Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 LastLast
Results 301 to 350 of 452

Thread: The ECDM thread

  1. #301
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    299
    I'm probably telling you things you've already tried and are aware of but here goes. If its a threaded adapter the threads are left handed as I recall. Lefty tighty, righty loosey. Also put the flat spots on the adapter locked in a bench vise and use the rim to turn it off.Don' t forget to loosen the allen set screw if you used it on the adapter. I had one on a Rolf road set that was a PITA but eventually got it off. Since I dont use the set screw I very lightly use an anti sieze compound on the threads. Did I mention only a very little? You do Not want that stuff on any of you stopping parts!
    Good Luck!
    Ed and Pat Gifford
    the Snot Rocket tandem

  2. #302
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    On my hub, the adapter is splined (slides on) with 3 retaining screws. I got it to pop off this morning with tapping via soft blow and then gentle prying with a cone wrench.

    It's a nice and sturdy hub with the steel freehub. I would greatly prefer a modern 142x12 setup to having to use "fun bolts." It's a topic for another thread though.
    2 wheels == True

  3. #303
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    Why did Ventana raise the BB height on the 29er version 1.5" over the 26er version. Looks like they took the 26er and slapped on a longer rear end, adjusted the head angle, and called it good. I'm not complaining about the 29er, just noting the 15"+ BB height. It works really well through rock gardens. A real monster truck!
    2 wheels == True

  4. #304
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    39
    Could it simply be the difference in wheel size? Twenty nine minus 26 equals a three inches difference in diameter. Divide three inches by two and you get an one and a half inch difference in the radius and the height of the bike.

  5. #305
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    Yes, that is what I was thinking. So if 13.5" was a good tried and true BB height, why didn't Ventana adjust the frame geometry on the 29er to get the BB height lower?
    2 wheels == True

  6. #306
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    117
    It's not only the wheel size, I asked Ventana directly and they said it was to give better clearance in real technical terrain. I'm also a little confuse because on the 26 they LOWERED the bottom bracket height between first appearance (in the 20th century !) and today's ECDM 26 tandems.
    The VERY high bottom bracket height on the 29 restrained me from buying it, I've already posted a question on this thread to know 29 inches tandem riders about their point of view and it seems it doesn't bother them. But still hesitating....

  7. #307
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    The high BB is working fine for us. We do ride it on technical terrain, like Sedona, AZ and rockier trails around Boulder, CO. The high BB has made it so we can drop of ledges I didn't think were rideable. If I were riding less technical trails of a place like those of bay area Northern California I would be happier with the lower BB.

    Yesterday, the smooth and twisty trails of Eagle, CO were fun on the ECDM 29er but a little lower BB could likely rail around the turns a bit better.
    2 wheels == True

  8. #308
    Ultra Ventanaphile
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    3,289
    EB, not sure which forks Ventana was using for the specs, but it looks like they adjusted the geometry for 120mm 29'er forks. So that could explain the BB height increase.
    A2C given is 518mm which is akin to Fox's F29@120mm.
    -Aaron G.

    "Before D.W., "anti-squat" was referred to as pedal feedback."

  9. #309
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    looks like I'm using a 140mm fork which would explain the height. The fork was supposed to be travel reduced down to 120mm when I got it from my brother. Guess I'll have to do that myself! It makes sense now that I've had to push my seat forward on the rails to get the seat angle to feel right. We used to use a 110mm on the bike and the geometry felt very good for climbing and general XC. 120mm will be good all around.
    2 wheels == True

  10. #310
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    18
    Am pondering getting back into a tandem. I had a Santana road back in the mid 90's, then a Santana mtn in the late 90's set up with a child stoker for my then very young son. Long since sold but on the wrong side of age 50 now I really need to get back riding. Pavement blows here in LA so dirt is the only viable option unless I want to get run off the road by some driver on his/her cell phone. My wife happily rides on the back of our GS motorcycle, so I figure she'll be ideal as a stoker (unlike my ex-wife who really didn't like the idea - there's a story or three there).

    At any rate, looking at Fandango DC-9 or a Ventana build. Mostly seems to be a question of DS or not. I'm thinking we'll be mostly fire road and probably some pavement (unavoidable). That seems to lean towards the DC-9 but comfort is king for an aging body.

