Condor Bivio X

bendertherobot

Also very true. I'm going with my backup. Leave the guards on the MTB and use that for the inclement/muddy stuff.

The bonus to leaving the guards off the Bivio (and leaving the very good tyres on) is that I can press it into cyclocross duties without arseing around.

bendertherobot

Mega chunky tyres for last race of the Welsh CX season.....

ugo.santalucia

Why did you remove the beautiful Arione for that horror? :roll:

bendertherobot

Cos it hurt!

ugo.santalucia

bendertherobot wrote:

Cos it hurt!

I have a couple of Arione and an Antares too... all stuff recycled... they are really good, so good that I no longer use the heavy Brooks.
Someone who does your mileage should be OK with the FIzik...

bendertherobot

ugo.santalucia wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Cos it hurt!

I have a couple of Arione and an Antares too... all stuff recycled... they are really good, so good that I no longer use the heavy Brooks.
Someone who does your mileage should be OK with the FIzik...

I wanted to like all of the. The Aliante is probably closest to my arse shape. Antares was awful. The Arione almost killed me on my last 100 miler.

arthur_scrimshaw

I found the spoon a very comfortable saddle but the stitching chews up bibshorts so watch out for early signs. I swapped mine for a scoop on the CX and a c17 on my steel bike. The c17 is my favourite though.

bendertherobot

Yeah, I really want a C17 and might swap that that. My bibs all still seem ok, but I know what the Spoon is capable of. So I may change it soon. Be interesting to see what the saddle on my PX XLS is like.

tim_wand

Sorry to sabotage this thread, but you boys seem to know what your about when it comes to CX style frames. I m considering the ON ONE Pickenflick as an all rounder but the gearing I could possibly run on it is putting me off.

What does the below actually mean?

Its an On-One, so its special. We use the wider standard of mountainbike (or road 135mm cranks) to make better use of the tyre clearance in the notoriously tight mud room in the back of the bike. By pulling the cranks out 2.5mm compared to a slim road crank, we get better mud room, better chainring clearance, more BB stiffness because of less chainstay ovalisation, better frame durability, and a win all round.

does it mean the axle length on the cranks? how does this vary/ work with new style cranks with external bearings and axles fixed to the driveside ( does the axle length vary between road and mtb chainsets) if so I never knew this.

Surely the front mech alignment wouldn't work if the Q factor was altered so radically.

What does this 135mm crank refer to, or have they got themselves mixed up with the rear hub spacing?

I think I m missing something really simple here I just cant fathom out what a 135mm crank is ( surely not the arm length is it?) I can understand how that would give you scope for wider chainstays and require smaller chainrings so they did not overlap the arms, but 135mm that would be comically short surely?

bendertherobot

tim wand wrote:

Sorry to sabotage this thread, but you boys seem to know what your about when it comes to CX style frames. I m considering the ON ONE Pickenflick as an all rounder but the gearing I could possibly run on it is putting me off.

What does the below actually mean?

Its an On-One, so its special. We use the wider standard of mountainbike (or road 135mm cranks) to make better use of the tyre clearance in the notoriously tight mud room in the back of the bike. By pulling the cranks out 2.5mm compared to a slim road crank, we get better mud room, better chainring clearance, more BB stiffness because of less chainstay ovalisation, better frame durability, and a win all round.

does it mean the axle length on the cranks? how does this vary/ work with new style cranks with external bearings and axles fixed to the driveside ( does the axle length vary between road and mtb chainsets) if so I never knew this.

Surely the front mech alignment wouldn't work if the Q factor was altered so radically.

What does this 135mm crank refer to, or have they got themselves mixed up with the rear hub spacing?

I think I m missing something really simple here I just cant fathom out what a 135mm crank is ( surely not the arm length is it?) I can understand how that would give you scope for wider chainstays and require smaller chainrings so they did not overlap the arms, but 135mm that would be comically short surely?

No, it's correct. As I recall the thread the accusation was that, basically, PX screwed it up and were attempting to pass off the error as deliberate. So, there were severe limitations on what crank you could run. From memory something tiny like 42 or 44t. That's confirmed by the webpage.

Of course, they've re-released the bike now, see here:

http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/CBOOPICKRIV ... cross-bike

Proper road spacing for the bb/chainset, standard MTB 135mm on the wheels. Exactly as it should be, basically.

I'd avoid the frame, nice as it is, given the limitations on "going fast."

ugo.santalucia

tim wand wrote:

Its an On-One, so its special. We use the wider standard of mountainbike (or road 135mm cranks) to make better use of the tyre clearance in the notoriously tight mud room in the back of the bike. By pulling the cranks out 2.5mm compared to a slim road crank, we get better mud room, better chainring clearance, more BB stiffness because of less chainstay ovalisation, better frame durability, and a win all round.

It means an ignorant wrote it, ignore it.
135 mm is the dropout spacing, which is common to pretty much all MTB and CX frames... nothing to do with mud clearance or chainset... in fact most CX bikes use road chainsets and BBs.

