What is the lightest HT frame with UDH?
Epic HT?
1 Like
Does it have UDH?
Probably a close second to the specialized:
1 Like
Ok. Say no more. This is the bike I want to win Leadville Stage Race next year.
But how do I get my hands on one?. Seems out of stock everywhere ā¦.
Not sure sadly, but note this is the MY24 and beyond that had the chainstay/rear redesigned for UDH and the cable port moved to the bottom.
1 Like
So only 2024 models have UDH?..ā¦Seems like Specialized is discontinuing the S-Works version. Damn!
im interested in doing the inverse of all this, essentially building up a gravel frame, with front suspension, and translating my fit information over. Very lost in terms of how to accurately judge how much reach/fc/saddle-stem center i should have on the new build given grip contact points between the drops and the flat. Iām currently playing with geometry that places the angular grip measurement from roughly my shoulder area between that of my hands on the drop-bar flats and the drop-bar hoods. Based on Frankās work, if it was the same frame, I wouldnāt really need to change my stem length. However I have the opportunity to build up from scratch so, should any tips from anyone who has done the inverse? Should I calculate this out angularly to get it in the midpoint of the drop bars? Increase the FC of the new bike compared to my old, also getting some much needed clearance? etc. etc.
Is there a reason you wouldnāt just use a hardtail?
2 Likes
letās just say for the sake of argument that iām committed to this build/bit.
But more seriously I think it will be a good middle of the road build for me between my allroad frame and a full suspension.
But also, primarily looking for your experiences with reach modification between flats and drops on the same frame / different frames, as this thread is more or less about.
Yeah, like others have said, unless you want 40mm of suspension only, the hardtail is going to provide the most flexibility and clearance here.
Iām sure youāve got other requirements/wishlist factors here, but weāll need more info as to your use case.
A non boost gravel rig for riding canals/unpaved paths will have different strengths than a 80-100mm suspension hardtail.
What are you doing to mitigate the effects of drastically raising the bb height and shortening of the effective top tube that happens when you fit a suspension fork that will be several inches longer axle to crown than the existing rigid fork?
1 Like
In terms of pure bike fit you should strive for typical bike fitting measurements. But not the very basic Saddle nose to end of stem (handle bar mounting point) and rather āmiddleā of the Saddle to the Hoods. So if you would transfer these over from your other gravel bike or get from a bike fitter you will know what to build up.
Yes, certainly - the feel on the bike might be different to what you previously rode if that new frame has a totally new geometry with longer front-center and maybe other parameters. So maybe once being able to ride it you might decide you actually want to sit a bit longer or a bit shorter and what not. But at least the bike itself should fit you.
Best would be if you could ride that frame as a complete bike (even if it has a rigid fork). This would give you confidence in your choice, especially if you are unsure on the exact sizing of the frame or how you would like how it handles.
Edit / addendum: Especially in light of the very valid point of @JonGreengrass I assume that the frame you have your eyes on already has a suspension corrected geometry like quite a number of new gravel bikes have these days. If not, then indeed you should expect some steering differences resulting from a risen front end (leading to a slacker head tube angle) which may or may not put the steering more or further away from the direction you prefer.
Thanks! Appreciate the info. To be clear, this will be a custom frame (suspension corrected).
2 Likes
FYI - For anyone running the new SRAM XXSL crank and wanting to fit a larger (>38) chainring on their MTB, the new RED XPLR rings use the same diameter/pitch as the threaded MTB rings.
The XPLR rings are available up to 46t, but unfortunately have a 6.5mm offset. So, while you can get a bigger ring and it threads onto the crank fine, the ring is offset closer to the chainstay compared to the MTB chainrings (which are available in 0 offset or 3mm offset). Depending on the model of XXSL crank you have (168 vs 174 Q factor), that makes the chainline either 51.5mm or 48.5mm with the XPLR rings. The 51.5 chainline should be fine from a shifting standpoint, but not likely clear the chainstay on a frame that āofficiallyā maxes out on a 36 or 38 chainring with a normal chainline.
So, how did Keegan run a 42 ring on his highball at leadville (which officially supports a 38t max)? Based on my discussion with a guy at SRAM (who wasnāt involved with the setup, but aware of it), Keegan ran the new XPLR ring and shimmed the crank over to the right a bit to provide extra clearance. And he also mentioned that the ring was rubbing the frame at times, so not a great solution.
Anyway, the 6.5mm offset is a challenge, but it sounds like there is at least a hacky option to run a larger XPLR ring for people willing to shim their crank to the right a bit. Iām sure itās highly dependent on the frame and how tight it was with a 38 to begin with. It would be nice if SRAM (or aftermarket) would make a compatible zero offset ring in 40 and 42, I think that would work on many frames without shimming (at least for the 40).
1 Like
I was at MADE last weekend and saw that bike. Itās owner of Mosaicās personal bike, a GT-2X
Itās a very very capable bike, but to fit the tires and such the geometry does differ more than your standard gravel bike. It seems that (largely) the wider tire clearance you get, the longer the wheel base gets, the longer the chainstay gets, it changes the fork angle, requiring a shorter stem and altered handling. The main problem is having proper chainring clearance at the chainstay to still permit a wide enough tire as they basically overlap. Carbon fiber may be better with this as the tubing dimensions can be worked a bit easier than titanium. Some titanium builders are doing 3D titanium for that section to allow a little more clearance.
Thereās give and take with everything. I settled on a Mosaic GT-1 45 with custom geometry that I put the down payment on this week. It lacks a little of the tire clearance, but also has geometry closer to a road bike. Everything seems to be a bit of a trade off. I know Iāll be doing a lot more pavement than I will super rugged terrain, so Iād rather be better off for the pavement rides than the super technical gravel/single track.
My next bike will likely be something that better blurs the line between single track & super chunky gravel, while the GT-1 45 will be on the line between regular gravel and pavement. A two-bike set up should suit most everything Iām interested in doing very well.
1 Like
Just as a point of clarification, to some good info, this is regarding the XX SL Thread On Power meterā¦ Not just the XX SL Crank, which still has the same 8 bolt pattern spider mounting, and can use any offset ring.
I measured the standard 1x direct mount road rings that come on the range from Apex to Red to have something like 8mm offset, which was part of why I was easily able to get away with a āroad crankā on my mtbās by simply using a 0mm or 3mmm offset ring. The fact that you can get varying offsets is a huge appeal to this system. From launch, the thread-on chainring was a little less appealing to me, as I simply donāt see any third party manufacturers that will be willing to try to tackle such a detailed threading design. So youāre locked into Sram rings, and we can see now, that youāre somewhat limited in optionsā¦ (The other downside for me, which is admittedly niche, is the special tool required, which is a big turn off for the self supported ultra distance bikepacking type races I do.)
1 Like
Thanks for clarification, I should have better highlighted that this was the new threaded ring version.
And I had the same reservations about going this route on the new bike. Lots of downside if wanting to go aftermarket rings (oval, different offsets, etc.) and the rings are kind of stupidly expensive. My main concern was ease of switching rings and that has been a pleasant surprise. Even though you need a tool, I find it to be a better system if you swap rings all the time. Iām a compulsive ring swapper and I tend to go through chainring bolts constantly (cracking/breaking them).
I was thinking about running my new Epic at big sugar this year just for fun (C race). Was hoping to fit a 40t ring, but looking like Iāll be sticking with the 38. Iām honestly not sure a 40t would fit anyway at a 55mm chainline, but I wanted to try. Seems like a no-brainer for the OEMās to skinny up the chainstay a bit to support up to ~44t. Not sure why they donāt do that, but I guess it probably has some impact on suspension behavior on a FS bike.