Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    banned
    Reputation: 29Colossus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,163

    R.I.P/Sultan BB height question

    The Turner site shows 13.3" bb height for the Sultan.

    Does anyone have a measurement for the RIP? I can't seem to find any using search.

    Thanks.

  2. #2
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,850
    Quote Originally Posted by 29Colossus
    The Turner site shows 13.3" bb height for the Sultan.

    Does anyone have a measurement for the RIP? I can't seem to find any using search.

    Thanks.
    Specs on the Niner sit have the BB drop.

    tire radius - BB drop = BB height
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  3. #3
    Just ride.
    Reputation: Lothar Othp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    232

    Its less

    Quote Originally Posted by 29Colossus
    The Turner site shows 13.3" bb height for the Sultan.

    Does anyone have a measurement for the RIP? I can't seem to find any using search.

    Thanks.
    I just measured my M RIP. ~12.5" to center of BB...that would explain all the pedal strikes I had today....


    ..though, I must say the lower BB keeps the bike from feeling too tall. I'm very happy with my RIP...it justs gets better every day. Although that JET 9 has got me dreamin....

  4. #4
    banned
    Reputation: 29Colossus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,163
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Specs on the Niner sit have the BB drop.

    tire radius - BB drop = BB height
    Thanks Shiggy. That would put the RIP in at 13.1. I do remember reading that in a thread at one point. If my math was correct, how do we explain the 12.5 that Lothar reported?

    Thanks again.

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation: 29Colossus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Lothar Othp
    I just measured my M RIP. ~12.5" to center of BB...that would explain all the pedal strikes I had today....


    ..though, I must say the lower BB keeps the bike from feeling too tall. I'm very happy with my RIP...it justs gets better every day. Although that JET 9 has got me dreamin....
    12.5.... that would be low for me. I don't want it to be, but it just is.

    Thanks for the measurement Lothar. I've read your posts on the RIP. Glad your are loving it.

  6. #6
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,850
    Quote Originally Posted by 29Colossus
    Thanks Shiggy. That would put the RIP in at 13.1. I do remember reading that in a thread at one point. If my math was correct, how do we explain the 12.5 that Lothar reported?

    Thanks again.
    Fork length, tires, lower headset stack height...
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,851

    Mine is..........

    ...... 13 inches even.

    That's with a Reba at 4 inches, Chris King Headset, and Spec. Resolution 2.3 inch tires.

  8. #8
    Just ride.
    Reputation: Lothar Othp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    232

    Rechecked

    Quote Originally Posted by Lothar Othp
    I just measured my M RIP. ~12.5" to center of BB...that would explain all the pedal strikes I had today....


    ..though, I must say the lower BB keeps the bike from feeling too tall. I'm very happy with my RIP...it justs gets better every day. Although that JET 9 has got me dreamin....
    I lied...its 12.59375". M RIP, Reba Race at 100mm, King headset, Schwalbe Little Albert rear, Bonty ACX front...not even close to 13". Its pretty close to my Santa Cruz Superlight and the SC website lists BB heights 12.3-12.8" for the SL's and Blur XCs so I guess ~12.6" isn't that low in comparison. So I'm not sure why I've had more pedal strikes, I could be running more sag and softer tires. Or maybe the gobs of traction I have on the RIP allows me to acheive obscene lean angles in the corners, leading to more pedal strikes as I hammer thru corners. Or, hammering thru the rough stuff, the shock compresses, lowering the BB even more, and I strike a pedal. Really, not a fault of the bike...I just ride it hard. I think people have the opinion the RIP has a low bottom bracket because they see that suspension linkage hanging off the bottom (which really doesn't have anything to do with BB height), and that's protect by the crankset anyway. (unless you're running a 22t single ring with no bash guard )....
    Attached Images Attached Images

  9. #9
    Just ride.
    Reputation: Lothar Othp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    232

