Results 1 to 45 of 45

Thread: My Rogue for AM

  1. #1
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20

    My Rogue for AM

    Ellsworth Rogue Frame Rain Forest Green sz S
    Shock DHX5 Air 216x63 178mm (7 inches) travel
    Fork Fox 36 Talas R 100/130/160
    Spinergy Wheels Xyclone Enduro
    Front tire Schwalbe Muddy Mary 2:35 with inner tube
    Rear tire Maxxis High Roller Lust 2:35
    XTR Crankset 175 32/22 with bash Race Face
    XTR Chain
    Sram 980 cassette 11/34
    Pedals Shimano DX 647
    Avid Elixir Cr brake rotors 185
    Shifters Sram X0
    SRAM X0 rear derailleur medium cage
    Shimano SLX front derailleur for double
    Thomson Elite Seatpost 410x27.2
    Saddle Selle Italia SLR XC Gel Flow
    Stem Thomson Elite 90x31, 8
    Handlebars Face Face Atlas Freeride cut to 70 cm
    Grips Nope Milky Way
    Avid Machmaker
    Headset Criss King
    Plugs handlebar Hope

    Total weight 15.100 kg (33,3 lbs)
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Salgomasudo; 09-18-2009 at 08:45 AM.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    805
    gorgeous looking bike.

    questions. How do you make it 178mm rear travel? the 70mm stroke you list gives 203mm ie 8 inches travel on a rogue.. However the eye to eye is shorter than standard at 216mm (8.5inch). Are you sure it is not a 216 x 63mm (8.5 x 2.5inch) ? That would give 185mm travel. (not sure fox make a 216mm x 70mm.)

    Have you measured the head angle? The shorter eye to eye should have slackened the geometry about a degree but the shorter fork steepened it again. Giving you 67degrees. Perfect for all mountain.

    How high is the BB now?

    Why the long stem?

    Really great looking bike and very well specced. Should make a great machine for the big mountains.

  3. #3
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20

    Is a great machine for the big mountains

    I make mistake with the shock size correct size is 216x63 for 178 rear travel (7' inch)
    I have not measured how high is BB, I do it and I tell you
    the head angle from 66.3° to 570mm fork become 67.43° with the 36 Talas 545mm fork

    Perfect for all mountain

    The long stem because is more confortable to ride in uphill [bike is SHORT size end I am high 1 meter and 83 (6 feet)]

  4. #4
    VooDoo user.
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,391
    HOLY SEATPOST!!! Got like a foot of Drop!!

    That bike is crying for a Totem. Or at least the new 170 lyrik.

    Nice bike.

  5. #5
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by TIMBERRR
    HOLY SEATPOST!!! Got like a foot of Drop!!

    That bike is crying for a Totem. Or at least the new 170 lyrik.

    Nice bike.
    i wait positive feedback from new totem 2 step

    now 36 fox talas is only one air fork with travel adjustability without problems, indispensable for real all mountain

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    805
    ah cool. thanks for the angle info. Ihave a rogue frame sitting waiting to build .

    Incidently Ells approximate their travel. If you divide 203 (8 inch) by the shock stroke 2.75in (70mm) and multiply that by your shock stroke 2.5in (63mm) you get 185mm . So assuming the 8 inch is 8 inch then you have a little more travel than you think. ( I suspect 8 inch is actually a little over 203mm too.giving you more like 187mm in reality)

    One of the other posters measured his actual travel and made it 185mm so think it is pretty likely that it is that.

    I think your angles will be spot on for your intended use. It is a great bike.

    I am 185cm just over 6feet and mine is small too. I intend to use a shorter stem for better downhill handling and just compensate on the ups by leaning forward. I just like the handling characterisitics of shorter stems. I use a 75mm on my ID and a 50mm on my moment.
    Last edited by Nsynk; 09-18-2009 at 07:58 PM.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    805
    The fox is a great fork. i have a talas on my moment and it is outstandingly good.

    Planning a totem coil for my rogue. Building more of a park bike than an AM but for places like the Portes du soleil where there is alot of traversing on single tack between the man made downhills but lifts for most of the ups.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Salgomasudo
    The long stem because is more confortable to ride in uphill [bike is SHORT size end I am high 1 meter and 83 (6 feet)]

    So why did you get a S (small/short) when you have to run a long stem and a long seatpost?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: F.N.G's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,441

    Bold!!!

    I like it.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    805
    small/short is of course a bit misleading when the eff top tube is 23.5inch long. If you consider an sx trail in medium size has a top tube of 22.6 inch and in large 24.1 inch then a "small "rogue is halfway between medium and large in Specializeds view of sizing.

    (but I am sure you knew that?)

    I personally don't think a long stem suits the ride characterisitics of a long travel bike but hey so what? it is all about personal preferences and experimenting to find out what works for you. If a 90mm stem works for our friend then thats great for him.

  11. #11
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Nsynk
    small/short is of course a bit misleading when the eff top tube is 23.5inch long. If you consider an sx trail in medium size has a top tube of 22.6 inch and in large 24.1 inch then a "small "rogue is halfway between medium and large in Specializeds view of sizing.

    (but I am sure you knew that?)

    I personally don't think a long stem suits the ride characterisitics of a long travel bike but hey so what? it is all about personal preferences and experimenting to find out what works for you. If a 90mm stem works for our friend then thats great for him.

    quote

    A short size Ellswort's is like an L of Santa Cruz or a 18 of Rocky mountain...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Salgomasudo

    quote

    A short size Ellswort's is like an L of Santa Cruz or a 18 of Rocky mountain...
    They only make a S (23.5 ETT) and a L (24.5 ETT)?! Huh. Neither of those would fit me.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    805
    Quote Originally Posted by CharacterZero
    They only make a S (23.5 ETT) and a L (24.5 ETT)?! Huh. Neither of those would fit me.
    Really ? How tall are you?Or more specific how long is your reach?

    what do you consider good fit?

  14. #14
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    23,645
    That much seatpost will eventually snap the frame. Your seatpost may not fail, but your frame probably will. That bike is meant to be run with a very short stem, so with that relatively long stem you have made the effective top tube that much longer. Good luck, but there's no way that's the correct size.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  15. #15
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    That much seatpost will eventually snap the frame. Your seatpost may not fail, but your frame probably will. That bike is meant to be run with a very short stem, so with that relatively long stem you have made the effective top tube that much longer. Good luck, but there's no way that's the correct size.



    the seatpost is a Thomson 410x27,2
    have a good inserction in the frame than 3 cm above the limit marked in the seatpost
    for total 11 cm under seatclamp
    In this way the seatpost is inserted correctly into the frame without risk of breakage

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Salgomasudo


    the seatpost is a Thomson 410x27,2
    have a good inserction in the frame than 3 cm above the limit marked in the seatpost
    for total 11 cm under seatclamp
    In this way the seatpost is inserted correctly into the frame without risk of breakage
    You can wag your finger all you want, but SG at Ventana even said that my flexy/weak seatpost probably contributed to a cracked ST/TT weld. That seatpost flexing inside your ST will cause stress, like it or not.

    Yes, Jayem is right: 8" bikes with 67*HA are intended to be run with shorter stems.

    You are really doing your best to stretch that bike out. If that works for you, great, but don't say that the bike isn't meant to be built one way...just look at the other Rogues posted here, or on the Ells site. Because on the site, there is a Fox 40 with a 30mm-ish stem.

    FWIW, I like a bike that has a 24ish TT. I run it with a 35mm for steep days and if it is really an XC adventure, 70mm. The 24.5 would be too large and the 23.5 would be too small..

