Search results for:

Yeah this drilling and modifying of bars introduces risk that in my opinion is unacceptable, for basically no gain whatsoever (the aero aspect of the bar being irrelevant compared to the aero aspect of the rider)

I think I've had my elite deboyo for 12 years, it is excellent and I almost exclusively use it for hiking.

Commence building a bike around a bottle cage. I speak from comparable experience.

Haven't actually tried yet but I think "chain too short' might be the right answer. Will check and report back. Thanks!

What a time to be alive... :)

Thank you!

Anyone on here familiar with the Garmin SDK?

I'm looking for a guide to get started - not planning to write an app properly, but just to figure out how to extract some data from sensors at their maximum sampling rate. So any resources other than the Garmin website itself would be welcomed.

I vote build wheel with cheap 80mm wide hub and be sure to grease the bearings properly.

I admire your restraint; I would have built up the Seta already

[Alt text: Image shows two bicycle frames inscribed "DOLAN DOLAN Terry Dolan"]

Nailed it

Cheers, will bear that in mind. Luckily it's 1* so chain length is pretty obvious. It looks right tbh

Cheers, all that looks fine to me so my working hypothesis is I'm misunderstanding the B screw and need to try turning it the opposite way

I'm setting up grx 11 speed mechanical and have run into a strange issue.

Had the same kit on the same bike previously and it worked great.

Refitting it now and the upper jockey wheel is grounding out on the large cassette sprocket.

This has to be an error on my part. Any tips on what it might be? I've tried B screw adjustment. Could this be caused by excessive chain length or incorrect shift cable routing into the pinch bolt?

I keep coming back to this thread. Build looks fantastic

I use gravelkings and I find them to be good for my application and based on my experience.

The phrases are "I find that" or "I have heard that". If they're missing from the anecdata then it's not even that, it's just noise.

scaffold tower

If it's actually a tower then it'll come down really quickly.

If it's a full scaffold it'll still come down quickly.

Since your builder arranged the scaffolding, do all of your Comms via the builder.

Yeah I can understand how you feel. But it's just business, so invoice in writing (or at least emailed PDF) is necessary and you can just drop the guy a text saying thanks for the invoice and I'll see that it gets paid, or similar, and then pay within the stated time period.

I think it's not unheard of for scaffolding to be left in-situ until it's needed on the next job. As in, I have heard of that happening. But not sure if it's actually common.

You've had the builder send you photos of the work to demonstrate that it's all been done, right? If not, could ask for those and they will have to go up the scaffolding to take them - you could then ask when it's being taken away face-to-face.

Don't know about the percentage, but if the scaffolding was put up by a builder or a subcontractor of the builder, then the job isn't finished until it's taken down. So if your contract is payment on completion of the job then your suggestion is reasonable.

Also surely the payment terms are greater than a week anyway?

Excellent. Not meaning to hurry you, life happens, just encouragement.

Obviously the rest of this thread is superb

pretty short stays

Probably a little bit optimistic. However I am considering scaling back the clearance requirements to 700c x 35 + 45mm guards; 700c x 42mm without guards. The final rear triangle fit will be based on a 1:1 physical model over a plan drawing. We have Zona and Life pre-bent stays to try, and the dimensions will be what they will be to make it all fit together. If that means an extra 5 or 10mm length compared to the drawing, so be it! That said, my gravel bike fits 650b x 57mm tyres with a 415mm chainstay, but that required some substantial custom-forming.

Edit: or maybe it's all good as drawn, thanks @jontea !

How would you go around the BB?

I'm intending for the hose to exit the DT on the NDS side, then be external along the chainstay. Routing it inside the BB and along the chainstay does look great but it's too much hassle to make and install/maintain.

Cheers, that could be intriguing. 7000-series cranks are available new but not from the distributor at the moment; I think I saw some shops with stock. Let me know anyway.

Here's a bit more progress and designing-out-loud.

I have asked @Tijmen to make some bags for this, as I am very happy indeed with the ones on my gravel bike.

I am really intrigued by the mini rack-bag setup used by Tomii cycles on their Canvas / Fat Canvas bikes. However this is likely a step too far for my upcoming course, as I won't have time to pursue making a rack as well as the frame and forks. I plan to add some eyelets so that I could go down that route in the future.

In the meantime this led me to some thinking about which bags are actually most useful, and my conclusion is a combination of the classic half-frame bag and top tube feed bag. I've mocked up a render of these.

Also shown is my plan for a stainless cable rub bar on the headtube. Also, internal rear brake routing is on the wishlist but may or may not be practicable.

Also a good question. I'm happy to hear justification (actual engineering justification, i.e. published papers or textbooks) comparing the deflection of curved Vs straight cantilever beams. The reality is I don't know if there would be any appreciable difference in stiffness. My guess is that it's the cantilever nature of the fork that dominates the stiffness and that humans wants to perceive the curved blade as more compliant because it is literally in an exaggerated deflected shape as you look at it.

Edit: the above assumes all is equal in material stiffness and geometric cross section for straight and curved fork blades, and that the rake is relatively small.

Clarification: I'm using straight fork blades because I think they look nice, no other reasoning

In fact I don't mind GXP in practice, although I consider it to be a good way to burn through multiple BB bearings in a short timeframe.

That said, I've been offered a chance to get hold of a 105 hydro groupset at a good price so will likely be going with that.

I need a solution for the cranks, however, as the groupset available to me uses 170mm cranks but I prefer 165, so I may just use a sram chainset from my parts store. If I'm totally honest, mismatching components in a way that slightly ruffles the feathers of purists is appealing for some reason :)