    It was the Schwalbe tire

    I just swapped the Schwalbe Little Albert for a Bonty Dry X in the rear. BB is now ~13". The Little Albert is closer to a 28" tire (1/2 less in radius) so there's the difference. Damn all this time riding & racing the Little Albert & I never realized I was that close to riding a 650B setup.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,189
    Mav Duc32, King headset, Rampage front, Ignitor rear results in a 13.0" bb height. Another .5" would help reduce hits but the bike just works so well that I don't really care. I'll probably try an F135 or similar next year to get a little more bb height and slacker headangle.
    2 wheels

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    325

    too low

    I had a Rip and had WAY too many pedal strikes - it drove me crazy. Got rid of the Rip and got a Sultan and rarely have a pedal strike. Around here we have lots of rooty trails with many low (1"- 2") roots which is where the Rip's low BB causes the problems. If you put a WB 135 on Rip it would help . . . but frankly it seems like an unfortunate design choice to me.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: hammerheadbikes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,781
    just some more data along these lines:
    measured two bikes recently, both running WB 110 forks (same a-c as Reba 100), flow rims and crossmark tires, both the same size frame basically (23.9 and 24" TTs)

    Evolve:13 1/4
    ElRey: 13 5/8"

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    51
    RIP9 - Panaracer Rampage 2.3 on Stans ZTR 355 - Front and Rear
    WB Fluid 135 with Ventana 7mm crown race riser and Chris King Headset

    13 3/8"

    I like this bike more everytime I raise the front end. Better clearance, balance, angle of attack through rough, and quicker steering. I am looking forward to installing the WB Fluid 150 soon.

    As a side note, I put the WB135 on my Nomad for a while, the super slack head angle really steered quick. It was a really nimble bike. If the advantages from the 29 inch rear wheel were not so great, I might just run like that. But, alas, I cannot argue with the 29s. They are that good. Bye-bye Nomad : )

  14. #14
    WAWE
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroganof
    I had a Rip and had WAY too many pedal strikes - it drove me crazy. Got rid of the Rip and got a Sultan and rarely have a pedal strike. Around here we have lots of rooty trails with many low (1"- 2") roots which is where the Rip's low BB causes the problems. If you put a WB 135 on Rip it would help . . . but frankly it seems like an unfortunate design choice to me.
    The RIP is 13.1" vs. 13.3" for the Sultan... that's 0.2" or 5mm... I sure didn't notice a difference between the two! Many others who rode it at super rocky Bootleg Canyon during Interbike said it's better than almost everything else they rode - 26 or 29. Bootleg is much more prone to pedal strikes than your 1-2" roots and the insignificant bottom bracket height didn't bother them.

    Check it out........



    2007 Interbike Dirt Demo

    Quote Originally Posted by tscheezy
    This was one of my favorite bikes last year, and again this year. It just
    does absolutely everything superbly, and just rips every type of trail
    surface at Bootleg. It compared very closely to the Sultan, but the RIP9 was
    just a hair plusher. It was like we could feel and take advantage of the
    extra 1/2" of rear wheel travel vs the Sultan. The Niner just railed
    everything and screamed through rock gardens with hardly a hint of losing
    momentum where other bikes got jackhammered to a standstill. Both the RIP9
    and Sultan are extremely fast feeling bikes with very similar geometries,
    handling characteristics, and suspension qualities. They both maintained
    speed over all trail surfaces and landed modest drops with smooth and
    confident ability. The curvey and highly manipulated tubes of the Niner
    offered a pretty different but quite pleasing aesthetic. Both the Niner and
    Sultan were among the smoothest and most stable and well mannered of ANY of
    the bikes we rode at the demo. Between the two 29ers, would have to give the
    advantage to the RIP9 though for it's more impressive fork and slightly
    plusher ride since all other characteristics were too close to call for me.
    A great all-round bike and very highly recommended from a ride performance
    standpoint.



