Impossible to route Internal wiring on custom frame

Putting together my custom Waltly build. LBS says that the holes are drilled too small and the bike is impossible to wire because of the angles involved. The bike is supposed to be set up for internal wiring with DI2 capability, but LBS says even DI2 would be unworkable. Attached are the frame drawing and pictures the problem. LBS says external wiring or wireless are the only options (those both suck for different reasons). I've contacted Amy at Waltly, awaiting a reply. I approved the frame, so I'm not sure what she will say...Any advice?                          

Hmm... I've been thinking of ordering a Waltly also, so I'll be curious to see what the experts here have to say. 

If it were me, I'd just use a dremel and elongate the holes to fit. It's titanium so it won't affect the strength any more than the original hole. I've also seen generic cable routing points for sale on Ebay, but they'd require the same opening of your existing holes, and then rivets to secure them.
From your pics, it looks like the holes are plenty big enough to fit di2 cables in there.

The angle shouldn't really matrer, Di2 wires are pretty flexible, they arent like a hydraulic hose.    You may have to fish the wire in one end as you pull it out the other. The internal routing on my Why Cycles R+ is a PITA as well, the Di2 connections barely clear the holes, but it is manageable.

JWB475 wrote:The angle shouldn't really matrer, Di2 wires are pretty flexible, they arent like a hydraulic hose.    You may have to fish the wire in one end as you pull it out the other. The internal routing on my Why Cycles R+ is a PITA as well, the Di2 connections barely clear the holes, but it is manageable.

But I'm not using DI2. My specifications to Waltly were "Internal cable routing with DI2 capability" and "Initially I will be using cable-actuated shifting, but I plan to go with DI2 as soon as my budget allows." Even if Shimano's supply chains would allow me to easily purchase GRX DI2 today, I would rather not fork over that money for this mistake. I am in an email volley with Waltly right now...

Ah, sorry.  Misunderstood your post.     

NormH wrote:

But I'm not using DI2. My specifications to Waltly were "Internal cable routing with DI2 capability" and "Initially I will be using cable-actuated shifting, but I plan to go with DI2 as soon as my budget allows." Even if Shimano's supply chains would allow me to easily purchase GRX DI2 today, I would rather not fork over that money for this mistake. I am in an email volley with Waltly right now...

Turbogrover wrote:If it were me, I'd just use a dremel and elongate the holes to fit. It's titanium so it won't affect the strength any more than the original hole.

it doesn’t matter what kind of material it is, a larger hole will make it weaker.  Before doing something like that you need to check with the manufacturer to see if it will still be structurally sound.

ljsmith wrote:

it doesn’t matter what kind of material it is, a larger hole will make it weaker.  Before doing something like that you need to check with the manufacturer to see if it will still be structurally sound.

I won't disagree with you, just speaking from years of experience. I can guarantee that "manufacturer" didn't engineer those hole locations or diameters.

This sounds to me like Waltly made a mistake. I've been drooling over metal frames from a variety manufacturers, including Waltly, and I've never seen round holes like that for internal cable routing. For drainage, yes, but typically smaller. For cable routing, always the oval shape with the black plastic or aluminum covers that screw into the oval. Those seem pretty standard on all frames these days. Unfinished round holes without any covering options are definitely not any kind of standard from what I've seen. If it were me, I'd want my frame made right, so I'd want to send it back and have the issue fixed. What's the word from Amy? 

I don't see it working for mechanical cables, but with grommets, you could possibly make the Di2 work. But that's not what you were hoping for which doesn't help. So here's my take on this.

1) I always keep the descriptions basic when dealing with Chinese vendors. It's too easy for things to get lost in translation. (this is after dealing with Waltly for 2 frames and various other Chinese carbon vendors for multiple frames and rims) Telling them what you "might" do in the future will generally add to confusion. 

2) You did approve the drawings which show round 6.3mm holes in those locations so they may not do much. And even if they do, you'll be without the frame for a significant amount of time. Not sure when a 6.3mm hole is standard for wires but it appears that that's what they do. 

3) I'd just carefully ovalize the hole with a Dremel and some grommets or cable guides. Even if you have to buy the Dremel tool, bits for the Dremel, and the guides, you'll still be less than $150. And you'll have it done a LOT quicker. 
https://www.chainreactioncycles.com/us/en/ragley-internal-cable-guide-3pk/rp-prod180333?gs=1&sku=sku693641&utm_source=google&utm_term=&utm_campaign=PLA+All+Products&utm_medium=base&gclid=CjwKCAjwo4mIBhBsEiwAKgzXOJQZEz0QkFJmxwebo3XwwuIfTC-mFcTSIpTVjIca_Iotdv8xBJji8xoCO6cQAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
https://www.jensonusa.com/Salsa-Single-Frame-Plug-for-Dropper-Routing-5-pack

4) If you're not comfortable with the grinding, any local machine shop should be able to do it for not much money. Just make sure you bring in the guides or grommets so they know what size to make the hole.

