Cervelo R5 Frame Alignment Issue?

[we51]

Making sure that the wheel is perfectly centered between the chain stays may help to evenly distribute the rub, but as previous posters noted if it is already rubbing on the non-drive side as well as the drive side, moving the wheel over just a little bit is not going to eliminate the rubbing. In order to do that you are going to need a less wide wheel+tire system.

[Fastfwd]

Making sure that the wheel is perfectly centered between the chain stays may help to evenly distribute the rub, but as previous posters noted if it is already rubbing on the non-drive side as well as the drive side, moving the wheel over just a little bit is not going to eliminate the rubbing. In order to do that you are going to need a less wide wheel+tire system.

O.K.

I'll be looking further into this, but my ballpark guess would be that the frame that I have was designed to run 23mm tires originally. Like, when it was released originally in whatever year that was. 2012 or whatever. Then, when it became more popular to run wider tires a few years later - they just started putting 25mm tires on the very same design for marketing purposes. Combine that with using wheels that I'm pretty sure I've seen cited to stretch most tires to 28mm and they created a big problem for their buyers from their end.

Here's one article on the topic that I found from Cervelo addressing this issue (I haven't read it word for word yet): https://www.cervelo.com/en/further-clar ... -clearance

It appears that it became such a big issue that they had to release a statement addressing it. I was just never in any forums where I noticed such an issue. I presumed running a 25mm from the same tire manufacturer as the stock tires on the stock rims would be a no brainer of compatibility. Apparently not.

Obviously, with the frame redesign they changed things dramatically and cite the ability to run a 38.7mm tires with the 2018 R5. I do not see a similar max tire clearance spec for my 2015 R5.

I'm interested to hear from Cervelo exactly what tires they claim that I can run on these stock wheels. If the 5000 series will run in 25mm I'll put those on it. My 4000sII are getting long in the tooth anyway. I can run those on my 2015 Cannondale Synapse 105 Disc no problem for sure.

Thanks again for everyone's help.

[tomato]

Here's one article on the topic that I found from Cervelo addressing this issue (I haven't read it word for word yet): https://www.cervelo.com/en/further-clar ... -clearance

I think you can skip ahead to the final sentence:

"DO NOT rely on the size of the tire listed on the sidewall"

[Fastfwd]

Here's one article on the topic that I found from Cervelo addressing this issue (I haven't read it word for word yet): https://www.cervelo.com/en/further-clar ... -clearance

I think you can skip ahead to the final sentence:

"DO NOT rely on the size of the tire listed on the sidewall"

That's great. It doesn't roll back the clock to 2016 when this statement was posted to make sure I was aware of it, however. Maybe some people are consumed by obscure details like this and it wouldn't have gotten passed them, but I'm not one of them. I don't particularly live in bike forums. My bike was registered and I don't believe I ever received any kind of notification of such an issue to my recollection.

If the average person doesn't become aware of it until there is a problem that's a fail in my opinion. I believe they obviously just tried to market the old design to fit the current market trends of the time. Then they made it even worse by fitting the bike with wheels that compounded the issue. I'm almost certain I've seen it somewhere that these HED wheels are wider than most. That just set customers up to have a problem imo. I can say that I literally had no inclination whatsoever that I might experience tire clearance issues running the same tire size as stock on the stock wheels. I would never have attempted to run 28mm tires without checking for clearance because the bike didn't come with 28mm tires.

I know I've seen reviews where Cervelo claimed that the 'cheap' stock wheels were fitted to the complete bikes because they expected their customers would have their own wheels, but I wasn't one of those people. I looked at aftermarket carbon wheels and ruled it out when I caught on that the rim brake carbon wheels were basically a 'consumable' with some people experiencing delamination on the brake surface in almost no time at all and the manufacturers of the wheels abandoned any responsibility for it. I couldn't see myself spending that much money for such a minor weight savings and expecting that the wheels could disintegrate in a relatively short period of time.

I get it that most of the people on this forum are hardcore into all of this stuff down to the last detail. I am appreciative for you sharing your knowledge, but it's not going to help to attempt to put this on me. I'm already not super happy about it.

[Karvalo]

If the average person doesn't become aware of it until there is a problem that's a fail in my opinion. I believe they obviously just tried to market the old design to fit the current market trends of the time. Then they made it even worse by fitting the bike with wheels that compounded the issue.