    Advice/pushes either direction happily read. For ECDM there is the 26 vs 29 question as well. I'm 6'1" so taller bike isn't an issue.

  11. #311
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by ybtodd View Post
    Am pondering getting back into a tandem. I had a Santana road back in the mid 90's, then a Santana mtn in the late 90's set up with a child stoker for my then very young son. Long since sold but on the wrong side of age 50 now I really need to get back riding. Pavement blows here in LA so dirt is the only viable option unless I want to get run off the road by some driver on his/her cell phone. My wife happily rides on the back of our GS motorcycle, so I figure she'll be ideal as a stoker (unlike my ex-wife who really didn't like the idea - there's a story or three there).

    At any rate, looking at Fandango DC-9 or a Ventana build. Mostly seems to be a question of DS or not. I'm thinking we'll be mostly fire road and probably some pavement (unavoidable). That seems to lean towards the DC-9 but comfort is king for an aging body.

    Advice/pushes either direction happily read. For ECDM there is the 26 vs 29 question as well. I'm 6'1" so taller bike isn't an issue.
    Hey Todd, we are pretty new to the tandem scene with only a few weeks on our mostly stock DC9 from Alex (mtbtandems.com). My stoker is pretty happy with the Thudbuster rear suspension as it gives a fair amount of flex for her. However, you should pick up the phone and call Alex and discuss the pros/cons - he'll point you in the right direction. Whatever you choose, just do it! It's a blast and you won't look back!

  12. #312
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    299
    Hi Todd,
    Pat and I have owned both a Fandango 26er and a Ventana ECDM 26er.We have ridden a Fandango 29er also. From the captains perspective I did not find any difference in the two 26er tandems as the ECDM and FandangoDC9 were set up exactly the same from Alex. Pat rode the thudbuster for a while and seemed pretty content until we had the oppertunity to ride a friends ECDM thru some rock gardens we had just completed on the Fandango. Her immediate response was "we are getting one of these!" Who am I to argue! Having owned the Ventana for a couple of years now I would say its the most comfortable and versatile choice. We also rode the Fandango 29er and my opinion is if you are after a XC type race bike than that would be my choice. I haven't ridden the 29er ECDM but there are a few owners of them on here. Whatever your choice Alex will provide plenty of honest information and a quality build at a reasonable price. Having a willing stoker will make the experience even more enjoyable. Good luck and let us know what you decide.
    Ed and Pat Gifford
    the Snot Rocket tandem

  13. #313
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,505
    We have owned both.

    The ECDM 26 is capable of some pretty stupid fast speeds when gravity helps.

    Our Fandango was great at XC, but got unsettled at higher speeds on rough terrain.

    Jeanne rode a Thudbuster LT for many miles also.

    Like Ed and Pat, comfort and injuries was a reason for selling the Fandango. We loved it and did not want to sell it.

    We now enjoy the ECDM for all of our off-road tandeming.

    As for the 26 vs 29 choice. I still to this day have never had the front end tracking confidence in a 29, whether single or tandem that a properly setup 26 provides. Our ECDM is a 26. I'm being picky, but it is something I do notice at times other than straight ahead.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  14. #314
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    18
    Thanks for the replies - good to get feedback. Since I come from old school (most of my racing miles were full rigid - hey you kids, get off my lawn!), I'm comfortable with 26" and feel like on a tandem it probably is a stronger wheel with less flex relative to a 29". I've never been a fan of suspension seat posts as the distance/angle to the pedal changes and that gives my knees fits. My wife has younger knees but she's starting to feel some wear and tear from running.

    Sounds like I'm talking myself into an ECDM in 26". I need to spend some time on the new single I'm getting to make sure my knees/back are up for this, but I suspect that is the right course of action. Now just a question of cosmic orange or mango tango :-D

  15. #315
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,505
    The Thudbuster LT is not bad in regards to movement if, like a suspension fork or shock, it is setup properly.

    The key is to install the proper elastomer stack combination AND to set the preload for very slight sag.

    Once set, the movement is minor until needed.

    This may take a little bit of test riding, plus don't forget that with each preload change a seat height adjustment is needed.

    As for a suspension bike, well, they work well for different reasons.

    Both setups can be very good.

    In regards to wheels. For me it was more the frame geometry of 26 vs 29 than wheel flex. Properly built 29 wheels are very strong and work fine on a tandem and have minimal weight penalty.

    I would add that in regards to flex, the ECDM rear frame has more flex than the 29 wheel when comparing our ECDM vs our previous, and loved Fandango. The suspension does make this less noticed.

    Recently we did a group ride on very technical sandy rooted singletrack. Some sections required the steering to full lock to navigate while others were very fast and swoopy. A longtime friend who had not ridden with us on the ECDM commented how much we flexed the ECDM frame.

    Everything is a compromise...

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  16. #316
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    18
    So far so good with the back-on-the-bike experiment. Actually I feared it was over before it started as I managed to tweak my lower back hopping off the bike after doing some cockpit adjustments right after picking up the bike (a FS Salsa). After ice, meds, and a good dose of feeling sorry for myself a friend reminded me that often when his back goes out there are two things that feel good - lying down and riding. So Sunday I decided to do a spin down to the beach with the wife. Today I can still walk (actually back feels better) so full speed ahead with the tandem plans. Even after a short ride I know I'm sold on FS so really is a question of wheel size. In looking at the geometry I'm sort of between a 19 and a 21 (based on TT length). But things change with the wheel sizes so seems that it would be a 21/16 in 26" wheel or a 19/16 in 29" wheel with stem dealing with the TT differences. That is based on captain standover which iirc is important off-road.

    Any compelling arguments for 26 vs 29? While 29 is the new standard I don't see 26 going completely away any time soon.

  17. #317
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    26" forks and wheels are a deal now and likely will be a for a while. I would expect the DH oriented 26" wheel stuff will be around for a good number of years still. I've heard the more XC/trail oriented 26" forks/wheels are going to be produced less in the near term with manufacturers pushing to 27.5" wheels as the alternative.
    2 wheels == True

  18. #318
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by ybtodd View Post
    So far so good with the back-on-the-bike experiment. Actually I feared it was over before it started as I managed to tweak my lower back hopping off the bike after doing some cockpit adjustments right after picking up the bike (a FS Salsa). After ice, meds, and a good dose of feeling sorry for myself a friend reminded me that often when his back goes out there are two things that feel good - lying down and riding. So Sunday I decided to do a spin down to the beach with the wife. Today I can still walk (actually back feels better) so full speed ahead with the tandem plans. Even after a short ride I know I'm sold on FS so really is a question of wheel size. In looking at the geometry I'm sort of between a 19 and a 21 (based on TT length). But things change with the wheel sizes so seems that it would be a 21/16 in 26" wheel or a 19/16 in 29" wheel with stem dealing with the TT differences. That is based on captain standover which iirc is important off-road.

    Any compelling arguments for 26 vs 29? While 29 is the new standard I don't see 26 going completely away any time soon.
    I'm probably going to regret getting sucked into the 26 vs. 29 debate, but I will add my .02 cents. As former owner of a 26" wheeled ECDM and a current owner of a Fandango 29 and a ECDM 29, I'll say that I am sold on the 29" platform for tandem use. The larger diameter front wheel on a tandem bike just makes sense. We are not able to lift the front end the same way that a single bike can. Being able to roll over objects with a slightly larger diameter wheel DOES help.

    I'm sure someone will say that the bigger wheeled bike is more sluggish or that it does not perform with the same precision as its 26" wheeled cousin. Maybe? But I'll take the larger front wheeled tandem ANY day on ANY trail. I rode both the 26" wheeled ECDM and the Fandango back to back for over a year before making the move to sell the 26" bike for the 29". Comparing the Fandango and the 29 ECDM may not be apples to apples either, but it made for real world testing of 26" vs. 29" wheels on the tandem. The answer to me is that we don't own a 26" tandem anymore.

    Is 26 going away? Maybe, but not anytime soon. Will 650b catch on? Probably. I don't think anyone can say that there is a new standard, but there is a lot of hype. If you ride different wheel sizes, you will likely find that a having a larger front wheel on the tandem is more profound than riding a larger wheel on a single bike.

  19. #319
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    634
    26 v 29 has been discussed a lot here, and first person experience as above is key. One other key is the type of trail you're going to ride. IIRC you mentioned living in SoCal near Santa Monica. Most of our trails in SMMNRA are smooth by national standards. You may not find the advantages of the big wheel to be as great.

  20. #320
    MTB Tandem Nut
    Reputation: TandemNut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by Okayfine View Post
    26 v 29 has been discussed a lot here, and first person experience as above is key. One other key is the type of trail you're going to ride. IIRC you mentioned living in SoCal near Santa Monica. Most of our trails in SMMNRA are smooth by national standards. You may not find the advantages of the big wheel to be as great.
    I would respectfully disagree. The 29" wheels also roll faster over smooth terrain as well. So if the trail is relatively "open" in nature without lots of tight turns and technical features, the 29" wheel would be faster than the 26" wheel. Just my .02.
    MTB Tandems Inc.
    678-445-0711
    www.MTBTandems.com

  21. #321
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    634
    Fair enough. I haven't ridden a 29" tandem. My time on a 29" single hasn't been extensive, either, such that it might apply.

  22. #322
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    18
    Well after discussion with Alex and doing some measurements on my existing rides looks like the winning combination will be 19/16 with 29" wheels. I'm a bit in-between the 19 and 21 I think, but better to err on having more stand over and I can always do a bit of layback on the seat post and a longer stem if I want a bit more room. Thanks for all the input here - always hard to buy without riding but it should be in the ballpark.

  23. #323
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    299
    I have to agree with Alex. The brief time we rode a 29er Fandango at AORTA it was noticable how much faster and easier the bigger wheels rolled. We chose 26 wheels on our ECDM because Sherwood wasn't offering a 29 option then. We also ride tight techy terrain occasionally and wasn't sure how the bigger wheels would handle it. We are very happy with the all around capabilities of our ECDM. However ,if we were" in the market " to add to our stable it would be a Fandango 29er probably coupled. Good luck with your choice.
    Ed and Pat Gifford
    the Snot Rocket tandem

  24. #324
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    407

    The ECDM thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ybtodd View Post
    Well after discussion with Alex and doing some measurements on my existing rides looks like the winning combination will be 19/16 with 29" wheels. I'm a bit in-between the 19 and 21 I think, but better to err on having more stand over and I can always do a bit of layback on the seat post and a longer stem if I want a bit more room. Thanks for all the input here - always hard to buy without riding but it should be in the ballpark.
    Todd,

    Our trails here in north ga are almost all tight, narrow, rocky, root infested and...well, technical. While it took me some time to make the transition to 29" wheels on my single bike (trek Stache), it took no time on our new Fandango tandem. Given the open and smooth(er) terrain you described, it sounds like you made the right choice!

    Tell us how you spec'd out your build.

  25. #325
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,505
    Both bikes are very nice. Each bike excells in certain specific conditions. Neither bike is uncapable of being ridden in either technical trails or fast open trails.

    We know since we have owned both and it was not uncommon to choose a specific weapon for the days riding based on where we planned to ride.

    One thing that often is failed to be mentioned, is you are, when comparing a Fandango to an ECDM are comparing a full suspension vs a hardtail.

    Jeanne and I will (would in ref to the Fandango since it was sold) ride very technical drops, or fast downhills with far more confidence on 26 wheels and rear suspension. On more open flatter or climbing smoother terrain the Fandango ruled. Once you add bumps larger than the tires size, full suspension is faster since you just don't slow down. We hammer across trail features that would have us choosing different lines on the hardtail.

    Which bike is better, neither. FWIW, we rode the Fandango far more than the ECDM when we had both bikes. It was our go to machine until we became really old and semi injured.

    As a captain, and suspension and chassis geek, I notice stupid details about how bikes handle. As I still will state, the 26 geometry works better when the bike is leaned over or carving corners. In a straight line there is not much difference. The saving grace of a 29 geometry is the tire having more grip.

    Again both are great bikes. With thousands of miles on both, and setup notes, ride log data to back it up, I'll say it again both are great and each can do certain things better than the other.

    It's is obvious Dan and his stoker (DS2199) and our team are diverging on which is best. If we lived where they do, our opinion would likely be the same as his. Possibly if team DS lived here in South Florida or even in the SE USA, they may prefer a different setup.

