Your latest bike purchase?

[dbb]

@Harry Meatmotor 136445 wrote:

Just don’t tell Mike Sinyard, he’ll sue your a$$!

So you can get sued for using a Specialized trademark as well as not using a Specialized trademark? Pretty much screwed, you are!

[hozn]

@KayakCyndi 136121 wrote:

Fancy wheels for fancy bike.

Did you have to do something with your derailleur or get special end caps or something? I know Specialized was all proud of themselves for creating a proprietary hub/frame system that moved the cassette inboard 2.5mm or so. I think they call this “SCS”.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/specialized/scs-wtf-345626.html

I love the comment “Yeah…SCS does strike me as a solution to a problem no one knew they had. “. While I admit that the smallest 1 or 2 cogs don’t really work for me when I’m in the little ring on the 410mm-chainstay [disc] road bike (due to hitting the shift pins on the big ring), in practice this is not a problem: SRAM 10sp wants you to default to the big ring anyway (FD only trims in).

[KayakCyndi]

@hozn 136450 wrote:

Did you have to do something with your derailleur or get special end caps or something? I know Specialized was all proud of themselves for creating a proprietary hub/frame system that moved the cassette inboard 2.5mm or so. I think they call this “SCS”.

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/specialized/scs-wtf-345626.html

I love the comment “Yeah…SCS does strike me as a solution to a problem no one knew they had. “. While I admit that the smallest 1 or 2 cogs don’t really work for me when I’m in the little ring on the 410mm-chainstay [disc] road bike (due to hitting the shift pins on the rings), in practice this is not a problem: SRAM 10sp wants you to default to the big ring anyway (FD only trims in).

Nope these are the standard Rovel’s before their silly SCS which does stand for short chain stay. I read somewhere that Specialized didn’t want to lengthen their chainstays and rather than change the geometry of the bike they changed the wheels. Anyway, I got these “used” and the former owner didn’t have them on a specialized. They were plug and play from my old wheels.

[Harry Meatmotor]

@KayakCyndi 136452 wrote:

Nope these are the standard Rovel’s before their silly SCS which does stand for short chain stay. I read somewhere that Specialized didn’t want to lengthen their chainstays and rather than change the geometry of the bike they changed the wheels. Anyway, I got these “used” and the former owner didn’t have them on a specialized. They were plug and play from my old wheels.

Just a little background from my research on this. A little birdy told me that the Big Red S had completed production on it’s initial run of Tarmac disc frames, but were denied an order with SRAM due to the frames being out of spec per SRAMs driveline requirements. 135OLD spacing plus 405mm chainstay = fussy chainline and SRAM didn’t want it’s parts to be associated with crummy shifting/ghost shifting up front on NEW BADASS DISC TARMACzzzz. So, with a few tweaks to hub spacing, the Big Red S fixed their problem of out of spec frames, and lucky for us, created a new hub spacing mess between 142×12, 135×12, 135x10QR, 130x10QR, and now 135x10QR SCS, and 135×12 SCS. yay!

(I will say, whoever at the Big Red S came up with the idea to shove a 130OLD hub body on a 135OLD axle with some flipped around end caps is kind of genius, and did save them a boat load of money. Parts bin engineering at its finest!!!)

Edit: also, on my CruX at least, the SCS wheelset is using offset spoke hole drilling in the rim to mitigate the loss in bracing angle, too.

[hozn]

@Harry Meatmotor 136499 wrote:

Just a little background from my research on this. A little birdy told me that the Big Red S had completed production on it’s initial run of Tarmac disc frames, but were denied an order with SRAM due to the frames being out of spec per SRAMs driveline requirements. 135OLD spacing plus 405mm chainstay = fussy chainline and SRAM didn’t want it’s parts to be associated with crummy shifting/ghost shifting up front on NEW BADASS DISC TARMACzzzz. So, with a few tweaks to hub spacing, the Big Red S fixed their problem of out of spec frames, and lucky for us, created a new hub spacing mess between 142×12, 135×12, 135x10QR, 130x10QR, and now 135x10QR SCS, and 135×12 SCS. yay!