  17. #17
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    23,645
    Quote Originally Posted by Salgomasudo


    the seatpost is a Thomson 410x27,2
    have a good inserction in the frame than 3 cm above the limit marked in the seatpost
    for total 11 cm under seatclamp
    In this way the seatpost is inserted correctly into the frame without risk of breakage
    That's exactly why it will break, the leverage imparted on the frame with that much exposed seatpost is huge. I've broken a frame in this way.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,066
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    That's exactly why it will break, the leverage imparted on the frame with that much exposed seatpost is huge. I've broken a frame in this way.
    You know what, according to Ells's site, it won't get any better- both the S and L have the same ST measurement.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    805
    The seattube angle on a rogue is steeper than average pushing you along the top tube. Which helps on the climbs. Putting a long stem on might actually put your weight too far forward and cause the back wheel to loose traction. If you want to elongate your eff top tube length it might be better to use a layback seatpost.

    Minimum insertions are there for a reason, if your complying with both the frame min insertion and post min insertion there should not be a problem in normal use.

  20. #20
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Nsynk

    How high is the BB now?
    35,7 cm

    :-)

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    805
    Quote Originally Posted by Salgomasudo
    35,7 cm

    :-)
    Thanks

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    805
    How much sag do all you rogue owners run?

    was thinking 40% on a "8" inch 33% on a "7(.5)" inch

    is that what others are running?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Wick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    731
    Great Bike

  24. #24
    FreeRider 4 Real (not!)
    Reputation: erkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    364
    Quote Originally Posted by Salgomasudo
    The long stem because is more confortable to ride in uphill [bike is SHORT size end I am high 1 meter and 83 (6 feet)]
    I am 1.83 tall (that is 1 meter and 83 cm (6 feet).

    There is no way you are riding that bike around with the seatpost that high up, either you legs are 2 thirds your body lenght or you are joking with us.

    Good one ;-)
    Federation Against 29:ers
    In memory of nino - godfather of weight weeniesm, banned but not forgotten, sept 2010.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by erkan
    I am 1.83 tall (that is 1 meter and 83 cm (6 feet).

    There is no way you are riding that bike around with the seatpost that high up, either you legs are 2 thirds your body lenght or you are joking with us.

    Good one ;-)

    maybe he's actually a frog. that would explain the long legs and also the choice of colour

  26. #26
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    http://www.thegroupmtb.it/index.php?...icca&Itemid=61

    My picture
    normal legs...
    normal body...

    high seatpost

  27. #27
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Nsynk
    How much sag do all you rogue owners run?

    was thinking 40% on a "8" inch 33% on a "7(.5)" inch

    is that what others are running?

    much or more 30% sag on a 7.5 inch


  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Salgomasudo
    http://www.thegroupmtb.it/index.php?...icca&Itemid=61

    My picture
    normal legs...
    normal body...

    high seatpost
    then i'd be seriously worried about breaking that frame. with that much post exposed you are putting a lot of pressure on the seat tube top tube junction. how close are you to the minimum insertion line on that post?

    remember if you have a big enough lever, you can move the world.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1
    Very nice build!

  30. #30
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    23,645
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    then i'd be seriously worried about breaking that frame. with that much post exposed you are putting a lot of pressure on the seat tube top tube junction. how close are you to the minimum insertion line on that post?

    remember if you have a big enough lever, you can move the world.
    Yeah, I've given up trying to warn about that now. They think that if it's inserted according to the manufacturer recommendation that it will be ok, but that is ONLY if you're using a normal amount of exposed seatpost. If you are using more, then it's a bigger lever, more stress, likely breakage (like I had), despite having "enough" insertion depth. Learn the hard way.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    Yeah, I've given up trying to warn about that now. They think that if it's inserted according to the manufacturer recommendation that it will be ok, but that is ONLY if you're using a normal amount of exposed seatpost. If you are using more, then it's a bigger lever, more stress, likely breakage (like I had), despite having "enough" insertion depth. Learn the hard way.

    i think that is one of the main reasons jeff steber changed the intense ss to an interupted seat tube. he always was saying that guys trying to trail ride the ss with 400mm posts extended way up would eventually break the frame. the ss rode nice as a trailbike, but it had a relatively short seattube and it's the same with the rogue. you're just asking for trouble with that much exposed seat post.

  32. #32
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    then i'd be seriously worried about breaking that frame. with that much post exposed you are putting a lot of pressure on the seat tube top tube junction. how close are you to the minimum insertion line on that post?

    remember if you have a big enough lever, you can move the world.


    have a good inserction in the frame than 3 cm above the limit marked in the seatpost
    for total 11 cm under seatclamp
    In this way the seatpost is inserted correctly into the frame without risk of breakage


    i have the same insertion in my Gemini and i ride it over three years without problems

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Salgomasudo
    have a good inserction in the frame than 3 cm above the limit marked in the seatpost
    for total 11 cm under seatclamp
    In this way the seatpost is inserted correctly into the frame without risk of breakage


    i have the same insertion in my Gemini and i ride it over three years without problems
    the minimum insertion mark is there for post failure not frame failure. the mark is where thomson feels, after much testing by the way their post will withstand the forces it takes and still hold up. it has little bearing on frame design and leverage imparted on said frame by having a foot of post exposed. keep riding it, it's your bike but you have to wonder why more than one person has comented on the amount of exposed post. some of them have broken frames this way.

    look at adjustable seatposts. there is only one with 9 inches of travel and i woudn't buy it for the reason i think it won't stand up and i've never had a frame with that much post exposed.. when most are in the 3" to 5" travel range there is a reason for that. a lot of properly sized frame won't have enough room for more than 5" of travel.

    trying to use a bike for more than it's intended purpose is great, just don't cry when something fails

    how much exposed seat post did you have on your other frame? regardless, look at all the other pictures of the rogue on this site or others. you won't see that much post exposed on any other rogue and there is a good reason for it.

    good luck with it, but post some pictures when the frame fails and surprise surprise the failure won't be ellsworth's fault.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dibbs_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,038
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000
    the minimum insertion mark is there for post failure not frame failure. the mark is where thomson feels, after much testing by the way their post will withstand the forces it takes and still hold up. it has little bearing on frame design and leverage imparted on said frame by having a foot of post exposed. keep riding it, it's your bike but you have to wonder why more than one person has comented on the amount of exposed post. some of them have broken frames this way.

    look at adjustable seatposts. there is only one with 9 inches of travel and i woudn't buy it for the reason i think it won't stand up and i've never had a frame with that much post exposed.. when most are in the 3" to 5" travel range there is a reason for that. a lot of properly sized frame won't have enough room for more than 5" of travel.

    trying to use a bike for more than it's intended purpose is great, just don't cry when something fails

    how much exposed seat post did you have on your other frame? regardless, look at all the other pictures of the rogue on this site or others. you won't see that much post exposed on any other rogue and there is a good reason for it.

    good luck with it, but post some pictures when the frame fails and surprise surprise the failure won't be ellsworth's fault.
    Agreed. The force with the seatube at that height will be imense. Frame manufacturers give measurements for minimum insertion - not seat post makers.

    Looking at that build I'd say it's very confused. You maybe should have gone for a Moment? It's not like your are going to be hucking it large with those components.

    Not flaming, just adding an opinion. There are people here who are actually trying to politely advise you!

    If it does damage the frame then Ellsworth won't warranty it - they aren't especially good at that at the best of times.

  35. #35
    Seeeriously easy Livin
    Reputation: Flystagg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,864
    It really does suck for us tall guys, it is nearly impossible to find a 20" seat tube on a freeride bike, which is what I need to get full leg extension even with a 400mm seatpost

  36. #36
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    @Dibbs
    no flaming each has his opinions


    There is no indication of the manufacturer but the seatpost comes under Listing of the top tube and seat tube, and then does not download the strength on the seat tube but also the horizontal

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Flystagg
    It really does suck for us tall guys, it is nearly impossible to find a 20" seat tube on a freeride bike, which is what I need to get full leg extension even with a 400mm seatpost
    that might be true for a freeride rig, but the op built this up as an am rig. that much post exposed will be a problem. it's just a matter of ride time. no one here is flaming him, just trying to point out he will have problems with this set up. if he rides it a lot, failure is inevitable.

  38. #38
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    The first year is spent.
    I traveled almost 3000 km and almost 100,000 mt of D+
    Everything still works perfectly and nothing is broken
    New version
    with
    TOTEM 2 step
    Dt ex 1750
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  39. #39
    VooDoo user.
    Reputation: TIMBERRR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,391
    Quote Originally Posted by Salgomasudo
    The first year is spent.
    I traveled almost 3000 km and almost 100,000 mt of D+
    Everything still works perfectly and nothing is broken


    with
    TOTEM 2 step
    Dt ex 1750

    What's she weigh? Looks awesome.

  40. #40
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by TIMBERRR
    What's she weigh? Looks awesome.

    With new pedal
    http://superstar.tibolts.co.uk/produ...roducts_id=276
    equipped with Ti axle

    15,7 kg

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: toHELLuRIDE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    555
    Salgomasudo

    Mind giving a review of the DHX air on the Rogue. Have you tried a coil?

    Thanks in advance.

  42. #42
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by toHELLuRIDE
    Salgomasudo

    Mind giving a review of the DHX air on the Rogue. Have you tried a coil?

    Thanks in advance.

    The DHX air works well on the Rogue, this is a 216x63 length for a travel of 185 mm at the rear.
    I weigh 82 kg and keep it at a pressure of 190 psi.
    the ProPedal is not useful for the proper functioning of the ICT system.
    I tried the original shock with spring 220x70 for 203 mm of rear travel but only in bike park and not to ride because it is too heavy.

  43. #43
    TheGroup biker
    Reputation: Salgomasudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000 View Post
    that might be true for a freeride rig, but the op built this up as an am rig. that much post exposed will be a problem. it's just a matter of ride time. no one here is flaming him, just trying to point out he will have problems with this set up. if he rides it a lot, failure is inevitable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dibbs_ View Post
    Agreed. The force with the seatube at that height will be imense. Frame manufacturers give measurements for minimum insertion - not seat post makers.

    Looking at that build I'd say it's very confused. You maybe should have gone for a Moment? It's not like your are going to be hucking it large with those components.

    Not flaming, just adding an opinion. There are people here who are actually trying to politely advise you!

    If it does damage the frame then Ellsworth won't warranty it - they aren't especially good at that at the best of times.
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000 View Post
    the minimum insertion mark is there for post failure not frame failure. the mark is where thomson feels, after much testing by the way their post will withstand the forces it takes and still hold up. it has little bearing on frame design and leverage imparted on said frame by having a foot of post exposed. keep riding it, it's your bike but you have to wonder why more than one person has comented on the amount of exposed post. some of them have broken frames this way.

    look at adjustable seatposts. there is only one with 9 inches of travel and i woudn't buy it for the reason i think it won't stand up and i've never had a frame with that much post exposed.. when most are in the 3" to 5" travel range there is a reason for that. a lot of properly sized frame won't have enough room for more than 5" of travel.

    trying to use a bike for more than it's intended purpose is great, just don't cry when something fails

    how much exposed seat post did you have on your other frame? regardless, look at all the other pictures of the rogue on this site or others. you won't see that much post exposed on any other rogue and there is a good reason for it.

    good luck with it, but post some pictures when the frame fails and surprise surprise the failure won't be ellsworth's fault.

    Three years have passed.
    I have traveled over 250,000 mt of elevation gain and some more than a negative slope and over 8000 km.
    The frame has no damage, the seatpost was never broken.

    Next time think before you write the first thing that comes into your keyboard.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    Quote Originally Posted by Salgomasudo View Post
    Three years have passed.
    I have traveled over 250,000 mt of elevation gain and some more than a negative slope and over 8000 km.
    The frame has no damage, the seatpost was never broken.

    Next time think before you write the first thing that comes into your keyboard.
    congratulations. that's a lot of miles on any ellsworth, let alone one set up like yours.

    you are obviously smarter than anyone here

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    13
    I had also a Rogue as my main bike, but I disassembled it and put some parts into a Tracer VP. As I still have the frame I am thinking about building it up again. Before I disassembled it my fork was too short (marzocchi with 150mm). At least I think it was too short. Now I would probably put a Bos Idylle SC in.

Posting Permissions

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