No, that R5 easily fitted 25mm tyres on the narrow rims that were the standard of the time. When it was released it was a genuine 25mm tyre clearance bike. They did confuse things a bit by later speccing those much wider Heds, but most 25s would still fit.

I get it that most of the people on this forum are hardcore into all of this stuff down to the last detail. I am appreciative for you sharing your knowledge, but it's not going to help to attempt to put this on me. I'm already not super happy about it.

You fitted those tyres to your bike and you have eyes with which to see the lack of space that resulted. That doesn't require any esoteric knowledge.

[Steve Curtis]

I agree with this ^
There is an element of common sense involved. If you fit a wheel and the tyre it's tight in the frame then it's probably going to rub under torque.

If you hear rubbing of feel resistance when you're walking with the bike or whiles riding then stop and check it out.

I have 2 cervelo S2's from around the same time. They both had gp4000 23's which were bigger than most 25s from other brands, and they were a pretty tight fit. I'm surprised a 25 (28 equivalent) went in at all.

Anyhow, I'm not sure what you want to get out of this as the frame isn't badly damaged, only a small amount of paint loss.

Buy some gp5000 25's. These will fit well and you can enjoy a great bike.

[warthog101]

I'm interested to hear from Cervelo exactly what tires they claim that I can run on these stock wheels. If the 5000 series will run in 25mm I'll put those on it.

Those links I put up earlier have measured widths to fitted GP4K and GP5K in various sizes.
The GP5K in a 25 on a 17mm int rim measure 26.3 mm wide at 100 psi

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... comparison

The GP4K in a 25 on a 17mm rim measure 27mm wide at 100 psi

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... i-23-25-28

[Fastfwd]

If the average person doesn't become aware of it until there is a problem that's a fail in my opinion. I believe they obviously just tried to market the old design to fit the current market trends of the time. Then they made it even worse by fitting the bike with wheels that compounded the issue.

No, that R5 easily fitted 25mm tyres on the narrow rims that were the standard of the time. When it was released it was a genuine 25mm tyre clearance bike. They did confuse things a bit by later speccing those much wider Heds, but most 25s would still fit.

I get it that most of the people on this forum are hardcore into all of this stuff down to the last detail. I am appreciative for you sharing your knowledge, but it's not going to help to attempt to put this on me. I'm already not super happy about it.

You fitted those tyres to your bike and you have eyes with which to see the lack of space that resulted. That doesn't require any esoteric knowledge.

I haven't cited a reference of what tires were supplied on the original R5. That is my assumption and based on that statement released from Cervelo it sounds like maybe my presumption could be correct. I will continue to look for documentation on what they spec’d the original frame design of the bike with as a complete bike. I am still guessing they put 23mm tires on it from the factory originally and it was likely designed for them.

Regardless, it is irrelevant to me if the original bikes were released with a more narrow width wheel that helped 25mm tires fit. The bike I purchased came with the HED wheels fitted with 25mm tires. I believe it is a natural presumption on my end that the bike was specified to clear 25mm tires on those wheels. If anything that just lends to my argument that they shouldn't have put a wider rim on the bike from the factory.

It means little to me that they may have expected their customers to have their own wheels and these were considered a throw away just to get it rolling out the door. If a customer did have their own wheels they may have done their research into wheel widths and been far more informed about exactly what would fit with what. I trusted that Cervelo had done that for me with the stock wheels.

I bought the most popular high performance tire of the day in the exact same tire width as what came stock on the bike in 25mm. The 4000sII were the obvious tire upgrade from the utter trash set of tires the bike came with. Those Grandprix tires that came on the bike were horrible. If the HED wheels were considered by almost every review as a low point amongst the components for a bike that cost that much the tires that came on those wheels were a total disgrace and a joke.

I’m a little pissed off about it now that I’m discovering it through finding some rubbing that concerns me if it has done damage. It might diminish the resale value of the bike in the least if I do ever decide to sell it to move on to something else.

I would never have believed that I needed to get down and examine if I had the ‘2016 ISO required minimum of 4mm frame clearance’ after replacing the junk tires that came on my $7,500 retail bike. I was never aware of this even becoming an issue that arose to the level that a statement needed to be released to address the problem.

