Does anyone own a Canyon?

Could you run a longer gear cable and loop it inside of the brake cable?

^This

Here's my Allez showing much bigger loops of gear housing than you have (they just overlap in front) and that's shorter than how it was supplied from stock.

^ Yeah, was going to say the same thing. This is how I've just done the Colnago with non-aero Ultegra (pre-bartape shot, obviously):

Obviously the brake cable is coming from the other side but I still think you'd be better off doing it that way. The gear cables on mine don't quite cross but the rear cable does come a little past the line of the downtube and curve back in a fraction.

Although, the headtube is a lot thinner than the Canyon's...

I've tried the huge hoops approach, which seemed to fit just as bad. Thinking about crossing them, and them crossing them again underneath the downtube. Will try out some more tonight...

+1 for going longer.

I had Ultegra 6600 re-cabled last week and the shift cable is so long the actually cross each other in front of the head tube in a similar way to the Allez up there^. This was done by a mechanic I trust (he spanners for a race team who have used Shimano for years) and it shifts very well.

The shift cables don't touch the brake cable until the bars are at 90° which obviously would never happen unless you've already fallen off!

I don't really see too much of a problem here, the cables turn with the brake calliper and handlebars (obviously) and you're rarely going to be turning the bars to such an extent to cause problems anyway.

Perhaps.

Even less of a problem if the spacing washer for the brake is removed?

^This

Here's my Allez showing much bigger loops of gear housing than you have (they just overlap in front) and that's shorter than how it was supplied from stock.

My set-up has the same situation as the cables meet (running SR gears though). When you turn the bars to the left eventually the front brake cable fouls the gear cable. Thats far more than I'd turn them while riding though.

You should also have longer brake housing too, you can see how mine goes all the way across the centreline of the bike before looping back to the caliper.

I think you are trying to make everything run in straight lines instead of looping/curving around each other.

Huge (by my normal standards) hoops, seems to be the solution:

Turns both ways relatively unrestricted. Thank you all for your input!

Did you end up crossing them on the downtube then?

Huge (by my normal standards) hoops, seems to be the solution:

Turns both ways relatively unrestricted. Thank you all for your input!

That looks fine to me. You'll never need to turn the bars more than that.

Genuinely pleased you got it running :)

Did you end up crossing them on the downtube then?

No. Doublecross before the headtube, and then normal routing from there.
Thanks, Smallfurry - Me too ;)

Also, the Canyon website lets you put your measurements in, and then recommends the correct size frame.

If you're going to spunk all that money, I would get a friend to measure you as per an online calculator. Then do the Canyon one. Compare and contrast.

Then do as SF says and compare and contrast again. Possibly making adjustments to your existing bikes to see if any improvements can be made.

I've just used their calculator by taking some very crude measurements alone which would benefit from confirming, but these results suggest I'd need a small size (53 cm). At almost 6' 2" I find that very hard to believe. I'm a long way off buying one and won't judge entirely what size to have based purely on that, but did any owners find Canyon's own tool to be accurate for their eventual best fit?

Yes - god knows how they measure it.

I was recommended a medium but bought a 2XL. Ignore the calculator and go on the geometry info.

The online sizing machine made me a 50cm. I talked on the phone to Canyon and they recommended I get a 54cm. All nonsense, especially as the 54 came with 172.5 cranks.

I employed a simple method - I took the dimensions of my existing, comfy bikes and matched those up to the 52cm Ultimate CF frame with a 90cm stem. I ordered; it fits.

That's what I'll be doing. Both my bikes are 64. To see a 53 recommended made me think I was more ignorant of modern geometry than I thought. Now to start saving up...

I've just used their calculator by taking some very crude measurements alone which would benefit from confirming, but these results suggest I'd need a small size (53 cm). At almost 6' 2" I find that very hard to believe. I'm a long way off buying one and won't judge entirely what size to have based purely on that, but did any owners find Canyon's own tool to be accurate for their eventual best fit?

In a nutshell, do not rely on their calculator. They reckoned I ought to be a 56 where as in fact I had a cycle fit done and was informed that I should have a 200mm head tube which equates to a 60 frame. So, I ignored Canyon advice and got the 60. It is superb btw.

I employed a simple method - I took the dimensions of my existing, comfy bikes and matched those up to the 52cm Ultimate CF frame with a 90cm stem. I ordered; it fits.

+1
Quick and effective method.

Although you should always have a glance at the seat tube angles. ie. If the Canyon has a far steeper one, the bike will end up feeling too long, when you find you need to push the saddle back, for proper positioning over the cranks....

....or just use stack and reach. If you have them.

Does anyone have a ritchey wcs 4 axis stem, 1 1/4 steerer, with 73 degree rise? Desperate to get hold of one and would consider 120mm or 130mm.

For reference, if you have an issue with the stem angle you can contact Canyon and they are able to provide a 17 degree alternative. I am chuffed about that. Obligatory add of my bike here:

A friend's new Roadlite AL just turned up with a tooth broken off the Ultegra chainring. It's clearly taken a hefty whack (or ten) on the bottom of the box.

Should he be pushing for

a) new chainring
b) new crankset and bottom bracket, given that it's clearly taken a heavy impact that it's not designed for
c) New frame, given that potentially it could also have been bent/damaged by said hefty impact?

if they're all in one box send the whole lot back as damaged in transit.

if they're all in one box send the whole lot back as damaged in transit.

This^

The moment damage was discovered, the whole thing should have been repacked.

I agree. Ta.

Revised set-up: