Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 891
  1. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp View Post
    Hard to tell from those pictures but I can not see any other notable difference between yours and Brant's.
    Pivot locations look equal. Geometry of links and shock tabs look ok, too.

    I know those Zoke forks and indeed, a 150mm one will be like 540mm A2C, so that can't be far off (unless you have the ETA on or travel reduced).

    This is a mystery. I think you got somehow an improperly built frame somehow, it's really difficult to alter BBH without messing with tube length and pivot locations. It's even fairly independent from size, so I'm lost.

    Maybe Brant has a better idea.
    I know sta was stated to have changed on MK3, and tt increased.. top shock tab position may be measured from the front of the tt.. and there is no pic of the main pivot, could've been rotated above bb to a more vertical position.. any way, those who setup w/ some of the other 150mm forks will be really low

  2. #52
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,690
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJ View Post
    I know sta was stated to have changed on MK3, and tt increased.. top shock tab position may be measured from the front of the tt.. and there is no pic of the main pivot, could've been rotated above bb to a more vertical position.. any way, those who setup w/ some of the other 150mm forks will be really low
    That doesn't explain the difference between Brent's and STH bikes... Both are MK-III's

    OTOH, that is a really low-slung, turn eating monster!! As Craig mentioned, it's ready for 650B.
    Check my Site

  3. #53
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,753
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJ View Post
    any way, those who setup w/ some of the other 150mm forks will be really low
    I just want to point out that 150mm (2006 Z1 Light Bomber) fork I am running has same 545mm A/C height as current 2012 160mm fork (Fox 36 and RS Lyrik). So don't confuse my fork with current crop of 150mm (Fox 32 and RS Revelation) forks based on travel. If I was running 150mm Fox 32 on my EG V.3 my BBH close to insanely low ~12.2" since A/C height would be ~525mm.
    sth

  4. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound View Post
    If I was running 150mm Fox 32 on my EG V.3 my BBH close to insanely low ~12.2" since A/C height would be ~525mm.
    Exactly what I was saying, friend used to have one the old bear claw version of the sx trail. Think bb was in the 12's too, super low groomed trail ripper

  5. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,245
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp View Post
    That doesn't explain the difference between Brent's and STH bikes... Both are MK-III's

    OTOH, that is a really low-slung, turn eating monster!! As Craig mentioned, it's ready for 650B.
    Maybe Brant will have a little too much red, say eff it, and bring the 27.5 with the 29 in nov

    el Guapo with a vengeance... sounds good

  6. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    156
    if i put a fox 40 would the frame be ok?

  7. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,828
    [QUOTE]if i put a fox 40 would the frame be ok?[ /QUOTE]

    Going out on a limb I'd say.....no
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  8. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Hydesg View Post
    if i put a fox 40 would the frame be ok?
    warranty wise, no. but it wure would help in getting the bb higher

  9. #59
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,158
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000 View Post
    warranty wise, no. but it wure would help in getting the bb higher
    Probably not much more than a 180mm Totem or 170mm Vengeance. The Fox 40 is only a few mm taller if I remember right, and would be most likely be set up with more sag.

  10. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,245
    I've seen small w/ 40

    where's craigstr w/ those interbike reviews damn it!

  11. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,213
    Quote Originally Posted by miniwisejosh View Post
    Probably not much more than a 180mm Totem or 170mm Vengeance. The Fox 40 is only a few mm taller if I remember right, and would be most likely be set up with more sag.
    i was joking, but in all reality the elguapo is designed around a 1600mm fork. no way it would be warrantied for a dual crown dh fork like the 40. front end isn't designed for the stress a dual crown puts on the head tube.

    i also thought x fusion had lowered their axle to crown heights this year. more in line with fox and rock shox

  12. #62
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,753
    I am seriously considering Vengeance 170mm with 170mm crankarm. That would put my BBH around 13.2"~13.5" depending on which hole on the frame I mount the linkage. Plus this fork is already 650B ready if I go down that route in the future. Of course only down side is that I am spending $$$ on parts I wasn't expecting to when I was building my EG
    sth

  13. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound View Post
    I am seriously considering Vengeance 170mm with 170mm crankarm. That would put my BBH around 13.2"~13.5" depending on which hole on the frame I mount the linkage. Plus this fork is already 650B ready if I go down that route in the future.
    {{Of course only down side is that I am spending $$$ on parts I wasn't expecting to when I was building my EG }}
    EXACTLY

    which is why i made the comment about "subject to change w/o notice"
    why are they doing that?
    breezy shade

  14. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,245
    Your photo looks like ht is taller than the photo of the white bike?

  15. #65
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,753
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJ View Post
    Your photo looks like ht is taller than the photo of the white bike?
    Yeah I do see that; bottom head tube height (where welded to down tube) seems similar though. Mine is med but I am not sure what size white frame is. Here's spec from Titus web site and Titus store. Middle picture is V.3 and bottom picture is is V.2 I believe. I remember Brant mentioning somewhere in the forum that V.3's TT length is10mm longer and BBH is lowered 5mm more than V.2.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Why is bottom bracket height on my new EG V.3 so low?-eg-spec.jpg  

    sth

  16. #66
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,158
    Quote Originally Posted by qbert2000 View Post
    i was joking, but in all reality the elguapo is designed around a 1600mm fork. no way it would be warrantied for a dual crown dh fork like the 40. front end isn't designed for the stress a dual crown puts on the head tube.

    i also thought x fusion had lowered their axle to crown heights this year. more in line with fox and rock shox
    1600 mm travel! lol That's for the El Guapo, monster truck edition.

    Anyways, I figured you were joking. Even without the warranty issue and regardless of a2c, that much travel in front of a 6" AM bike would ruin the front-rear suspension balance IMO.

    I personally hope X-Fusion has lowered their a2c already because I plan to get one soon, and I'm happy with my V2's BB height. I don't want a taller fork. But I read a post on MTBR saying that the current Vengeance is still around 565 mm a2c. I'll find out when I get mine. I guess things will work out better for the OP if the Vengeance hasn't been lowered yet...

  17. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    303
    hmmmm i measured my BB height around 32cm = 12.6". that's a full inch lower than the table above!

    150mm revelation fully extended, CaneCreek40 headset with 12mm lower cup height.
    Hope Hoops wheels with Flow/ADv 2.1 rear, Crest / Minion 2.35 Front. <-these tyres are about same size, 2.1 adv on flow is big!
    no weight on bike.

    This is wrong?
    Last edited by Smiff; 09-20-2012 at 06:14 AM.

  18. #68
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,753
    Your RS Revelation 150 is just under 530mm A/C @ 12.6" BBH

    My fork is 543mm (measured) A/C @ 12.7" BBH.

    I say you are in line with mine.

    Last spec table is for V.2. Middle table is for V.3, I believe. If you move your linkage to foward (more progressive) hole you will gain 0.2" BBH and HA steeper by 1 deg.
    sth

  19. #69
    Dont Rep me
    Reputation: Strafer.2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    153
    I am running Lyrik solo air at 170mm, with CC40 ZS lower cup and 2.3 WTB front/2.35 Panny rear.
    BBH is 12.75, and like others pedal smack galore.
    I went with ZS lower to offset the extra 10mm travel, but looks like I should've gone with external cup.

  20. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    176
    plan to build a new bike with xfusion Vengeance coil 170 (its a2c equals to a fox 180 fork)
    do anyone knows if the new 67 HA is based on a ZS or external lower cup?

    The extra 20mm from fork + stack from cup (~15mm) would be enough to slacken the HA below 66. This is what i don't want

    can i still use a taper fork if I use a ZS lower cup? Is there any clearance issue (rebound compression dials hitting the down tube)



    Left: 2012 Vengeance HLR , there is not much room above the dials

  21. #71
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,753
    I just installed 2012 Vengeance HLR air 170mm fork.

    With On-one Mixer external headset (which has ~15mm lower stack height) and more linear mounting hole on the frame for the rocker, I am getting 65 deg HA and 13.2" BBH. Since ~25mm AC height changes ~1 deg HA, you can guess where Zero stack headset would put HA at assuming you mount the rocker on the same hole as I.
    sth

  22. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    940

    ...all clear...

    Quote Originally Posted by cscsw View Post
    plan to build a new bike with xfusion Vengeance coil 170 (its a2c equals to a fox 180 fork)
    do anyone knows if the new 67 HA is based on a ZS or external lower cup?

    The extra 20mm from fork + stack from cup (~15mm) would be enough to slacken the HA below 66. This is what i don't want

    can i still use a taper fork if I use a ZS lower cup? Is there any clearance issue (rebound compression dials hitting the down tube)



    Left: 2012 Vengeance HLR , there is not much room above the dials
    No issues for clearance for both new and old Vengeance with the downtube and I have both on 2 different sized EG, a small and med.. easily 1/2" before things start hitting.

    BTW that pic from me writeup on the coil Vengeance here

  23. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    7,900
    So those of you with frames way outside the spec you anticipated, did you contact them for resolution? Or are you just going to try and deal with it?
    Has there been any official insight or response beyond what I see in this thread?

  24. #74
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,450
    Quote Originally Posted by CharacterZero View Post
    So those of you with frames way outside the spec you anticipated, did you contact them for resolution? Or are you just going to try and deal with it?
    Has there been any official insight or response beyond what I see in this thread?
    Perhaps the customer service issue has changed from the shallow upper headset ream issue to the we don't care about the too low a BB issue? As far as I know, based on my issues with Titus is, Shiggy doesn't care at all, about anything, and Brant picks up the pieces, much too late.
    ****

  25. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    38
    Monitoring this thread, since I 'm waiting on EGV3 on the way from On One...

    So STH & Smiff, do you find pedal strike problems with those 150 mm traveled fork (Z1 & Rev)?

Page 3 of 36 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13 ... 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
  •