5) As for the structural integrity of the enlarged holes, I wouldn't worry about it. Yes, the guide base that gets welded in will restore some of the strength that was lost with the hole drilling. But like Turbogrover mentioned, this isn't engineered so close to it's tolerances that they upsize or reinforce the tubing according to hole size. But verifying with Waltly before pulling out the Dremel may not be a bad idea either. 

Either way, good luck and hopefully you come up with a timely solution.

There's a good reason why internal cable routing wasn't a thing on metal frames before carbon became popular. Anytime you introduce a hole that large (this hole is 1/4" diameter) on a tube you are compromising the strength of the tube. With carbon fiber, you can just design it into the frame structure. With metal tubing, the correct way is to weld in an internal cable stop that won't weaken the tube structure. This makes the frame heavier, so most bike builders used external cable stops to save weight, and maintain the integrity of the tube structure. If I were designing my own metal frame, I would choose external cable routing. It doesn't look as cool as hidden cables, but it's the practical option.
Using a Dremel at this point to elongate the hole enough to fit two cables in there won't significantly change the strength of the tube compared to the hole that's already in there. Just don't increase the diameter of the existing hole any larger. (don't just drill larger holes) Your end result will still allow water and mud to accumulate in the frame, unfortunately.
 
This also a Waltly frame with a slotted cable opening correctly welded into the seatstay. You could easily fit 2 cables through that slot with the plastic cover removed. Maybe Waltly just forgot to finish adding these cable ports before it was shipped out.

Turbogrover wrote:There's a good reason why internal cable routing wasn't a thing on metal frames before carbon became popular. Anytime you introduce a hole that large (this hole is 1/4" diameter) on a tube you are compromising the strength of the tube. With carbon fiber, you can just design it into the frame structure. With metal tubing, the correct way is to weld in an internal cable stop that won't weaken the tube structure. This makes the frame heavier, so most bike builders used external cable stops to save weight, and maintain the integrity of the tube structure. If I were designing my own metal frame, I would choose external cable routing. It doesn't look as cool as hidden cables, but it's the practical option.
Using a Dremel at this point to elongate the hole enough to fit two cables in there won't significantly change the strength of the tube compared to the hole that's already in there. Just don't increase the diameter of the existing hole any larger. (don't just drill larger holes) Your end result will still allow water and mud to accumulate in the frame, unfortunately.
 
This also a Waltly frame with a slotted cable opening correctly welded into the seatstay. You could easily fit 2 cables through that slot with the plastic cover removed. Maybe Waltly just forgot to finish adding these cable ports before it was shipped out.

In the rather obsessive shopping before getting my Moots and for sure after getting my Moots I see where they reinforce and pay attention to things others do not. I also recognized that's an opposite choice to something like the Waltly and others I was also attracted too.

I also tried to bite tongue here because I've had nightmares with small builders and various things I've done before and over decades. I paid a lot for it but being so busy with work and family I wanted no f*ckry. I didn't find the dealer's profit or the price to be a rip off in that context. 

It might not be good to drill that out but titanium alloy behaves differently than steel and AL. My educated and experienced (I once worked in metals, production and inspection) guess is a failure would not be like tempered AL or some steel bike tubing that's thin. I also know welding can make a HUGE difference with titanium alloy. It might be overkill the way Moots and likely others tack first while watching alignment and then even weld twice and same for weld in sleeves but when I was in production and vendor management I also saw crappy welding fail.

There seems to be so many small builder and imported frame options now that we'd probably have emotive news if failure occurred often.

I hope this works out well in the end. Good luck!

Here is a screen-grab showing some of the cover options ORA provides for what I thought was a pretty standard sized internal cable routing hole.  I'm just having a hard time imagining that Waltly doesn't make or source these same components, and that they haven't done it the right way a thousand times before.  Leaving big open holes isn't the way I've seen any frame manufacturer of any frame material accommodate internal cable routing.  For me, I would keep fighting for a refund, even if it means taking it up with PayPal, Visa, or whatever payment processor you used. 

But then, I'm a stickler for details and that's often not an entirely good thing.  It may be less maddening to just ride the bike, enjoy it, and try to forget about it.  In either case, please keep us posted here for all the others who are considering Waltly frames.  Both their craftsmanship and customer service are on display here.
 

I was watching a YouTube review of Waltly on the china bike channel, and in the video there was a quick clip of their display frames. One of them had the exact same holes drilled in the frame as the OP. I just watched it this evening. 
Later a custom Waltly was shown built up from custom specs, and it had fully welded-in internal cable ports.

Thank you all for your responses. Amy at Waltly and I went a couple of rounds on this; it comes down to a misunderstanding over the word "compatible."  I said I wanted DI2 compatible routing, and they interpreted that as DI2 shifting only. Then I approved their design drawing without giving it a second thought, so I also have some responsibility. 

Here is the fix: I am going to send the frame back to them (I'm in Shanghai, so that's easy and it'll be the equivalent of about 30 USD). They're going to insert the two necessary holes on the down tube for internal routing, and then on the chainstay they are going to add two hangers for external wiring. Picture of the design with changes circled is attached. They said they are going to share the cost with me; the price quoted is 80 USD. I'm of two minds on this. If I add that cost plus shipping (I assume shipping is on me, at least one way) to the total cost of the bike, that's a 10-15% increase; if I look at it as a separate problem that needs to be solved, I can live with that cost. I'm ok with it and ok with Waltly's service, and I learned a lot through the experience.

