Page 42 of 67 FirstFirst ... 32 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 52 ... LastLast
Results 1,026 to 1,050 of 1674
  1. #1026
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Not sure what you mean. What I did get out of it, is the tires path is up and in. I was measuring straight into the seat tube. So, there should be a little more room then what I measured.

    We need to hear from Tobiwan, and see what tire he is using and how much room there is at full bottom. Maybe he could measure how much room is left from the edge of the rim to the seat tube..
    I was trying to say the wheel is not moving an addtional 7mm with the longer stroke it is moving an extra 17mm up and in.

  2. #1027
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    Quote Originally Posted by noosa2 View Post
    I was trying to say the wheel is not moving an addtional 7mm with the longer stroke it is moving an extra 17mm up and in.
    That is the case at the wheel axle, not at the forward edge of the wheel. The closer you get to the main pivot the less movement there is. That's how you get 125mm of travel out of a 50mm shock.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  3. #1028
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    That is the case at the wheel axle, not at the forward edge of the wheel. The closer you get to the main pivot the less movement there is. That's how you get 125mm of travel out of a 50mm shock.
    So, the wheel axle moves 125mm but other parts of the wheel move less? You must have some really flexy wheels.
    Are you saying that the additional 17mm of travel you get out of the extra 7mm of shock stroke that comes by switching to the 200X57 stock does not put the wheel 17mm closer to the seattube due to the arc the wheel is travling through?

  4. #1029
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    Quote Originally Posted by noosa2 View Post
    So, the wheel axle moves 125mm but other parts of the wheel move less? You must have some really flexy wheels.
    Are you saying that the additional 17mm of travel you get out of the extra 7mm of shock stroke that comes by switching to the 200X57 stock does not put the wheel 17mm closer to the seattube due to the arc the wheel is travling through?
    Not at the front side of the wheel, and the back side of the wheel will move more then 17mm, because that part of the wheel is further away from the pivot.

    Take a yard stick and make zero the pivot. Move the other end of the stick (which is the 36" mark) 12 inches, again with zero as the pivot. Now measure now much movement you get at the 1" mark. Its a lot less then the 12 inches you got at the 36" mark. The same thing happens with a wheel as it moves through its arc, because the front side is closer to the pivot. Plus, the wheel is going to move up and in.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  5. #1030
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Not at the front side of the wheel, and the back side of the wheel will move more then 17mm, because that part of the wheel is further away from the pivot.

    Take a yard stick and make zero the pivot. Move the other end of the stick (which is the 36" mark) 12 inches, again with zero as the pivot. Now measure now much movement you get at the 1" mark. Its a lot less then the 12 inches you got at the 36" mark. The same thing happens with a wheel as it moves through its arc, because the front side is closer to the pivot. Plus, the wheel is going to move up and in.
    I think that makes sense. I am interested to see where this goes in your other thread.

  6. #1031
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    Quote Originally Posted by noosa2 View Post
    So, the wheel axle moves 125mm but other parts of the wheel move less? You must have some really flexy wheels.
    Are you saying that the additional 17mm of travel you get out of the extra 7mm of shock stroke that comes by switching to the 200X57 stock does not put the wheel 17mm closer to the seattube due to the arc the wheel is travling through?
    Besides, if this were true , the wheel would hit the seat tube with the stock shock.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  7. #1032
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    280
    Quote Originally Posted by noosa2 View Post
    So, the wheel axle moves 125mm but other parts of the wheel move less? You must have some really flexy wheels.
    Are you saying that the additional 17mm of travel you get out of the extra 7mm of shock stroke that comes by switching to the 200X57 stock does not put the wheel 17mm closer to the seattube due to the arc the wheel is travling through?
    I believe that's what he is saying, yes.

    The axle of the wheel is always going to rotate around the pivot in a circular fashion.

    This means that if the axle is below the pivot (as I think it may be at full extension), pressing down can actually move the wheel away from the seatpost. Now, certainly at full compression the wheel is moving toward the seatpost, but it's probably not moving toward the seatpost nearly as fast as it is moving upward. The 17mm number gets multiplied by some trigonometric function, yielding a number smaller than 17mm (although, it's probably not 7mm precisely).

    If you want to look at it from the shock's point of view (as opposed to the wheel axle), you could take the 7mm number, then modify it accordingly from the leverage of the linkage and angle of the shock. That's a bit more complicated though.

    Incidentally, the wheel moving forward and backward is one of the bigger criticism of single pivot suspensions, as the wheelbase of the bike changes depending on suspension travel. I don't find this to be problematic, personally, or all of my MTBs wouldn't be single pivot.
    '12 Santa Cruz Superlight 29 | '12 Santa Cruz Butcher | '06 Specialized Allez Comp | '81 Schwinn Converted Fixie

  8. #1033
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,370
    [QUOTE=ghost_03;9776047]I believe that's what he is saying, yes.

    The 17mm number gets multiplied by some trigonometric function, yielding a number smaller than 17mm (although, it's probably not 7mm precisely).

    QUOTE]

    Thanks ghost.

    This is what I was really trying to figure out. What formula did MCS use to determine that at full compression a 7mm increase in stroke put the rear wheel 7mm closer to the seattube.

    I had tons of fun 4 - 5yeas ago changing my turner 6 pack to a 5 pack, 5.5 pack and 7pack. I cannot wait to add some travel to my nickel.

  9. #1034
    Just the tip!
    Reputation: HHMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Besides, if this were true , the wheel would hit the seat tube with the stock shock.
    Doood!! MC Shawn, you're making this way more difficult and absurd than it needs to be, buddy. Take out the guesswork and do this:

    Make sure your tires are nice and pumped up. Lean your bike up against something or put it in a wheel stand so the bike is upright. Unbolt your rear shock from either end (I usually pick the side that mounts to the link). Lower the frame slowly until the rear tire contacts the seat tube. Measure eye to eye of the frame to the link. If the number is less than 5.625" (that's 7.875 - 2.25) you're good to go with the longer stroke shock.

    Also consider, 650b wheels are 27.5" diameter or .75" larger radius than standard 26" wheels. If people can put 650b wheels into the stock Nickel without issue, it'll take a VERY large 26" tire to induce contact with the longer stroke mod.
    Last edited by HHMTB; 10-12-2012 at 06:16 PM.
    "Adventure begins where good judgment ends."

  10. #1035
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    [QUOTE=noosa2;9776171]
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost_03 View Post
    I believe that's what he is saying, yes.

    The 17mm number gets multiplied by some trigonometric function, yielding a number smaller than 17mm (although, it's probably not 7mm precisely).

    QUOTE]

    Thanks ghost.

    This is what I was really trying to figure out. What formula did MCS use to determine that at full compression a 7mm increase in stroke put the rear wheel 7mm closer to the seattube.

    I had tons of fun 4 - 5yeas ago changing my turner 6 pack to a 5 pack, 5.5 pack and 7pack. I cannot wait to add some travel to my nickel.
    I didn't use a formula. Someone has already done this and said that there is room. I PMed him and am hoping that he will add to this thread:

    200 x 57mm shock on a Nickel = 142mm of travel!

    Lets not hijack this thread and take the discussion there.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  11. #1036
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    Quote Originally Posted by HHMTB View Post
    Doood!! MC Shawn, you're making this way more difficult and absurd than it needs to be, buddy. Take out the guesswork and do this:

    Make sure your tires are nice and pumped up. Lean your bike up against something or put it in a wheel stand so the bike is upright. Unbolt your rear shock from either end (I usually pick the side that mounts to the link). Lower the frame slowly until the rear tire contacts the seat tube. Measure eye to eye of the frame to the link. If the number is less than 5.625" (that's 7.875 - 2.25) you're good to go with the longer stroke shock.

    Also consider, 650b wheels are 27.5" diameter or .75" larger radius than standard 26" wheels. If people can put 650b wheels into the Nickel without issue, it'll take a VERY large 26" tire to induce contact with the longer stroke mod.
    I responded here:
    200 x 57mm shock on a Nickel = 142mm of travel!
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  12. #1037
    Flow
    Reputation: Hermes475's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by microbike View Post
    I wonder 34 talas 160mm will do alot of harm to the Nickel
    I very briefly ran a fox 36 float 160mm on my Nickel (1 ride). I shortened the travel down to 140mm shortly thereafter because the HA was so slack I had real difficulty climbing at slow speeds when seated and I may go lower still. However, I don't know what the a-c is on the fox 34 when set at 160mm. It may be less than a fox 36 at 140mm. I think the Santa Cruz site lists the a-c for the nickel at 509mm plus or minus 10mm. My guess is the frame can structurally handle a larger a-c but the geo starts to get quite altered but then again I am no engineer.

  13. #1038
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,370
    [QUOTE=Mountain Cycle Shawn;9776221]
    Quote Originally Posted by noosa2 View Post

    I didn't use a formula. Someone has already done this and said that there is room. I PMed him and am hoping that he will add to this thread:

    200 x 57mm shock on a Nickel = 142mm of travel!

    Lets not hijack this thread and take the discussion there.
    OK, since I was partially responsible for hijacking this thread I'll do my part to get it back on track. Here is my 34lbs nickel.






  14. #1039
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    ^ You got some ape hangers on that thing!
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  15. #1040
    mtbr member
    Reputation: noosa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,370
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    ^ You got some ape hangers on that thing!
    Yeah baby! 2" rise works well for me on this ride

  16. #1041
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,537
    Quote Originally Posted by DYI01 View Post
    Awesome to hear that the Nickel frame can accept a 200x57mm shock to increase travel to 142mm. 650b guys DO NOT DO THIS!
    Gathering parts....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Post your Butchers & Nickels!-nickel2.jpg  


  17. #1042
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,678
    ^^^love the camo green!
    2013 Transition TransAM 29er
    2012 Banshee Spitfire V1.5
    2011 Yeti 303R DH
    2005 Trek Bruiser SS

  18. #1043
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    ^ Man, that is nice!
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  19. #1044
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,537
    Removed the Fox Float RL and replaced it with a Marzocchi Roco LO. The tapered steer tube 44 RC3ti looks like a good match, so far.

    Just under 7 lbs with the Roco Lo. The fork weighed 4.4 lbs with uncut steer tube. Pretty happy with both of those figures, from the local bike shop digital scale.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Post your Butchers & Nickels!-nickel3.jpg  

    Post your Butchers & Nickels!-nickel4.jpg  


  20. #1045
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    Quote Originally Posted by sriracha View Post
    Removed the Fox Float RL and replaced it with a Marzocchi Roco LO. The tapered steer tube 44 RC3ti looks like a good match, so far.

    Just under 7 lbs with the Roco Lo. The fork weighed 4.4 lbs with uncut steer tube. Pretty happy with both of those figures, from the local bike shop digital scale.
    Is that a 57mm stroke shock?
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  21. #1046
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Cycle Shawn View Post
    Is that a 57mm stroke shock?
    Yes! I forgot to mention, the Roco is a 200mm x 57mm shock, resulting in 140mm of rear travel on the Nickel.

    Matching that up front is 150mm on the 44RC3.

    I still have to lace up the wheels and round up more parts, but the main chassis is here!

  22. #1047
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Mountain Cycle Shawn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,793
    Quote Originally Posted by sriracha View Post
    Yes! I forgot to mention, the Roco is a 200mm x 57mm shock, resulting in 140mm of rear travel on the Nickel.

    Matching that up front is 150mm on the 44RC3.

    I still have to lace up the wheels and round up more parts, but the main chassis is here!
    Let us now how it all fits and works back there.
    '96 San Andreas
    '12 Santa Cruz Nickel LT
    '08 KTM 530
    '12 Toyota FJ TT
    '05 MiniCooper S
    '95 Honda HB Si
    '71 Dino 246 GT

  23. #1048
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106

    Its almost here!!!

    My frame is due to arrive tomarrow. At this point I have everything for my build with the exception of the 15mm conversion kit for my Hadley from hub.

    My build as of now will be:

    Frame: White Large, equiped with 2011 Marzocchi ROCO LO 200x57 (I wanted the red shock)
    Fork: Marzocchi RC3 Ti 150mm
    Drivetrain: XT M780 groupo
    Brakes: Hope Evo M4
    Stem: Undecided but I have a 85mm Haven or a 70mm Thompson I will pick depending on feel
    Bars: Easton EC70 50mm tall
    Post: EA70 for now, but will be upgrading to a Gravity Droper soon
    Wheels: Hadley Hubs W/stans Arch EX rims
    Saddle: White WTB Silverado with Ti rails
    Tires: Hans Dampf 2.35 up front, Mountain King on the rear, both are tubeless
    Grips: ODI Troy Lee white with red clamps

    I will post pics as soon as it finish the build and get some dirt on her first

  24. #1049
    rollin
    Reputation: sriracha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    2,537
    Quote Originally Posted by MTBforlife View Post
    My frame is due to arrive tomarrow.
    Frame: White Large, equiped with 2011 Marzocchi ROCO LO 200x57 (I wanted the red shock)
    Fork: Marzocchi RC3 Ti 150mm
    Nice! Same suspension setup I went with! I can't wait to finish the build go for a ride.

    Nice choice on the red Roco. I considered going with red, also, but went with black, since I already have red ano highlights on two other bikes.

  25. #1050
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MTBforlife's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    106

    Red

    Quote Originally Posted by sriracha View Post
    Nice! Same suspension setup I went with! I can't wait to finish the build go for a ride.

    Nice choice on the red Roco. I considered going with red, also, but went with black, since I already have red ano highlights on two other bikes.
    The color scheme is going to be White Frame, white fork, white seat, white grips with red clamps, red seat collar, the wheels are black with red nipples, Red Chris king head set, red ROCO, everything else is black or carbon.

    My vision of this build is primarily white, secondary Black with red highlights. My goal is not to have too much red.

    Wow what happened to me, I sound like my wife trying to pick a color of paint or something

Page 42 of 67 FirstFirst ... 32 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 52 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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