That's very good to know, cheers
I have a holt (and a strael). The holt's my first mtb for probably ten years. It's a great bike for me: brilliant on woodland singletrack that I've been riding it on. Seems well made too
Jezkidd is the frame as comfortable as there blurb makes it out to be?
I'd say yes but it's not a sofa. It's well judged for geo so you can really move around but in terms of ride feel it's not overly stiff nor bendy. I'd say taut.
Posted a wee link up there to IG.
I don't know how to add more here. Loathe WordPress. DM me your email and I'll fire some to you
<!--more-->
@Wheelie, I'd say so. I'm running SIDS and 2.4s and I find it comfortable and quick.
I find it very comfortable. Running 2.6 mezcals and a pair of sid selects.
I tried it with 2.35 mezcals and also some 2.4 Wolfpack trail tyres, but enjoyed it more with the wider tyres on.
Perfect for my riding on and around the South downs.
Hi, any advice on sizing for someone at 5'11", riding nippy singletrack? Does it feel compact or stretched out?
Cheers
As above also interested in sizing , 5’10.5 tall , right between M and L.
I'd put you both on a large. I'm 5'7"/173cm and on a medium. I think you'd find medium a bit wee.
5ft 9 and I'm on a large.
This thread needs more rider photos 😎
👌🏻
What size chainring are you running?
It's a 30t oval. Should be a 32t oval as I've switched the rear cassette from a 42t cassette to a 50t.
They're v lovely to look at, do they ride as nice as they look? Feel a little bit special?
I love mine, it feels special to me. I have nothing to compare it to though, as it's my first ever steel bike.
It's way more comfortable than my On One Whippet (not really an apples with apples comparison though).
It's a good fun, light(ish) weight hardtail that beats me up less than any other hardtail I've owned.
Just bumping this thread up as there's another batch of these coming in the next couple of weeks and one of them will be making its way to me.
Anyone else waiting for one? How you building it up? Mine will be rigid to start with.
Anyone with one already have any opinion on a dropper post? Oneup Vs PNW Rainier seem the best options.
Hi all.
My first Holt frame needed to be returned because the seat tube wasn't formed correctly - It was loose at the top and too tight at the bottom. Fairlight inspected it and agreed it was a QC issue and I waited over 2 months for a replacement. I can't complain about the customer service, but it was frustrating to be without a bike.
I received the replacement frame (Large) last week and the seat tube is good on this one. However, I am seeing an issue with tyre clearance. It's significant enough that I'm worried the frame is out of sorts again.
I'm seeing almost no clearance on the drive-side chain stay. The tyre bristles are touching the stay.
This is with Vittoria Mezcal 29x2.6 at 25 PSI on Hope Pro 5 hubs. The Thru-Axel is torqued to spec.
This does seem odd as the frame is specced for 29x2.6 and the Mezcal has relatively small knobs. It's also a tyre I have seen Fairlight use for publicity shoots.
I'm hoping onecheshirecat sees this as I think he is using the same tyres. If so, I'd love to see a photo of your clearance on the drive side chain stay. My photo below.
Tighter than a [insert metaphor here]! You can't ride it like that shirley.
With the seat tube issue, tyre clearance, and this (translate in your browser), I am beginning to worry that there are manufacturing issues they need to get on top of.
If that's just the amount of clearance on all frames, then fine, but I don't think it can be advertised as 29x2.6 compatible. The Mezcal would be the most popular tyre by far on a bike like this.
Wow, this isn’t good. That’s not rideable with that tyre
How does that clearance compare between frame 1 and replacement frame?
Thanks for the responses.
I can't remember if it was the same on frame 1 - I didn't check at the time or didn't notice it.
I've checked a couple of things with my digital caliper just now. <br /><br />The distance between the stays measured at the point where Fairlight measure it is 78mm, which matches their spec. <br /><br />The tyre is 66mm wide, which matches Fairlight's max recommended.
I've also flipped the wheel and the problem stays on the drive side. <br /><br />I can only conclude that the stays aren't exactly centred in line with the wheel. <br /><br />I think the next step is to confirm with Fairlight if the wheel should be 100% centred or if it's expected to be further outboard on the drive side. I've emailed them. <br /><br />The photo makes it look worse than it is, so I'll take a video later.
Misaligned dropouts would cause that too, i.e. NDS further dropout towards the front of the bike, so the wheel is pointing to your right hand grip rather than straight through the frame.
Any way you can check that? long straight edge against the tyre below the chainstay? It'd be easier without a derailleur or cassette, and more accurate against the rim with they tyre off, or completely deflated.
Or frickin' laser beams?
Or is the centre line of the tyre in line with the centre of the seat tube?
I feel your pain though, I had 2 wonky Ti frames on the bounce, 3rd time got lucky. Or more accurately, the 1st 2 times very unlucky, 3rd what unpacked and checked over by bossman before they sent it out. Waltly mfr'd frame from Sonder.
Below is a photo from Fairlight showing clearance for a 2.6 Mezcal…
Thanks for the photo. I have nothing close to that sort of clearance on either side. What the hell!!
That’s concerning I was considering one of these; hope you get this resolved! What I really like about fairlight is the quality of the technical communication and focus on engineering detail.
