Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

Chinese Carbon 29er

4M views 10K replies 1K participants last post by  frank6262 
#1 ·
So a few months ago on here I saw some threads about people looking for a chinese carbon 29er. I got interested in them and starting looking and I've finally found one.

http://loiceyu.en.made-in-china.com/product/DqBQEJxuvbVM/China-29er-Mountain-Frame-MTB753-.html

The actual site is:

http://www.gotobike.com.cn/

I sent them an email asking about larger sizes and got a response pretty quickly from the actual company (They make tons of different things including road frames, wheelsets, water bottle cages, forks, etc.)

I was told that the bike will be made in 16, 17.5, and 20 inches. I was also told the 16 and 20 inch frames wont be available until the end of the year. I was given a price sheet which includes everything they make, a picture showing the geometry for the 17.5 frame, and a picture of the actual frame which are below.

500 bucks per frame plus 100 for shipping.

I think I'm going to go for this when the 20 inch frame comes out.
 

Attachments

See less See more
2
#7,433 ·
Build complete :)
Yet to see a trail but it rides promising around the neighborhood.
Looking forward to testing on trail this weekend. Travel will be reduced to 110mm for trail use. Currently still at 140 :nono: Running 1X10 with BBG Bash and MRP guide. Had to mod guide a bit to accommodate bash. Works flawless like on my Rumblefish. Build weight at 25.8 pounds. Not bad but expected better. Bicycle tire Bicycle frame Tire Wheel Bicycle wheel
Bicycle tire Tire Bicycle frame Wheel Bicycle wheel
Bicycle tire Bicycle frame Tire Wheel Bicycle wheel rim
Bicycle tire Tire Bicycle frame Wheel Bicycle wheel rim
 
#7,662 ·
SRAM lists the available types as High Clamp, Low Clamp, High Direct Mount, Low Direct Mount. You want the Low Direct Mount, otherwise known as E2. The E-type has been around for a while. It mounts at the bottom bracket with a metal bracket. You can now buy the bracket separately and bolt the LDM type derailleur to it. Here is small discussion on the difference (or lack of difference) between E-Type and E2 Type. Low direct mount Front Derailleur - Tech Q&A - thehubsa.co.za
 
#8,209 ·
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across rude.

My point was that the poster was basically asking for an XC race frame having had good experiences with a Scottt Scale, Giant XTC and Giant Anthem. The 256 is an excellent riding frame and an excellent option for the poster. Dismissing it based on one isolated number doesn't make sense.

Relevance of a Scott Scale in my post is that, one, it is the type of bike the poster enjoyed in the past (mentions a 26er Scale) and secondly that it is the most similar frame to the flagship Chinese XC race frame, the 256.

2 degree slacker HTA might well feel different if everything else was kept the same- but they aren't the same between the XTC and 256... hence looking at the entire bike as a whole, you would not notice that difference in terms of steering feel at slow and mid speeds (and I didn't having ridden them). In terms of "how quick the steering feels" those 2 degrees between the XTC and 256 are accounted for by a longer front centre on the 256 and longer reach on the 256- You have to consider how the designer intended for the centre of mass of the rider to be distributed over the bike. Basically the trend for slightly slacker HTA's is offset by the trend for a longer reach and shorter stems. This gives the same "quick turning" feeling as shorter reach, longer stem but places the rider further behind the front axle and lengthens the wheelbase. The overall effect is the same "quick turning" feeling at slow and mid speeds between the XTC and 256 but the XTC-style geometry has more of a tendency for the front wheel to "tuck under" slightly in slow, steep turns and feel like it is being tripped up a little plus lacks some of the 256's straighter line high speed stability. It sounds like having your cake and eating it but that is how it works in practice.

It is true that there is no "right" geometry for everyone as we are all different but considering the frames as a whole, there is no reason for someone happy with an XTC to discount the 256- if anything, there is every chance they'll appreciate the stability in slow, steep corners and stability on straighter high speed sections with almost every other aspect feeling the same.

Basically, the 256 is a very quick handling yet stable ride (hard to explain but those who've ridden similar geometry on an XC race application will completely understand).

Sizing and choosing a bike would be made easier if people understood stack and reach and then worked out what bar and stem position is required from one frame (or size) to another and how this required stem length and height relates to the designers intention for weight distribution of the bike.

The calculator to the right of this bb2stem: Stack & Reach Calculator v1.00 website is invaluable if you really want to make proper comparisons between frames and sizes.

