Results 1 to 63 of 63
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?

    I know offically the hd140 takes a 2.75-2.0 rear shock, but I have heard rumblings and rumors of people running a 2.25rear stroke in 140 (boosting the travel a bit) my question is...
    who has done it?
    how is the geometry?
    any tire buzz?

    let me know...

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    462
    [
    I had the 2010 and 2012 HD and ran the following

    7.875x2=140 (officially 140 but since the HDR came out Ibis has stated that it was closer to 130mm) I did not like the 140 setting, it was to harsh for me on rougher stuff.

    7.785x2.25 w 140 chips = approx 148 no tire buzzing, worked great no change in geo just longer stroke. Felt "poppy" and playfull. I ran this with a 160mm and 170mm fork it was really fun a bit slack and made you want to pop over the hits.

    8.5x2.5 = 160mm the plushest and most fun but a bit higher BB with a 160mm fork.

    Make sure you check bottom out by letting air out of shock and bounce hard and if your tire contacts the seat stay.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    711
    I'm running it right now with a Vector Air (200x57, no travel limiting shims) and 650B wheels. I went that direction because I didn't think I'd like the 14.3" BB of a 8.5x2.5" setup with 650B wheels. It's worked pretty well for me.

    Geometry-wise I'm sitting at a 13.8" BB and ~67deg HTA (hard to get a low-error measurement) using a 160mm fork (XF Sweep) and 2.35 Neo-Motos. The 2.25" stroke gives you the exact same static geometry as a 2.0" stroke. If you decide to run more sag with the longer stroke, what would make the bike slightly lower and slacker when sagged. In my mind, the real advantage is that it's easier to tune for the big impacts without giving up small bump sensitivity when you use the longer stroke. It should climb identically to a normal HD140 with the same spring rate.

    For tire rub, assuming you're running 650b, it will limit your choices compared to the 2.0" stroke. Neo-Motos clear perfectly. I've tried 2.4" Conti X-Kings, which don't quite clear on hard bottom-out (and leave black witness marks). 2.3 Ardents, which barely cleared the swingarm anyway, were fine with the 2.0" stroke but are a clear no-go with the 2.25". You'd have to be careful with your testing to make sure you get a true bottom-out. If your shock has a hard bumper (as the Vector does), you may not actually be getting full travel when you bounce on it deflated.

    If you're running 26", of course, you probably wouldn't have any worry about tire rub.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    Thanks guys...appreciate the input...
    Wld be running 26 so should be fine...
    Thinkin a cane creek db air, and keeping the coil I already have for the big park downhill days
    Anyone got any links to any relevant threads? Advanced search gives me nothin

  5. #5
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Or, with offset bushings and 1/4" of spacers, you could get the same geometry and the same amount of travel (~143mm) from your existing 8.5x2.5 shock and 160mm limbo chips as from the 140mm chips and a 7.785x2.25 shock.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    Or, with offset bushings and 1/4" of spacers, you could get the same geometry and the same amount of travel (~143mm) from your existing 8.5x2.5 shock and 160mm limbo chips as from the 140mm chips and a 7.785x2.25 shock.
    yeah did think about that, but would like to keep the 160 option (and the geometry that goes with it) for down hill days...

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,125
    I run a 200*51 Factory Tuned (DW) XF RLX as well as a 200*56 XF stock H3. Prior to getting the RLX tuned I'd echo what was said about the 140 mode, the stock Fox CTD never felt quite right. That said the RLX is so much an improvement over the CTD that the difference in travel isn't as noticable, it definitely feels plusher and "more usable". That said the H3 in its full open mode feels pretty endless in travel without giving up pedal efficiency.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    You guys have got me thinking now...
    What about 650 wheels with the longer stroke
    Hmmmm with a cane creek db air it could be a quiver killer...
    Like my BB low though, how much would offset bushings actually help?
    And tire choice...what would be my tire choices?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    711
    See my post a little further up - all my experiences with a 2.25" stroke are with 650b wheels. You're probably limited to no more than a true 650bx2.3" tire though - thank goodness the Neo-Moto is as good as it is.

    Offset bushings with a 650b wheels, 2.25" stroke and 140 limbo chips are a bad idea. Your limiting factor in tire volume is seat tube clearance at bottom out, and there isn't much to spare.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    534
    I just built up a HD with 27.5" and a 7.875" x 2.25" shock. Really happy with the setup, no need to shim the rear shock if you run a small rear tire. But as mentioned rear tire clearance is really the limiting factor. Clearance at the lower yoke/chain stay area is very close wit ha 2.25 NN. At bottom out there is about 2mm of clearance between the rear tire and seat tube. A hard bottom would probably cause contact. I haven't measured the bb height yet but it definitely feels noticeably higher compared to my old Mojo C. I am hopeful that Ibis has something in the works that is truly designed for 27.5, but who knows how long before such a bike is released. For now the HD with long shock is a good option if your ok with running a small tire in the back.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    So tyre choices could be an issue,
    so far I am hearing 2.25 nn and neo motos...anyone tried any others with 2.25 in 650? also...Anyone got a bb height with the 2.25 and 650?
    Or would it be the same as other 650 conversions...

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,125
    IMO there are more options than not, there are days when I read these forums and wonder why do folks need 2.4+ tires on everything. I suspect most folks have way more tire than they need. As for options there are cross marks, pretty much all schwalbe a 2.25-2.30, WOlverines, etc... Pretty much tires with low to mid lugs. Where I live Racing Ralph's on wide carbon hoops roll fast and provide great grip. If I went somewhere more rocky idd probably swap to a neo moto or a HD 2.25.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramjm_2000 View Post
    IMO there are more options than not, there are days when I read these forums and wonder why do folks need 2.4+ tires on everything. I suspect most folks have way more tire than they need. As for options there are cross marks, pretty much all schwalbe a 2.25-2.30, WOlverines, etc... Pretty much tires with low to mid lugs. Where I live Racing Ralph's on wide carbon hoops roll fast and provide great grip. If I went somewhere more rocky idd probably swap to a neo moto or a HD 2.25.
    I tend to agree with you, just worried the 2.25 stroke may complicate things a little...

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,125
    No issues whatsoever on mine with 140 chips.


  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramjm_2000 View Post
    No issues whatsoever on mine with 140 chips.

    Looks sweet! Hows the bottom bracket height? Whats it at?

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,125
    In that configuration with standard bushings about 13.75". With my RLX and one set of offset bushings is down to just above 13.5".

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    Any other tips (particular tyres or headsets etc) for keeping a low bb in this setup?

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    711
    Fore reference, my 650b HD140 2.25 stroke is at 13.8" with Neo-Motos and 160mm Sweep (551mm a2c). Ramjm's setup is the same except for tires.

    You're stuck with an external cup headset, I believe. You may be able to use a ZS49/28.6 lower, but you'd get smaller (less durable) bearings and might have clearance problems between the fork crown and the frame. I believe Hans strongly recommends against it.

    You could look for a fork with as low an A2C as possible. With a 150mm fork you could be in the 540mm A2C range. A good rule of thumb is that lowering your front end lowers your BB by 1/3 as much, or every 10mm lower in the front gets you about a 1/8" lower BB. I personally think it would be silly to go less than 150mm on the HD, but YMMV.

    I've come to the conclusion that the ~13.8" BB is fine for my tastes. I'd rather get the benefits of a stiff long-travel fork and a nice big front tire and an acceptably-medium rear tire than try to get the bike any lower. You just give up too much handling in other areas trying to lower the BB any further.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,125
    Laz nailed it. The one difference in our set up I believe is my Sweep is a DLA version. I can drop the fork 30mm in travel with the corresponding reduction in HTA and BB height if needed. To be honest I prefer the higher HTA in all but the steepest climbs where dropping the front is pretty handy.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,057
    Quote Originally Posted by ianthom View Post
    So tyre choices could be an issue,
    so far I am hearing 2.25 nn and neo motos...anyone tried any others with 2.25 in 650? also...Anyone got a bb height with the 2.25 and 650?
    Or would it be the same as other 650 conversions...
    Most of the people I know running the conversions are on the Ardent Race 2.25. Not a ton of great tire choices for aggressive riding and minimal rim protection for high speed chunk are the biggest issues.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    216
    I've been running a 2.25" stroke shock on my HD650 for about 400 miles now. 140 limbos, 160 Pike, High Roller II front + Ardent Race 2.2 Rear. Static BB is 13.8" but sagged its about 12.3. HTA is in the low 65 deg range by Iphone level app.

