Seeking Waltly Advice

[prototoast]

When Waltly provides you with the drawing, it will show both the tire and the clearance precisely. I've never had them build a mountain bike, but on a gravel bike, I believe they spec 6mm of clearance on all sides.

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by litcrazy

Another waltly question regarding tire capacity. When waltly indicates a tire capacity for mountain or gravel, how tight/generous are they in their judgement? When waltly indicate a frame will clear a specific tire size, what does that mean?

Waltly says it may not be able to build to my tire capacity requests. They asked if I would accept a capacity of 29” by 2.5.” Based on other buyers’ experience does 2.5” capacity mean it will fit your typical undersized 2.5” tire with 2mm on each side or does it mean it will fit a 2.5” measured tire with 4-6mm on each side?

It may sound like nitpicking, but that difference might be the difference
between going forward and recognizing that they can’t make what I’m looking for and instead going with a black mountain la cabra or ritchey ascent, with the trade off of a good enough fit and the capability I’m looking for. I appreciate they are asking and not just pretending it will have more tire capacity than it does.

I realize the ti bikes with the capacity I’m asking for (the Singular Gryphon and Tumbleweed Stargazer) are both made by Ora in Taiwan. So even if someone is doing what I want, waltly may not have before. Though I would think they would have done many a hardtail with room for 2.6” 29” tires and 2.8” 27.5 tires. I’m not sure I want them to build outside of their comfort zone in order to accommodate me.

To be fully honest with myself, I want the frame to fit 27.5 2.6” vittoria mezcals since they are crazy fast and plush.

I just swapped the 29 2.6 mezcal from rear to front and put a 2.35 on the rear off my Chumba for extra mud clearance for summer bikepacking and the volume difference is massive.

IMO you should measure the space you need with the tires you want to run and the clearance you want, and give them that as a spec. For example, my Bingham running 650Bx38 that measures 39mm on BTLOS rims has a total of 19mm clearance at the widest point of the tire. I wanted clearance for 48mm tires, so if the bigger tires add 10mm of width, I'd have 4.5mm of clearance on each side. I don't think I'll ever run those tires, but this also gave me clearance for fenders and 650Bx42 tires.

As an aside, one of the great aspects of carbon rims is how true they stay so they don't eat up the clearance.

[litcrazy]

Alright. Version one of my design came back. I'm excited with some thoughts and questions. Thanks in advance to the paceline hive for input.

The geometry is as requested with the exception of the tailend (more on that below). It aligns with my stack/reach needs, my bottom bracket drop preference to limit pedal strike, allow 180 cranks, and offset the long wheel base's inherent sluggishness. I'd love a 71 degree headangle, but it would lead to toe overlap. 72.5 with a setback seatpost is my preferred seatangle, but 72 allows me to get this fit while using a dropper post in scenarios where a dropper would add value. Also, it has a straight headtube for a 1 1/8" steel fork as Ritchey, Black Mountain and others are doing in this kind of build. I'm designing it around the Soma/Potts Mountain Fork and they have those numbers right.

The tubing choices look reasonable to my uneducated self, except for the seattube (see below). I'd love to hear from Prototoast on this front.

I really want to run 2.6 Mezcals, and the 2.5" clearance as specced should allow that in the desert where this would be my preference. 2.35 for muddier places should work. I'd asked for 2.8" clearance with the 2.6" tire in mind, and it sounds like this is the best they can do.

I would prefer chainstays rather than a yoke for both aesthetic preferences and rumors they ride better. Waltly insists on the yoke which locks in the 2.5" tire with 7.5mm of clearance. They don't want to do chainstays for this clearance anymore (even though I sent them an example of a Waltly design from 2020 that used chainstays. Should I go with the designer on this and trust in my tires and seatpost for my compliance? Or do I beg more?

My adjustments/questions so far.
1) I'd much prefer a 27.2 seatpost fit. I'll ask. Will they bond a shim in ala Moots and others, or do we need a narrower seattube.

2) I want a third bottle bolt receptor on the downtube.

3) They clearly don't understand making the frame work for 27.5 and 700 wheels, so I confused them. Instead of designing for a 2.5" 27.5 tire which is almost identical in diameter to a 700/43 tire, they designed for a 29/2.5" tire. I need to have them switch to build for a 27.5/2.5" tire. Hopefully they can do this and keep the current 456 chainstay length but I will have to see.

4) I need to confirm that the image has cable stops on the downtube and driveside chainstays for exposed shift cables. I need to confirm the under the downtube zip tie mounts for the brake cable are double mounts for when I swap to an external dropper (preferred for the ease of swapping back and forth). I'm seeing this but want to confirm to avoid misunderstanding.

Thoughts? Feedback?

[gcartelli]

Originally Posted by litcrazy

Alright. Version one of my design came back. I'm excited with some thoughts and questions. Thanks in advance to the paceline hive for input.

The geometry is as requested with the exception of the tailend (more on that below). It aligns with my stack/reach needs, my bottom bracket drop preference to limit pedal strike, allow 180 cranks, and offset the long wheel base's inherent sluggishness. I'd love a 71 degree headangle, but it would lead to toe overlap. 72.5 with a setback seatpost is my preferred seatangle, but 72 allows me to get this fit while using a dropper post in scenarios where a dropper would add value. Also, it has a straight headtube for a 1 1/8" steel fork as Ritchey, Black Mountain and others are doing in this kind of build. I'm designing it around the Soma/Potts Mountain Fork and they have those numbers right.

The tubing choices look reasonable to my uneducated self, except for the seattube (see below). I'd love to hear from Prototoast on this front.

I really want to run 2.6 Mezcals, and the 2.5" clearance as specced should allow that in the desert where this would be my preference. 2.35 for muddier places should work. I'd asked for 2.8" clearance with the 2.6" tire in mind, and it sounds like this is the best they can do.

I would prefer chainstays rather than a yoke for both aesthetic preferences and rumors they ride better. Waltly insists on the yoke which locks in the 2.5" tire with 7.5mm of clearance. They don't want to do chainstays for this clearance anymore (even though I sent them an example of a Waltly design from 2020 that used chainstays. Should I go with the designer on this and trust in my tires and seatpost for my compliance? Or do I beg more?

My adjustments/questions so far.
1) I'd much prefer a 27.2 seatpost fit. I'll ask. Will they bond a shim in ala Moots and others, or do we need a narrower seattube.

2) I want a third bottle bolt receptor on the downtube.

3) They clearly don't understand making the frame work for 27.5 and 700 wheels, so I confused them. Instead of designing for a 2.5" 27.5 tire which is almost identical in diameter to a 700/43 tire, they designed for a 29/2.5" tire. I need to have them switch to build for a 27.5/2.5" tire. Hopefully they can do this and keep the current 456 chainstay length but I will have to see.

4) I need to confirm that the image has cable stops on the downtube and driveside chainstays for exposed shift cables. I need to confirm the under the downtube zip tie mounts for the brake cable are double mounts for when I swap to an external dropper (preferred for the ease of swapping back and forth). I'm seeing this but want to confirm to avoid misunderstanding.

Thoughts? Feedback?

1-3) not qualified to answer.

4) right now it looks like your top tube has tip tie mounts for full housing and your down tube has housing stop mounts for exposed cable. But both top and down tube are indeed double mounts

[litcrazy]

I was so focused on the frame geometry that I hadn’t processed the braze on details up top. Thanks

[litcrazy]

So I’m planning to reply tonight.

In order to facilitate a 27.2 seatpost with having the hassle/slippage of a shim, would folks recommend I request:
1) a bonded shim ala moots and others.
2) a smaller diameter seattube still in .9mm thickness
3) a smaller diameter seattube but in a slightly thicker diameter to maintain strength.

Otherwise, the tubing choice seem robust but not unreasonable for what I’m asking of this bike.

[weisan]

I am gonna go out of a limb and say this crazy pal, hope you don't mind...

Seeing how you are agonizing over the little details, it make me cringe and duck because it may lead to undesirable consequences. I have seen this played out a number of times on this forum, I won't name names, they know who they are.

On the other hand, I wish with all my heart that you will end up extremely pleased with the end result.

[litcrazy]

No offense taken. It's good to be reminded that I'm overthinking the details when I know that over 95% of what I'm looking for is a geometry I'm already comfortable with and additional tire clearance. As I'm closing Chrome tabs with marginally relevant info, my overinvestment is obvious.

I will say that I'd feel pretty privileged to be the one to make you cringe on a forum of amateurs and non-racers dedicated to marginal gains... and the occasional beef with Jan Heine. If I'm the one to clarify the silliness of our shared endeavor (and hopefully joy), I can feel like I've achieved something.

Originally Posted by weisan

I am gonna go out of a limb and say this crazy pal, hope you don't mind...

Seeing how you are agonizing over the little details, it make me cringe and duck because it may lead to undesirable consequences. I have seen this played out a number of times on this forum, I won't name names, they know who they are.

On the other hand, I wish with all my heart that you will end up extremely pleased with the end result.

[weisan]

[Flinch]

If it helps (even if it doesn't - hah) I posted my 2013 Waltly mtn bike geometry on : https://bikeinsights.com/compare . Look up Waltly, then 2013 Base model.

Did I hear you say 456mm chainstays? Wow, mine are 425for a 29'er.

Here's mine FWIW
Geometry
TT 590
TT Eff 597
STCC 400
STTop 430
HT 110
Fork 485 (as spec'ed, current Niner fork 470mm, 565 grams)
Rake 44 ( as spec'ed, Niner fork 45mm)
HA 71
SA 73
CS 425
SS 449
FC 642
Stack 631
Reach 410
S/R 1.6
BB Drop 70
BB Height 29.2
WB 1056
Weight 3 lbs 8 oz (1.6 kg) frame alone

My Lynskey mtn bike has the bonded seatpost liner, works peachy. My Waltly doesn't - works peachy, so maybe ask 'em.

[litcrazy]

I want to provide feedback for others considering a Waltly, now that I have my Waltly and I'm getting to know it. I can't imagine many will read this beginning to end.. unless you're contemplating making that order.

The short answer, is... wow. I couldn't imagine it working out better.

The bike arrived in August right before a crazy busy stretch of family and work obligations, so it took a while to build it up. All dimension/specs were exactly as agreed upon and the welds looked great (as judged by my son who spent a summer working on ti frames).

The one miscommunication I had was I thought the 141/148 rear spacing on the cad meant 141 for a 142 spaced hub. Actually, they had gone with 148 as more typical of my mountain bike leaning design. I had wondered if that was the more forward looking spec when thinking through my design parameters, so I wasn't upset. But I did need to build up a new wheelset rather than just use my old. I picked up a DT Swiss boost rear hub and was able to optimize was rim width this way.

With some nudging on my part, we had reached agreement on a yokeless rear triangle designed to fit a 2.5" 27.5 tire. I was hoping a rather large 2.6" Mezcal would fit... and it does. A 2.25" 29" should fit for a faster ride on smooth conditions.

I've paired it with a Potts/Soma mountain fork with a 419mm axle to crown (which also feels great). I'm running it with Suntour barends and 9 speed XT 11-34 rear cassette and derailleur. Up front is a Ritchey square taper triple set up as a 42-26 double. I moved the 2.1" Gravelking SK to the back where it measure 58-59mm and put a 2.6 mezcal up front. That's huge.

Even with this much rubber the ride is great. Yesterday I took it on what turned to be something of an adventure. Some pavement. Some hero gravel. Some 10 meter mud pits and a few creek crossings. Some rough jeep roads. And 30 minutes spent ridng either on the middle of the railroad track or on the thick gravel to the side after the ride with gps heatmap did us dirty and we encountered too much barbed wire and not enough road to continue the loop we were on (fortunately no trains come so we didn't have to scurry to the side).

I felt like this was the first ride where I really put it through its paces. It shined. I designed it with a short top tube for fit reasons (585 vs the 600-615 typical with this stack), and I complemented it with longer chainstay (463: Ritchey long not Riv long) and my prefered 72 slack seat angle. Accordingly to conventional logic it shouldn't climb well at all. After muscling 3/4 of the way up a ridiclously steep rock garden of a jeep road, I realized how well it climbed. I hadn't spun out. I'd simply blown up. That's a fitness issue. The wider tires also (unsurpisingly) means it's much more confident on chunky descents. And that combo of tire doesn't feel too bad on road. It's not a road bike on the climbs, but it isn't a pig.

Over 57 miles of such varied terrain, I was happy to be on a drop bar gravel bike but I was happy for its rough stuff capability. I know many prefer flat bars if they're going to encounter any terrain that mandates so much rubber, but I felt like the Waltly allowed me to tackle the rough stuff (some of which I hope to never do again: ie bouncing between railroad ties) while still allowing joy on the pavement and the comfort of multiple hand/back positions. I love my Spank drop bars.

The email exchange with Waltly went somewhere between 70-100 emails in total. My contact at Waltly was both incredibly patient with my attention to details big and small, and useful in terms of making sure my requests were logistically possible and prudent. I trusted their suggestions in terms of tubing, except I had them switch to a smaller seat tube than initially proposed in order to allow for a 27.2 seatpost without a shim. They still decided it's thickness.

One story captures their attention to detail: I had wanted to run the cable stop for the front derailleur housing on the down tube on the right side, because of how I route my bar end shifters. I knew it would work, but I agree to have it on the left after their master builder didn't like the housing run when he tried to set up that way on a bike. I'm impressed with that level of care. I wasn't married to running my housing across to the right, so I didn't try to explain that I planned to run a 40 something year old bar end shifter and agreed to their suggestion.

While this bike isn't so different from some bikes the emerging drop bar ATB category (but with a shorter reach and less trail), I had the strong impression it differed substantially from most of their recent buiilds. To their credit, they asked lots of questions (to make I knew what I was getting/getting into) but caught my vision and designed it in accordance with my plans. I don't imagine any American builder would have wanted so much micromanagement and investment in the details. As such, I got to scratch my designer itch as discussed in previous posts.

My one concern was that the bike might feel overly stiff due to the conservative/sturdy downtube/chainstay spec. The downtube is 1.1mm straught gauge tubing and the chainstays are 1.2mm. Despite my concern, it feels great. It's hard to compare between bikes since I shifted to a bigger tire, but it doesn't feel stiffer than my steel BMC. And I mean that as a compliment. I was ready to accept a stiffer frame in order to get my preferred geometry and tire capactity, but it's not too stiff at all.

Finally, the cost felt quite reasonable. $960 for the frame. $70 for a ti stem. $300 shipping. If I were to order again, I'd try to order 2 frames at once, because I've heard the shipping is about the same.

I'm happy to answer questions but offer no promise of expertise. Surely I can't speak to anyone else's geometry preferences. I can say I ended up designing entirely from my own experiences reflecting on the geometry of the bikes I was riding and what I liked and didnt like and spending a lot of looking at the geometry of bikes seeking to achieve similar aims. I didn't get any feedback on the cads in the endand, as I said, I went with their tubing suggestions. And it seems to have worked out okay. Which is important to say, I think, since some folks definitely warned me that designing a bike like this was a fool's errand. There's definitely risk involved but I'd do it again. And I wouldn't deter someone from it who's spent a lot of time on a variety of bikes thinking about geometry.

[litcrazy]

I figured out how to compress photos. But I don't have it in me to figure out why it just rotated two of the photos from their original axis... landscape bias I guess. Good to know for the future.

[litcrazy]

And the final cad drawing. We went through 4 in total, I believe. With fewer changes with each iteration.

[gcartelli]

fantastic build, i remember their stubborness re: the rear yoke on disc brakes, just entering the geometry phase on a new build and will challenge your nudging to get the same result!