I have installed this groupset previously on my giant tcr - press fit BB - and the only difference with the mondince fm316 build was the installation of the waved washer that came with the BB

https://www.windwave.co.uk/product/fsa-t47-68mm-24mm-shimano-road-bottom-bracket-fsa.bb.t47.68.24.shm.rd

Without that piece the small chainring was, in my opinion, too close to the chain stay

Quote from: casper.f on March 12, 2026, 03:23:39 AM
The 73° listed is the effective seat tube angle (measured from the BB center to the seat clamp), but the actual seatpost angle is significantly steeper.

Ultimately, your body doesn't care about frame angles; it only cares about saddle height and saddle setback relative to the bottom bracket.
If you are on a size 58 with a high saddle extension, the seatpost follows that steeper trajectory. This means your saddle will not move as far backward as it would on a frame with a true, continuous 73° angle.

Seatpost angle (quickly measured in canva) 80°
Some gemini calculations:

Saddle Height	Inseam	Rider height	Fit Context for Size 58	Equivalent STA (Measured 80° Physical ASTA)
700mm	793mm	168-175cm	Too low for this frame. Requires minimal seatpost extension.	74.35°
750mm	849mm	176-183cm	Lower end of the fit window.	74.73°
800mm	906mm	185-192cm	Target demographic. High extension activating the steeper ASTA.	75.06°
850mm	963mm	195cm+	Extreme extension. Saddle position will shift drastically forward.	75.35°

Came to similar conclusions analysing a different frame with Cervelo S5-ish design. IMHO, with such eSTAs, the frame reach is undersized, especially for larger sizes (but I haven't checked seatpost offset)

Quote from: Buffon_bj on October 08, 2026, 02:38:52 AM
I have also been thinking about making the Mondince FM316 a proper road bike – I love the geometry, but maybe for a gravel bike I'd prefer slightly more clearance. @EIB, I notice in your picture that you are running a Ultegra 2x build, so I assume it is a standard road axle length. Is there anything special about 2x on this bike? I've been running a 1x Sram XPLR setup on this, but if I were to convert it to a road bike I'd prefer a standard Sram 2x build. I'd be happy with 35-40mm tyre clearance.

What do you mean by "special"?

Quote from: clayp on October 07, 2026, 11:52:23 PM
I realise this is a bit late, so I don't know if this is still relevant to you, but Deda sells compression rings in different thicknesses (bit pricy for what they are) https://dedaelementi.com/alanera-rs-compression-ring

Thanks you! I already bought the compression ring, in my case I had to go for the "bottecchia emme 4"

Quote from: Takiyaki on August 15, 2026, 09:11:22 AM
First of all, lol @ this frame. Not because it's bad, but because it's just kind of funny at how unoriginal these companies are getting. At least they are copying stuff we want.

I do feel like these offset seatpost frames require a rethink on how geometry is calculated. Most frames have a vertical BB offset. I think it's time to start counting horizontal BB offset from the seat post axis and rethinking stuff like STA, TTL, maybe even reach to be honest. Because where this geometry chart says your saddle is going to be and where it's actually gonna be are super different. I would not be surprised if we were talking about saddles being like 30-50mm more forward than the charts would indicate which obviously impacts fit, handling etc. Biggie is shortened effective reach. Other stuff like hip angle will be impacted too. So you would have to do another level of geometric analysis to truly transfer your fit 1:1. And it's possible the geometry of these offset seatpost frames will require a total rethink of fit.

I totally agree with your points. I think the problem stemmed by the "original" frames they are mimicking: S5, as well as Y1RS, geometries has been laid to the public in the traditional fashion, I guess so that people do not overthink too much before buying. At the end of the day, you can choose to be fitted to those frames with your butt over the rear hub or by adopting a more forward position, but not as far as a proper progressive geometry frame will allow you to as you are limited by the modest reach those frames have and the integrated handlebars they require. I would say that with the ICAN frame you have more degrees of freedom if you go it is for a bar+stem combo to get the reach you need once you place your pelvis close to the BB.

My personal view is that if you know what your are looking for, then you can easily figure out whether this frame is suitable to you.

Quote from: KRoser on August 14, 2026, 10:02:19 PM
with this "S5" seat tube style, real world STA is maybe about 1-2° steeper then geo chart would suggest, depending on size and seat height.
So I would say even thou STA looks slack compare to normal bikes in reality STA would be much steeper than standard.

I would say this ICAN, XMCS VRT and light carbon LCR020 will have STA much steaper that geo chart would suggest.

I just tried to put geo reference picture to Fusion 360 and tried to align it. This is real STA that came out compare to geo chart in size M.
If someone have experience with this please pitch in If Iam wrong about this, I have never own this kind of geo on a bike, Iam just coming from my basic geometry knowledge .

So every other bike that has two geo chart seat tube lines and seat tube does not come directly from bb center will be like this, STA much steeper than geo chart. Just another thing to be aware of when choosing a bike

I guess that the underlying assumption is that the provided "cad" picture has the right proportions. According to my calculations, the frame picture by ICAN seems to lack such a property (it is barely consistent with a size M) or the measurements I can get from the picture are not accurate as they need to; regrettably the picture seems useless for the purpose to infer eSTA or to make any other assessment with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

That being said, if we assume the picture refers to a size M frame, then I get what is in the picture, i.e., the seat angle measured where the actual seat tube is inserted is about 79/80 degrees. The number is bonkers, but most of the steep angle effect is wiped out once you consider the "BB offset" (the 60mm figure in the picture). For my seat height, this ICAN frame I would get almost the same setback I can achieve with a "regular" frame with 75 degrees STA.