Just an observation based on the photos. <br /><br />
On the Fairlight design notes images the chainstays seems much wider spaced where they meet the bottom bracket. There is barely any space between the outside edge of the chainstay and the edge of the bottom bracket. <br /><br />
In your photos there is a noticeable gap between the edge of tbe chainstay and the bottom bracket which indicates that they are closer together. The crimping also seems to be longer and wrap more around the tyre in the Fairlight images. From the photos it would appear that the clearance is quite different between the Fairlight design notes and your actual frame. <br /><br />
Probably worth sending it back to them for inspection. They have a great reputation for looking after customers, and (usually at least) fantastic attention to detail and build quality. Every manufacturer has the odd Friday Afternoon Bike, but maybe you got 2!
Yeah, I think it does need to go back but that will be another 2 months without a bike whilst I wait for the next shipment. Not riding a bike has tanked my mental health and I need to get back on!
Oh well, needs must I suppose
Mocked up this comparison as best I could. Something definitely not right.
The stays do appear have a different profile, bend and position in those photos. Much narrower and straighter on your frame and the crimp is shorter. Assuming the wheels is correctly dished there also seems to be an alignment issue too. Might be perspective and angle, but it looks different to my untrained eye. Only one way to find out of course.
With luck it won't be 2 months and you have been unlucky rather than this being a quality issue for Fairlight. Having owned one (a Secan) it was spot on.
Man, I'm so sorry I missed this thread, been browsing without logging in! Just seen @beadlesabout message.
I actually stopped running the mezcal 2.6 tyres as I was getting tyre buzz from the chain stays. Kind of coincided with the onset of the crap weather so have put my winter tyres (2.4 tyres) and stuck my head in the sand.
A real shame if I can't run them as it was definitely my preference.
Will be interesting to see if anything changes with a new frame.
I would say that I definitely had more clearance than @beadlesabout photo above. I was able to run 2.6 mezcals and only occasionally had rubbing. And only when running lower pressures.
No worries @onecheshirecat
Fairlight have changed the advertised clearance now.
Without going into too much detail, their tolerances are so tight that combined with some minor variations in manufacturing, some frames will barely accept a 66mm tyre and some will not. <br /><br />My third frame will arrive tomorrow and fits into the former category.
I’ll see how it goes and sell it for a Mason Raw or a Singular Swift if it doesn’t work out.
If you’re worried about the clearance issue at all, give them a call.
Thanks for the update, appreciate that.
I'll be giving the 2.6 another go come the drier weather. Failing that, I'll probably switch to 2.6 Forekaster/Rekon combo as I know they come up a little narrower than the mezcals.
Don't think my pockets can stretch to the Mason Raw frame set!
Third frame has arrived and the tyre clearance is good. Plenty of it with the 66mm 29x2.6 Mezcal - it is drastically different to the previous frame.
It’s a shame Fairlight have changed their advertised tyre clearance as they can’t rely on the fabricator to hit their numbers. It would surely be better to get on top of that as they are clearly capable of making frames that fit a true 2.6 tyre.
Seat tube is fine on this one too.
That's a relief. Rubbish for them that they didn't get what they ordered, though, you'd hope there'd be some recourse if the product is that far out of spec, though? XC Hardtail is one thing, XC Hardtail with restrictive tyre clearance is another.
Indeed. It’s a bit baffling that Fairlight are taking the hit entirely instead of holding their supplier to account. Even if it meant a delay on existing orders, I’m sure that would be better than changing their design spec to accommodate problems in manufacturing. I don’t get why they would do that.
It does seriously undermine the whole I shaved 3 grams of a chain stay precision image.
But they must know that and know what their contract says. My hunch is that their legal advice was along the lines of “you can reject these frames and then fight it out over who pays what. In the mean time you’ll be spending money like water with no frames to sell “
That’s true, I imagine you’re right. The real problem isn’t so much that they’ve reduced the tyre clearance, but that it’s random and you don’t know what you’re getting. Fairlight were really nice to deal with on the whole and helped me out in the end, but with an out of tolerance seatbtube and chain stays I couldn’t possibly recommend the Holt to anybody, unless perhaps they are more open about what’s happened and move their fabrication elsewhere.
Anyway, I’ve moaned enough! My next post will be a photo of my build (with limited edition 2.6 tyre clearance)
This is such a shame to hear about. Been thinking of getting a new frame and finally have the money. I expect i'll give fairlight a pass now. In this market surely they cannot afford to get something so basic wrong?
Thats a real surprise, Fairlight talk in huge detail about the carefil design snd butting of the tubing that goes into their frames, if their supplier is sending out frames that are the wrong shape it all goes out the window.
These are European made, arent they? SThink theyre Czech - same new builder as Cotic? Were supposed to be highly rated.
You don't know that the frames are out of spec. according to the contract Fairlight made with the manufacturer.
You don’t know that the frames are out of spec. according to the contract Fairlight made with the manufacturer.
No we don’t know what the contract says. But my opinion is that a company that is happy to create a 70 page pdf, for a single bike, showing exactly what the customer can expect in terms of, well everything, including tyre clearance, is unlikely to be vague with the frame maker.
Edit looking through the 72 page design notes maybe the problem is them not knowing quite how big some 2.6 inch tyres were combined with some allowed for variation in the spacing.
To be fair 2.4 inch would be fine for me
Yeah, so having popped the mezcal 2.6 back on, there is definitely rubbing on the chain stay.
Emailed Fairlight bit am still waiting on a reply.
