Colnago C64 - Inside and Out

Who are you (no off-topic talk please)

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by Calnago »

wheelbuilder wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:27 pm
Great work Calnago. I'm certain much appreciated by the members here, and all Colnago fans. Couple questions for you, as considering the demographic and history of my customers, I am likely to be building or servicing these in the future.

1) Mechanical cable routing......am I reading your assessment correctly that there is no "slot area" to fish the cables out of the downtube in preparation to transition them through the BB cable guides and out the chainstay or up the back of the seatube? There are small round holes that have to be negotiated from the downtube side? My follow up question to that would be (depending on your answer ), am I right in assuming that cranks and bottom bracket will need to be removed in order to re-cable this bike? Again, according to your answer, I agree that running a sealed Gore Ride On, or Jagwire Elite sealed system will be helpful in this regard, but not everyone is going to build with this. Seems to me without being able to cable one to confirm, that it appears to be a huge pain in regards to new cables and housing.

2) Again in regards to mechanical.......The integrated BB cable channels......is some sort of a Delrin guide provided, or is the cable expected to run right up against the carbon? Again a call for a fully sealed shifter cable seems in order here. Is Campy providing a sealed kit with frame purchase?

Thanks.
No, I'd never use those "sealed kits". I'm talking about using just a couple pieces of this tubing I get which is really thick walled so it doesn't compress around bends or edges. Its inner diameter is just big enough for a derailleur cable but not a brake cable. I've used it on most builds where I can ever since I built up my C59, since the C59 front derailleur cable routing was not so great in that it could cut into both the BB shell and the chainstay bridge on it's way up to the front derailleur. I love the molded type of grooves that this has, as well as others. Did you see my posts earlier where I inserted the tubing into the holes to see if it fit. It does. The cables aren't completely "sealed" at all, in fact I like cables to be "free" whenever possible. So while in the frame, they are free in the downtube and chainstays, and I just use the tubing to get around the bottom bracket.
Couple of examples on other bikes...
Trek Emonda... SUPER easy... best cable routing I've seen...
Image

Cut a couple pieces just long enough to insert a bit up into the downtube and chainstay...
Image


My C60:
Image

My C59 "enhanced cable guide"...
Image

Image

Note grub seal on end of tubing... keeps crud out of my "sealed" system...
Image

Anyway, you get the idea I'm sure.

Below are the couple pieces of tubing I stuffed into the C64 just to make sure they fit through the holes. They did fit so I don't foresee too much trouble here. But yes, that first install I would definitely get my tubing (and cables) routed before the BB or even the BB cups, much like you have to do with an electric setup. Then after that, it's very possible that recabling could require removal of the crank, which is no big deal in my mind. And now that @glepore has turned me onto roachclips and "hemotstats", I think that could be a piece o' cake. I'm acutally looking forward to asking my assistant to "Pass the hemostat please". I think she'll get a kick out of it. Maybe she'll even wear a nurses outfit.
Image
Oh, and you're correct... there is no plastic/delrin BB cable guide. It's all molded into the BB shell. This was one thing I was really hoping for as I think it's so much better than the screw in cable guides. I'm sure the pieces of tubing don't even need to be that long... that's just the pieces I cut for purposes of playing around with this. As long as you can stuff one end into the chainstay and one end up the downtube... you're all good and "sealed".
Last edited by Calnago on Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by Calnago »

defride wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:58 pm
Great effort Calnago, much appreciated and I'd hazard a guess not just by me.

Phew... weights are finally up! (:

Interesting, looks like they're there or about based on the published charts. There could easily be 100g of paint on those beautiful lugs. Surprised to see your larger traditional coming out so close particularly in that beautiful paint job

Ultimately like you say weight isn't the be all. At this level it's usually nuance for the most part.

Having had a 2014 Evo Hi-mod and swapping the same parts onto 2015 Evo Black with the Nano resin it was interesting to note different characteristics. The Hi-mod was great, very solid on the flat, much like any bike then coming to a sprint or hill it came to life feeling as though every ounce I could put in was being converted to forward motion, it was like it willed me to keep trying a bit harder! The Nano on the other hand 60-70g lighter iirc does feel subtly different. It fairly floats over rough roads by comparison. Then in terms of acceleration again it feels lighter, lighter than the physical weight difference would account for, kinda as though you don't need to put in quiet the same effort. Handling wise, very similar as you'd expect, same geometry. I reiterate, the differences are subtle but it seemed pretty clear to me, possibly not everyone would notice and some might prefer the more solid stable feel of the Hi-mod, depends how you ride I guess.

