Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 53
  1. #1
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340

    Issue - 2012 KM rear brake woes - just a heads up

    For anyone who has or is planning to purchase a 2012 just wanted to give a head up about an issue I came across during my recent build.

    ***Disclaimer***
    this is not a b!tch session, Im not trying to say Surly is a terrible company in any way, shape or form. This post wasm created expressly for the purposes of share my experience and information regarding an issue that may or may not affect current or future customers. I have no concerns that this issue will not be handled appropriately and expect nothing but quality customer service from Surly.***end***

    I appears with the newer brake mount that Surly did not take into account the ability/need to run larger rotors than 160mm. I have contacted my LBS, will be bringing the frame in over weekend so they can follow up with Surly, who I did try to contact also. Surly was not in, apparently they product testing which I found out when I contacted QBP. QBP said they wer not aware of any issue, however Surly may or may not be aware. Anyhow I will keep you all informed as things proceed.

    This issues in question is with the 185 adapter being longer than the 160 and hitting on the rack mount braze on (see pics). Im pretty sure I know what Surlys solutions is going to be, cut it off, but want to be sure to get expressed consent before doing so.

    The first 2 pics are obviously the 185 adapter and the last the 160. You can clearly see that the 185 is hitting on the braze on.

    Anyhow not much more to say till I hear back from Surly. I will keep you all posted. Now get out and ride.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Issue - 2012 KM rear brake woes - just a heads up-img_20120127_075857.jpg  

    Issue - 2012 KM rear brake woes - just a heads up-img_20120127_075841.jpg  

    Issue - 2012 KM rear brake woes - just a heads up-img_0036.jpg  


  2. #2
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340
    Side note - just for information purposes - As another poster in another thread already posted, the front IS mounts on the Surly KM fork, def needs to be faced before installing BB7 brakes. I had the same issue with my brake rubbing on the rotor, from the brake being pushed to far inboard towards the hub. No big.

  3. #3
    Fat boy Mod Moderator
    Reputation: donalson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,379
    good heads up
    - Surly Disc trucker
    - '82 trek 560 roadie

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,081
    Why would you want a big rotor on the rear when it provides such a small % of the total braking force? You should be able to skid that rear wheel with a 160mm rotor no problem.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: seat_boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,249
    Wait, you're saying bigger isn't always better?

  6. #6
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Why would you want a big rotor on the rear when it provides such a small % of the total braking force? You should be able to skid that rear wheel with a 160mm rotor no problem.
    Why ask why, do you really care or do you just enjoy criticizing people for their personal choices? Sorry not trying to be a ******, I just dont see how your post was helpful or related to the topic at hand? I didnt ask for opinions on rotor size.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy.Ford View Post
    Why ask why, do you really care or do you just enjoy criticizing people for their personal choices? Sorry not trying to be a ******, I just dont see how your post was helpful or related to the topic at hand? I didnt ask for opinions on rotor size.
    Why ask?

    Well a lot of people don't understand that their back brake is next to useless for any serious braking and that makes putting a big rotor on the back fairly useless. A 160mm rotor will skid that back wheel easily and beyond skidding there is no more braking you'll get from the rear with a 180mm or 200mm+ rotor.

    That info might just make this major frame problem disappear. Which in my mind is worthy of discussion before you start hacking off braze ons.

    Do you think it might not be an oversight on Surly's part that you can on;y fit a 160mm rotor on the back of their frame without taking a dremel tool to it?

    If you don't care and want a big rotor on the rear anyways - cool - it's your bike, but it's not like I called you names and ran your mother over with my car is it?
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  8. #8
    Ariolimax columbianus
    Reputation: nativeson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    1,262
    looks like you could file off a bit of that adapter to make it fit. agree w/vikb 185mm rear rotor is complete overkill.

  9. #9
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Why ask?

    Well a lot of people don't understand that their back brake is next to useless for any serious braking and that makes putting a big rotor on the back fairly useless. A 160mm rotor will skid that back wheel easily and beyond skidding there is no more braking you'll get from the rear with a 180mm or 200mm+ rotor.

