Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,817

    New question here. Paging 6.6 riders, bottom bracket height OK?

    To all who has ridden 6.6, are you guys running into any issue with relativley low bb height? Spec indicates that bb height is 13.75 inches (same as Tracer that I own). I am wondering given its 6.6 inches of travel, when running 30% recommended sag, the ride height is at least 1 lower than Tracer. This lower bb height must make the bike rail the corner like nothing else but at the expense of frequent pedal and big ring bashing on the rock and log, correct? I can't imagine riding 6.6 inch travel bike that has at least one inch lower bb ride height than 4" travel Tracer that I own. I suppose I can change my riding technique to minimize pedal/big ring bashing if I was to get 6.6, but I find that Tracer bb height 13.75" seems perfect to me.

    * 6.6 @ 30% sag = 11.75" ride height at the bb
    * Tracer @ 25% sag = 12.75" ride height at the bb
    (Both frame have same bb height before sag)

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound
    To all who has ridden 6.6, are you guys running into any issue with relativley low bb height? Spec indicates that bb height is 13.75 inches (same as Tracer that I own). I am wondering given its 6.6 inches of travel, when running 30% recommended sag, the ride height is at least 1 lower than Tracer. This lower bb height must make the bike rail the corner like nothing else but at the expense of frequent pedal and big ring bashing on the rock and log, correct? I can't imagine riding 6.6 inch travel bike that has at least one inch lower bb ride height than 4" travel Tracer that I own. I suppose I can change my riding technique to minimize pedal/big ring bashing if I was to get 6.6, but I find that Tracer bb height 13.75" seems perfect to me.

    * 6.6 @ 30% sag = 11.75" ride height at the bb
    * Tracer @ 25% sag = 12.75" ride height at the bb
    (Both frame have same bb height before sag)

    also depends on which fork you are running.

  3. #3
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,817

    Agree but...

    Quote Originally Posted by specialm5
    also depends on which fork you are running.
    Of course, however, I think it's fair to assume that Intense spec the BB height based on almost matching-to its rear- 6 inch travel fork in the front. That should give the proper A-C height that yields spec'd 68.5 degree head angle. Therefore my question was based on a fork that yields spec'd HA: Tracer that I mentioned above for comparison is also based on Intense's recommeded travel fork (4").

    I found that through experiement in the past, one inch deviation from the frame mfg's recommneded travel (or A-C) fork, approximately lowers or raises 1/2" at BB. I am sure running 7" fork on 6.6 will raise 1/2" at BB to 14.25" but that would change the frame geometry (longer wheel base, slacker seat & head tube angle by about 0.5 degree) from what Intense intended or spec'd. Once again, my curiosity is based on components that yields spec'd frame mfg's geometry.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,440
    So you want BB height feedback from users with an 06 Nixon fork (not 6") and zero-stack headset-Intense spec. I'm sure there are people running that set-up, but there are also lots of people running different configurations. BB height will also change with tire selection. I'm running a Fox 36 Talas with a non-flush headset. It's a 150mm fork and I'm sure it yields different geometry than the Intense spec. I'll post my BB height later for reference. As far as "intended" spec goes, once you get out of the twitchy, hardcore XC category, there is a lot more personal preference involved and you will see this reflected in different peoples build choices.

  5. #5
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogboy
    So you want BB height feedback from users with an 06 Nixon fork (not 6") and zero-stack headset-Intense spec. I'm sure there are people running that set-up, but there are also lots of people running different configurations. BB height will also change with tire selection. I'm running a Fox 36 Talas with a non-flush headset. It's a 150mm fork and I'm sure it yields different geometry than the Intense spec. I'll post my BB height later for reference. As far as "intended" spec goes, once you get out of the twitchy, hardcore XC category, there is a lot more personal preference involved and you will see this reflected in different peoples build choices.
    I think Intense recommends 6" travel fork with zero stack headset to achieve their spec'd BB height and HA. I guess any feedback close to that setup should be fine even if it is a conventional headset setup with 6" fork. I have a Foes Fly with 6" front and 6.5" in the rear setup. It measures 13.75" at BB. I find that when I go ride that bike (when compared to Tracer with 4" setup and same BB height), I have really keep on eye for my pedal placement. Otherwise, I am constantly hitting rock and obstacle with my pedal/big ring.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,559
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound
    I think Intense recommends 6" travel fork with zero stack headset to achieve their spec'd BB height and HA. I guess any feedback close to that setup should be fine even if it is a conventional headset setup with 6" fork. I have a Foes Fly with 6" front and 6.5" in the rear setup. It measures 13.75" at BB. I find that when I go ride that bike (when compared to Tracer with 4" setup and same BB height), I have really keep on eye for my pedal placement. Otherwise, I am constantly hitting rock and obstacle with my pedal/big ring.
    Don't forget that there can easily be 0.25" to 0.5" difference on your BB height between the different 6" fork on the market! It is just too bad Intense (and some other manufacturers) doesn't publish the exact fork axle to crown they used to calculate their numbers (and tires also).
    Marzo fork have a much higher axle to crown lenght than Manitou for example. On top of that if you rely on owners numbers, make sure the person tells you what tires and forks is on the bike...

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    560
    I have the Santa cruz Blur 4X it's BB height is 12.6

    When I ride fast techi stuff I ride with 40%+ sug in my RP3 with a lot of sug in my Pike Air 454. and no problem I got use to the height of the BB.

    I am gona get now the 6,6 and I will put on it the M' 66 SL or the Fox 36 VAN and I dont see any problem that gona be with it.

  8. #8
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,817
    Quote Originally Posted by BanzaiRider
    Don't forget that there can easily be 0.25" to 0.5" difference on your BB height between the different 6" fork on the market! It is just too bad Intense (and some other manufacturers) doesn't publish the exact fork axle to crown they used to calculate their numbers (and tires also).
    Marzo fork have a much higher axle to crown lenght than Manitou for example. On top of that if you rely on owners numbers, make sure the person tells you what tires and forks is on the bike...
    Maybe instead of getting too technical with geometry and component selection on 6.6 (too avoid confusion and limited replies from smaller pool of riders), I should restate: Do you experience frequent pedal contact on the trail obstacle when compared to other bikes you guys own?

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Dogboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,440
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound
    Maybe instead of getting too technical with geometry and component selection on 6.6 (too avoid confusion and limited replies from smaller pool of riders), I should restate: Do you experience frequent pedal contact on the trail obstacle when compared to other bikes you guys own?
    Now we're talking. My static BB height is 14". This makes sense because my fork is slightly longer than a Nixon and I'm not running a zero-stack headset. To answer your question about pedal contact, no problems whatsoever. I owned an original SC Blur and it was more evident, but I adapted to it and preferred the lower BB over time. I haven't felt like the BB is overly low on the 6.6.

  10. #10
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogboy
    Now we're talking. My static BB height is 14". This makes sense because my fork is slightly longer than a Nixon and I'm not running a zero-stack headset. To answer your question about pedal contact, no problems whatsoever. I owned an original SC Blur and it was more evident, but I adapted to it and preferred the lower BB over time. I haven't felt like the BB is overly low on the 6.6.
    Right on. Intense's spec'd geometry must be with 6" fork (maybe with Nixon 145mm fork) with zero stack headset when they are talking about 13.75" bb height and 68.5 degree head angle. My guess is that you are closer to 68 degree HA. How does your bike climb on technical stuff and steep buffed singletrack? Also, how much sag (% or inches) are you runing in front and rear? Thx.

    STH

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

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