When the wheel/tire is centered perfectly it’s not so much of an issue. If the ‘wheel dish’ gets just slightly out of alignment then it becomes a major problem. That’s a really super finicky detail that I was certainly not tuned in to even be a problem.

I’ve really tried to be nice about what the members of ‘Weight Weenies’ would consider being common knowledge. I’ve been appreciative of sharing your knowledge in this exceptionally obscure subject. I did a search on the topic and found exactly one previous mention of this issue show up and it was on this forum. So, I turned here for advice. Not to be berated over what some here might believe is ‘common sense’ to you. It would be ‘common sense’ to me that a $7,500 bike would come with tires in a size that it was designed to accommodate and on wheels that were safe to run that size of tire.

[Karvalo]

I haven't cited a reference of what tires were supplied on the original R5. That is my assumption and based on that statement released from Cervelo it sounds like maybe my presumption could be correct. I will continue to look for documentation on what they spec’d the original frame design of the bike with as a complete bike. I am still guessing they put 23mm tires on it from the factory originally and it was likely designed for them.

The tyre/wheel combo originally specced isn't relevant to the tyre/wheel size the bike is designed to clear. Loads of bikes are specced with significantly smaller tyres than their design clearance allows.

Regardless, it is irrelevant to me if the original bikes were released with a more narrow width wheel that helped 25mm tires fit.

Oh, sorry. I didn;t realise you'd be spending so much effort talking about something irrelevant.

I bought the most popular high performance tire of the day in the exact same tire width as what came stock on the bike in 25mm. The 4000sII were the obvious tire upgrade from the utter trash set of tires the bike came with.

Then you should be angry at Continental for not being able to make the 4000 25mm the same real size as their other 25mm tyres, no?

It would be ‘common sense’ to me that a $7,500 bike would come with tires in a size that it was designed to accommodate and on wheels that were safe to run that size of tire.

It did. That is literally exactly what happened when you bought the bike.

[Fastfwd]

I'm interested to hear from Cervelo exactly what tires they claim that I can run on these stock wheels. If the 5000 series will run in 25mm I'll put those on it.

Those links I put up earlier have measured widths to fitted GP4K and GP5K in various sizes.
The GP5K in a 25 on a 17mm int rim measure 26.3 mm wide at 100 psi

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... comparison

The GP4K in a 25 on a 17mm rim measure 27mm wide at 100 psi

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... i-23-25-28

So, that's a difference of .7 mm? Which equates to like .35mm of clearance difference on each side? Or in the case of what the bike came with measuring in at 26mm it would be a full 1mm total width difference or .5mm clearance difference on each side? One full half a millimeter?

Basically, I may have put tires on the bike that reduced the chainstay clearance by A HALF OF A MILLIMETER on each side? I can see how I fumbled that on my end.

[warthog101]

I'm interested to hear from Cervelo exactly what tires they claim that I can run on these stock wheels. If the 5000 series will run in 25mm I'll put those on it.

Those links I put up earlier have measured widths to fitted GP4K and GP5K in various sizes.
The GP5K in a 25 on a 17mm int rim measure 26.3 mm wide at 100 psi

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... comparison

The GP4K in a 25 on a 17mm rim measure 27mm wide at 100 psi

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... i-23-25-28

So, that's a difference of .7 mm? Which equates to like .35mm of clearance difference on each side? Or in the case of what the bike came with measuring in at 26mm it would be a full 1mm total width difference or .5mm clearance difference on each side? One full half a millimeter?

Basically, I may have put tires on the bike that reduced the chainstay clearance by A HALF OF A MILLIMETER on each side? I can see how I fumbled that on my end.

Yeah it aint alot. Closer than I thought it would be.
The 4K are also taller than the 5K.
I have a 2012 Cervelo S5 team.
It will just fit a 23c GP4K in the rear but it is height, not width, that is the problem.
It will fit a 25c Vittoria rubino pro 3 in there no worries. No way was a 25c GP4K going in there.

[Fastfwd]

I haven't cited a reference of what tires were supplied on the original R5. That is my assumption and based on that statement released from Cervelo it sounds like maybe my presumption could be correct. I will continue to look for documentation on what they spec’d the original frame design of the bike with as a complete bike. I am still guessing they put 23mm tires on it from the factory originally and it was likely designed for them.