Sorry for the long post but it all leads to misinformation on the thread like this:

When looking up geometries...I found that the 256 geometry is pretty much spot on compared to the Open O-1.0...with the exception of a slacker headtube.
The Open is very different geometry to the 256. Very different! The same kind of ride characteristics on the XTC vs 256 that I mention above apply here too. The net affect of the geo is a very different set up and different approach to rider weight distribution over the frame required between the Open and 256.

For a start Open quote different fork axle to crown heights to those on the geo of the Chiner frames. That is a difference before you even get started in how manufacturers arrive at quoted numbers.

Assuming you are using the fork heights the manufacturers quote, the Open and 256 have the same chainstay length, same seattube length, headtube length and same STA. Sounds kind of similar besides the HTA but in reality the 256 has a front centre that is 12mm longer. Again, sounds similar but this comparing a Large to a Large but in reality the stack and reach of a Large 256 are most similar to a Medium Open. So to get the same fit on a Medium Open you would need a Large 256. When you do this, the front centre and wheelbase difference between the two frames extends to 37mm which is a sizeable change. This leads to noticeably different wheelbase lengths and noticeably different weight distribution of the rider relative to the front wheel despite the relationship between the rider and rear wheel being broadly similar between the Open and 256.

You could go on and on, but looking any single number be it the HTA, chainstay length, horizontal TT length, etc, doesn't give the true story of fit or ride characteristics. As I said above, the best way forward is to compare stack and reach, work out the stem length and position required and then see how this fits with the philosophy of the designer (i.e. geometry as a whole)

Phew :)

Summary for the original poster: The 256 (Scott Scale) geometry is really rather good for XC racing :thumbsup:
 
#8,210 ·
Sorry, I didn't mean to come across rude.

My point was that the poster was basically asking for an XC race frame having had good experiences with a Scottt Scale, Giant XTC and Giant Anthem. The 256 is an excellent riding frame and an excellent option for the poster. Dismissing it based on one isolated number doesn't make sense.

Relevance of a Scott Scale in my post is that, one, it is the type of bike the poster enjoyed in the past (mentions a 26er Scale) and secondly that it is the most similar frame to the flagship Chinese XC race frame, the 256.

2 degree slacker HTA might well feel different if everything else was kept the same- but they aren't the same between the XTC and 256... hence looking at the entire bike as a whole, you would not notice that difference in terms of steering feel at slow and mid speeds (and I didn't having ridden them). In terms of "how quick the steering feels" those 2 degrees between the XTC and 256 are accounted for by a longer front centre on the 256 and longer reach on the 256- You have to consider how the designer intended for the centre of mass of the rider to be distributed over the bike. Basically the trend for slightly slacker HTA's is offset by the trend for a longer reach and shorter stems. This gives the same "quick turning" feeling as shorter reach, longer stem but places the rider further behind the front axle and lengthens the wheelbase. The overall effect is the same "quick turning" feeling at slow and mid speeds between the XTC and 256 but the XTC-style geometry has more of a tendency for the front wheel to "tuck under" slightly in slow, steep turns and feel like it is being tripped up a little plus lacks some of the 256's straighter line high speed stability. It sounds like having your cake and eating it but that is how it works in practice.

It is true that there is no "right" geometry for everyone as we are all different but considering the frames as a whole, there is no reason for someone happy with an XTC to discount the 256- if anything, there is every chance they'll appreciate the stability in slow, steep corners and stability on straighter high speed sections with almost every other aspect feeling the same.

Basically, the 256 is a very quick handling yet stable ride (hard to explain but those who've ridden similar geometry on an XC race application will completely understand).

Sizing and choosing a bike would be made easier if people understood stack and reach and then worked out what bar and stem position is required from one frame (or size) to another and how this required stem length and height relates to the designers intention for weight distribution of the bike.

The calculator to the right of this bb2stem: Stack & Reach Calculator v1.00 website is invaluable if you really want to make proper comparisons between frames and sizes.

Sorry for the long post but it all leads to misinformation on the thread like this:

The Open is very different geometry to the 256. Very different! The same kind of ride characteristics on the XTC vs 256 that I mention above apply here too. The net affect of the geo is a very different set up and different approach to rider weight distribution over the frame required between the Open and 256.

For a start Open quote different fork axle to crown heights to those on the geo of the Chiner frames. That is a difference before you even get started in how manufacturers arrive at quoted numbers.