    Rear tire clearance is a bit of an issue (both in the triangle and for bottoming on the seat tube). The standard Ardent 2.25 was a no-go. Love the way this bike is setup, just wish I could get a little more rubber on back. Interested you guys are liking the NeoMoto. I had a set on my old Blur TR conversion and they shredded in the rocky terrain around here so I'm hesitant to go back. I don't think a Wolverine would fit as in my experience they are pretty tall.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-hd2.jpg  

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-hd1.jpg  


  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    Thanks guys,
    I am running a fox 34 26 160 (which I believe has an a2c of about 538?) so was hoping to squeeze a schwalbe 27.5 HD in there…I am also running an angleset at -1. My thought at this stage is to go with the ccdb air in 2.25 stroke, which will run a fair bit of sag (around 35% I hear) and hopefully a schwalbe NN at 2.25 in the rear…
    whadya reckon?

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: martinizer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    381
    Has anyone tried a 2.25" stroke shock on the HDR 650? I'm guessing the revised rear triangle would ease some of the tire clearance issues.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    711
    The tire clearance that limits you isn't at the chainstay yoke, it's between the tire and seat tube at bottom-out. The revised rear triangle wouldn't change that unless it moved the wheel back, but that doesn't look like it's the case (both the HD and HDR have a 17.1" chainstay length). I don't know if there are any changes to the front triangle to give more seat tube clearance, but I doubt it it was changed significantly.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    534
    I am running a 7.875"x 2.25" RS Monarch Plus on the back with 140 limbo chips, a 2.25" NN in the rear and a 2.35" NN in the front. So far I am very happy with the setup and while swing arm clearance is not great I have yet to bottom the tire on the seat tube. On larger drops or big impacts it would probably just brush the seat tube with a hard bottom out. Haven't measured bb height yet but with the 150mm pike it's probably around 13.8" or so.

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-wholebike.jpgHD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-clearance2.jpgHD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-clearance1.jpg

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    Or, with offset bushings and 1/4" of spacers, you could get the same geometry and the same amount of travel (~143mm) from your existing 8.5x2.5 shock and 160mm limbo chips as from the 140mm chips and a 7.785x2.25 shock.
    Do you think I could run 650 wheels with this setup (shimmed 160 and offset bushings)

  27. #27
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by ianthom View Post
    Do you think I could run 650 wheels with this setup (shimmed 160 and offset bushings)
    Yep, that's what I do.


  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    sweet!
    whats your bb height with this setup?
    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    Yep, that's what I do.


  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    What if...
    I ran my 160 rc4 shimmed down a touch...(giving me 150ish)
    with 650 wheels...
    and two sets of offset bushings...
    would this work, and would it keep the bb height at 13.6ish?

  30. #30
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Unfortunately that is not possible, the wheel will be hitting the seat tube if you drop it too low and if you do not limit its travel significantly. My bike's BB height is about 14.2" with a -1deg angleset and with a Vengeance dropped to 150mm. If you want a long travel low BB 650b bike, you have to look elsewhere. Ibis does not have one ATM.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    Unfortunately that is not possible, the wheel will be hitting the seat tube if you drop it too low and if you do not limit its travel significantly. My bike's BB height is about 14.2" with a -1deg angleset and with a Vengeance dropped to 150mm. If you want a long travel low BB 650b bike, you have to look elsewhere. Ibis does not have one ATM.
    Thanks mate...appreciate the real world help

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    any reason why you went for just one set of offset bushings? could you have gone two do you think?

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    So thanks to all...
    after thinking and pondering, and all your awesome advice-here is what I am thinkin...
    building some sweet 650 wheels with 2.35 Hans Dampf on the front and 2.25 Nobby nic on the rear. Utilisng my existing 160 '26' 34 fork to keep the a2c as low as possibile. with two rear setups:

    1. using my 140 chips and a 2.00 stroke shock with at least one (maybe 2?) sets of offset bushings, the target bb height at 13.5 or lower-this will be my trail setup

    2. keeping the rc4 at 160 chips with a bb at about 14.2 for downhill days, figure this will be 'ok' (but not ideal) on the rocky Downhill I do, obviously the extra sag in the coil I run shld help the BB...

    any last comments or warnings before I jump?
    Thanks again

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DH_WP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    970
    After reading his thread I have a quick question ..
    the new HDR ? could we apply the same through process it it .. run a 2.25" stroke shock on the standard HDR 650 set-up to up the travel to about 140'ish?

    I understand i will have some tire rub with larger tires .... but it will be better than the reduced travel (shims) and 2.1 tires i am running now on my SL with 650b ?

    All i want is a 140 650 bike ... not a fake 140 actually 130 bike ...a true 140 rear , 140/150 front ... is there anyway to get this with the Mojo and have a realistic BB heigh? or should I consider a move to another brand?

  35. #35
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by ianthom View Post
    any reason why you went for just one set of offset bushings? could you have gone two do you think?
    I have a pair of offset bushings on that bike.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,057
    Quote Originally Posted by DH_WP View Post
    After reading his thread I have a quick question ..
    the new HDR ? could we apply the same through process it it .. run a 2.25" stroke shock on the standard HDR 650 set-up to up the travel to about 140'ish?

    I understand i will have some tire rub with larger tires .... but it will be better than the reduced travel (shims) and 2.1 tires i am running now on my SL with 650b ?

    All i want is a 140 650 bike ... not a fake 140 actually 130 bike ...a true 140 rear , 140/150 front ... is there anyway to get this with the Mojo and have a realistic BB heigh? or should I consider a move to another brand?
    Since the HD and HDR are identical except for more rear clearance it should work fine. I will know definitively this afternoon since we are doing a test fit for a friend of mine with this exact setup.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    216

    In search of the ultimate 140-150 travel 650B shredder

    So, there are a number of Ibi of different flavors amongst our regular riding crew. One HDR in particular sits idle with outdated 26" wheels and was ripe for this little experiment... Thanks Sales Punk!

    My 2013 HD is a 650 conversion running a 7.875x2.25 Monarch & 140 HD Limbos. My best guess is it has 143mm or rear travel but some here have argued more like 148, so for the sake of this experiment, lets call it 145. Static bb is 13.8" with a pike 160. This is probably one of the if not the funnest bikes to ride that I've ever owned.... And the N+1 addiction runs strong in me


    My only issue with this setup is the rear tire options both for fit in the rear tri and bottom out on the seat tube. I did one ride with an Ardent and it barely clears and bottomed out pretty good off a smallish hit on my local loop. Fortunately I put some racer tape on the seat tube expecting such. I now run a 2.2 Ardent race on a light bicycle 30mm rim. It does pick up small rocks and grind them aganst the frame and at full compression it buzzes the seat tube. However I can put weight on it and still roll around the garage (with all air let out of the shock) so IMO it is not a full bottom out. A bigger tire though would see harder bottoms or I would have to drop the sag or shim the shock... Neither of which are attractive options for me.

    The shock has about 6mm of clearance that it can move back before the upper link hits the seat tube, so in theory one could use some offset bushings or make a set of custom limbo chips to gain some clearance, but it gets a bit too close for comfort there IMO. There is an ~3:1 penalty in bb height for every mm you move the shock back / gain in tire clearance (the bb tops out at around 14.5" when the upper link hits the seat tube). Stikacka posted the leverage ratio for the HD over on the HDR/Mojo HD long travel 650B rear shock clarification thread, but I think it is useful to show it here as well.

    Now, to compare the HD to the HDR, I bought some HDR 130 limbo chips and moved my shock and rear wheel from the HD over to the HDR. Tire clearance is better, but there still could be more room IMO. Seat tube bottom out is identical as far as I can tell. According to Ibis, the static bb on the HDR in 650 mode is 13.5, but I wasn't able to confirm this (still had the 26" front and a 170 Lyrik etc...). What is interesting is that there is about twice as much clearance (12mm vs 6) before the upper link hits the seat tube (sorry for the fuzzy pic... too many margaritas). So, on the HDR in theory you could throw some offset bushings on there and gain that precious tire clearance while only bringing the bb up to the HD level of 13.8". All this has me contemplating picking up an HDR frame.....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-hd-5.jpg  

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-hdr-4.jpg  

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-hdr-3.jpg  

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-hdr-2.jpg  

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-hdr-1.jpg  

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-hd-4.jpg  

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-hd1.jpg  

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-hd2.jpg  

    Attached Images Attached Images  

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,125
    So does it look like the 130 chips mount up to the HD? and vice versa?

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    216
    Quote Originally Posted by Ramjm_2000 View Post
    So does it look like the 130 chips mount up to the HD? and vice versa?
    Nope. The mounting posts ont the frame are a different spacing. On the HDR they are a fair bit closer together. Presumably this is done on purpose. Maybe weight savings maybe to prevent hackers from trying it. I'm not sure why you would want to though. I am considering making some custom chips to move the shock back a couple mm if I switch to an HDR

    Pic shows the 26" limbos for the HD & HDR (HD is the bigger one)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-limbo1.jpg  

    HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?-limbo2.jpg  


  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    Reckon you could run one set of offset bushings 'in reverse' to lower the bb in this setup?
    With 6mm clearence it 'could' be possibile...

  41. #41
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Fun stuff! Ian he cannot drop the BB more, his tire is already hitting the seat tube. He has 6mm to raise the BB to get more seat tube clearance.

    I wonder if the 140mm chips give a little different leverage ratio curve - not just trimmed ends, but also different angle of the shock placement in the frame? I am a bit more conservative about the rear tire rub, I have an older frame with less seat tube clearance, I have a 150mm fork, I cannot get the BB under 14.2". Maybe the frame differences between generations were a little bigger than what we were told, too?

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    5,057
    Looks like quite a bit more chainstay clearance on my HDR. Limbo chips should be pretty easy to make and I have someone that will probably make a set up for you, but I know you have access to that stuff too.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by StiHacka View Post
    Fun stuff! Ian he cannot drop the BB more, his tire is already hitting the seat tube. He has 6mm to raise the BB to get more seat tube clearance.

    I wonder if the 140mm chips give a little different leverage ratio curve - not just trimmed ends, but also different angle of the shock placement in the frame? I am a bit more conservative about the rear tire rub, I have an older frame with less seat tube clearance, I have a 150mm fork, I cannot get the BB under 14.2". Maybe the frame differences between generations were a little bigger than what we were told, too?
    Ahhhh I see, was looking at it 'in reverse' (cones from living down under I suppose

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    31

    Re: HD 140 with a 7.875-2.25 who has done it?

    With all the speculation about rear wheel travel with this setup, I thought I would share this little test I did.





    It's a bit messy (2 attempts) but hopefully you can follow what I've done. With the bike laying down and the rear wheel out, I put a marker through the maxle thread to trace the axle path. The black dot, for reference, is the bb location and the purple line is the is the rear axle path for the full stroke of my ccdba.
    Works out very close to 150mm vertical travel.
    Not 100% accurate but not too far off either I don't think

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    31
    Also I thought it's worth noting that with my ccdba in 2.25 stroke, an ardent race does NOT clear at bottom out. My frame is 2012 model with 142mm rear end and scalloped seat tube. Maybe cane creek has a slightly longer stroke than other shocks?

  46. #46
    Eld
    Eld is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    76
    Did you use the shock mounts for the short shock? That axle path looks nothing like what I would have expected 8-) It also sound strange that the tire hits the seat tube. But very interesting

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    31
    In 650b mode I should have mentioned. Sorry

  48. #48
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Nice. The marker tip seems to make it a bit difficult to measure the path down to single mms though. I'd say the actual length is in the neighborhood of 145.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    179
    Ok .. Lets try this again. I have an HDR medium frame set up with 26".

    To convert to 27.5 I need

    130 Limbo chips from IBIS
    7.875x2.25 shock ( I have) to get more then 130 mm travel
    and wheels with not so big tires


    I would prefer to raise the BB a bit fro Ne rocks. I also need to make Fox 34 26 160 fork work

    Do I need spacers in that to limit travel?

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    31
    StiHacka your are right is difficult to measure although after measuring it this way I'd say more than 145 but definitely no more than 150mm. But let's not split hairs I might do it again with an extra pair of hands.
    Ilyam. My fox 32 works without spacers so I dare say your 34 would too. I guess let all the air out and check it at bottom out.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ramjm_2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,125
    Good stuff. I think the general consensus was around 147 anyways.

  52. #52
    Lookin for that extra can
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    214
    I've been reading this thread with great interest. I just bolted some 650b wheels onto my HD160 and I've run into all the usual issues and need to make some changes. I'm OK losing a bit of travel and slight bb height increase, but I don't want to lose that DW link magic.
    1) How does the suspension feel with 140x7.875x2.25 config?
    2) Are you guys concerned about the little statement in the Ibis manual about possible "catastrophic frame failure" when fitting a shock with different specs than the 8.5.x2.5 or 7.875x2? What could cause frame failure etc with a 2.25 stroke shock?

  53. #53
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by ripv View Post
    What could cause frame failure etc with a 2.25 stroke shock?
    The wheel moves farther up than designed and tire hits (and damages) the seat tube. In your conversion, you are basically going to fight two connected issues - a high BB and limited seat tube clearance.

  54. #54
    Lookin for that extra can
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    214
    Thanks StiHacka. Aside from the tire into seat tube issue, I was curious if there was some other possible way to damaging a frame by having a longer stroke shock. Linkage over rotation or some such.
    I think I actually prefer a slightly higher BB height. However, after just bolting on 650b wheels and making no other changes, I'm at ~14.7" Obviously, This is way too high. I feel like I'm on stilts or something. It seems like getting it down to the 14" mark is pretty doable though.
    Geo issues aside, any ride impressions with this config in terms of suspension performance? Does it feel similar to the 26" HD160?

  55. #55
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Quote Originally Posted by ripv View Post
    Geo issues aside, any ride impressions with this config in terms of suspension performance? Does it feel similar to the 26" HD160?
    I have never tried my HD with 26" wheels and full 160mm of travel so I cannot answer that, but my HD160->145 feels and rides awesome. I started with a 8.5x2.5 shock (Avy DHX5 coil) and 160mm chips and -1deg angleset, then I limited travel to about 145mm with a 1/8" spacer, I shortened the stroke with a pair of offset bushings (so my shock is effectively 8.375 x 2.25), I shortened my 160mm fork to 150mm. That brought the BB down a bit, and the bike rides great. It is a rocket going down yet still a very capable technical climber (as long as you can deal with the sub 66* HA) and a very fun bike to toss around.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jon123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    881
    Brian Damage,

    I'm wondering how you're liking your set up: 7.875 x 2.25 rear shock with a 160 fork.
    You called it the most fun bike. Still think that?
    It's exactly what I'm looking to run on my HDR conversion to 650 b.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    216
    Hey Jon,
    My HD is pretty dialed.... Can't come up with any more upgrades The 7.875x2.25 shock would work a bit better on the HDR as you should be able to offset the shock mount and eliminate any seat tube rub while keeping the BB under 14". On mine I put 2 layers of racer tape on the ST and just buzz it from time to time and replace the tape every few months. Running an Ardent 2.25 tire. The Monarch debonair is a sweet complement to the DW.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jon123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    881
    Brian Damage:

    Thanks for your reply.
    I ended up going with a standard 7.875 x 2
    I'm told the HDR (compared to the HD) actually has less clearance and contacts the seat tube more easily. So a 7.875 x 2.25 on the HDR is out of the question.
    I went with the new CC Inline. Looking forward to it. It was a tough decision not getting another CCDBair but the Inline seems like a really nice way to go in 130mm.
    Jon

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    418
    anyone know if you can limit travel on a 2.25 stroke cane creek dbinline?

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DH_WP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    970
    HDR with 7.875-2.25 ..

    So my experiance...

    I was running 26" wheels with the 650chops and ran the above mentioned shox no tire rub issues...

    I recently got my 27.5 741 wheels and put them on the bike and using the same shox.
    I had to shim the shox to stop the rear wheel touching the seat stay .... and when i measure the stroke travel after the shimming it was 50mm . I had to shim a 7mm on the shox...

    With the 650b chips a longer stroke shox will not work.

    next experiment will be with the (160mm) shock and links (when they arrive)

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    31
    I think you will find that you will still have the same problem. The shock is shorter than standard 160mm shock, so you will have a lower static bottom bracket but the end point of the travel will be the same.

    I'm happy to be corrected on this as I haven't tried it myself. I look forward to seeing your results DH_WP

    As a side note I have recently seen DBinline and monarch plus shocks for sale on line in size 216x57 (Never knew they existed). I would like to see someone try this shock size with the 160mm chips. As far as I can tell this would give you around 145-150mm at the same bb height as 160mm/27.5inch conversions. And I think it would clear the seat tube. Maybe.

    I guess this is the same result as shimming a 216x63 shock by 6mm

    http://www.amazon.com/RockShox-Monar.../dp/B00K1DNU3K

    Anyone care to comment?
    Could be the hassle free solution to 650b conversions.

    Edited for clarity

  62. #62
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    2,895
    Before switching chips and shocks, try offset bushings. They can shorten/lengthen the i2i a bit. Another option would be custom chips, but that requires an access to a friend with machining skills and equipment...

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    47
    Has anyone tried out a 7.87x2.25 Cane Creek DBInline on the HD?

Members who have read this thread: 2

Posting Permissions

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