The tyre/wheel combo originally specced isn't relevant to the tyre/wheel size the bike is designed to clear. Loads of bikes are specced with significantly smaller tyres than their design clearance allows.

Well, apparently it doesn't accommodate 25mm tires very well with the factory wheels now does it? So..... Not sure I would say it was ever spec'd with 'significantly' smaller tires than the design clearance allows, huh?

Regardless, it is irrelevant to me if the original bikes were released with a more narrow width wheel that helped 25mm tires fit.

Oh, sorry. I didn;t realise you'd be spending so much effort talking about something irrelevant.

It is 'irrelevant' to me in this context because I didn't purchase a R5 in 2012 or whenever it was originally released with the same frame design that they put a new paint job on to sell in 2015 with the apparently wider HED wheels. If there is any relevance at all it might be that what it came with when it was originally released was what fit the bike.

It would be my opinion that they more than likely just put whatever wheels and tires would provide the highest profit margin that they could get away with for the marketing of a bike with 25mm tires that became the market trend.

I bought the most popular high performance tire of the day in the exact same tire width as what came stock on the bike in 25mm. The 4000sII were the obvious tire upgrade from the utter trash set of tires the bike came with.

Then you should be angry at Continental for not being able to make the 4000 25mm the same real size as their other 25mm tyres, no?

I wouldn’t say that Continental doesn’t share blame in this. This is literally the first that I’ve heard of the 4000sII being any wider than any other 25mm tires.

It would be ‘common sense’ to me that a $7,500 bike would come with tires in a size that it was designed to accommodate and on wheels that were safe to run that size of tire.

It did. That is literally exactly what happened when you bought the bike.

The premise that they only put a wheel/tire combo on the bike from the factory that it was designed to accommodate because those tires have a half a millimeter more clearance on each side in the chainstay is pretty weak IMO.

If ONE HALF OF A MILLIMETER makes the difference for there to either be ‘enough’ clearance or not then I might argue that they definitely did not spec a proper wheel and tire combination for the bike. They just wanted to be on the current market trend for the time in 2015 and they setup their customers to find out the hard way that they were misled to believe the bike could accommodate 25mm tires.

The ‘ISO Standard’ that was supposedly released in 2016 says there has to be FOUR MILLIMETERS PER SIDE OF CLEARANCE for ‘Saftey.’ If there was anything close to 4mm of clearance on each side with the factory wheel/tire combo then fitting tires that were A HALF OF A MILLIMETER per side larger wouldn’t have been an issue at all.

[Fastfwd]

I'm interested to hear from Cervelo exactly what tires they claim that I can run on these stock wheels. If the 5000 series will run in 25mm I'll put those on it.

Those links I put up earlier have measured widths to fitted GP4K and GP5K in various sizes.
The GP5K in a 25 on a 17mm int rim measure 26.3 mm wide at 100 psi

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... comparison

The GP4K in a 25 on a 17mm rim measure 27mm wide at 100 psi

https://www.bicyclerollingresistance.co ... i-23-25-28

So, that's a difference of .7 mm? Which equates to like .35mm of clearance difference on each side? Or in the case of what the bike came with measuring in at 26mm it would be a full 1mm total width difference or .5mm clearance difference on each side? One full half a millimeter?

Basically, I may have put tires on the bike that reduced the chainstay clearance by A HALF OF A MILLIMETER on each side? I can see how I fumbled that on my end.

Yeah it aint alot. Closer than I thought it would be.
The 4K are also taller than the 5K.
I have a 2012 Cervelo S5 team.
It will just fit a 23c GP4K in the rear but it is height, not width, that is the problem.
It will fit a 25c Vittoria rubino pro 3 in there no worries. No way was a 25c GP4K going in there.

I know you are trying to be helpful and I appreciate you pointing me toward the website that attempts to measure the variance in tire widths.

I don't believe I have any clearance issues with the height of the tires. I've already been considering buying a set of 5000 to replace my old 4000sII anyway frankly. I just want to know before I spend $100+ that I can get the 25mm with those and not worry about any more of this clearance issue bs.

[tomato]

...

[Karvalo]

Well, apparently it doesn't accommodate 25mm tires very well with the factory wheels now does it?

Sure it does. The ones they specced didn't rub, did they?

The ‘ISO Standard’ that was supposedly released in 2016

What year bike is it again?