nothing, but it seems (based on my statistically invalid sample of 1 frame and others I've read about here) that when you sign up for a newish/early batch Chiner frame, you get to be the beta tester. The crack that showed up on the 041 happened so frequently and under such ridiculously easy riding conditions, it's pretty evident there's no real testing happening of the new frames. It's great when you have a two year warranty with a reputable seller -- but when you spend a couple months waiting for the replacement to arrive (to be fair most of the delay was waiting for a new batch with the fix) that's time you might be without a bike. Maybe the 041 will be the next 057, but my recommendation remains to wait for others to prove it and stick with the 057.

Thanks for the input, and I do see your point very clearly. None of us really knows how much R&D and testing goes into these frames, or where they get their ideas from. I'm not saying that the people designing the bikes are inexperienced idiots, but you just never know what level of scrutiny the designs are subjected to.

And as mentioned above, anyone have Stack/reach numbers for the 057?

Thanks, carbonazza.
So enough people had successful experiences with 041 by now?
I see your point on 062 being twitchier, with it's shorter chainstays.

I'm a 6'3" rider that's all legs, so I'm trying to find a frame with a fairly high stack number to minimize the headset spacers I'm running with a saddle-bar drop that's comfortable over long rides (5+ hours...will be a marathon XC bike).
It looks like the LCM903 or 904 may work in that regard. They have a shorter reach than the 062.
Does anyone have stack/reach numbers for the 052 frame? They don't have it in the table on the XMCS website.

Hi guys, I'm new here. Great forum!

Thanks for cmh for sharing all the gathered knowledge on the frames.

Is the 057 still the most reliable choice among the light-ish Chinese HT frames? I see that YishunBike has LCM904 that looks identical to the 041. The weight savings over 057 are tempting, but if reliability is questionable, then that's hardly worth it.
The other aspect of the 041/904 that I'm having doubts about is that connector between the ST and the TT. It may be there for strength, but IMHO it would limit the ST flex and thus make the ride less comfortable, no?

Speaking of the 057, they're listed as using the T700 carbon. My understanding is that T800 is stronger still, and thus the frames made with the latter can be lighter. Does anyone make a version of 057 in T800 carbon?
And, if it's not against forum rules, what's the current going price for a 057 frame?

One last question. Where does the Workswell 062 frame currently stand in this? They are claimed to be lighter than 057, but is there enough experience/reports on them to say that they are as reliable?