    Interbike reviews-comparison to my Ciclon

    Quote Originally Posted by dawgcatching
    This bike was outfitted with the Minute 29er fork at
    120mm of travel, and with the longer 4.5" travel in the rear end, it gave
    for a more big-feeling bike that was more balanced than the Turner. Still,
    it pedaled almost as well as the Turner, but was a much more capable
    descender. The Minute 29er isn't a bad fork, and felt not too dissimiliar to
    the Reba. Not as nice as a Lyrik, though. The RIP9 got ridden on both climbs
    and down the rocky descent of Skyline. On this bike, I was able to attack
    the rocky sections like I had on the RFX, yet it kept speed up when the RFX
    would get slowed down, and it pedaled much better on the rolling terrain. I
    had to stay on the brakes more than I wanted, as I was taking the trail so
    fast that it exceeded my comfort zone. This bike just powered through the
    rockiest terrain I should give it. And, on technical rock chutes, the bike
    was very stable, with no feeling of being dangerously stuck on the front
    end. It was almost impossible to make a mistake on this bike. When climbing,
    it far exceeded all but the short travel 26" bikes. Once up to speed, it
    just motored up the trail. If there was one drawback, it was a lack of
    flickability that a smaller-wheel bike has, but this also refers to a 29er
    wheels inherent stability that makes it so good for high-speed, rough
    riding. I felt that the RIP9 would compare in technical ability to any 6"
    bike, but climbed like a 4" bike. Maybe not the best choice for really slow,
    stop and go technical riding, but for our typically fast Western trails,
    they are a great choice. The RIP9 didn't feel quite as laterally stiff as
    the Turner, but was more than adequate. Tire spec was the Nevegal 2.2, which
    was grippy and hooked up very well. Overall, this was my favorite bike of
    the whole show, and a great example of what a longer-travel 29er is capable
    of. I would also like to ride a Ventana El Rey, and I hear that the El Rey
    feels a bit more XC-like, with a little better pedaling, and snappier
    handling, while the RIP9 has a bit more aggressive feel to it. The RIP9 is
    simply an outstanding bike. I didn't ride the JET9, but that would be the
    ticket for those of us who are looking for a lighter-weight trail bike with
    the equivalent of 4" of 26" wheel travel, and something that could do very
    well in a 24-hour race. Not that the RIP9 didn't pedal well, but it
    definitely felt on the bigger-bike side of things.

    [SIZE="1"]Disclaimer: I'm a satisfied Niner owner.[/SIZE]

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    325

    not quite . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by aosty
    The RIP is 13.1" vs. 13.3" for the Sultan... that's 0.2" or 5mm... I sure didn't notice a difference between the two! Many others who rode it at super rocky Bootleg Canyon during Interbike said it's better than almost everything else they rode - 26 or 29. Bootleg is much more prone to pedal strikes than your 1-2" roots and the insignificant bottom bracket height didn't bother them.

    Check it out........



    2007 Interbike Dirt Demo






    Interbike reviews-comparison to my Ciclon




    [SIZE="1"]Disclaimer: I'm a satisfied Niner owner.[/SIZE]
    W

    Well, it is clear from the posts that BB height is critical. It seems that, other things being equal, that the Rip is at least .5" - .7" lower than the Sutlan. That difference is critical, at least where I ride. When I dumped the Rip for the Sultan all the parts transferred - and the pedal strikes all but disappeared. Perhaps the issue is made worse by our trails, some of which cross big root patches where there numerous small (1" - 2" diameter) roots you cross over in a short stretch interspersed with larger roots. Their is no way to not pedal through the patch and no realistic way to not pedal into a root - there are just too many of them. The bottom line is that extra .5" (or whatever it is) makes a huge difference in our terrain - the Rip hits, the Sultan doesn't.