Need to finish the build and especially to dial in the fit. Fully road setting:

1) newmen all-round 49/54 carbon spokes + Pirelli 40mm tyres
2) deda superbox stem
3) ascent aeroo road bars

The compression ring I needed to use to make full internal routing work was the deda compression ring for the superbox stem in the variant "Botecchia Emme 4" (the compression ring that comes with the stem fits, but sits too high).

Quote from: loisvigo on August 04, 2026, 08:14:22 AM
Hi Yes!

Deda reponse my answer.

In case anyone is considering buying a Deda stem Superbox V2, keep in mind that you may need a dedicated compression ring.

I contacted Deda, and they replied first thing on Monday morning. After I sent them the dimensions of the Mondice compression ring and the size of the gap, they confirmed that this is the correct compression ring for my setup (around €37), although it can be found a bit cheaper online.

Hopefully this helps anyone facing the same issue.

I have built a fm316 and the standard compression ring coming with the deda superbox v2 stem is too high. Do you happen to have the dimensions of your fm336 original compression ring? I attach pictures of the stem installed as well as of the compression ring (fm316).

Quote from: Japeke on March 29, 2026, 11:30:18 AM
This bike is stupidly fast to handle. Like a cross bike. Have to test more. And those burts are faaaaast.
If I could choose again, I would take the 130mm reach to handlebar. But now I'm moving the saddle a little back. 40mm setback will be ok.

178cm and 76cm saddle height. FM316 size M.
Spcycle HB-068 120mm handlebar.

Hi there, great build. Can you share what headset have you used?

Quote from: v0llhirsch on January 16, 2026, 08:46:32 AM
My bike came yesterday and I finished around 90% of the build.
Along with the frame I ordered a pair of 9velo gravel wheels which showed up today.
Front wheel is ready, but I am waiting on another 50mm RX-PRO for the rear - which is fine, since the weather is pretty bad and I cannot ride anyway.

Build went smooth, even the rear break cable got through on the first attempt without any issues. I added some cable padding to prevent any cluttering, but that's it.
I made a mistake on the front break adapter and mounted it for the wrong diameter - not realizing that you could run 180mm. Lucky as I am, I had enough cable to pull it down and mount it for 160mm :-)

The stock seat post was way too short to reach my saddle height, but I simply re-used the seat post from my old bike.
I opted against integrated handlebars until I can figure out my reach and stack dimensions, but for me it looks nice enough as it is.

Components I used:

Frame
Frame: Mondince FM326
Size: M
Fork: 420mm

Drivetrain & brakes
shift/brake levers: SRAM Rival AXS D1
brake system: SRAM Rival AXS D1 (160/160)
rear derailleur: SRAM GX AXS, 12 speed
bottom bracket: SRAM DUB Road Wide
crankset: SRAM Rival E1 Wide, Powermeter Spindle, Dub, 42T - 165mm
cassette: SRAM XG-1275, 10-52T
chain: Sram X01
pedals: Shimano XT M8120

Cockpit
headset: PRO Headset Integrated Cable Routing (I prefered this one to the stock option for the cable routing below the stem)
stem: DEDA Mud Peak - 80 mm +/-6º
bar: Newmen Advanced Gravel Bar 318 - 420mm ("liberated" from my spouse since she is running 360mm)
handlebar tape: SRAM Red handlebar tape (wasn't the plan, my preferred PRO Race Silicon ripped while unwrapping it)
Spacer: ZTTO blue alloy spacer (from Aliexpress)

Wheels
wheelset: 9Velo 2026 Gravel Disc GB series 24H/24H - 28mm inner width
valves: 9velo stock, but with schwalbe click valves (SCV)
tyres: Schwalbe G-One RX Pro, TLR, 50-622

Seating
saddle: PRO Stealth Performance
seat post: PRO LT 400mm 27,2mm/ 0mm offset

--
In case you need to order SRAM brake parts:
For the rear you need 32mm flatmount screws (SRAM part: 00.5318.005.002) and the standard flatmount adapter for 160mm (it should be part 00.5318.018.001 - but I had that already here)

Front: use the Flat Mount 0F/20F | 140/160 mm (part number: 00.5318.018.000) for the front - it includes all bolts.
For 160mm discs, you need to build it with the 140mm side because that give you the effective range for 160mm. That's because the fork can take up to 180mm rotors.
If you want to actually run 180mm rotors, you need to switch the adapter to 160mm.

Thanks for the info regarding the headset. Have you, or anyone, considered go full integration with a stem like this?

Quote from: CJ on November 07, 2025, 10:38:30 AM
Thought this might help others with their builds.  Does anyone have experience w/ this type of headset cap?

The provided cap has 4 holes w/ 4 open caps pre-installed and 2 closed caps provided separately

• You'll only want 2 open caps if running electronic shifting (to prevent dirt/water from entering)
• You'll want to decide which holes are closed BEFORE installing headset/hoses/etc.
• In my case, the rear hose is routed through the left hole (to the right brake lever) while the front through the right
• The disparity in angle/tension caused the cap to settle in a skewed position
• I think this type of cap fares better with more spacers but my stem is pretty slammed
• Not an issue per se, more of an aesthetic thing

Perhaps the cap would align better using different holes, routing the front hose around the steerer tube, or both?

You may want to experiment before securing hoses.

can you please provide the height of the piece having the 4 holes? I'd like to know what is the overall stack of the frame with 0 spacers