Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 79
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350

    Propose a fork for a new EG v3

    Hello guys.
    I a few clicks away of buying the new EG.
    Can you propose me a fork. I was thinking something around 170 with a 20mm axle and preferably not tappered so I could put the headset with the slackset (-1 degree).

    Any suggestions?
    Do you think 170 would be too much and I should go with 160 (or a 2 position 160)?.
    I would prefer something with reasonable price... (around 700-800$).

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    X-fusion Vengeance @ 170mm and 20mm axle fit exactly what you want.
    can consider the DLA version for travel adjust if you like.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadica View Post
    X-fusion Vengeance @ 170mm and 20mm axle fit exactly what you want.
    can consider the DLA version for travel adjust if you like.
    A link please!

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    A link please!
    Google or GTFO!!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    Come on, I thought you had a link of a bargain that's why I asked!
    Of course I can google it! I did! Thanks, nice fork.
    I don't have any experience with X-fusion. Do you?

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    Come on, I thought you had a link of a bargain that's why I asked!
    Of course I can google it! I did! Thanks, nice fork.
    I don't have any experience with X-fusion. Do you?
    I love both my Vengeance forks, Air and Coil.. but Im probably bias...
    Here.. some measurement and info on my site

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,200
    Coil veng @ 160 + mk3 look tasty

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,352
    I'm not really sure is the new EG needs anything longer then a 160mm fork. I'm not sure what A2C brant used when the geo was measured but a 170mm fork with a 1 degree slackset going to put you at like 65 degrees and drop the bb to around 12.75". Way too low and slack for its intended purpose IMO. I'd go with a 160mm fork with an external cup. My MKII with a 160 Fox RLC and external cup headset measures just under 67 degrees.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by craigstr View Post
    I'm not really sure is the new EG needs anything longer then a 160mm fork. I'm not sure what A2C brant used when the geo was measured but a 170mm fork with a 1 degree slackset going to put you at like 65 degrees and drop the bb to around 12.75". Way too low and slack for its intended purpose IMO. I'd go with a 160mm fork with an external cup. My MKII with a 160 Fox RLC and external cup headset measures just under 67 degrees.
    Thanks craigstr, which is the external cup headset? I was thinking of this one. http://www.on-one.co.uk/i/q/HSOOSSSE...ck___10_degree
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    So 160 with the slack set headset will be what, 66?
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,352
    I have a CC40 bottom cup and a smoothie top cup, I'm guessing 66 with a slackset and 160mm fork but again, I'm not sure what fork length Brant is measuring the geo with?

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    Fox float 160 rlc or fox float 180 rc2. If I was building myself another one with the v3 frame I would do the 180 for the extra BB clearance with a standard king headset. From the numbers I've seen those BB hights are kind of low for the rocks, roots and trees around here.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  13. #13
    Off the back...
    Reputation: pinkrobe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,008
    180mm FLOAT RC2 - very smooth.
    dgsmills.com
    #pinkrobeyyc
    CMBA

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    47
    Anyone put 140mm on the new EG? I have 140mm 1"1/8 Fox left over and though about giving it a try as money is a bit tight atm and can't afford new fork just yet. Didn't EGs come with 140mm fork few years back?

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    I think fox is over budget...

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by opnykanen View Post
    Anyone put 140mm on the new EG? I have 140mm 1"1/8 Fox left over and though about giving it a try as money is a bit tight atm and can't afford new fork just yet. Didn't EGs come with 140mm fork few years back?
    Look, Titus suggests 150/160 fork. 140 I think is way too small... But you can start with it and upgrade. But I don't think it will fill good.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    What is the difference between internal and external bottom cups?
    If you put a 180 fork with internal caps the front geo remains the same as if you put a 170 with external?
    I am a bit confused...