What I'm getting at, the changes Colnago have made may have a quiet noticeable effect on the way the new bike feels. Will the C64 have that more urgent, light, lively, floaty quality of the Nano compared to the previous gen Hi-mod while retaining everything that Colnago is renowned for in the handling dept? I hope so and look forward to hearing how the lucky new owners get on.
I don't even think you can compare those two bikes. Not that the Evo or the Colnago are better than either/or, just that they are very different. No, I don't feel like the new C64 will make it significantly more "urgent, light, lively", or even "floaty"... by the way, have you considered applying to [insert your favorite cycling journal here]. What I do think is that the newly designed and "integrated" (and the integrated part is important) seatpost/seattube flexibility will have an effect on how smooth it rides, but the basic handling will still be the same as it ever was, and with that same solid feel. And that solid feel comes in a large part from having enough material in the frame to make it feel solid and damped. Unfortunately, you can't have it all, so finding that perfect combination is that elusive holy grail of cycling. I've ridden very light bikes, and while they may be "stiff", they also feel kind of brittle, like they may want to snap at any time. Conversely, if you really love that feel, you could very well find the Colnago dead feeling. It all depends on what you like and are comfortable with. The super stiff, super light affairs are great in the marketing blurbs but in real life they leave me feeling a little skteched out when things get slightly dicy on the road. Part of that is because I'm 200+ lbs. Bad things happen when us big guys on two wheels hit imperfections in the road or enter a turn a little too hot as we chase our 150lb racer buddies around a turn (damn those munchkins). Or have to apply our brakes harder than we anticipated because we're approaching that "T" intersection at the bottom of a fast descent a little faster than we should be. Those 150lb guys are usually shorter as well, and on smaller bikes, lowering that center of gravity. I don't know what's right or wrong for everyone, just what feels right for me. A bike around 7kg is plenty light for me.
Last edited by Calnago on Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
bura
Posts: 841
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:07 pm
Location: Civitatis Vaticanae

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by bura »

Thanks for sharing.
Kuota Kom Evo
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=111825&p=955235#p955235" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
SOLD

User avatar
wheelbuilder
Posts: 760
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by wheelbuilder »

I totally understand what you are doing. and lots of guys put small sections of cable liner or "straws" in the bottom bracket guides. There are a couple points I'm interested in. In that first pic of the white Emonda, that bike is actually missing its delrin cable guide. It does not screw in, but is held in place by the tension of the cables. It is very flimsy, and has no real structure to it, but it works. It looks like an H. The method you are using with the short pieces of liner, will accomplish the same task, but that frame is missing its guide. I was assuming that Colnago would provide a similar H shaped guide to protect the carbon for owners or mechanics that don't use straws or sealed housing like you have done here. Second point, that is conveniently shown in the same Emonda photo, is the open channel, or "scoop", that is present to allow cables to easily be shoved into the downtube, exit from that channel, and then be arranged through the BB guide and chainstay. If I am understanding this correctly, the C64 has two small round holes that you have to locate and thread the cable through before or under the bottom bracket. No wide open channel to fish cables from. This doesn't matter much to me I guess, because I chase cables with liners from the bottom to the top when replacing cables and housing, and obviously you were able to fit a liner through that hole to do your bottom bracket cable shroud thing. Not every mechanic chases cables though, and two small round openings seem like they may introduce a level of difficulty not seen on too many road bikes. Not Madone 9 series level of difficulty, but difficulty none-the-less. Thanks!
Never cheer before you know who is winning

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by Calnago »

liam7020 wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:14 pm
If I'm reading this correctly, the frame weight is pretty disappointing - frame 993 + bb cups 27 + hangers 25 + clamp 10 = 1055g. I'm assuming the frame featured in this thread is a PKRD which is only partially painted which suggests a fully painted Art Decor would yet again hit the 1100g mark. Am I alone in thinking that, at this price point and especially with the alleged input from Giant, Colnago should now be able to produce a sub 1kg frame whilst retaining their renowned ride characteristics? Let's be honest it's not a lot different to the C-60 and they haven't made the effort to completely re-designed the frame like Specialized have done with the Tarmac or Scott when they re-vamped the Foil. It's really a bit similar to Pinarello when they made a few tweaks to the F8 to produce the F10. Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my senility!
Hey, perfectly fine to be cynical... I feel like you're in touch with reality a bit more that way. We're not on Oprah here where everything is always a rah rah, you're ok, I'm ok, and doggonit, people like us. Lol.
The frame, with everything on it including fork, seatpost, headset, bearings, etc. hangs up at 1725 grams. That's before adding the top cap, compression plug, and spacers if required. So, if you're a hard core gram counter, I'm not sure you'd ever be really happy with a Colnago. There are many other bikes for that out there.

At this price they could absolutely produce a sub 1kg frame. So could anyone else, and they do. And they can do it at a cost of a few hundred dollars I'm sure. Price has no relationship to cost by the way, but I get where you're coming from. Instilling the same ride characteristics however, would be very very difficult, because as I've been stressing... a large part of a bike's ride characteristic, does, in fact... come from it's overall weight and yes, I know that's an oversimplification. How it feels, how solid it is... you simply can't, in my opinion, take a 1200 gram frame, chop out 500 grams of material, and expect it to have the same "ride characteristics" as it did at 1200 grams, even if the geometry is 100% identical. You personally may like either one over the other, but they won't be the same.

You're very right also in saying they haven't made the effort to "completely redesign the frame" like other manufacturers have done in their lines. It would be too easy right now to point to some major flops among those examples so I'll just say... why should they? It's getting harder and harder in the bike industry to come up with the "next big thing", yet everyone is trying so very hard to do just that. Colnago has never really been one to completely redesign their flagship products; rather, they've slowly evolved over time to the refined bikes they are today. I'm trying hard not to sound like too much of a commercial here, but I've been around bikes for a lot of years and seen a lot of changes come and go. Are lugged carbon frames the way of the future? I hardly think so. In fact, I think that intricate carbon layups are much more attainable in a mold as opposed to tube/lug construction. But luggged carbon frames have been Colnago's forte since the huge success of the C40. The advantage to lugged construction is simply that it allows for custom geometries to be produced, although I have to think that demand for that is pretty limited these days. Also, if you're looking for a "tool" to get you from A to B, or to win a race even, there are many many bikes that can do that. But there's no denying the "heritage" or whatever you want to call it that Colnago brings to the table. Do I think my Trek Koppenberg is any less of a bike. No, and in fact I think that might very well be the best bike I have. But if I ask people who come over "which bikes should I keep"... anything with a "TREK" name on it does not really come up as first on the list. Even though, that would be on my very very short list of bikes that I would not get rid of.

While I'm on a roll, and talking about "ride characteristics" let's talk for a minute about the decision to drop the traditional geometries altogether. As much as I love the look of a horizontal top tube on a bicycle, I'm not sure how that would even work with the new design philosophy. What I mean by that, is that the sloping frameset, coupled with the new seattube and seatpost, really only works in it's current configuration of a sloping frame. I have not ridden one yet, but I know how it will handle, how it will turn, how I will fit perfectly on the bike. That is a given for me. What I would really like to feel is the nuanced ride that that the new frame has (if it indeed does) with regards to vertical compliance. I don't think they would have been able to achieve that with a traditional design, simply from a phsyics standpoint. Sure, they could make a traditional level top tube bike, with cutouts in the fork and headtube, and the same revised bottom bracket and chainstays... all of that could be duplicated in a traditional frame. But they wouldn't have enough to play with in designing that vertical compliance variable that they do with the sloping design and the new seatpost. So, even though at first glance, one might think "meh, so what", the more I study what the implications of the changes mean, the more I want to try one. It could be the battle between the C64 and the Koppenberg. Quite frankly, I would love to try one out just as a test mule. For now though, I was just happy to have access to one for a day or two to give it a once over from an imaginary build point of view. I never told anyone I was "dressing it with my eyes", but I guess that's kind of what I was doing, hence the title of this thread. Damnit... if I go buy one of these now... it's all your guys' fault for making me put my thoughts down in this thread. No... must eat when I'm old(er).
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by Calnago »

wheelbuilder wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:01 pm
I totally understand what you are doing. and lots of guys put small sections of cable liner or "straws" in the bottom bracket guides. There are a couple points I'm interested in. In that first pic of the white Emonda, that bike is actually missing its delrin cable guide. It does not screw in, but is held in place by the tension of the cables. It is very flimsy, and has no real structure to it, but it works. It looks like an H. The method you are using with the short pieces of liner, will accomplish the same task, but that frame is missing its guide. I was assuming that Colnago would provide a similar H shaped guide to protect the carbon for owners or mechanics that don't use straws or sealed housing like you have done here. Second point, that is conveniently shown in the same Emonda photo, is the open channel, or "scoop", that is present to allow cables to easily be shoved into the downtube, exit from that channel, and then be arranged through the BB guide and chainstay. If I am understanding this correctly, the C64 has two small round holes that you have to locate and thread the cable through before or under the bottom bracket. No wide open channel to fish cables from. This doesn't matter much to me I guess, because I chase cables with liners from the bottom to the top when replacing cables and housing, and obviously you were able to fit a liner through that hole to do your bottom bracket cable shroud thing. Not every mechanic chases cables though, and two small round openings seem like they may introduce a level of difficulty not seen on too many road bikes. Not Madone 9 series level of difficulty, but difficulty none-the-less. Thanks!
First, yes.. Trek came with a super flimsy H shaped guide, which I promptly threw away as the tubing I used (I can't really call it sheathing, but I think those two words describe perfectly the difference, tubing vs sheathing) does a much better job. Plus, it provides the "sealed system" I'm talking about. The H guide does not. I'll bet a lot of Trek mechanics toss that thing immediately. If not, they should. Another Trek I built, had the same H guide and it was so thin that when it "floated" to the ground it actually broke. No thanks, some things are just made to be thrown away. That H guide is one of them. In my opinion of course.
To the garbage with you, useless H guide...
Image

Secondly, agree with you that a "slot" under the bottom bracket, like on the C59 or C60 would make cable routing much much easier. But there's an important difference between the C64’s bottom bracket shell and the C60’s bottom bracket shell... the alloy sleeve that used to go all the way through... doesn't anymore. They've changed that up (actually beginning with some of the later C60's) so that a full alloy sleeve has been replaced by two collars that get bonded into each side of the frame. These collars are what the Threadfit cups get threaded into. Perhaps (I'm guessing) that is the reason for the lack of a slot on this version, because you're right... it would make cabling for a mechanical drive train so much easier.
Last edited by Calnago on Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:32 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

jeffy
Posts: 1268
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2014 11:51 pm

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by jeffy »

Enjoyable thread. Recently saw a C60 built up on a shop floor, and i can certainly understand the aesthetic appeal.

Re: the fork render and route channel etc. The rendered fork has thru axles, so i would imagine it is a disc fork feature.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by Calnago »

Yes @jeffy, I think you’re right about that being maybe just a disc feature although I think the integrated starnut and reinforced steertube instead of a 40gram compression plug would be equally applicable to the rim brake bike as well. I specifically pulled the fork just to have a look at that so was surprised to see it was “same as it ever was”.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

wingguy
Posts: 4321
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by wingguy »

Calnago wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:19 am
See the cross section of that steertube? Apparently it's structurally sound enough that it does away with the large compression plug that Colnago has supplied in the past and also provides an anchor for the preload bolt and top cap. I like that idea. Except, today I pulled the fork out just to check all this stuff and look at the cable routing that was asked about. To my surprise I just saw a normal hollow steertube, nothing out of the ordinary, and perfectly round with no "channel" molded in like that rendering shows. So I popped open the little box of goodies to see if they include a compression plug and sure enough... same one as the C60... I'm thinking that maybe the rim brake version doesn't have all that fancy channeling,
Yeah, exactly that. The rim version doesn't need any internal brake hose routing, so why would they bother with such a complicated steerer construction for nothing?

wingguy
Posts: 4321
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by wingguy »

Calnago wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:01 am
Nice... Oh, and might as well take note now of the asymmetric chainstays with the left one being much thicker than the right. Can't remember off the top of my head why they did that, actually not sure that I ever knew. Note to find out.
Because they can. The thinking goes, if (like for like) a bigger chainstay is stiffer than a smaller chainstay, why not make each chainstay as big as possible? And without chainrings getting in the way, there is physically more space available for a big left side chainstay.

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by Calnago »

wingguy wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:18 pm

Yeah, exactly that. The rim version doesn't need any internal brake hose routing, so why would they bother with such a complicated steerer construction for nothing?
Because it's such a great design. Forget about the internal hydraulic line. No more 40+ gram compression plug. Built in starnut. Brilliant. Why wouldn't you want that on the rim braked version as well. I would. Maybe it will come in the future as they cycle through their stock of existing steertubes.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
dgasmd
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:10 am
Location: South Florida

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by dgasmd »

Calnago wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:47 pm
Whew!... think I'm almost caught up with posting most of the stuff I wanted to post and answering the questions so far. I guess the only remaining thing to talk about or answer is... "So Cal, would you get one, or would you trade your C60 for the C64?"

Well, Yes, I would get one. Will I is a whole 'nother question these days. Would I trade my C60 for it... No, but only because my C60 has such a special paint job. I suppose if I didn't have a Colnago already, or several, and wanted to get one, then absolutely I'd go for the C64, and on balance, over the C60. My biggest nitpick is probably the Italian Swimming Pool they created for your waterbottles which won't fit. But the frame is really nicely made. And with the significantly added clearance for tires, you should be good for a long time to come, regardless of where you want to ride it. For me personally, straddling between a 61 Traditional and a 59 Traditional, a 56 sloping would fit nicely right dab smack in the middle of those two sizes, so getting a geometry that works for me is a no brainer. A 56 sloping would be a nice topper to my current collection, and at this point it is a collection. I have plenty of nice bikes to ride. A bit ridiculous actually.
But, if the right paint comes along... C64 in PR99... I know I know...haven't I got enough of those already you ask. Can't help it, it's my favorite paint job they've ever done.

Ernesto... my birthday is coming up. Oh, and Happy Birthday to you!!

Ciao!
LOL......If he is going to do some of those, mine is coming up in about 6 months too. Maybe your color or the Saroni red for me if he is going to be taking requests LOL....... :beerchug:

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 8608
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by Calnago »

wingguy wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:24 pm
Calnago wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:01 am
Nice... Oh, and might as well take note now of the asymmetric chainstays with the left one being much thicker than the right. Can't remember off the top of my head why they did that, actually not sure that I ever knew. Note to find out.
Because they can. The thinking goes, if (like for like) a bigger chainstay is stiffer than a smaller chainstay, why not make each chainstay as big as possible? And without chainrings getting in the way, there is physically more space available for a big left side chainstay.
Ha... well by that logic why not make it even bigger then. Actually, I think it had something to do with the added stiffness from the thru axles for the disc brake version, that they actually made the rim brake version chainstays bigger. As for the assymetric nature, I don't know.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

User avatar
dgasmd
Posts: 1813
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:10 am
Location: South Florida

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by dgasmd »

liam7020 wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:14 pm

If I'm reading this correctly, the frame weight is pretty disappointing - frame 993 + bb cups 27 + hangers 25 + clamp 10 = 1055g. I'm assuming the frame featured in this thread is a PKRD which is only partially painted which suggests a fully painted Art Decor would yet again hit the 1100g mark.
Am I alone in thinking that, at this price point and especially with the alleged input from Giant, Colnago should now be able to produce a sub 1kg frame whilst retaining their renowned ride characteristics? Let's be honest it's not a lot different to the C-60 and they haven't made the effort to completely re-designed the frame like Specialized have done with the Tarmac or Scott when they re-vamped the Foil. It's really a bit similar to Pinarello when they made a few tweaks to the F8 to produce the F10. Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my senility!
That's for you to figure out personally if the difference is worth it enough for YOU. NOBODY can answer that question to everyone's satisfaction really. Just saying.

wingguy
Posts: 4321
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: Colnago C64 - The Naked Build

Post by wingguy »

Calnago wrote:
Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:29 pm
Ha... well by that logic why not make it even bigger then.
Because they've used all the available space out to the edge of the BB, because Ernesto likes straight lines so they're not going to bulge it out further back, and presumably because they don't want to bother using a BBRight type of shell to make more real estate but limit compatibility.
As for the assymetric nature, I don't know.
Yes you do, I just told you :wink: As long as there are chainrings on the right hand side of the bike you can always make the left hand chainstay bigger, and bigger chainstays are stiffer. (And because nearly everyone else does it too, so it's kinda expected in order to look up to date at this point.)
Because it's such a great design. Forget about the internal hydraulic line. No more 40+ gram compression plug. Built in starnut. Brilliant. Why wouldn't you want that on the rim braked version as well.
How much does it cost to make? I know that cost isn't a huge factor for the target market here but the disc frameset costs £500 more than the rim. Most other comparable companies either have zero price diff or a much smaller price diff between rim and disc frames. Makes me wonder how much of that £500 is being sucked into the fork?

Awesome thread by the way! Great photos and detail :thumbup:

Post Reply