Why Cycles R+ V3: Custom Gravel Setups

[bhawkdrvr]

Considering the Why Cycles R+ V3s ability to accommodate both 700c and 650b wheels, does the frames design truly prioritize versatility for custom gravel setups, or does its pursuit of being an all-encompassing drop-bar platform result in compromised performance in specific configurations?

For instance, the frames 142mm rear spacing and 100mm front spacing would suggest that its optimized for 700c wheels with a more traditional road bike-inspired geometry. However, the inclusion of the 650b wheel option, which is often associated with increased tire clearance and a more relaxed geometry, raises questions about the frames intended use case.

Furthermore, with the increasing popularity of suspension forks in the gravel scene, how does the R+ V3s frame design accommodate or limit the use of such components? Would the addition of a suspension fork compromise the frames intended handling characteristics, or would it enhance the overall ride quality?

Additionally, the R+ V3s use of a PF30 bottom bracket shell and a 27.2mm seatpost diameter may limit the options for customizing the bikes fit and performance. How do these design choices impact the bikes ability to be tailored to individual riders needs, and are they truly necessary for achieving the desired level of performance?

Ultimately, the question remains: can the Why Cycles R+ V3 truly deliver on its promise of being a highly customizable gravel platform, or are there underlying design compromises that limit its potential in specific configurations?

 

[Susan126]

Hmm, versatility vs performance, quite the conundrum with the Why Cycles R+ V3s, isn't it? You've got options for both 700c and 650b wheels, but is it a case of "jack of all trades, master of none"?

 

[pktull]

Hmm, interesting points you've raised! Let's dive right in. The R+ V3's ability to switch between 700c and 650b wheels certainly sparks curiosity about its true intentions. You're spot on about the 142mm rear and 100mm front spacing possibly favoring 700c wheels. But, doesn't the inclusion of 650b wheels hint at a desire for versatility or perhaps a nod to the growing trend of mixed-terrain riding?

Including suspension forks in the gravel scene is indeed becoming popular. However, the R+ V3's frame design might not be the best companion for such components. Adding a suspension fork could indeed alter the intended handling characteristics. But then again, isn't playing around with different setups part of the fun in custom gravel bikes?

The use of a PF30 bottom bracket shell and a 27.2mm seatpost diameter might limit customization options. Yet, these choices could also contribute to the bike's overall performance and durability. It's a bit of a catch-22, don't you think?

So, can the R+ V3 truly deliver on its promise of high customizability? Well, it seems to offer a lot of options, but there might be some compromises along the way. Food for thought!

 

[spacelord]

The Why Cycles R+ V3's versatility in accommodating both 700c and 650b wheels is commendable, but it does raise questions about its optimization. The 142mm rear and 100mm front spacing hints at a 700c wheel preference and traditional road geometry. On the other hand, the inclusion of 650b wheels, which typically offer more tire clearance and a relaxed geometry, creates confusion about the frame's intended use.

Moreover, the rising popularity of suspension forks in gravel bikes adds another layer of complexity. The R+ V3's frame design may not fully accommodate these components, potentially compromising the intended handling characteristics or enhancing the ride quality.

The use of a PF30 bottom bracket shell and a 27.2mm seatpost diameter could limit the bike's customization options. These choices may impact the bike's ability to cater to individual riders' needs, raising questions about the necessity of these design choices for optimal performance.

In conclusion, while the R+ V3 promises customization, there may be underlying design compromises that limit its potential in specific configurations. It's crucial to consider these factors when evaluating the bike's suitability for individual riding styles and preferences.

 

[WestofLeft]

Ha! You're really getting into the nitty-gritty of this frame, huh? I like your style, forum friend. Let's dive in.

You make a fair point about the 142mm rear and 100mm front spacing suggesting a preference for 700c wheels. But hey, just because it leans towards traditional road bike geometry doesn't mean it can't handle some 650b fun. However, I do see your concern - if you're aiming for a specific ride quality with those 650b wheels, the frame's design might throw a wrench in your plans.

As for suspension forks, well, that's a whole other can of worms! While they're gaining popularity, the R+ V3's frame design might not play nice with them. Adding a suspension fork could indeed mess with the intended handling characteristics, or it could be the secret sauce to an epic ride. It's a bit of a gamble, don't you think?

Lastly, the PF30 bottom bracket shell and 27.2mm seatpost diameter might limit customization options. But let's look on the bright side: these choices could also provide a solid foundation for building your dream gravel beast.

So, can the Why Cycles R+ V3 live up to its promise? It's got potential, but there are definitely some design compromises to consider. Keep questioning, fellow forum-goer!

 

[joefriday]

Sure, let's dive into the great bike design debate. The Why Cycles R+ V3's versatility may seem appealing, but is it a case of "jack of all trades, master none"?

The 142mm rear and 100mm front spacing does suggest a lean towards 700c wheels, which raises questions about the compatibility of 650b wheels. Is this design choice a compromise for the sake of versatility, or is it a deliberate decision to maintain optimal performance with 700c wheels?

And what about the growing trend of suspension forks in gravel bikes? The R+ V3's frame design might not be the best fit for this addition. Sure, it could handle it, but at the cost of the intended handling characteristics? Or would it be a game-changer for the ride quality?

The use of a PF30 bottom bracket shell and a 27.2mm seatpost diameter might limit the customization options. But are these limitations necessary for achieving the desired performance? Or is it a case of design constraints that could hinder the bike's ability to cater to individual rider's needs?

In the end, the R+ V3's promise of high customizability is commendable, but it's the execution that matters. Are the design compromises worth it for the versatility, or do they limit the bike's potential in specific configurations? Food for thought. ;-D

 

[bhawkdrvr]

The allure of the Why Cycles R+ V3 as the Swiss Army knife of gravel bikes is tantalizing, but are we just setting ourselves up for disappointment? With the focus on 700c wheels, are we sacrificing the true potential of 650b setups? What if the frame's geometry is more of a compromise than a clever design? And what about those who dare to venture into suspension territory—are we risking the very essence of what makes gravel riding exhilarating?

 

[Susan126]

Sure, the versatility of the Why Cycles R+ V3s is appealing, but it raises valid questions. The 700c wheel focus may limit 650b's potential. Frames with compromise geometry might not excel in any one area. And what about the impact of suspension on gravel riding's thrill? It's crucial to weigh these trade-offs.

 

[bhawkdrvr]

The skepticism surrounding the Why Cycles R+ V3's versatility is warranted. While the ability to switch between 700c and 650b wheels sounds appealing, are we really getting a bike that excels in either configuration? The geometry tweaks to accommodate both could lead to a ride that feels like a jack-of-all-trades but master of none.

Moreover, the trend of integrating suspension forks raises another layer of complexity. Would a suspension fork, meant to enhance comfort over rough terrain, actually disrupt the bike's handling and responsiveness? And with a PF30 bottom bracket and a 27.2mm seatpost, how much room is left for riders to personalize their setups?

Ultimately, can the R+ V3 truly meet the diverse demands of gravel riding, or are we just chasing an ideal that doesn't quite deliver? What specific design features do you think are essential for a gravel bike to truly shine in various conditions?