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,352
    All depends on the axle to crown (A2C) measurement of your fork and the measurement of the bottom external cup.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    I am a bit confused, but I think I am going to order the slackset (-1 degree) headset for 1,1/8 and put a 160 and a 170 fork to see how it climbs. Which is my first concern. You think that the BB will be that lowered that I will have a problem with pedal strokes? (I have 175mm crankset)

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,352
    Brant says the slackset only lowers the bb a few mm's so you should be good. I personally run 170mm cranks to help minimize pedal strikes but I live in a very rocky area.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    What is the difference between internal and external bottom cups?
    If you put a 180 fork with internal caps the front geo remains the same as if you put a 170 with external?
    I am a bit confused...
    depending on the maker/brand of the headset

    Integral have the bearing inside of the headtube with thinner stack height of usually lesser of 5mm

    external cup have the bearing outside of the headtube with stack height of around +-15mm

    having said so. using the same fork with different headset cup will slightly affect the geometry. so with different fork length and brand.. then you need to look at the overall axle to crown height. a Fox 160mm fork have around 545mm a2c and a 170mm is around 565mm even though the fork travel is different of only 10mm.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    I would use an Dual Air Lyric

  23. #23

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,200
    Ben (old titus dude) used to say external headset w/ 545mm axle to crown is the intended design. When I asked, said EG can handle the slackset, also said internal headset and longer A2C would void warrantee FWIW

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJ View Post
    Ben (old titus dude) used to say external headset w/ 545mm axle to crown is the intended design. When I asked, said EG can handle the slackset, also said internal headset and longer A2C would void warrantee FWIW
    I have no idea what Ben was talking about as the drawings from that era that I have make little sense with those numbers.

    Axle to underside of headtube is dimensioned 529.4mm, at head angle 68deg.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Propose a fork for a new EG v3-p80153m00.pdf-1-page-.jpg  


  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,200
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    I have no idea what Ben was talking about as the drawings from that era that I have make little sense with those numbers.

    Axle to underside of headtube is dimensioned 529.4mm, at head angle 68deg.


    Actually I typed it wrong, he said 160mm fork not 545mm a2c.. anyway that is old news, just some of the questions from when the slackset came to market

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,200
    Brant, would love to know your interpretation of the actual geometry. It would help us chose which new make of EG to buy.. *No secret that era el Guapo geometry numbers are funked up.. Your way of measuring seems much more accurate

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Right now I am in the bath, drinking red wine. Never a good combo.
    I will get out shortly and put some numbers into bikecad and see where things end up like for like.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Right now I am in the bath, drinking red wine. Never a good combo.
    I will get out shortly and put some numbers into bikecad and see where things end up like for like.
    Can't wait. I think it would be very useful!
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Right now I am in the bath, drinking red wine. Never a good combo.
    I will get out shortly and put some numbers into bikecad and see where things end up like for like.
    Ok - out of the bath. Bit of a disaster - as I spilt half a glass of red on the floor. Thankfully it's all cleaned up fine.

    OK.

    Numbers. I plugged them into BikeCad to give some comparisons.

    I used an imaginary 160mm fork with a 545mm a/c dimension. This is what Rock Shox specs for a Domain, and a Lyric. A 150mm Rev or Sektor is 528mm, so a bit more than 10mm shorter, but anyhow. 160's where we're at.

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "OLD" El Guapo, or V2 "New"
    H/A=66.7
    S/A=70
    BB Drop = -5.9mm

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "NEW V3" El Guapo
    H/A=66.8
    S/A=71.3
    BB Drop = -1.8mm

    Essentially what I did was correct the frame for the fork which we intended to use - 160/170mm Lyrics.

    Glad I wasn't going mad there.

    If I had my time again, and didn't care about freaking people out, I probably would have knocked another degree of the head angle, but figure that's possible for wierdos like me with Slacksets and stuff. The seatangle is the important thing. To put you a bit more forward and keep you more centred on the bike.

    The corrected fork length, steeper seat angle and 10mm on the top tube on the new bikes contribute to a geometry that works far better with shorter stem (40-50mm) than the old more XC style 80mm+ length that's popular with some riders.

    The new 29er will be optimized around a short stem too.

    Hope this helps.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Whilst I remember, and before I log off (it's 10pm here)...

