Does this frame exist?

2»

Comments

  • Roastie
    Roastie Posts: 1,968
    @ Nick: So we're 2:0? :(;)

    Must admit I discounted 853 for a lot of what we are doing for manufacturing considerations more than anything else, also quite a lot pricier than 3Al2.5V!
    David
    Engineered Bicycles
  • Jamey
    Jamey Posts: 2,152
    How do you know what size rotors you need? Does it depend on where the caliper mount is placed on the frame?

    If so, could you not move the caliper mounts even further inboard (ie even further away from rack/mudguard mounts) and have a bigger rotor? Would there be a downside to that?
    My photography // My helmet cam videos // My bike
  • Roastie
    Roastie Posts: 1,968
    In theory you could do this (set the mounts in the standard position for 185 discs or shift the caliper position using an adapter), but on the rear it would def make the bike over-braked unloaded, not sure about when loaded for touring (I'll be testing this out in coming weeks).

    I do also suspect that if you did move the disc forward to accommodate a larger disc, you'd run into heel clearance issues.
    David
    Engineered Bicycles
  • Jamey
    Jamey Posts: 2,152
    Fair enough, so what size rotors are 'normal' (by which I mean no adjustment / adapter would be required for the Paragon drop-outs)? 160mm?
    My photography // My helmet cam videos // My bike
  • Jamey
    Jamey Posts: 2,152
    Ok so having read up a little it seems that 160mm rotors are pretty standard but it seems that it's not uncommon for MTBers to run a larger rotor at the front than they do at the rear... Say 185mm up front and 160mm at the rear.

    Whaddya reckon? Worth doing, seeing as I'm designing my dream bike here?
    My photography // My helmet cam videos // My bike
  • Stuey01
    Stuey01 Posts: 1,273
    Jamey wrote:
    Ok so having read up a little it seems that 160mm rotors are pretty standard but it seems that it's not uncommon for MTBers to run a larger rotor at the front than they do at the rear... Say 185mm up front and 160mm at the rear.

    Whaddya reckon? Worth doing, seeing as I'm designing my dream bike here?

    On the road you probably won't need bigger, but the extra weight is minimal and as a large fella you might like the extra oomph.

    I run 203mm discs on the front of my MTBs.
    Not climber, not sprinter, not rouleur
  • ratherbeintobago
    ratherbeintobago Posts: 636
    Jamey wrote:
    Ok so having read up a little it seems that 160mm rotors are pretty standard but it seems that it's not uncommon for MTBers to run a larger rotor at the front than they do at the rear... Say 185mm up front and 160mm at the rear.

    Whaddya reckon? Worth doing, seeing as I'm designing my dream bike here?

    Some MTB forks have limits on the size of rotor one can run (I assume this is due to bigger discs causing more leverage & resulting stress on the fork crown?) - I'd just check that the fork you want to use is OK with the discs you want to use.

    Kinesis don't give any info on their DC19 page (carbon fork with mudguard eyes & disc mount) but I'd guess 160mm is normal for road applications.

    Andy
    On twitter
  • Jamey
    Jamey Posts: 2,152
    I'll be getting a fork custom made along with the frame so can specify anything I like. Just wondered if it was worth going for 185mm.
    My photography // My helmet cam videos // My bike
  • mudcovered
    mudcovered Posts: 725
    Jamey wrote:
    I'll be getting a fork custom made along with the frame so can specify anything I like. Just wondered if it was worth going for 185mm.
    The fork leg on the caliper side will have to be quite beefy to survive the forces from a big rotor. Might make it a bit heavy.

    I've been using 185front/160 rear setup on my MTB for ages. This has coped admirably both on and off road even when I was up to 240lbs. However I'd say that for road use its a bit over the top. I can guarantee that every time I grab a handful of front brake bike I end up with the back wheel quite a few inches off the ground. Not sure how controllable it would be on a rigid forked bike with narrow tyres.

    Mike
  • Jamey
    Jamey Posts: 2,152
    Cool, 160mm sounds fine then.
    My photography // My helmet cam videos // My bike
  • wgwarburton
    wgwarburton Posts: 1,863
    Jamey wrote:
    Phew, glad I checked that :)

    Guess I'll go for normal steel. Shame though as I wanted the beefy ones just purely because of the amount of weight my bike carries every day.

    Jamey, this may sound daft, but if I were you I'd get two sets of those dropouts...

    I'm thinking that a custom-steel frame is something you're going to keep for a while (I'm riding my father's 531 touring frame from 1948). One of the key benefits of a steel frame is that it's repairable, and given that you have a custom part, it wouldn't hurt to have a spare stashed away. The dropout is one of the more vulnerable parts of a frame, so if it gets bent in a decade or two it'd be nice to be able to get a replacement brazed in....
    I'm sure that you'd be able to source something that would work, maybe Paragon will still be in business and maybe they'd be able to supply a matching one.. but for the sake of a few quid it wouldn't hurt to have one handy...

    Just a thought...

    Cheers,
    W.
  • Jamey
    Jamey Posts: 2,152
    Well replacement mech hangers are only a fiver I think, so i was already planning to get two spares of those (so three in total).

    But the dropouts themselves are a little dearer - about $50 I think - so I'll have a think about that (not buying any of this stuff for a month or two yet).

    If I had a prang in future it wouldn't be too hard for a builder to copy an existing design, would it? When the frame is there in front of them all they have to do is look at what's there and copy it without whatever damage has occurred.
    My photography // My helmet cam videos // My bike

Categories