Assuming you are using the fork heights the manufacturers quote, the Open and 256 have the same chainstay length, same seattube length, headtube length and same STA. Sounds kind of similar besides the HTA but in reality the 256 has a front centre that is 12mm longer. Again, sounds similar but this comparing a Large to a Large but in reality the stack and reach of a Large 256 are most similar to a Medium Open. So to get the same fit on a Medium Open you would need a Large 256. When you do this, the front centre and wheelbase difference between the two frames extends to 37mm which is a sizeable change. This leads to noticeably different wheelbase lengths and noticeably different weight distribution of the rider relative to the front wheel despite the relationship between the rider and rear wheel being broadly similar between the Open and 256.

You could go on and on, but looking any single number be it the HTA, chainstay length, horizontal TT length, etc, doesn't give the true story of fit or ride characteristics. As I said above, the best way forward is to compare stack and reach, work out the stem length and position required and then see how this fits with the philosophy of the designer (i.e. geometry as a whole)

Phew :)

Summary for the original poster: The 256 (Scott Scale) geometry is really rather good for XC racing :thumbsup:
You said what I didnt feel like typing on my Galaxy Note 4. lol. Well said. Thats basically what I meant by companies have figured it out and "dialed" the geometry so that its quick to turn in and its stable. :thumbsup:
 
#8,367 ·
Just spoke to one of the two owners of Xmiplay, Peter, about this delicate issue.
Maybe there's some miscommunication.
According to Peter the quality of their products and the service is always high priority of Xmiplay.

As it look like, there is really a warranty-issue, but it should be confirmed.
If it's a confirmed warranty issue, Xmiplay will send a new frame WITHOUT any costs.

First Peter wanted to see the frame to see if it's a warranty-issue or just the fault of the customer.
Sending back the frame is expensive, due the cost for shipping, but also due the customs in China. Xmiplay have to pay more than 100 USD to get the frame back.
I suggested to let an independent LBS take a look to the frame because of the brake issue. Depending on the outcome, the case will be a warranty-issue or not.

So Arraider/John The rider, please take contact with a independent LBS and let him make a small report of his findings. After that, contact Peter/Bert. It's really important for them that you're satified. They only want happy customers!
 
#8,368 ·
Just spoke to one of the two owners of Xmiplay, Peter, about this delicate issue.
Maybe there's some miscommunication.
According to Peter the quality of their products and the service is always high priority of Xmiplay.

So Arraider/John The rider, please take contact with a independent LBS and let him make a small report of his findings. After that, contact Peter/Bert. It's really important for them that you're satified. They only want happy customers!
MTB2223 great job, nice to see someone step in and help..
 
#8,551 ·
I have built a couple of 29ers using Chinese carbon frames and wheels over that last couple of years.

Here's a short summary of my findings:

FRAMES
1 x hardtail and 1 x FS - both still in great condition, no cracks etc. The FS is quite flexible in the rear, but rides and handle superbly. The hardtail also very good. Both bikes have about 10,000km on them.

WHEELS
1 set 32H/32H - Rims and spokes great, no probs, though on second feehub under 2 year warranty. the freehubs are too weak, with only 3 x small pawls with minimal contact surface. Eventually they crack the body and fail totally. Easy to replace the freehub. i had to pay for the second one, which i complained about.


1 set 28h/28h - Rims great, spokes kept breaking, and freehub failed.
Having a fight with supplier who has told me to "improve" my riding - LOL!

Anyway, when buying wheels, make sure you get hubs with STRONG freehubs. Ask them for a diagram of the internals. Do not get the standard chinese 3-pawl hub, as they are not strong enough to deal with the torque of those extended climbs.

Also, avoid 28h hubs - not strong enough.

Hope this helps...
 
#8,830 ·
Sure is... I've built a ton of bikes, but this is the fastest and lightest one so far. And a lot cheaper than my last build. Being that lightweight and size L, it's not as stiff as my other builds. But hey, all the blabla about how that frame is supposed to be 5% stiffer etc... Let's be honest, except for pros, does it really make you faster? Marketing, that's what I call it.
 
#9,059 ·
Epic , over in the 27.5" forum (early on) there's a link that's supposed to take you to the 27.5" & 29er version of that frame . Unfortunately the 29er version seems to have since been removed . Possibly because LaMere have some interest in the 29er (They also list the 27.5" but likely not such an exclusive deal as they have on the 29er)

But your link is the 27.5" version of the 29er Bruto posted .

Fat Biker
 
#9,393 ·
Thanks for reply, carbonazza! I wish it was as easy and peaceful as in your case.
I hope to collect a few replies from chinese carbon frame owners. Guys, if you were in such a sutuation, please leave a few words about how it was solved for you. Did you send your frame back to China for repair? Or did your seller just send another frame for you?
 