    Seat angle is something I get quite uptight about. Tall riders should probably pay more attention than short riders. Short riders don't notice seat angle as much as they're shorter. If you see what I mean. Less extension, so less over the back wheel.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    Nice numbers! So with v3 and 160 fork with slack set you get about 65.5 HA!!
    Correct?
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    Nice numbers! So with v3 and 160 fork with slack set you get about 65.5 HA!!
    Correct?
    Correct.

    Ed Oxley is running a 2deg slackset and a 180mm fork in a V2 :-)

    One can only imagine where his head angle is at :-)

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Correct.

    Ed Oxley is running a 2deg slackset and a 180mm fork in a V2 :-)

    One can only imagine where his head angle is at :-)
    I think is a 170 marz 55 ti something...
    And this guy is something else!
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    397
    Brant, would a 150mm fork with a slackset be weird? I'm thinking the slackset would correct for the shorter axel to crown but would steepen the seat angle and lower the BB - perhaps too much? Thoughts?

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by gravityfreaky View Post
    Brant, would a 150mm fork with a slackset be weird? I'm thinking the slackset would correct for the shorter axel to crown but would steepen the seat angle and lower the BB - perhaps too much? Thoughts?
    Someone correct me if I am wrong, but a shorter fork would steepen the head angle and lower the bottom bracket by default. Slackset would correct for the head angle and bring it back towards the 160mm geo, but would also further lower the BB. Axel to crown would remain the same regardless because your fork is a set axle to crown length, but you would correct for the steeping of the head angle. Seat angle will steepen as well.

    To me it seems like a legit plan. Might be worth splurging and buying a Cane Creek angleset that lets you dial things in a bit more closely. aka the ones that do a degree, half degree, and - degree/half degree
    X-prezo Super-D, 26in style.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,200
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    OK.

    Numbers. I plugged them into BikeCad to give some comparisons.

    I used an imaginary 160mm fork with a 545mm a/c dimension. This is what Rock Shox specs for a Domain, and a Lyric. A 150mm Rev or Sektor is 528mm, so a bit more than 10mm shorter, but anyhow. 160's where we're at.

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "OLD" El Guapo, or V2 "New"
    H/A=66.7
    S/A=70
    BB Drop = -5.9mm

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "NEW V3" El Guapo
    H/A=66.8
    S/A=71.3
    BB Drop = -1.8mm

    Essentially what I did was correct the frame for the fork which we intended to use - 160/170mm Lyrics.

    Glad I wasn't going mad there.

    If I had my time again, and didn't care about freaking people out, I probably would have knocked another degree of the head angle, but figure that's possible for wierdos like me with Slacksets and stuff. The seatangle is the important thing. To put you a bit more forward and keep you more centred on the bike.

    The corrected fork length, steeper seat angle and 10mm on the top tube on the new bikes contribute to a geometry that works far better with shorter stem (40-50mm) than the old more XC style 80mm+ length that's popular with some riders.

    The new 29er will be optimized around a short stem too.

    Hope this helps.
    The exact info we need far as i'm concerned, now no one can bitch and moan over the geo!!

    Your new seat tube angle and extended tt are welcome changes, definitely a step forward on the large size I am used to

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    931
    The one things that confuses me is the "external cup" stipulation. I understand what an external cup means, but I don't understand what the geometry works out to in my V2 quapo with a slackset...because the slackset lower is an internal cup. I understand that the internal cup will "steepen" the headtube angle and seattube angle compared to an external cup, but then the slackset offsets that by adding -1.5 degrees.

    So I think I will massively enjoy the slackset (steepens the seat tube up), I don't know what it will do to the headtube angle compared to an external cup setup. I am also hoping it doesn't too severely drop the BB height.

    Could you plug those numbers in brant?
    X-prezo Super-D, 26in style.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,352

    He needs it that slack

    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Correct.

    Ed Oxley is running a 2deg slackset and a 180mm fork in a V2 :-)

    One can only imagine where his head angle is at :-)
    Otherwise he runs over his beard.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,352

    Hmmm

    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Ok - out of the bath. Bit of a disaster - as I spilt half a glass of red on the floor. Thankfully it's all cleaned up fine.

    OK.

    Numbers. I plugged them into BikeCad to give some comparisons.

    I used an imaginary 160mm fork with a 545mm a/c dimension. This is what Rock Shox specs for a Domain, and a Lyric. A 150mm Rev or Sektor is 528mm, so a bit more than 10mm shorter, but anyhow. 160's where we're at.

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "OLD" El Guapo, or V2 "New"
    H/A=66.7
    S/A=70
    BB Drop = -5.9mm

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "NEW V3" El Guapo
    H/A=66.8
    S/A=71.3
    BB Drop = -1.8mm

    Essentially what I did was correct the frame for the fork which we intended to use - 160/170mm Lyrics.

    Glad I wasn't going mad there.

    If I had my time again, and didn't care about freaking people out, I probably would have knocked another degree of the head angle, but figure that's possible for wierdos like me with Slacksets and stuff. The seatangle is the important thing. To put you a bit more forward and keep you more centred on the bike.

    The corrected fork length, steeper seat angle and 10mm on the top tube on the new bikes contribute to a geometry that works far better with shorter stem (40-50mm) than the old more XC style 80mm+ length that's popular with some riders.

    The new 29er will be optimized around a short stem too.

    Hope this helps.
    I'm taller (6 ft), I run the seat pretty far forward on the rails to get over the cranks a bit more on my V.2. With my android app, I get 66.7 if I measure by placing the phone on the headtube or 66.9 by placing on the fork lowers. I currently run a 70mm stem and was actually thinking about getting an 80mm. Maybe I should just get a V.3?

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Ok - out of the bath. Bit of a disaster - as I spilt half a glass of red on the floor. Thankfully it's all cleaned up fine.

    OK.

    Numbers. I plugged them into BikeCad to give some comparisons.

    I used an imaginary 160mm fork with a 545mm a/c dimension. This is what Rock Shox specs for a Domain, and a Lyric. A 150mm Rev or Sektor is 528mm, so a bit more than 10mm shorter, but anyhow. 160's where we're at.

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "OLD" El Guapo, or V2 "New"
    H/A=66.7
    S/A=70
    BB Drop = -5.9mm

    If I put a 160mm fork, with an external headset into an "NEW V3" El Guapo
    H/A=66.8
    S/A=71.3
    BB Drop = -1.8mm

    Essentially what I did was correct the frame for the fork which we intended to use - 160/170mm Lyrics.

    Glad I wasn't going mad there.

    If I had my time again, and didn't care about freaking people out, I probably would have knocked another degree of the head angle, but figure that's possible for wierdos like me with Slacksets and stuff. The seatangle is the important thing. To put you a bit more forward and keep you more centred on the bike.

    The corrected fork length, steeper seat angle and 10mm on the top tube on the new bikes contribute to a geometry that works far better with shorter stem (40-50mm) than the old more XC style 80mm+ length that's popular with some riders.

    The new 29er will be optimized around a short stem too.

    Hope this helps.
    very interesting...
    with the v3 and the drop of -1.8mm. a negative drop value here, does that mean the bb height got raised by 1.8mm ?? a little confuse here

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    397
    Quote Originally Posted by y0bailey View Post
    Someone correct me if I am wrong, but a shorter fork would steepen the head angle and lower the bottom bracket by default. Slackset would correct for the head angle and bring it back towards the 160mm geo, but would also further lower the BB. Axel to crown would remain the same regardless because your fork is a set axle to crown length, but you would correct for the steeping of the head angle. Seat angle will steepen as well.

    To me it seems like a legit plan. Might be worth splurging and buying a Cane Creek angleset that lets you dial things in a bit more closely. aka the ones that do a degree, half degree, and - degree/half degree
    Exactly. It's what I've done with my Intense Tracer and it works great (I don't need / want the extra height and weight of a 160mm fork). I'm running my Tracer with a CCDB and Marz 44 RC3 Ti and it's a great combo (coil / coil)

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    ...The seatangle is the important thing. To put you a bit more forward and keep you more centred on the bike.

