Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am building a new TT bike, its frame set is Dolan Scala using Sram Red group set. The front crank is 50/34.
I am also fitting Sram etap, the issue I am having is that the front derailleur when fitted will not sit anywhere near the crank. it must be sitting way above the highest tooth.
It is looking like I will have to change out to a 53/39 but as hills are a challenge for me this is not the best approach.

Has anybody come across this issue - how did you resolve it?
Is the Etap not designed for the 50/34?

A
 

·
Adorable Furry Hombre
Joined
·
30,963 Posts
Got pics?

I suspect that this is less about eTap**...but more about the frameset. Squinting at pics...it appears this has an attached FD braze? I suspect they put it where they did because they (Dolan) figured, "who the heck would want less than a 53/39 anyway? It is a TT bike and they'd sooner want a 55T". One way to test. Find a mech FD and see if it'll mount correctly for your compact crankset.

Granted it sounds as if you're hosed putting eTap on it either way with



**Note eTap FD does have all sorts of hinky geometry problems
 

·
'brifter' is f'ing stupid
Joined
·
15,567 Posts
If it's a height issue it's your frame not the derailleur. The Scala is a TT frame, it was never designed w/ a 50/34 in mind.
 

·
Adorable Furry Hombre
Joined
·
30,963 Posts
If it's a height issue it's your frame not the derailleur. The Scala is a TT frame, it was never designed w/ a 50/34 in mind.
It happens on non-TT frames too. Had a thread on BikeForums about it a while back now that I think about it..

Bike Forums - View Single Post - SRAM eTap: 0 & 2 in the count... One more strike and YOU'RE OUT!!

ETap FDs have bulges in them that limit them (the other's being the battery-casing bulge that caps tire size limiting CX/gravel utility, and the parallelogram geometry that impinges on certain cranksets). That bulge above the fixing-bolt caps travel down the fixed-brazing.

Per the ETap documentation:

Bike Forums - View Single Post - SRAM eTap: 0 & 2 in the count... One more strike and YOU'RE OUT!!

Which is why this one may be on SRAM rather than the frame maker.
 

·
Adorable Furry Hombre
Joined
·
30,963 Posts
good to know, gonna avoid etap
Either GravelCyclist or RidingGravel was reviewing eTap last year and asked SRAM regarding the tire clearance limiting...they basically said it was a "feature" and wasn't going to be fixed.


FWIW. The degree to which the FD battery limits tire size depends on frame geometry. If you ride a larger frame size, or one with a longer rear-center, it might not limit you as much. However the smaller and racier the frame, the more it tightens up to the tire... Now if you don't care about 35mm IRL tire sizes and up, no biggie. I think I've seen one bike with a large frame with a longer rear center that could do 38-40mm....note those numbers are maximum (read: next to no room to spare for mud or debris).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Marc, I think you have hit the nail on the head with your first reply quote, this is the very same issue I am seeing. I will just have to suck it up and go with the bigger chainring's.... better get out the the gym..
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
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