    Again, both wheel sizes are workable. and team DS has the ability to compare all. A 26 ECDM to a 29 ECDM and a Fandango.

    PK
    Last edited by PMK; 05-19-2013 at 03:58 AM.
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  26. #326
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by mhopton View Post
    Tell us how you spec'd out your build.
    Pretty much the straight "Premium build kit" that Alex has. Much as I love Chris King stuff the check I'm writing will be big enough as it is. I've had good luck with the X7/X9 stuff and figure the Hope/Magura should be good enough for wheels and brakes.

    I finally got the new 29'er FS single on dirt today and have to say that I'm liking it a lot - especially my back. My wife was on her bike she's looking forward to the prospect of being on the back of the tandem, especially not having to worry about bike control on descents (not her strong point).

  27. #327
    mtbr member
    Reputation: abikerider's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    34

    Compatability Issues of shadow derailleur on older ECDM with rear-facing dropouts

    I tried installing an SLX shadow derailleur on my 2001 ECDM with rear-facing dropouts. The problem is there is a humpback near the mounting bolt that interferes with rear wheel removal. See the attached picture. I am tempted to grind the humpback down but it might serve an important function. Any opinions about what to do? I posted this question in the tandem forum but this ECDM thread seems more appropriate.

    Name:  SLX 9 speed derailleur.JPG
Views: 480
Size:  40.0 KB

    Well I went ahead and ground down some of the hump and am now able to take the wheel on and off so the problem is solved. I didn't have to take too much off so I'm pretty sure I have not compromised the strength. I hope this is useful to others.

    The ECDM thread-shadow-derailleur-mod-2.jpg

    The ECDM thread-shadow-derialleur-mod.jpg
    Last edited by abikerider; 06-04-2013 at 03:29 PM.

  28. #328
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    We rode in Fruita, Rustler Loop, and tried a camera mounted to the stoker bar. The clip is kind of long at 9:34 and it just raw video uploaded with kinda low res. Anyway we are on our ECDM 29er having a good time.
    2 wheels == True

  29. #329
    Long Live Long Rides
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    397
    Hope you had a good time. We ride that area quite a bit on tandem, sometimes as a couple, sometimes with my 7-year-old stoker. Good fun!

  30. #330
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    636

    The ECDM thread

    Quote Originally Posted by ybtodd View Post
    Well after discussion with Alex and doing some measurements on my existing rides looks like the winning combination will be 19/16 with 29" wheels. I'm a bit in-between the 19 and 21 I think, but better to err on having more stand over and I can always do a bit of layback on the seat post and a longer stem if I want a bit more room. Thanks for all the input here - always hard to buy without riding but it should be in the ballpark.
    I am likely mistaken, but I believe Sherwood will build a semi-custom 19" with a top tube from a 21."

    Should get you the standover you want with the length you need.

    On the other hand maybe that was only on the 26" wheels.
    --Reamer

  31. #331
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    844
    Thanks for posting! I have yet to get a decent pov video on the tandem. I just don't have the patience to mess around with getting the camera set up right and editing the video.

    Eric, can you explain the shifting configuration on your ECDM? I was not sure what I was looking at in th video.

  32. #332
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,505
    Quote Originally Posted by ds2199 View Post
    Thanks for posting! I have yet to get a decent pov video on the tandem. I just don't have the patience to mess around with getting the camera set up right and editing the video.

    Eric, can you explain the shifting configuration on your ECDM? I was not sure what I was looking at in th video.
    I got the impression he was locking and unlocking suspension.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  33. #333
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,505
    Quote Originally Posted by ebnelson View Post
    We rode in Fruita, Rustler Loop, and tried a camera mounted to the stoker bar. The clip is kind of long at 9:34 and it just raw video uploaded with kinda low res. Anyway we are on our ECDM 29er having a good time.


    What a contrast of trail compared to an East Coast trail.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  34. #334
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by ds2199 View Post
    Thanks for posting! I have yet to get a decent pov video on the tandem. I just don't have the patience to mess around with getting the camera set up right and editing the video.

    Eric, can you explain the shifting configuration on your ECDM? I was not sure what I was looking at in th video.
    We blew it today the camera battery died before the Ambram's Ridge descent in Eagle.