    That info might just make this major frame problem disappear. Which in my mind is worthy of discussion before you start hacking off braze ons.

    Do you think it might not be an oversight on Surly's part that you can on;y fit a 160mm rotor on the back of their frame without taking a dremel tool to it?

    If you don't care and want a big rotor on the rear anyways - cool - it's your bike, but it's not like I called you names and ran your mother over with my car is it?

    You really dont get the point of a larger rotor do you, oh well. Moving on.

    While I do think it was an oversight, however I dont think it was intentional since every other year they've made the KM you could run any size rotor you want. Also its not mentions anywhere on there site or in any literature that comes with the frame. Actually the literature and site say just the opposite, they both talk about how versatile the frame is.

    Nope you didnt do either of the 2 things you mentioned, nor did I say you did. However you did criticize my "build" like I was asking your opinion, which I didn't and I also did not appreciate your opinion about what rotor size I should be running.

  10. #10
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340
    Conclusion to this issue, by LBS were I purchased the frame from, told me to dremel off the braze on since I had no intention of using. The shop owner said if anything ever came of from a warranty point, he would take care of me.

    Oh and for the record, not once did my LBS owner recommend running a smaller rotor or question my use of a 180mm rotor.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy.Ford View Post
    Oh and for the record, not once did my LBS owner recommend running a smaller rotor or question my use of a 180mm rotor.
    Since they know you I'm not surprised. Enjoy the new Karate Monkey - the new version of it looks sharp...
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    41
    Ok, I'll bite. what's the point of a large rotor on the rear wheel?

  13. #13
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaybull View Post
    Ok, I'll bite. what's the point of a large rotor on the rear wheel?
    Lots of good info here, wanted to know are bigger brake rotors better , Im esp partial to post #11 Ray Lee, except for his part about modulation. I wont have an issue with that, I have SD7 levers.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    152
    Did they change the rotor and braze ons between the 2011 and 2012? I didnt have any problem mounting my 180's on my 2011.

  15. #15
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by huevos View Post
    Did they change the rotor and braze ons between the 2011 and 2012? I didnt have any problem mounting my 180's on my 2011.
    Yeah surly changed the rear disc brake mount, so you no longer have to (re)move the caliper to remove the rear wheel. In doing so they also moved the rack mount up from the dropout, onto the seatstay and in the way of running an adapter above 160mm without having to modify (partially cut off) the rack braze on.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy.Ford View Post
    Yeah surly changed the rear disc brake mount, so you no longer have to (re)move the caliper to remove the rear wheel. In doing so they also moved the rack mount up from the dropout, onto the seatstay and in the way of running an adapter above 160mm without having to modify (partially cut off) the rack braze on.
    ahhh I see what they did here....they moved the braze on up. The drop out appears to be the same.

    relevant posts:

    Let's see your KM builds

    Let's see your KM builds

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    64
    I'm not an engineer, but couldn't this be solved with a different adapter? (if such a thing was available?)


  18. #18
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyharing View Post
    I'm not an engineer, but couldn't this be solved with a different adapter? (if such a thing was available?)

    Sadly, no LBS tried every 180 adapter available.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5
    We're Sorry, we were hung-over that day. Seriously though, thanks for bringing this to our attention at Surly. We did move some things around on the Karate Monkey and let that slip through our fingers. The 2012 KM have issues with brake rotors as follows the 20” will not take 185mm/203mm. The 22” won’t work with 203mm and the 18” might have issues with 185mm depending on the brakes and manufacturer that you go with. Thanks to this post we spent all kinds of time fiddling around with our Monkeys yesterday and learned all those crazy things. All of these numbers came from the brake caliper being in the “fully forward” position, some of the frames have some playroom if you’re willing to have your brake and wheel a bit further back. Our engineers (big nerds that they are) endorse running a 160mm on the rear and a bigger one up front. We never think it's a good idea to go cutting things off your Surly, though that's never stopped anybody in the past (including some of us, we make a habit out of doing things we think aren't good ideas). Now, if you want to take a dremel tool to your brake adapter and make it fit, then that's between you and your deity of choice.

    Gern Blanston, Surly Bikes

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    41
    What was the verdict on grinding down the adaptor? The picture makes it look like it wouldn't need too much taken off.

  21. #21
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by drstrang View Post
    We're Sorry, we were hung-over that day. Seriously though, thanks for bringing this to our attention at Surly. We did move some things around on the Karate Monkey and let that slip through our fingers. The 2012 KM have issues with brake rotors as follows the 20” will not take 185mm/203mm. The 22” won’t work with 203mm and the 18” might have issues with 185mm depending on the brakes and manufacturer that you go with. Thanks to this post we spent all kinds of time fiddling around with our Monkeys yesterday and learned all those crazy things. All of these numbers came from the brake caliper being in the “fully forward” position, some of the frames have some playroom if you’re willing to have your brake and wheel a bit further back. Our engineers (big nerds that they are) endorse running a 160mm on the rear and a bigger one up front. We never think it's a good idea to go cutting things off your Surly, though that's never stopped anybody in the past (including some of us, we make a habit out of doing things we think aren't good ideas). Now, if you want to take a dremel tool to your brake adapter and make it fit, then that's between you and your deity of choice.

    Gern Blanston, Surly Bikes
    Gern,

    You the man, thanks for the follow up. Yeah I was not completely thrilled with cutting the frame, my LBS said they would cover me if there was ever an issue with warranty because of the braze on removal. Honestly if I had known it was size specific I wouldve returned it for an 18" frame. FWIW, I didnt have to remove the whole braze on , just a little over half, so I could potentially mount a rack if I wanted. Anyhow super cool of you to post up and give us the heads up, much thanks for clearing this up.

    Oh just to share my experience and what I found during my setup to mount the 180. I had to remove over half the braze on. The adapter had to be run in the furthest most rearward position on brake mount and I had to use the Monkey Nuts that came with the frame, otherwise the caliper would rub on the rotor.



    Guy
    Last edited by Guy.Ford; 01-31-2012 at 12:53 PM.

  22. #22
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaybull View Post
    What was the verdict on grinding down the adaptor? The picture makes it look like it wouldn't need too much taken off.

    I had to remove a little over half the braze on and now the adapter fits perfectly. Interesting note, I had to use the supplied Monkey Nuts and the adapter had to be put in the furthest rear position on the brake mount for the caliper to clear the rotor. FWIW, my LBS did not wait for follow up from Surly, instead told me to just remove and if any issue arose down the line with warranty or whatever, they would cover me. So this is not a Surly approved solution.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    41
    I liked that straight up answer from Surly. You don't see that very often in this world. Even though he did make up that name, I'm sure. "Gern Blanston"? Yea, right.

  24. #24
    Team Captain
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,326
    I didn't know Steve Martin worked at Surly...

  25. #25
    #THELEGEND
    Reputation: Guy.Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,340
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    Why ask?

    Well a lot of people don't understand that their back brake is next to useless for any serious braking and that makes putting a big rotor on the back fairly useless. A 160mm rotor will skid that back wheel easily and beyond skidding there is no more braking you'll get from the rear with a 180mm or 200mm+ rotor.

    That info might just make this major frame problem disappear. Which in my mind is worthy of discussion before you start hacking off braze ons.

    Do you think it might not be an oversight on Surly's part that you can on;y fit a 160mm rotor on the back of their frame without taking a dremel tool to it?

    If you don't care and want a big rotor on the rear anyways - cool - it's your bike, but it's not like I called you names and ran your mother over with my car is it?
    See below ...

    Quote Originally Posted by drstrang
    We're Sorry, we were hung-over that day. Seriously though, thanks for bringing this to our attention at Surly. We did move some things around on the Karate Monkey and let that slip through our fingers. The 2012 KM have issues with brake rotors as follows the 20” will not take 185mm/203mm. The 22” won’t work with 203mm and the 18” might have issues with 185mm depending on the brakes and manufacturer that you go with. Thanks to this post we spent all kinds of time fiddling around with our Monkeys yesterday and learned all those crazy things. All of these numbers came from the brake caliper being in the “fully forward” position, some of the frames have some playroom if you’re willing to have your brake and wheel a bit further back. Our engineers (big nerds that they are) endorse running a 160mm on the rear and a bigger one up front. We never think it's a good idea to go cutting things off your Surly, though that's never stopped anybody in the past (including some of us, we make a habit out of doing things we think aren't good ideas). Now, if you want to take a dremel tool to your brake adapter and make it fit, then that's between you and your deity of choice.

    Gern Blanston, Surly Bikes
    Doesnt seem like Surly cares that I run a bigger rotor on my bike or has an issue with it. Also, yeah it seems like it was an oversight, no big, sh!t happens and my issues have been addressed, so everything is ROXOR! Party on vikb, party on guy.ford

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy.Ford View Post
    See below ...



    Doesnt seem like Surly cares that I run a bigger rotor on my bike or has an issue with it.
    Surly is good like that... They won't get mad at you when you mount a custom 300mm rotor back there either even if it means cutting and re-welding the rear triangle...

    Quote Originally Posted by drstrang View Post
    Our engineers (big nerds that they are) endorse running a 160mm on the rear and a bigger one up front.
    Of course their engineers actually realize there is no benefit to a big rotor in the rear, but then again who listens to nerds right?...

    One thing for sure Surly has a great sense of humour. Enjoy the bike and post some photos of the whole rig when you get 'er done...
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    5
    We're working on a solution to this, and hopefully soonish we'll come through. It won't have any effect on those of you with frames already, but the future frames (next yearish) should have it all sewn up.

    Gern Blanston
    Surly Bikes

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,425
    180 rotor on back is lame. Nothing wrong with lame though.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pedalmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    241
    So, Guy - you're starting to disprove your own sig. I don't believe you're just acting like an @sshole. Nobody's that good. You'd have to be the goddamn Olivier of @ssholes to pull that off.

    Get out and enjoy your Monkey. I'm sure it'll put up with all of your abuse. Unlike the rest of us here.
    Last edited by pedalmunky; 02-01-2012 at 03:11 PM.
    All mountain bikes are all-mountain bikes.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    41
    pedalmonkey made me chuckle for like 30 seconds. not bad. I would add to his "rep power" if I knew how, or what it meant for that matter.

    but about those rotors, doesn't it kind of make sense if the 160s were designed originally for a 26 wheel? A 29er wheel has more leverage so maybe you're better off with a larger disc?

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,081
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaybull View Post
    but about those rotors, doesn't it kind of make sense if the 160s were designed originally for a 26 wheel? A 29er wheel has more leverage so maybe you're better off with a larger disc?
    The rear brake on any bike [16", 20", 26" 650b, 29", 36" wheel] has very little braking power before the back end locks up. Adding a bigger rotor just makes locking up the back end easier and means you need to use more finesse on that brake lever.

    The front of your MTB is where you have braking power and where a larger rotor [to a point] gives you a benefit. And it's also where there is lots of room for a large rotor and brake caliper.

    Myself and all my friends with 6"+ travel FS all mtn rigs run a 160mm rotor on the back and those bikes can haul ass over rough ground.

    Putting a 180mm rotor on the rear of your Ogre isn't going to do anything useful and I wouldn't hack at my bike to fit one, but that's the beauty of owning a bike you can do whatever you want to it.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  32. #32
    Fat boy Mod Moderator
    Reputation: donalson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,379
    as mentioned... the front wheel is where most of the stopping power comes from... look at a motorcycle they typically have 2 fairly large rotors up front and a small single out back, in cars front discs where quick to catch on but drums stayed around forever (pretty sure a few econoboxes may still have them... and semi trucks still use them), look at large trucks with 4 disc... the front disc is HUGE (both thick and in dia) compared to the rear...

    as you slow weight transfers to the front... the harder you stop the more weight is transfered to the front (over do it an you pull a stoppie or endo).

    on a side note and not fully relevent to our thread... remember as a kid with your "BMX" with the kick back brake where you used to see who could lay the longest skid mark?... that was so fun

    that being said I have no dog in this fight... I was running mullet on my old KM (disc up front and V out back) which gave me the largest disc brake I could pull off ;-)... but it's good to know what is compatible and not... if I get another KM I'll intend to run discs thanks to the modified disc system (I hated having to loosen the caliper to drop the rear wheel on my old one)... but i'll make it a point to stick to 160mm rotors... if I was in big hill country my 300# would prob prefer big rotors... but i'm in FL lol
    - Surly Disc trucker
    - '82 trek 560 roadie

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: islander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    766

    2011's affected?

    Quote Originally Posted by Guy.Ford View Post
    Yeah surly changed the rear disc brake mount, so you no longer have to (re)move the caliper to remove the rear wheel. In doing so they also moved the rack mount up from the dropout, onto the seatstay and in the way of running an adapter above 160mm without having to modify (partially cut off) the rack braze on.
    The 2011 KM's have a rear brake mount that allows you to remove the wheel w/o loosening the caliper (I know cause I own one), however the 2010's had a different brake mount. Is there any difference between the 2012 and 2011 brake mounts? Can drstrang tell us if this issue is isolated to the 2012's or if 2011's are affected too?
    Last edited by islander; 02-03-2012 at 09:18 AM.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    41
    guy ford gets props on the surly web blog, nicely done. But the way I read it they call him a bung hole. And tell him to get out and ride.

    Blog | Surly Bikes

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pedalmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    241
    Saw that the other day on the Surly blog. Gern's beatific "Go ride your bike @sshole!" resonated in my heart much like Tiny Tim's "God bless us, everyone!"

    *Sigh* I love Surly.
    All mountain bikes are all-mountain bikes.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    83
    Ehhh..for what its worth and I know its not much, I'm with Guy. All my bikes but 1 have a 185 rotor in front AND back for the reasons stated above. Including my 2012 KM (so I kinda have a dog in this fight). Its a 22" frame so it doesn't matter, but if I was getting a smaller frame then this is info that I would've liked to have had. So thank you GuyFord for putting this out there. And a big thank you to the others who have made this 2 pages of arguing about rotor size. Typical
    Last edited by Justinbunyon; 02-05-2012 at 09:06 AM. Reason: rotors not calipers. I'm an idiot

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Skywalker22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    138
    Quote Originally Posted by Guy.Ford View Post
    WRONG! But you what is lame, haters! Which I guess makes you lame! But like you said nothing wrong with lame right!

    Interesting forum/followers Surly has, if this is honestly the type of sh!t you guys want to post about, this will be my last post in this forum - F#CK OFF!
    Guy, the problem with most people is that they don't understand the time old custom of "It's my bike,so I'll do as I damn well please!!" I put 203's all the way around on my pugs. I wonder what they will have to say about that? But, i dont really care because "It's my bike, so I'll do as I damn well please!!" Rock on brother!!!

  38. #38
    Chillin the Most
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,028
    Personally I think all you guys attacking Guy for choosing to use a 180mm rotor are a bunch of ignorant aholes. Did you ever stop to think maybe there is a reason he chose 180 rotor? I personally know Guy and I can relate to his choice, being a clyde myself. Honestly for a guy his size, his riding style and where he rides, a 180 rotor makes sense.

    On an interesting side note, I think its in poor taste of MTBR to ban Guy.Ford, when cr@p like this...
    Quote Originally Posted by pedalmunky
    Saw that the other day on the Surly blog. Gern's beatific "Go ride your bike @sshole!" resonated in my heart much like Tiny Tim's "God bless us, everyone!"
    *Sigh* I love Surly.
    is still allow in this thread, yet they deleted Guys post for basically defending himself from @holes like this. Weak sauce MTBR, but not surprising considering who the admin and moderators are, basically a bunch of elitist bike snobs. FWIW Im fully prepared to be banned and have my post removed for speaking out against MTBR's decision to ban Guy, so go ahead MTBR show your colors!

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    47
    Guy's post was helpful, thorough and fair. And he rides hard enough to give good advice. He tried to keep the thread on track, but the ignorance kept flowing in...

    I'm sorry that he didn't keep that level head and stay out of the fray, but he shouldn't be banned for speaking the truth.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    83
    Maybe you all can tell us what brand/model bike to ride as well. What ratio, seat height, stem length and grips. Because if its good for you it must be good for the rest of us that don't know any better. Somebody please make another post about how most of the braking forces come form the front wheel. Because nobody knew that.

    Interesting to know GuyFord is a clyde. So am I. So is my bro in law. 240ish give or take. And we ride pretty hilly stuff. And we both ride 185's F/R as well. Coincidence? Nah...must be ignorance
    Last edited by Justinbunyon; 02-06-2012 at 04:26 PM.

  41. #41
    Chillin the Most
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by Justinbunyon View Post
    Maybe you all can tell us what brand/model bike to ride as well. What ratio, seat height, stem length and grips. Because if its good for you it must be good for the rest of us that don't know any better. Somebody please make another post about how most of the braking forces come form the front wheel. Because nobody knew that.

    Interesting to know GuyFord is a clyde. So am I. So is my bro in law. 240ish give or take. And we ride pretty hilly stuff. And we both ride 185's F/R as well. Coincidence? Nah...must be ignorance

    Yeah, he's @ 305 right now I believe (hope he doesnt kill me for spilling the beans), hes been off a bike for over 2 years due to personal/financial issues. Im stoked to see him on a bike again and frankly couldnt care if he used 203 rotors, I just know how much he loves to ride and stoked he will be to lose some lbs. Im @ 220 myself and I know he was at 205 before he had to sell his bikes and put on the lbs.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pedalmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    241
    Dude. I don't think any of us were telling Guy how he should or shouldn't spec his own bike. I think we all believe that as an American and a human being it's your basic right to build your bike however you want. I'd even say that Surly messed up by not noticing or at least not clarifying that the new rear dropout design obstructed disc mounts larger than 160mm - and Gern himself came on here and his own blog and said as much.

    Thank you for the edification, Guy. Rock on indeed.

    Just, damn, didja have to go off on us the way you did? Going back and reviewing the thread, I see some of your posts have been deleted - namely, the ones where you tell the lot of us to directly piss off for simply questioning the need for larger rotors in the back. I ran a 203 front rotor on one of my bikes, so I obviously understand and appreciate the greater stopping power of a larger rotor, but on that same bike I had a 160 rotor for the back. Never felt like I needed more - locked up the rear wheel just fine with plenty of grip and modulation.

    But when others said the same - you told us in no uncertain terms to perform an anatomical impossibility onto ourselves. It's called a forum. That means others are allowed to express their opinion, preferably one backed with first-hand experience and/or empirical proof. That's how these things work.

    For my part, I'm sorry if I made my comments about you too personal. I was just trying to be funny, sniping at you using your own words. I can be a real annoying prick like that. Ask any of my friends.

    I hope you ride your Monkey lots, Guy. I'm sure it'll treat you right. I meant that sincerely before, and I mean it sincerely now.

    Peace.
    Last edited by pedalmunky; 02-06-2012 at 06:20 PM.
    All mountain bikes are all-mountain bikes.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dfltroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    813
    This thread--Monkeygate--will go down in infamy.
    All good expeditions should be simple in concept, difficult in their execution and satisfying to remember--Alastair Humphreys

  44. #44
    Chillin the Most
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,028
    Quote Originally Posted by pedalmunky View Post
    Dude. I don't think any of us were telling Guy how he should or shouldn't spec his own bike. I think we all believe that as an American and a human being it's your basic right to build your bike however you want. I'd even say that Surly messed up by not noticing or at least not clarifying that the new rear dropout design obstructed disc mounts larger than 160mm - and Gern himself came on here and his own blog and said as much.

    Thank you for the edification, Guy. Rock on indeed.

    Just, damn, didja have to go off on us the way you did? Going back and reviewing the thread, I see some of your posts have been deleted - namely, the ones where you tell the lot of us to directly piss off for simply questioning the need for larger rotors in the back. I ran a 203 front rotor on one of my bikes, so I obviously understand and appreciate the greater stopping power of a larger rotor, but on that same bike I had a 160 rotor for the back. Never felt like I needed more - locked up the rear wheel just fine with plenty of grip and modulation.

    But when others said the same - you told us in no uncertain terms to perform an anatomical impossibility onto ourselves. It's called a forum. That means others are allowed to express their opinion, preferably one backed with first-hand experience and/or empirical proof. That's how these things work.

    For my part, I'm sorry if I made my comments about you too personal. I was just trying to be funny, sniping at you using your own words. I can be a real annoying prick like that. Ask any of my friends.

    I hope you ride your Monkey lots, Guy. I'm sure it'll treat you right. I meant that sincerely before, and I mean it sincerely now.

    Peace.
    Well since Guy's account has been banned let me help out. He's talked to me about this thread so I feel Im pretty in touch with whats up.

    It really comes down to this, his original post wasnt asking for opinions, but more about sharing an issue that may affect current or future KM owners. But in sharing said information, which he thought would be helpful and insightful, instead he felt attacked with everyone going on the offensive with "Why would you want a big rotor on the rear when it provides such a small % of the total braking force? You should be able to skid that rear wheel with a 160mm rotor no problem." or "180 rotor on back is lame. Nothing wrong with lame though.". Its funny how he's made out to be the bad guy when the community that was put here to share information and be supportive treats him like he's a d#uche for his personal choices. How would you feel when your trying to be the good guy and everyone treats you like poop, even the site moderators/admins?? Honestly I totally get where he was coming from and I would feel the same way. This is why I hardly ever post on here any longer, I learned long ago the type of BS people on her like to sling around. I feel sorry for him and honestly hope he never posts again.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    83
    Of course you weren't pedalmunkey. BTW just changed all my rears to 140mm. 160 is waaaaaaay overkill. Flame on Flamers

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pedalmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    241
    I'm sorry he got banned. I really am. And I'm sorry if I unduly provoked him. I just tried to PM him saying so, but it looks like I'm prevented from doing that. Pass that on to him if you could.

    Having said that: So you say 'he felt attacked with everyone going on the offensive' because he was asked why he couldn't run a smaller rotor? Persecution-complex much?

    Geez...
    Last edited by pedalmunky; 02-06-2012 at 10:12 PM.
    All mountain bikes are all-mountain bikes.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    83
    everyone just cyber shake hands and lets move on.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pedalmunky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    241
    Wise words, my friend. Lemme try this again...

    Peace. No snark.
    All mountain bikes are all-mountain bikes.

  49. #49
    Chillin the Most
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,028
    Ever been 100lbs overweight and feeling like crap because you can't do something you love. Then when you can everyone wants to make an issue of weight?

    Think about this, how would you feel if you'd just met a woman for the first time and because she looks pregnant you ask her how far along she is and she replies I'm not pregnant. Now that your done imagining how you feel think about how embarrassed she is. Well this is how Guy felt. He tried to dismiss it with "eh its just what I like", but no one wanted to except that and so he got a little defensive.

    I love how everyone on forums thinks because its the internet that they shouldn't be held accountable for the bullpoop they dispense without considering the person on the other end. I see lots of stuff people for to their bikes that I wouldn't but guess what, its not my bike and unless I'm asked for my.opinion, everyone is better off if I keep my opinion to myself since it serves no meaningful purpose.

  50. #50
    Fat boy Mod Moderator
    Reputation: donalson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    2,379
    he's not banned... he's got a 5 day suspension... big difference...
    - Surly Disc trucker
    - '82 trek 560 roadie

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •