![]() |
Tire Clearance (In)consistencies
I am not a framebuilder, but just had a custom CX frame build by a well-respected shop. I just received the frame and threw on a wheelset to check clearances, only to notice that the clearances at the seatstay, chainstay and fork are consistently inconsistent. Using an accurate caliper, I measured:
seatstay to tire: 21mm chainstay to tire: 9mm fork to tire: 16mm (tire used was 32mm) The fork clearance looks incredibly awkward to me, and I can barely increase the tire size because of the chainstay clearance. The fork looks like it was built for a 44mm tire, while the rear looks like it was built for a 32mm tire. As builders, how acceptable/unacceptable is this? Thanks for any opinions! http://www.bikeforums.net/recreation...clearance.html |
Did you tell the builder what size tires you planned on using? Lots of clearance on the fork is a Good Thing for an off-road bike, as it lessens the chance of debris causing a face-plant.
|
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson
(Post 18291879)
Did you tell the builder what size tires you planned on using? Lots of clearance on the fork is a Good Thing for an off-road bike, as it lessens the chance of debris causing a face-plant.
|
Originally Posted by bowermb
(Post 18292152)
I don't plan on riding 32mm rear and 42cm front...
|
What about the extra front tire clearance won't work for you? I don't think the frame's performance will be changed with less or more clearance. Is the fork a crowned design or carbon or unicrowned? If a crown is used then the choices available that fit the minimum specs might not be many. Andy.
|
Originally Posted by JohnDThompson
(Post 18292618)
??? Why would you have to do that? The additional clearance offers you safety in preventing debris pick-up from jamming your front wheel.
Originally Posted by Andrew R Stewart
(Post 18292619)
What about the extra front tire clearance won't work for you? I don't think the frame's performance will be changed with less or more clearance. Is the fork a crowned design or carbon or unicrowned? If a crown is used then the choices available that fit the minimum specs might not be many. Andy.
|
Originally Posted by bowermb
(Post 18292652)
That was sarcasm. Just drawing attention to the fact that max tire size doesn't match front to rear.
Aesthetically it doesn't work for me, and the fact that I requested a frame built to a max tire dimension and that was not delivered. (Side note: he did ask me what the max tire size was to be; I didn't make a special request) Sorry, but I can't answer to your other questions specific to the crown. It sounds like you're nit-picking about things that are normal, if not accepted. It also sounds like the frame builder accommodated your desires, you just didn't know EXACTLY what you wanted going into the build. If this was an issue for you, you should have mentioned it to them before hand. |
Originally Posted by bowermb
(Post 18292652)
Just drawing attention to the fact that max tire size doesn't match front to rear.
Aesthetically it doesn't work for me, |
Would you have preferred less clearance above the front tire, which would mean a shorter fork length, and then a taller headtube and/or a bunch of spacers to get your bars at the appropriate stack height for you?
|
The difference in clearance between chainstays and seatstays is normal. As for the fork, there are really only two widths available for those fork crowns. The narrow width for road tires would not have enough clearance for your 32mm tires, so the builder really had little choice on the side clearance. The top clearance on the fork probably has something to do with the fact that 395mm seems to be the accepted standard axle to crown height for cross forks. The builder probably built the fork with a 395 ATC so that you could switch forks in the future, without affecting the geometry of the frame. This is only a guess at what happened, your builder could provide you with the actual answer.
As a side note, I find it odd that a well respected builder would hand off a bare frame to the customer. |
Originally Posted by dsaul
(Post 18293859)
The difference in clearance between chainstays and seatstays is normal. As for the fork, there are really only two widths available for those fork crowns. The narrow width for road tires would not have enough clearance for your 32mm tires, so the builder really had little choice on the side clearance. The top clearance on the fork probably has something to do with the fact that 395mm seems to be the accepted standard axle to crown height for cross forks. The builder probably built the fork with a 395 ATC so that you could switch forks in the future, without affecting the geometry of the frame. This is only a guess at what happened, your builder could provide you with the actual answer.
As a side note, I find it odd that a well respected builder would hand off a bare frame to the customer. |
Originally Posted by dsaul
(Post 18293859)
The difference in clearance between chainstays and seatstays is normal. As for the fork, there are really only two widths available for those fork crowns. The narrow width for road tires would not have enough clearance for your 32mm tires, so the builder really had little choice on the side clearance. The top clearance on the fork probably has something to do with the fact that 395mm seems to be the accepted standard axle to crown height for cross forks. The builder probably built the fork with a 395 ATC so that you could switch forks in the future, without affecting the geometry of the frame. This is only a guess at what happened, your builder could provide you with the actual answer.
As a side note, I find it odd that a well respected builder would hand off a bare frame to the customer. As for the bare frame, I requested it bare. Just plan to give the steel and brass fillets a fine sanding/shine, apply his decals, and give it a 2k semi-gloss clear-coat. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:16 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.