    Hope this helps.
    Came to the same conclusion too-- after few years experimenting with longer travel bikes.. need a steep STA... esp for those inseam challenged and lack enuf upper torso to put more weight forward...like me.


    The first bike that got me to thinking what makes a long travel slack HA bike be able to climb incidentally was another of your design...a hardtail "with a 67HA measured sagged with a 74 STA"

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadica View Post
    very interesting...
    with the v3 and the drop of -1.8mm. a negative drop value here, does that mean the bb height got raised by 1.8mm ?? a little confuse here
    Drop is a dimension the BB sits below the centreline of the wheels.
    Therefore a -ve drop is a distance ABOVE the BB centre.

    So the V3 has a 4mm lower BB than the V2 (due to me correcting and setting the head tube at the correct height, rather than "lifting the frame up")

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: VR6ix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    179
    I had a 170mm Marz 66 on my mk1 EG, super-good on dedicated downhill trails but way too tall for all the "aggressive XC-ish" type riding I do 98% of the time... scored a great deal on a used Fox Vanilla 36 RC2 160mm fork and it's way better for that 98% riding I do, going back to the same DH trails next weekend and I bet I'll be fine with the shorter fork. EG mk1 frame is steeper anyway...

    Van is way plusher/adjustable than the 66, too... not giving-up on the Marz, just never got it dialed-in right.

    Point is... OP never told us what kind of riding he's doing, so, speculating on A2C and HA numbers is kind of moot... no?

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    Look, if you're referring to me, the most trails I do are steep rocky trails some with rock gardens. The think is that I have to pedal up to get to those trails... I don't have a lift of any kind.
    So you say with just 10mm your problem was solved?
    Have in mind that I ordered V3 with the -1 degree slack set so with 160 the HA will be around 65.5! And with 170 around 64.5!!!
    What do you think?

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation: VR6ix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    179
    Sounds like we have the opposite problem: my trails only have short steep climbs, your trails are steep rocky and more downhill, but you have a long climb to the top first.

    My 66 was 565 atc, the Fox 36 is 545 atc, my typo, it's a 20mm difference, and the shorter fork feels way better for what I ride. For you, I'd think the longer fork would be best, but how you deal with the climbing with the longer fork is I guess what I was getting at, because I found even short climbing with the tall Marz 66 sucked!

    I'm out of the loop on new forks, but, for travel-adjust models, can any of the current forks be customized for the amount it drops at the lower setting? A big drop in fork height (TALAS is 40mm or 1 9/16") with an already low BB might not be fun on the climbs with 175mm cranks.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    I found a Marzocchi 170 that drops to 130 with 20mm axle and 35mm boots!
    I think it will do the trick. Don't you?
    "Do not go where the path may lead. Go instead where there is no path and leave a trail" Ralph Waldo Emerson

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by George Gr View Post
    I found a Marzocchi 170 that drops to 130 with 20mm axle and 35mm boots!
    I think it will do the trick. Don't you?
    How long is the a2c for the marz 170mm?

    Also am wondering if we need travel adjust fork on EG?
    The place i ride too do not have bike lift. Lots of singletrack rooty and ruty technical climb section. To get to the down, we need the up.

    So i am torn with whether go with travel adjust or not. Travel adjust seem to lower the bb too much. Dilemma.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: George Gr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    350
    Quote Originally Posted by Broadica View Post
    How long is the a2c for the marz 170mm?

    Also am wondering if we need travel adjust fork on EG?
    The place i ride too do not have bike lift. Lots of singletrack rooty and ruty technical climb section. To get to the down, we need the up.

    So i am torn with whether go with travel adjust or not. Travel adjust seem to lower the bb too much. Dilemma.
    I don't know about the a2c, I haven't got it on my hands yet.
    With my setup (-1 degree slackset) I think I will have a problem climbing with a 170 that's why I went for the 170-130/
    Regarding the BB if you read a couple of posts earlier you will see Brant proposing to change the rocker mount to the front position to raise the bb a bit...

Page 1 of 2 1 2 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
  •