  16. #16
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroganof
    W

    Well, it is clear from the posts that BB height is critical. It seems that, other things being equal, that the Rip is at least .5" - .7" lower than the Sutlan. That difference is critical, at least where I ride. When I dumped the Rip for the Sultan all the parts transferred - and the pedal strikes all but disappeared. Perhaps the issue is made worse by our trails, some of which cross big root patches where there numerous small (1" - 2" diameter) roots you cross over in a short stretch interspersed with larger roots. Their is no way to not pedal through the patch and no realistic way to not pedal into a root - there are just too many of them. The bottom line is that extra .5" (or whatever it is) makes a huge difference in our terrain - the Rip hits, the Sultan doesn't.
    Per the published geometry from each company, the RIP has 5mm more BB drop than the Sultan. How this relates to the final, built BB height depends on the fork and tires used. Then how prone the bike will be to pedal strikes will vary with suspension setup: sag, spring rates, damping.

    Personally I think they are both way too low. I like to have 12.5-13.5" BBs on my rigid/hardtail bikes.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    325

    sag . .

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    Per the published geometry from each company, the RIP has 5mm more BB drop than the Sultan. How this relates to the final, built BB height depends on the fork and tires used. Then how prone the bike will be to pedal strikes will vary with suspension setup: sag, spring rates, damping.

    Personally I think they are both way too low. I like to have 12.5-13.5" BBs on my rigid/hardtail bikes.
    But since the Rip has longer stroke shock setting the same percentage sag will result in a further lowering of the bb . . .

  18. #18
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroganof
    But since the Rip has longer stroke shock setting the same percentage sag will result in a further lowering of the bb . . .
    mmmm...not really. Sag is still a percentage of the total travel. The RIP has 1/2" more (stated) travel. Just 1/8"/3mm more at 25% sag. But that also fits into my setup disclaimer.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  19. #19
    Captain Underpants
    Reputation: Random Drivel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,300
    Not sure that this info helps at all, but on my Sultan with a WB 135, Ignitor rear, Rampage front, I measure 13.5".

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    325

    really . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    mmmm...not really. Sag is still a percentage of the total travel. The RIP has 1/2" more (stated) travel. Just 1/8"/3mm more at 25% sag. But that also fits into my setup disclaimer.
    Agreed that the disclaimer covers it, but 5mm+ (or more like .5") of design here, 3mm+ of sag there . . . adds up to, or in this case drops the bb further into, being in the strike zone. The bottom line, for me, is that the Rip needs the 135 to ride right and Sultan doesn't - but both ride better with the 135 forks even though, oddly, they are both specced for 100mm. Go figure.

  21. #21
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    47,850
    Quote Originally Posted by Stroganof
    Agreed that the disclaimer covers it, but 5mm+ (or more like .5") of design here, 3mm+ of sag there . . . adds up to, or in this case drops the bb further into, being in the strike zone. The bottom line, for me, is that the Rip needs the 135 to ride right and Sultan doesn't - but both ride better with the 135 forks even though, oddly, they are both specced for 100mm. Go figure.
    My "not really" is in response to your claim that the increase in shock stroke increases the actual amount of sag. That is not true. It is is the amount of wheel travel that matters here. Suspension designs can (and do) have different leverage ratios.

    Two bike with 5" of wheel travel: One with a 2.5 inch stroke shock and a 2:1 leverage ratio, the other with a 3:1 ratio and a 1.67" stroke shock.

    Both will have the same amount of BB height change with the same percentage of sag.

    The difference in BB height change because of sag on the Rip and Sultan is because of the total wheel travel, not the amount of shock stroke.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    325

    good point

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy
    My "not really" is in response to your claim that the increase in shock stroke increases the actual amount of sag. That is not true. It is is the amount of wheel travel that matters here. Suspension designs can (and do) have different leverage ratios.

    Two bike with 5" of wheel travel: One with a 2.5 inch stroke shock and a 2:1 leverage ratio, the other with a 3:1 ratio and a 1.67" stroke shock.

    Both will have the same amount of BB height change with the same percentage of sag.

    The difference in BB height change because of sag on the Rip and Sultan is because of the total wheel travel, not the amount of shock stroke.
    Good point, I had that wrong, but was focusing on the fact that the BB was lower anyway . . .

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •