[Pictures] 135mm or 130mm rear spacing
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 919
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 761 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
[Pictures] 135mm or 130mm rear spacing
Hi,
So I bought this frameset
Which the listing says has a 135mm rear dropout spacing and the seller said he *measured* as 135mm.
But the first picture below shows that its actually 131mm and the second shows that a 130mm hub flush on the left hand side has a little bit of space on the right hand side (pictured) barely 1-2mm and with a tiny bit of chain stay flex it will close.
So which is it 135mm or 130mm? Its a CF frameset so is the chainstay supposed to flex even a little?
So I bought this frameset
Which the listing says has a 135mm rear dropout spacing and the seller said he *measured* as 135mm.
But the first picture below shows that its actually 131mm and the second shows that a 130mm hub flush on the left hand side has a little bit of space on the right hand side (pictured) barely 1-2mm and with a tiny bit of chain stay flex it will close.
So which is it 135mm or 130mm? Its a CF frameset so is the chainstay supposed to flex even a little?
Last edited by raria; 11-26-18 at 11:06 PM.
#4
Really Old Senior Member
Using the end of the tape measure that way "can" give false results. They get bent etc.
Line up the 100mm mark as your zero point and measure your 23?mm length.
Line up the 100mm mark as your zero point and measure your 23?mm length.
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 17,960
Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Mongoose Tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder, Stewart 650B ATB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4153 Post(s)
Liked 3,751 Times
in
2,245 Posts
And don't expect a production frame to hold closer then a mm+ per side of intended alignment. Andy
__________________
AndrewRStewart
AndrewRStewart
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 3,667
Bikes: Puch Marco Polo, Saint Tropez, Masi Gran Criterium
Mentioned: 25 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1157 Post(s)
Liked 438 Times
in
311 Posts
Hi,
So I bought this frameset
Which the listing says has a 135mm rear dropout spacing and the seller said he *measured* as 135mm.
But the first picture below shows that its actually 131mm and the second shows that a 130mm hub flush on the left hand side has a little bit of space on the right hand side (pictured) barely 1-2mm and with a tiny bit of chain stay flex it will close.
So which is it 135mm or 130mm? Its a CF frameset so is the chainstay supposed to flex even a little?
So I bought this frameset
Which the listing says has a 135mm rear dropout spacing and the seller said he *measured* as 135mm.
But the first picture below shows that its actually 131mm and the second shows that a 130mm hub flush on the left hand side has a little bit of space on the right hand side (pictured) barely 1-2mm and with a tiny bit of chain stay flex it will close.
So which is it 135mm or 130mm? Its a CF frameset so is the chainstay supposed to flex even a little?
It looks like 135 to me as well. A metric dial caliper is much butter to obtain an accurate measurement than a tape measure. I use an inexpensive nylon one and it is accurate down to 0.1mm. You can also use inexpensive digital 6” dial calipers like the one from Harbor Freight - I believe they cost ~$20. The readout toggles between thousandths of an inch and mm easily.
If it is a 135mm frame I’m curious if it is a disc or cyclocross frame?
edit: I just clicked the link on the frame & see where it is cyclocross. I’d say high likelihood that it is 135 mm spacing.
#8
SE Wis
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 10,490
Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400, 2013 Novara Randonee, 1990 Trek 970
Mentioned: 40 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2716 Post(s)
Liked 3,332 Times
in
2,024 Posts
132 so you can run 130 or 135 hubs
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 919
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 761 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
This shouldnt be so hard ....
Raleigh own website has no informatiion!
But this review website says 130mm for the canti version i have
Why do you say 135mm when it measures much closer to 130mm?
But this review website says 130mm for the canti version i have
Why do you say 135mm when it measures much closer to 130mm?
Last edited by raria; 11-27-18 at 07:57 AM.
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 17,960
Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Mongoose Tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder, Stewart 650B ATB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4153 Post(s)
Liked 3,751 Times
in
2,245 Posts
Raleigh own website has no informatiion!
But this review website says 130mm for the canti version i have
Why do you say 135mm when it measures much closer to 130mm?
But this review website says 130mm for the canti version i have
Why do you say 135mm when it measures much closer to 130mm?