Unfortunately these big retailers have incompetent staff... it's a fact of life

bendertherobot

ugo.santalucia wrote:

tim wand wrote:

Its an On-One, so its special. We use the wider standard of mountainbike (or road 135mm cranks) to make better use of the tyre clearance in the notoriously tight mud room in the back of the bike. By pulling the cranks out 2.5mm compared to a slim road crank, we get better mud room, better chainring clearance, more BB stiffness because of less chainstay ovalisation, better frame durability, and a win all round.

It means an ignorant wrote it, ignore it.
135 mm is the dropout spacing, which is common to pretty much all MTB and CX frames... nothing to do with mud clearance or chainset... in fact most CX bikes use road chainsets and BBs.

Unfortunately these big retailers have incompetent staff... it's a fact of life

"We designed this for a mountainbike drivetrain. We are running 42/28, with a 49.5mm chainline (between the middle rings). Weve also considered a 39/26 for lower speed pure offroad use. A road 46/36 or 50/34 will be too close to the frame and should not be used due to having a chainline 3-4mm narrower (which would take lots off the tyre clearance)."

tim_wand

The fact that it said 135mm made me think they meant hub spacing, but then when it started going on about limitations of chain ring size I am still confused. Even kids bikes run longer cranks than 135 mm it cant be crank length the chain rings would overlap the crank.

Going to read the thread linked to by our robot friend.

mm1

I think they do mean 135 hub spacing, but what they're saying is that with this spacing the chainstays are too wide to allow clearance for road size rings. If I could draw you a picture I would. Try to imagine the chainstays as a triangle or letter "A" with the chain ring a straight line alongside it. If large enough, the chain ring will eventually intersect the chainstay unless you stick it on a longer axle (possible with square taper bottom bracket axles, but not with more modern designs) or indent the chainstay to create clearance. Sounds like poor design, with the chainstay being made from oversized tubing / without an indentation to accomodate larger chainrings.

tim_wand

Yer that's what I thought. I seized a bottom bracket in an old trek hybrid I use as a work and back bike and the only way I could get it out was to reverse the axle so the drive side was on the none drive side ( I mangled the cups) the only way I could run it was to just have a single smaller chainring ( fine for a work bike) because the axle length meant larger chainrings fouled the chainstays at the bottom bracket junction.

That was me bodging a frame just couldn't see PX designing one that suffered in the same way.

The link BTR has put up shows it with SRAM 22 and GPX bottom bracket, so Im not sure which works unless its the Sram CX chainset.

bendertherobot

The link is the new complete bike though. I think they only did frame only before.

I think they've "fixed" the frame so that you can run it as normal now. But the frame only is the old version.

bendertherobot

http://road.cc/content/review/116607-on ... cross-bike

That's the review of the "old one." I think, if you look at the chainset photo it's very clear where the clearance issue is. No way a 34t inner is getting on there.

tim_wand

Kinesis ATR tripster for me I think, Extra rack and guard mounts will come in handy.

Ugo, can you move my comments to workshop or Road buying advice so not to sabotage BTR's thread.

woolwich

Just to carry on at a tangent for a moment. I thik mm1 is spot on with how Planet X cocked up there clearance for chainrings.
Using a 73mm wide MTB bottom bracket makes huge sense on cx bikes but as said only if you execute it properly and design it in from the start. I run a 73mm wide bb on my cx bike and was highest finisher (11th) on sunday, who didnt pit to change bike, I could only do this because the bb area didnt clog up, it helps massively. I run 36-48, no issues. Chainline isnt compromised seriously, after all we manage to run 10/11 speed cassettes no problem.
It does limit chainset options a bit but not seriously if you plan it in, JIS isnt a problem and lots of shimano chainsets are fine, you simply dont fit the two little bb spacers behind the cups. Granted you are snookered of you want to run Sram road kit.
Lots of the smaller independent manufacturers use this, if you think outside the box it's the right thing to do. Off the top of my head I am sure Shand spec some of there range this way. Just saying. I would hate for somebody not to choose a bike like this that might have been planned properly.

tim_wand

If I was solely going to race CX on this frame then I wouldn't be at all concerned, I do think that the blurb PX/ ON one have put on it is complete B/S though, I think Brant Richards got himself a nice frame to race CX and thought I can knock a few of these out and didn't really think of the limitations for general use.

I want a frame to Tour/ Commute and do some rough stuff, basically replace my Kaffenbach with something a bit fancier with some longevity. I m a big PX fan boy but this time I think my money will be going to kinesis.

bendertherobot

Update. Instead of a new hybrid to replace this I'm going to convert it into a flat bar for commuting.

So,

SRAM doubletap flat bar shifters

Shimano SLX hydraulic brakes.

Nice narrowish bar.

bendertherobot

ugo.santalucia

nice, especially the wheels!

bendertherobot

Lbs tomorrow for brake hose cutting

bendertherobot

bendertherobot

I flipped the stem. Initial feelings are that it's even better!

bendertherobot

https://goo.gl/photos/Q4Miga4mQhyzfH437

Nice clean, new chain. And new wheels.

ugo.santalucia

Looks familiar

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/condor-bivio- ... SwQYZWyH24

bendertherobot

Oo nice. I had that up to test the water during PX's sale, just haven't taken it down yet.

bendertherobot

(It's currently in the shop having new SLX brakes fitted, then I'll probably go 1x with a 44t front and 11-36 rear