Glad to hear there’s a reasonable solution that both parties can live with. Your location probably makes this so much easier to accomplish this versus being in the US and having to spend 200 usd or so for shipping each way. 

Holy cow! This is scary. I ordered a bike from Waltly and approved a design but after the China Cycling vid and several other online discussions, I decided that I NEED to look at the drawing again. I noticed the fender mount off the rear brake bridge (which, this is a flat mount disc brake frame, the bridge is only there for fender mounting)  had the bolt oriented downward. Most fenders have a hanger at their apex to be mounted on the brake bridge.


So anyway, I write Amy about it and she gets the drawing drafted and revised but also quips that she hopes there are no more edits because she's ready to submit my order. But a week or two ago she told me it was in the queue and won't be manufactered for 3.5 months. So...is she tired of my crap? I hope not but now my anxiety is up again and I'm going to have to scour this drawing another time or 6 to see what else has been lost in translation.

I'm posting my latest iteration in case someone else's eyes sees a thing I didn't. It's weird in that the brake hose will enter the down tube from the right lever on the drive side, whereas the shifter cable (Ekar 1×) will enter the top tube on the non drive side and be routed, entirely in housing, down the seat stay.


Thoughts?

desertdungarees wrote:
So anyway, I write Amy about it and she gets the drawing drafted and revised but also quips that she hopes there are no more edits because she's ready to submit my order. But a week or two ago she told me it was in the queue and won't be manufactered for 3.5 months. So...is she tired of my crap? I hope not but now my anxiety is up again and I'm going to have to scour this drawing another time or 6 to see what else has been lost in translation.

It's weird in that the brake hose will enter the down tube from the right lever on the drive side, whereas the shifter cable (Ekar 1×) will enter the top tube on the non drive side and be routed, entirely in housing, down the seat stay.

Thoughts?

Yes, she's probably tired of the constant changes. But I also think she is used to it as I had a similar result after constant tweaks. 

As for the routing, yes it is odd but it seems to be their standard. Rear brake has everything routed on the NDS and rear derailleur has everything routed on the DS. I opted for internal routing of a dropper post on mine which resulted in two DS holes on the down tube. I also had two NDS holes on the down tube for the rear brake. That way I could use either of the forward holes for which ever cable I wanted. The result was that the rear brake hose and the dropper cable crossed within the down tube rather than in front of the head tube. If that all makes sense. The only option you have at this point is to ask them to relocate the forward down tube hole to the right side. Or just live with it the way it is. In the end, it's only a cosmetic issue.

Well, I'm okay with the DS hole near the front of the top tube. That's what I specified. I actually wanted it to be external...until I realized the bottle cage mount on the bottom of the downtube might interfere there. Waltly said nothing. They just drafted a drawing just as I specified. Which is nice, but scary. If I didn't catch how cluttered that area around the cage looked, I would be limited in usage.

Ideally, I would want that internally routed brake hose to enter the non-drive side of the head tube. Cosmetics, as you say. My question is more, what am I missing in that drawing that isn't going to make riding it very fun?

I'm now thinking about toe overlap. There's only 604mm of front center. I like the more upright ride, and I'm speccing shorter cranks on it than what I currently ride (going from 172.5 to 170).

In case you haven't noticed (and why would you?) it's a Mason Bokeh in size 56 with a longer head tube (160 instead of 155) which has enabled it to have a more upright ride, a shorter reach and a taller stack. Everything else is right on the money for the Bokeh, save for the quirks of designing a bike via Waltly. Also...Mason does neat 3D printing of the rear dropouts which Waltly can't do.

desertdungarees wrote:I actually wanted it to be external...until I realized the bottle cage mount on the bottom of the downtube might interfere there. Waltly said nothing. They just drafted a drawing just as I specified. 

My question is more, what am I missing in that drawing that isn't going to make riding it very fun?

I'm now thinking about toe overlap. There's only 604mm of front center. I like the more upright ride, and I'm speccing shorter cranks on it than what I currently ride (going from 172.5 to 170).

1) Scary yes, but they've caught a couple of my errors so I think you're safe. They've built enough frames that they will say something if an idea can't physically work. 

2) I don't think there is anything that would make it suck to ride. It's actually really similar in geometry to mine and I've been extremely happy. However, I would probably change all of the cage mounts to the 3 hole type rather than the 2 hole type. Since you have all the bottle mounts and fender mounts, you might as well prepare for cargo as well. There are ways to work around that but it would be good to have it from the start.
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000453357310.html?spm=a2g0o.cart.0.0.43be3c00uBC0iC&mp=1

3) My Waltly frame has 614mm and I'm running 172.5 cranks without an issue. My shoes are size 42.5 if that matters. A simple and effective change would be to make the head tube angle 71 degrees instead of 71.5. That will move the wheel out a bit further without changing the fit.