__________________
AndrewRStewart
AndrewRStewart
#12
Non omnino gravis
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 919
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 761 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Thanks
Your comment that it's almost certainly 135 is based on the fact it's a cyclocross right? Then I agree, but the tape measure says something different. If you see the last picture you can see I am required to squeeze the frame a millimeter or two to get a snug fit with a 130mm hub is that better than splaying the chain stays 3-4 millimeters to fit in a 135 millimeter rear hub?
it's a carbon fiber frameset
it's a carbon fiber frameset
Last edited by raria; 11-27-18 at 01:07 PM.
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,486
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 159 Times
in
88 Posts
My guess is that it's intended for 130mm hubs. Yeah, you've measured the spacing at 131mm, so that does suggest 130 over 135, but my main reason for thinking 130 is that it's a cantilever brake cx frame. The canti brake element of that is the main clue, most rim brake cx bikes were designed for 130mm rear hubs.
Surly Cross Checks come with 132.5 for versatility (steel frame, quite easy to fudge 2.5mm either way when installing the rear wheel). But my shop sold a lot of canti-equipped cx bikes, and other than the Cross Check, I'm pretty sure all of them came with 130mm rear spacing (and this is from three different mainstream brands I can think of).
Some of the early disc-equipped cx bikes also came with 130mm rear spacing, and unfortunately, that became a PITA for the owners of those bikes within a year or two, because the common disc brake rear spacing for cx and road bikes quickly became 135 (the mtb standard at the time), and 142 for thru axle equipped bikes.
Also, I just read the description in the link you posted, the frameset is described as "new old stock," I imagine it's several years old. And it's a cantilever brake frame. Categorically, race-oriented canti brake cx frames from several years ago almost always had 130mm rear spacing.
Surly Cross Checks come with 132.5 for versatility (steel frame, quite easy to fudge 2.5mm either way when installing the rear wheel). But my shop sold a lot of canti-equipped cx bikes, and other than the Cross Check, I'm pretty sure all of them came with 130mm rear spacing (and this is from three different mainstream brands I can think of).
Some of the early disc-equipped cx bikes also came with 130mm rear spacing, and unfortunately, that became a PITA for the owners of those bikes within a year or two, because the common disc brake rear spacing for cx and road bikes quickly became 135 (the mtb standard at the time), and 142 for thru axle equipped bikes.
Also, I just read the description in the link you posted, the frameset is described as "new old stock," I imagine it's several years old. And it's a cantilever brake frame. Categorically, race-oriented canti brake cx frames from several years ago almost always had 130mm rear spacing.
Last edited by well biked; 11-27-18 at 10:05 AM.
#15
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 919
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 761 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
That makes more sense ...
Correct its the 2014 model see here
I did find one review of it see here which says
"The RXC Pro Disc bike uses 135mm rear spacing, while the RXC and RXC Pro remain with 130mm rear spacing."
But that's for the 2013 model not the 2014 model.
I did find one review of it see here which says
"The RXC Pro Disc bike uses 135mm rear spacing, while the RXC and RXC Pro remain with 130mm rear spacing."
But that's for the 2013 model not the 2014 model.
My guess is that it's intended for 130mm hubs. Yeah, you've measured the spacing at 131mm, so that does suggest 130 over 135, but my main reason for thinking 130 is that it's a cantilever brake cx frame. The canti brake element of that is the main clue, most rim brake cx bikes were designed for 130mm rear hubs.
Surly Cross Checks come with 132.5 for versatility (steel frame, quite easy to fudge 2.5mm either way when installing the rear wheel). But my shop sold a lot of canti-equipped cx bikes, and other than the Cross Check, I'm pretty sure all of them came with 130mm rear spacing (and this is from three different mainstream brands I can think of).
Some of the early disc-equipped cx bikes also came with 130mm rear spacing, and unfortunately, that became a PITA for the owners of those bikes within a year or two, because the common disc brake rear spacing for cx and road bikes quickly became 135 (the mtb standard at the time), and 142 for thru axle equipped bikes.
Also, I just read the description in the link you posted, the frameset is described as "new old stock," I imagine it's several years old. And it's a cantilever brake frame. Categorically, race-oriented canti brake cx frames from several years ago almost always had 130mm rear spacing.
Surly Cross Checks come with 132.5 for versatility (steel frame, quite easy to fudge 2.5mm either way when installing the rear wheel). But my shop sold a lot of canti-equipped cx bikes, and other than the Cross Check, I'm pretty sure all of them came with 130mm rear spacing (and this is from three different mainstream brands I can think of).
Some of the early disc-equipped cx bikes also came with 130mm rear spacing, and unfortunately, that became a PITA for the owners of those bikes within a year or two, because the common disc brake rear spacing for cx and road bikes quickly became 135 (the mtb standard at the time), and 142 for thru axle equipped bikes.
Also, I just read the description in the link you posted, the frameset is described as "new old stock," I imagine it's several years old. And it's a cantilever brake frame. Categorically, race-oriented canti brake cx frames from several years ago almost always had 130mm rear spacing.
#16
Banned
I don't see a bike problem ..132.5 is a good middle ground offering 135 and 130 ..
this forum does often show obsessive issues... from many..
*sigh*
....
this forum does often show obsessive issues... from many..
*sigh*
....
#17
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Queens, NY for now...
Posts: 1,533
Bikes: 82 Lotus Unique, 86 Lotus Legend, 88 Basso Loto, 88 Basso PR, 89 Basso PR, 96 Bianchi CDI, 2013 Deda Aegis, 2019 Basso Diamante SV
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 943 Post(s)
Liked 171 Times
in
113 Posts
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,486
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 140 Post(s)
Liked 159 Times
in
88 Posts
As I said in my earlier post, this one really doesn't seem to be all that mysterious to me, I sold dozens of race-oriented CX bikes from a few different brands that had cantilever brakes over the last ten years or so, and I believe they all had 130mm rear spacing. The fact that the OP has measured the frame using two different methods and come up with 131mm spacing both times tells me that the frame is intended for 130mm rear hubs and that is what should be used with it. The fact that it is a carbon, race-oriented CX frameset designed for rim brakes certainly makes the measurment the OP got make sense to me.
#19
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 17,960
Bikes: Stewart S&S coupled sport tourer, Stewart Sunday light, Stewart Commuting, Stewart Touring, Co Motion Tandem, Stewart 3-Spd, Stewart Track, Fuji Finest, Mongoose Tomac ATB, GT Bravado ATB, JCP Folder, Stewart 650B ATB
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4153 Post(s)
Liked 3,751 Times
in
2,245 Posts
Re carbon frames and drop out widths- Carbon fiber frames are not like glass where they are so brittle that even a tiny bending causes them to crack and fail. My previous comment about production frames not being perfectly aligned includes carbon too. We see minor offness all the time and don't see any significant number of failures involving the mm or two of stay/blade width movement when a wheel is clamped down. Even the drop out to tube bonding, where the stress of non parallel drop out faces being clamped to an axle would focus, doesn't fail at any rate to consider this to be a concern.
Not that I am recommending one purposely uses un designed for dimensions, just that a small amount of tolerance does exist and can be accommodated for. Andy.
Not that I am recommending one purposely uses un designed for dimensions, just that a small amount of tolerance does exist and can be accommodated for. Andy.
__________________
AndrewRStewart
AndrewRStewart
#20
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Queens, NY for now...
Posts: 1,533
Bikes: 82 Lotus Unique, 86 Lotus Legend, 88 Basso Loto, 88 Basso PR, 89 Basso PR, 96 Bianchi CDI, 2013 Deda Aegis, 2019 Basso Diamante SV
Mentioned: 46 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 943 Post(s)
Liked 171 Times
in
113 Posts
Originally Posted by Andrew R Stewart
Re carbon frames and drop out widths- Carbon fiber frames are not like glass where they are so brittle that even a tiny bending causes them to crack and fail. My previous comment about production frames not being perfectly aligned includes carbon too. We see minor offness all the time and don't see any significant number of failures involving the mm or two of stay/blade width movement when a wheel is clamped down. Even the drop out to tube bonding, where the stress of non parallel drop out faces being clamped to an axle would focus, doesn't fail at any rate to consider this to be a concern.
Not that I am recommending one purposely uses un designed for dimensions, just that a small amount of tolerance does exist and can be accommodated for. Andy.
Not that I am recommending one purposely uses un designed for dimensions, just that a small amount of tolerance does exist and can be accommodated for. Andy.