Interesting — I knew the general gist of SRAM/Shimano spec’ing a minimum (of 420mm?) chainstay length for shifting performance, but nice to get some further business insight. A little surprised that they finished the build of their frame without consulting the groupset mfrs. Granted 405mm is pretty short — and certainly shorter than the 410mm on my road bike, so I can appreciate that this would further exaggerate any issues. I’d hazard that it’s one of [if not *the*] shortest chainstay name-brand disc road bike out there, so for the rest of us with 410+mm stays to say that there isn’t actually a problem with road disc may not be negating what would have been crappy shifting on the Tarmac. Even the Foundry road race Riveter was 415mm, if I remember correctly. (Obviously Shimano/SRAM must have relaxed their 420mm rule for Foundry, or maybe QBP can just do whatever they want?) I think there is an ebay Chinese Carbon (Flyxii?) road disc frame that has 402mm chainstays. So I guess that could be used to test out this theory.

I do love that they offer the Tarmac in disc.

[americancyclo]

Got this Bike Hand wall mount stand over the holidays and finally got it mounted in to my deck in the back yard. The clamping system isn’t as nice as an EVT, but it’s a few grand less expensive, and it’s SO nice to be able to work on the bike with both hands.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]11189[/ATTACH]

[ShawnoftheDread]

@hozn 136518 wrote:

Even the Foundry road race Riveter was 415mm, if I remember correctly. (Obviously Shimano/SRAM must have relaxed their 420mm rule for Foundry, or maybe QBP can just do whatever they want?).

Only for giants. Appropriately sized humans have 410 mm chain stays on their Riveters. I don’t know why the shifting works.

[Harry Meatmotor]

@hozn 136518 wrote:

Interesting — I knew the general gist of SRAM/Shimano spec’ing a minimum (of 420mm?) chainstay length for shifting performance, but nice to get some further business insight. A little surprised that they finished the build of their frame without consulting the groupset mfrs. Granted 405mm is pretty short — and certainly shorter than the 410mm on my road bike, so I can appreciate that this would further exaggerate any issues. I’d hazard that it’s one of [if not *the*] shortest chainstay name-brand disc road bike out there, so for the rest of us with 410+mm stays to say that there isn’t actually a problem with road disc may not be negating what would have been crappy shifting on the Tarmac. Even the Foundry road race Riveter was 415mm, if I remember correctly. (Obviously Shimano/SRAM must have relaxed their 420mm rule for Foundry, or maybe QBP can just do whatever they want?) I think there is an ebay Chinese Carbon (Flyxii?) road disc frame that has 402mm chainstays. So I guess that could be used to test out this theory.

I do love that they offer the Tarmac in disc.

I think this has/had a LOT to do with the fact that they spent A LOT of time developing the “Rider First Engineered” sizing/geometry/layup schedule on the S-Works bikes, and my guess is that the disc and non-disc bikes couldn’t be thought to ride differently – hence, super short chainstays on the disc bike. Also, I think the >=420mm “spec” may be relaxed on lower-than-halo bikes. I can fully imagine a drivetrain manufacturer fussing about a non-optimal driveline on a $9k+ retail bike. On a mid-level/small manufacturer bike, perhaps not so much fussiness.

[hozn]

Yeah, the disc Tarmacs are obscenely priced. I don’t think I could ever justify spending $4k on a frameset — much less an off-the-shelf (non-custom), carbon frameset.

[ebubar]

[ATTACH]11216[/ATTACH]

New fast bike. Ready to get tickets on the CCT now!

[vvill]

Not the best photo of the bike – but really happy that he got the hang of it after a few (more) practice sessions.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11338[/ATTACH]

Saddle height is his preference (for now). It’s an Islabikes’ Beinn 20 large. I considered the 24 too but liked the idea of 406 rims for max tire compatibility. Also hoping I could just move him up to 26″ around the same time this one becomes a hand-me-down.

[AFHokie]

Since the striker broke off my bell, I was in the market for a new one & discovered the Oi Bell on Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/-oi/oi-the-bike-bell-that-doesnt-look-like-a-bike-bell

A little pricey for a bell, but looks good, sounds good and I’m hoping it’s design means it’ll work better in the rain than the average bell. Unfortunately, it probably won’t arrive until August.

[americancyclo]

@vvill 137530 wrote:

Not the best photo of the bike – but really happy that he got the hang of it after a few (more) practice sessions.

Saddle height is his preference (for now). It’s an Islabikes’ Beinn 20 large. I considered the 24 too but liked the idea of 406 rims for max tire compatibility. Also hoping I could just move him up to 26″ around the same time this one becomes a hand-me-down.

Did you order online?

[hozn]

I think you can only order new Isla bikes over the phone [from the Portland distributor]. It is easy enough, though.

[vvill]

@americancyclo 137644 wrote:

Did you order online?

Over the phone, as hozn mentioned.

They might have some discounted bikes – I forgot to ask: http://www.islabikes.com/discounted-bikes/

[Author]

Posts