    The funny levers on the top of the bar you are watching me play with are the CTD (climb, trail, descend) lever for the Fox fork and shock. Yes, I do adjust them often! The fork feels really soft with any pedal effort in trail or descend, but good for climbing seated on the climb mode. It still bobs a lot standing in climb mode. I like the camera angle to watch the fork movement. Its amazing how much fork movement there is on rocky trails.

    Our shifting is still 3x10 XTR. 24x34 is our easy gear (don't tell Traci they make a 36!) ;-) One of these days I'd like to try a XX1 setup or similar.

    Eric
    2 wheels == True

  35. #335
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ds2199's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by ebnelson View Post
    ....

    Our shifting is still 3x10 XTR. 24x34 is our easy gear (don't tell Traci they make a 36!) ;-) One of these days I'd like to try a XX1 setup or similar.

    Eric
    Wow! You guys are strong!! I won't tell Traci...

    I am a bit ashamed to say that we have 22-36 for our low gear on the 29" wheels. And we use that low gear a lot!

  36. #336
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    We suffered climbing up a very steep, and loose, forest road today. Traci had been on an anti climbing kick after straining herself on the road tandem. See seems better now. I still haven't told her we are racing Mt Evans!
    2 wheels == True

  37. #337
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by ds2199 View Post
    Wow! You guys are strong!! I won't tell Traci...

    I am a bit ashamed to say that we have 22-36 for our low gear on the 29" wheels. And we use that low gear a lot!
    You have the right gearing for Little Frenchy next month.
    2 wheels == True

  38. #338
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,505
    Eric, any chance of some photos of the camera mounting on the ECDM?

    I did some footage of a road tandem event last fall with a similar mount location.

    I am really fearful to rip off the camera on our trails with all the trees but your vantage point off-road is pretty nice.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  39. #339
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    I used a Contour camera with the strap on mount on the outside of the stoker bull horn bar. Yes, there is a risk of tearing off the camera. We rode a very narrow trail in Carbondale and the camera was OK. I brushed it on small branches a couple of times but no hard hits yet. A crash would be bad for the camera and riders!
    2 wheels == True

  40. #340
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    I moved the camera to the drive side of the bike so I'm less likely to bump it getting off/on the bike. The camera view is cool since the trail and front of the bike are in view at the same time and this is much more interesting than the helmet cam view that is often posted.
    2 wheels == True

  41. #341
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    222
    The ECDM 29 in Carbondale on the Porcupine trail. I uploaded in HD this time The camera is still on the left side of the bike. I will put the video up in three sections. As we get lower down the trail it gets narrower. The camera hits a couple of twigs but nothing to knock the view angle or do any damage to the camera.
    2 wheels == True

  42. #342
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    12
    I am considering to change our RS Pike 454 140mm (a-c 515mm) to RS Lyrik 2-Step air 160mm (a-c 545mm). What I understand, Lyrik is little bit stiffer than Pike. There is 30mm difference in axle to crown measurements. I think it would be game changer on solo bikes, but how about on ECDM? Does it change riding geometry radically or is the change more subtle? ECDM frames are for 140mm forks, but has anyone tried to use 160 or longer forks?

  43. #343
    Ultra Ventanaphile
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    3,289
    Quote Originally Posted by TaitettaVille View Post
    I am considering to change our RS Pike 454 140mm (a-c 515mm) to RS Lyrik 2-Step air 160mm (a-c 545mm). What I understand, Lyrik is little bit stiffer than Pike. There is 30mm difference in axle to crown measurements. I think it would be game changer on solo bikes, but how about on ECDM? Does it change riding geometry radically or is the change more subtle? ECDM frames are for 140mm forks, but has anyone tried to use 160 or longer forks?
    I think you are off by about 20mm on the designed travel the ECDM's are made for currently and about 40mm off for older gen models. I believe (Alex a litte help?) up until 2012, ECDM's were designed for 100mm travel so about 470mm A to C, I know my 2010 is. The frame can handle 160mm frames no problem, I believe Trails4two runs a 66. and PMK is running a modded Fox 40 so that's not too big an issue, but I wanted to make sure you were aware that on older frames it would change the geometry more than current model. Website says 493mm A to C so looks like he designed the geo for 120mm forks. Having said that, how much will it change the GEO? Not a ton, since the wheelbase is 72" plus vs 42" ish for a single bike the old addage 20mm=one degree is more like 35= 1 degree on Tandems. I think the most significant change will be at the BB, my quick geometry says the Captains BB will rise up about 2/3 of what the A to C difference is. (So will standover). BTW, I own a Pike 454 and a Lyrik, both are good forks, and the Lyrik with 35mm is quite a bit stiffer than the Pike. Also, if you have a solo air Lyrik, you can add the spacers to the Air spring side and lower the travel on the Lyrik. (Which stiffens it up more as it will have more Stanchion overlap.)
    -Aaron G.

    "Before D.W., "anti-squat" was referred to as pedal feedback."

  44. #344
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    634
    We run a 180mm fork. Not because we need that much travel, but because I wanted a stiffer fork than our old 66SL and the current forks with bigger stantion diameters have more travel. We're a 360lb team, plus gear. We've also never had the bike with a 100mm fork, so can't really comment on the changes over what it was designed for.

    I'd be surprised if you really noticed an additional 20mm on a tandem, though.

  45. #345
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    12
    Thanks ciclistagonzo and Okayfine.

    I think we are goin going to get Lyrik 2-step 160mm and try it for a few rides. It's a bargain, so it would be shame to let it slip through our hands. If it doesn't fit our riding style, we change Pike 454 back or convert it to coil u-turn (120-160mm).

    Fortunately we have potential buyers for both forks already, so economic damage won't be huge.

    I am very aware of my single bikes geometry and I had somekind of mtb-rage situation ( )when I replaced 100mm for 120mm on my 29er. It didn't climb at all. Front wheel was all over the trail. On ECDM I am worried about our ability to negotiate tighter sections of our favorite trails. Our favorite trails are very narrow (trees and boulders) with tight corners.

  46. #346
    PMK
    PMK is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: PMK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,505
    For comparison, our frame is a 2006 with a modified Fox40 Kashima.

    Fork / wheel travel is 145mm.

    Axle to crown measured quickly with a tape measure and wheel installed is 508mm.

    Geometry numbers do matter, but other factors play in also. Obviously fork sag is important, spring rate is hugely important, rear sag seems more critical than front sag, and finally, is there enough front grip to plain old fashioned make the bike turn.

    It is all the dynamics compiled together, a opposed to published reference data. That is basically a good guideline or starting point. Consider a proper length fork with a light spring, geometry goes wrong, a long fork with a firm spring can go wrong, a soft squishy rear setup may wallow and bring the best fork to it's knees. There is more to a good setup, but the key is finding a balance of travel needed, spring rate, mid stroke support, no mechanical binding, minimal flex and proper rear setup, coupled to the ground with a good tire setup.

    Also, if you run a longer travel fork. They can tend to wallow and become vague, not always, but it can happen especially in soft terrain.

    The best tandem fork is waiting to be built.

    PK
    Reps! We don't need no stickin' reps!

  47. #347
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    636

    The ECDM thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PMK View Post
    For comparison, our frame is a 2006 with a modified Fox40 Kashima.

    Fork / wheel travel is 145mm.

    .....
    The best tandem fork is waiting to be built.

    PK
    Paul,

    Do you know if there are fox 40s that would not work for the ecdm? By that I mean not easily shortened and modded for use on the Ventana?

    I've been watching eBay, and thinking a used 40, then sent for overhaul, shortening and re-valving, if needed. I've used Push before. But are there shops you would recommend to do the needed work on a fox 40?

    New prices are stratospheric, but some of the used Foxes are doable.

    Thanks,
    Charlie
    --Reamer

  48. #348
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    636

    The ECDM thread

    Dupe deleted
    --Reamer

  49. #349
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    636

    The ECDM thread

    Delete dupe
    --Reamer

  50. #350
    mtbr member
    Reputation: reamer41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    636

    The ECDM thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PMK View Post
    ....

    a long fork with a firm spring can go wrong, a soft squishy rear setup may wallow and bring the best fork to it's knees. There is more to a good setup, ...

    PK
    What is happening here? How does a poor setup at the rear effect the fork so much? I've experienced it, and the opposite -- a poorly performing fork, but do t understand the interrelationship. ???
    --Reamer

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 345678910 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
  •