#9,503 ·
BXT update: I had my shop/team guy look at it, he thought it looked good, clean inside the tubes as far as we could see as well. 1380g on his scale, which matches the weight on my fish scale, this is size XL.

Someone had a question about tire clearance; this is a Specialized Ground Control 2.3 (measures 2.2 actual at the edge of the side knobs, on an old Stans rim), there's still room for a 6mm hex wrench on either side of the chainstays, there's more room on the seatstays.

The seatpost clamp fits nicely, and the seatpost fit in just right.

I put the quick release dropouts in (2 little bolts to change from thru to qr), and due to the thickness of the dropouts I had to remove the QR end to get the wheel on, - you'll want a wider QR shaft if going that route. The wheels I'll be putting on are have Hope Pro2Evo hubs so I think I can adapt to thru from QR very easily.
first photo is seatstays, 2nd is chainstays.
 

Attachments

#9,566 · (Edited)
I'm ready to buy a new hardtail 29er and did a little research on the latest arrivals today. I thought I'd share what I found. Some of this info was obtained only by email.

Workswell WCB-162TanTan FM-299BTanTan FM-199BMCELO 29er
Weight*890g (17")960g (15")960g (15")940g (15")
Sizes15", 17", 19", 21"15", 17", 19"15", 17", 19"15", 17"
WebsiteWorkswellTanTanTanTanN/A
AliexpressN/ATanTanTanTanMCELO
Max Chainring32T32T36T?
Rear Spacing148mm148mm148mm148mm
Front Travel100mm100mm100mm100mm
Max Tire29x2.3"29x3.0"29x2.35"29x2.3"
PriceUSD472USD459USD459USD480
USA ShippingUSD 85USD 71USD 71Free
*all weights exclude derailleur hanger, internal cable routing ports, and any hardware and bolts.

The geometry of these frames are similar, but not identical. Here are the numbers for a size large (19") frame. MCELO is not available yet in 19", however.

MCELO 29erWorkswell WCB-162TanTan FM-299BTanTan FM-199B
Reach?442448.2449
Stack?622614.5614.5
Top Tube (effective)615625625625
Seat Tube450475482482
Head Angle7069.569.569.5
Seat Angle7273.67474
Head Tube115115115115
Chainstay435430440440
Wheelbase?113311421142
Front Center682709707.5707.5
BB Drop73585858
BB TypePF30BB92BB92BB92
Fork Offset61514646
Fork Length (A2C)?506496496

I also learned that the weight on the Workswell WCB-162 in a size 21" with UD/matte finish 1010+/- 20g including the hardware and derailleur hanger. The weight on the TanTan FM-299B in size large (19") in UD/Matte with all hardware, derailleur hanger, and bolts is 1085g.

It's interesting that TanTan has not adjusted the geometry between their 299B and 199B despite the 299B being compatible with 29x3.0" tires while the 199B is only compatible with 29x2.35" tires. Specifically, the chainstays remain slightly long for an XC 29er at 440mm in both models.

All of these frames are boost, all of them are lighter than last year's models, and the TanTan frames are 1x-specific.

Line Bicycle frame Triangle Black Grey

Workswell WCB-162 29er

White Line Bicycle frame Black Grey

TanTan FM-299B 29er/29+

Bicycle frame Line Black Grey Parallel

TanTan FM-199 29er

Bicycle frame Line Triangle Black Musical instrument accessory

MCELO 29er

I am very impressed by the TanTan FM-299B, and will be buying it shortly (and doing a build thread). I really like the 1x-specific design, the ability to run skinny or fat 29er rubber, and still have an XC racing rig that's snappy and fast, just like the Scott Scale. I don't think the slightly longer chainstays will affect handling much. The weight is also very reasonable. Finally, TanTan seems to be a great company based on my communication with them.
 
#9,567 ·
]I am very impressed by the TanTan FM-299B, and will be buying it shortly (and doing a build thread). I really like the 1x-specific design, the ability to run skinny or fat 29er rubber, and still have an XC racing rig that's snappy and fast, just like the Scott Scale. I don't think the slightly longer chainstays will affect handling much. The weight is also very reasonable. Finally, TanTan seems to be a great company based on my communication with them.
Very timely post. While building my new full squish chiner bike, i'm disappointed that i won't be able to share the wheels I ordered with my 2015 era hardtail for a couple reasons. RS-1 front shock and non-boost. I was thinking perhaps it's time to build a lightweight hardtail. Thanks !
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top