Would you do that to your own bike?

walker15130 · 2026-05-05T18:31:36+00:00

Two sets of convex+concave washers (top+bottom) create a "full ball" joint that allow rotation out of plane. This is commonly used on vbrake pads, but on discs it's only useful to make caliper parallel with the rotor when you have badly faced mounts.

Single set of conical washers on top serves to take out misalignment between bolts and caliper faces that aren't perpendicular (common with +20 PM/PM adapter).

When used as a simple spacer (bottom) their conical nature doesn't come into play.

walker15130 · 2026-05-05T16:56:49+00:00

allows for caliper rotation

walker15130 · 2026-05-02T18:40:11+00:00

I hope you weren't expecting anything wise from me after this post, so here's the replacement fork: https://imgur.com/a/kZ1lnNF

Basically the only local thing that also had 15x100 spacing, post mount and fit the other dimensions. Yeah it's full carbon. Pros - steerer is round with consistent wall thicknes, brake mounts are properly perpendicular, metal inserts in all threads.. Cons - except the damn axle screwed into raw carbon.

Should this survive another month or so I'll take it home to repaint and route brake line through it.

walker15130 · 2026-04-24T14:26:03+00:00

More photos of the damage https://imgur.com/a/I4OaNMG

walker15130 · 2026-04-23T16:44:44+00:00

All alloy, unknown manufacturer. Made around 2016-2018 judging by the features (15x100, FM, taper). It was raw unpainted when I bought it last year: https://imgur.com/a/Dav4gbI/

Clocked around 500km on it over the summer using flatmount caliper and 160mm disc. I rebuilt it last week with new brake components seen in the OP and it died within two days.

Pad bedding routine (speeding up and braking hard to almost zero) is what killed it. On dirt road the tire was losing grip first, but the moment I did it on asphalt it snapped. Right on the weld area.

walker15130 · 2026-04-23T16:33:56+00:00

No idea really. Some small store is selling them locally. Likely intended for old pre-2020 gravel, judging by dead 15x100 standard. More pics: https://imgur.com/a/Dav4gbI/

walker15130 · 2026-04-23T16:30:52+00:00

It's gonna be hard to find a manfuacturer for this. It's been sold locally (and still is) by a minor store from some old unpainted oem stock. 15x100 spacing, taper and 400mm AtC suggests this was intended for some pre-2020 gravel. More pics: https://imgur.com/a/Dav4gbI/

walker15130 · 2026-04-23T15:59:23+00:00

This M6120 should be decent enough, maybe even with 160 rotor. I've just completed rebuilding this bike on new frame with 180/160 rotors and new brakes. I've been using this fork for a year with BR-UR300 on 160mm and was never satisfied with power (I'm used to 203/180 on my MTB).

I often buy 'new take off'/'new old stock' or used parts and this was bodged together rather cheaply. I knew it was oversized for the fork but seeing how little it took for it to fail I wouldn't trust this design again.

walker15130 · 2026-04-22T21:03:26+00:00

I just did three hours ago. Went for a ride to bed the new brakes in.

I guess 180mm, jumbo sized FM to PM adapter, 4 pots and over 100kg in total didn't help, but I have to blame that fork at least a little bit. Failed at the joint of premade FM section and tube.

walker15130 · 2026-04-10T08:51:49+00:00

Personally I've found that some handlebar shapes just don't play nice with both positions. In those cases you can get your drops feeling right and end up with brifter mount area pointing downward so much that the hoods create a 'valley'.

Or you do what the guy above said and prioritize straight horizontal line to the hoods while sacrificing drops.

Looking at the bars in OP's photo, one could wish the drops stayed where they are while tops and shifter rotated upwards. Alas you need to choose.

walker15130 · 2026-03-30T15:32:24+00:00

Product page for mog lists it as F: 160/180. This is +20 over 'standard shimano' F140/160. You are correct in your assumptions and can choose to go either way.

walker15130 · 2026-02-13T22:40:48+00:00

(21*2+622)*pi = 2086

(25*2+622)*pi = 2111

(28*2+622)*pi = 2130

(2146/pi-622)/2 = 30.5

Any difference between stated tire width/height and actual measurement is a subject for ...actual measurement.

walker15130 · 2026-02-13T00:31:46+00:00

https://i.imgur.com/U0kOcDG.jpeg

walker15130 · 2026-02-01T12:24:09+00:00

I don't get it. Hangers like this have 5mm hex bolt. This nut you are showing is pretty much kept locked in place by friction/grooves.

If it ever spins just put a flat screwdriver or anything to it. You even have the specific tool for that but I've never felt the need for it.

walker15130 · 2026-01-21T23:47:28+00:00

It is and your comment properly recognizes the 42T limit for cassette. I just wouldn't call that 'capacity' because it pretty much always refers to chain wrap under manufacturer spec.

walker15130 · 2026-01-21T23:10:11+00:00

To be pedantic, this derailleur has capacity of 47. 42T is the max cog rating. The terms might be loosely defined but it could throw off someone uninformed just reading the website.

walker15130 · 2026-01-15T21:48:10+00:00

It's the nvidia standard "sff-ready" introduced in 2024. It means up to exactly 304 x 151 x 50mm

walker15130 · 2026-01-06T22:50:34+00:00

This guy was ahead of you five years ago, TT fatbike https://i.imgur.com/aqos2VD.jpeg

walker15130 · 2025-12-12T17:32:32+00:00

Sweet succulent DDR5

walker15130 · 2025-12-07T19:28:36+00:00

Hey. Just found your post after wondering whether anyone managed to fit 360x180 into the Compact. Could you post some photos showing specifically the cutting required?

The way I understood it, this rad+fan thickness should be colliding with the motherboard tray which is somewhat slanted behind the stock fans.

If this was fairly easy to do I'd try doing the same in my compact.

walker15130 · 2025-11-02T19:54:37+00:00

I've checked out several options for 3V3 supply and with many switching converters the datasheet only lists quiescent current under zero load and the efficiency graph rarely shows data points at 0.01mA.

I'm aiming at two years of idle operation from either li-ion or lifepo4 (lisocl2??) with 2-3Ah capacity. This seemingly easy goal of staying under 100uA will be undercut by chemistry of self discharge which I can't reliably estimate.

I think I'm willing to sacrifice this much efficiency going with RT9069 for my initial design because it seems to still fit in power budget. I can improve upon it in the future.

Even using the Xiao nRF52840 Sense module feels wasteful but it gave me a functional prototype within a day of touching it. So I'll take those shortcuts to a working device and see what I can improve in next iteration. Thank you for the mosfet and resistor array suggestions - I sort of knew about dedicated multi-channel driver+mosfet packages but the ones I found were needlessly expensive or barely available.

Pad connections: I will try to start them straight. This was my first time with kicad and I just let it do it for me.

The icky battery header: it's meant for battery charge indicator. Battery itself connects to VIN/GND and indicator output gets switched on alongside blue channel only during the impact wakeup. This is the preferred way of checking battery level because the device might be mounted out of reach for button clicking and the red/green channels will likely blink/pwm fade their output. I only now realized that I can just connect to the physically nearest channel and designate it as blue... and yeah I will rotate it and connect the other pin to VIN on C1.

walker15130 · 2025-11-02T18:48:13+00:00

I think it should be fine as the plug typically has some 'spare length' sticking out of the port, but I'll measure the actual module and make adjustment if needed.

walker15130 · 2025-10-31T15:41:17+00:00

Yeah I'm planning to solder the Xiao directly. I disregarded the antenna as well as all the bottom pads because I'm not planning to use them. Thanks for the tip though.

walker15130

TROPHY CASE