Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 891
  1. #1
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775

    New question here. Why is bottom bracket height on my new EG V.3 so low?

    Just finished building my EG and have been on three rides. After finished building my EG I measured my BBH and, to my surprise, it was only 12.6" with Kenda Blue Groove 2.3" tires! It was so low that I swapped the rear with Geax Sturday 2.25 (very tall tire) but BBH still measures at 12.7". Why is BBH so low? Or is this normal? Everyone who owns EG V.3 seeing similar result? Btw, my head angle is measured at 66 deg. Here's my parts spec that may effect BBH and HA:

    1. On-One Smoothie Mixer Tapered headset (lower stacked height 15mm)
    2. Mavic 819/CK wheelset with Kenda Blue Groove 2.3 front and Geax Sturdy 2.25 rear
    3. Marzocchi Z1 Light Bomber 150mm fork (540mm AC height)

    Even if I ran 180mm fork (~565mm AC height) I might gain 0.5" BBH @ ~13.2" but that seems still way low. Yes, I am smacking my pedals everywhere.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Why is bottom bracket height on my new EG V.3 so low?-img_1215.jpg  

    sth

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,352
    My V.2 with a 160mm fork is 13.25. V3 is a little lower I believe. Are you measuring to the centerline of the bb spindle? I think the V3 is 13" even with a 160mm fork, with a 150mm 12.6" doesnt surprise me. Most great handling AM bikes are in the low 13" range. You learn to live with it for the ability to shred the turns.

  3. #3
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    I sure am enjoying the cornering ability

    Here's the picture of BBH measured from the floor to center of BB while bike is upright. Yes my fork (2006 Marzocchi Z1 Light Bomber) is 150mm travel but it has virtually the same AC height (540mm measured) as 160mm Fox 36 and 160mm RS Lyrik.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Why is bottom bracket height on my new EG V.3 so low?-eg.jpg  

    sth

  4. #4
    what's that rattle?
    Reputation: Blofeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    321
    I think the real question is "Why can't Titus put up an accurate geometry chart?" That BB height is off by an inch!

    It ends up being the same issue as the shallow headset ream on the V2: Tell customers exactly what they're buying and they won't be disappointed post-purchase.

    In the meantime, pro-pedal and shorter crankarms can mitigate pedal strikes!

  5. #5
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    Yeah, I was thinking my EG V.3 BBH will be in the low 13" range but after building it I am very surprised indeed. BBH of 12.6" is way too low for my taste and for 6" all mtn bike, IMO. If I put a 180mm Totem the BBH will prolly sit dead even 13.0". Here's better pictures. My fork's AC height is more like 545mm same as Fox 36 160mm.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Why is bottom bracket height on my new EG V.3 so low?-img_1220.jpg  

    Why is bottom bracket height on my new EG V.3 so low?-img_1222.jpg  

    Why is bottom bracket height on my new EG V.3 so low?-img_1223.jpg  

    sth

  6. #6
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,158
    Yikes... And you even have an external lower cup. My v.2 is 13.2" with a 160mm Lyrik and flush lower cup.

    Just out of curiosity, try mounting the rocker in the forward hole. Maybe that will make a small difference?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Can you measure me wheel diameter (front and rear) in mm to axle centre.
    And put a straight edge or string from front axle centre to rear axle centre.

    Cheers

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    Even with a 180mm fork my v3 is lower than my v1. It does turn like a mofo but I hate hitting my toes on everything. I will get some pics of mine tommorow and post the specs that matter.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  9. #9
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    Quote Originally Posted by miniwisejosh View Post
    Yikes... And you even have an external lower cup. My v.2 is 13.2" with a 160mm Lyrik and flush lower cup.

    Just out of curiosity, try mounting the rocker in the forward hole. Maybe that will make a small difference?
    I was curious about that too but I haven't moved it to progressive setting mounting hole since that is not how bike was shipped to me with Monarch air shock installed. With 30% sag, so far on 4 rides, I am only using 80% travel so far based on the o-ring position on the shock stanchion! I dont really want to make it any more progressive. Anywho, just for an experiment I did move rocker to more foward/progressive position on the frame. And...it did raise the BBH by ~0.20" to 0.25"! The BBH height sat at 12.9" just under 13.0". So looks like if I want a higher BBH I need to move it to more progressive setting hole but I am not sure it's a good idea with air shock.
    Last edited by SingleTrackHound; 09-13-2012 at 11:38 PM.
    sth

  10. #10
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Can you measure me wheel diameter (front and rear) in mm to axle centre.
    And put a straight edge or string from front axle centre to rear axle centre.

    Cheers
    Front and rear wheel diameter measure at ~565mm. It's Mavic 819 rim.

    Wheel base measured at 1135mm. My frame is medium.

    I put a long string from center of rear wheel axle to center front wheel axle...pulled it tight as I can and then taped each end. Measured the perpendicular distance from the center of BB to string. It measured around ~18-20mm. This one was little tough to measure accurately due to parallax error that I had to content with.
    sth

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    V3 with totem 180, specialized purgatory 2.4 and control 2.3




    V1 with fox float 160 with same tires/wheels as V3



    Was really suprised at how much lower the v3 is over the v1
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,598
    IMO, OnOne decided to make the EG a specialty bike. a frame designed to be ridden up fireroads or shuttled & then mainly coasted downhill w/ just enough pedalling to get up to speed & maintain it in areas w/o fear of pedal strikes. doesn't seem to be intended for tech. climbing w/ a 13" give or take BB.

    considering what the geo. is now, regardless of what the website says, compared to what it was when they bought Titus, it's only the same bike in name & looks
    breezy shade

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,068
    Agreed, this is a pretty big issue if the BB is so far off from spec on the low end. It will be interesting to hear what they say.

  14. #14
    screamer
    Reputation: budgie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    1,241
    Not that this helps at all, but STH: that's one lurvely bike!
    On heavy rotation: White Lung: Deep Fantasy

  15. #15
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    I want to add that this bike handles amazing due to super duper low BBH. I started this thread only because I thought I screwed up something with my parts spec causing my BBH to be so low. So I had to ask other EG V.3 owner and see if they are seeing the same result. Looks like I am in line...I think. Hopefully Titus will chime and confirm that geo # I am seeing on my build with 545mm AC fork with On-one Mixer Smoothie external headset is correct # for EG V3...because info on their website is bit lacking or confusing.

    EG V.3 is an amazing handling bike on the downhill and climbs very well. It really has a slope style geo so keep that in mind if you are in the market for one. If you like doing technical climb or ride in the rocky region, you will need to watch your pedal 100% of the time and that can be mentally and physically tiring. It's amazing what kind of stuff you smack your pedal to when your BBH is only 12.7" on 6" all mtn rig. Yesterday I clipped my pedal on the 1-2" root stump during climb on the smooth singletrack and said to myself, " Wow, did that really happen?". Later on decent, during cornering which this bike just rails, I started to pedal on exit as I was coming out of apex and clipped something that I have no idea what. Instantly my bike kicked side way, I tried to correct it with handlebar but I almost jack knifed the front end and went down hard. It was intense moment since this bike corners so well that I was carrying a lots of speed but I managed to somehow save it. I am learning how to ride this bike differently than any other bikes I own in the garage each time I am out on the trail. I must admit, though, this bike puts a smile on my face more than any other bikes I own.
    sth

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    I used to run 165mm cranks on my v1 and couldn't get used to the lack of leverage. Knowing that the v3 was going to be low I picked up a cheap set of 170mm cranks to try. It does seems to work pretty well that way.

    I do agree that this bike rails corners. Some of the riding I was doing at snow shoe was so fast in the bermed turns it scared me on the way out that I was going that fast. I really think that's the only reason I did as well as I did in that race.

    But If the bike could fit some large volume 650b wheels/tires I think it'd be awesome to have the bb this low.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  17. #17
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    I used to run 165mm cranks on my v1 and couldn't get used to the lack of leverage. Knowing that the v3 was going to be low I picked up a cheap set of 170mm cranks to try. It does seems to work pretty well that way.

    I do agree that this bike rails corners. Some of the riding I was doing at snow shoe was so fast in the bermed turns it scared me on the way out that I was going that fast. I really think that's the only reason I did as well as I did in that race.

    But If the bike could fit some large volume 650b wheels/tires I think it'd be awesome to have the bb this low.
    You read my mind Terrible. I am shopping for good deal on 170mm crank arm now. If I do get one I am prolly gonna need either granny or 1x10 with 36T in the rear. I agree that EG V.3 is a perfect candidate for front-wheel-only 650B conversion.
    sth

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,200
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post

    Was really suprised at how much lower the v3 is over the v1
    That is a heck of a lot more than a -4mm bb drop change (as posted from previous versions)

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,598
    and they love "subject to change w/o notification". those English, such a sense of humor
    breezy shade

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,352
    Throw a 650B front wheel on there. POOF... 13.25" BB height.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    Throw a 650B front wheel on there. POOF... 13.25" BB height
    Was that the plan from the begining?

    Or is that what the future plan is? A 142x12 rear in 650b that would bolt up to the existing front triangle would be titties for sure.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: craigstr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,352
    Dont know...just being an E-A$$.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,200

    Ability to

    raise and lower bb height = extra thick cut bacon

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    The lowered bb -- partially a result of the slightly longer TT on the V3?

  25. #25
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,824
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    I used to run 165mm cranks on my v1 and couldn't get used to the lack of leverage. Knowing that the v3 was going to be low I picked up a cheap set of 170mm cranks to try. It does seems to work pretty well that way.
    To me, it's not only the leverage... but also that longer cranks allow you to get your centre of gravity lower than shorter cranks. To me, they make me feel more like riding inside the bike as opposed as ON the bike.

    Subtle difference, but at 32.5" inseam, I can't stand anything shorter than 175mm cranks. Tried 170mm and they were awful to me. I hate the crank on my roadie for the same reason.
    Check my Site

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    To me, it's not only the leverage... but also that longer cranks allow you to get your centre of gravity lower than shorter cranks. To me, they make me feel more like riding inside the bike as opposed as ON the bike.

    Subtle difference, but at 32.5" inseam, I can't stand anything shorter than 175mm cranks. Tried 170mm and they were awful to me. I hate the crank on my roadie for the same reason.
    I thought mine are what caused my lower back issues. Lack of leverage was causing me to work my lower back because my legs couldn't do all the work.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    I thought mine are what caused my lower back issues. Lack of leverage was causing me to work my lower back because my legs couldn't do all the work.
    Shorter cranks should be matched to a slightly more setback seat position, I think, to maintain the same leg angle stuff.

    i wasn't a big fan of that KOPS stuff, but there's certainly a "foot forward on pedal needs steep seat angle thing" that happens, and shorter cranks are the other way.

    As to bb height issues:-

    1) Front position gives higher bb.
    2) Difference in ride height between 25% and 33% sag is significant and worth experimenting with.

  28. #28
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,824
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    I thought mine are what caused my lower back issues. Lack of leverage was causing me to work my lower back because my legs couldn't do all the work.
    I just can't seem to spin properly short cranks and I like to have no offset on the seatpost. My pedaling suffers a lot.

    I was just adding that it also brought handling issues.

    I wish I was like most people that can run any cranks they want.

    That BB on the EG V3 sounds really nice to rip trails, especially if you make it ride high in its travel. Also, it represents no problem for climbing even with a long fork. Sweet for a playbike... unless as said, you have to climb a lot of gnar-gnar.
    Check my Site

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    931
    I am about a month into my V2 guap with slackset and I am learning to avoid the pedal strikes. It happens about once a ride, but not nearly as frequently as in the past. This bike absolutely rips on the downhill. I have never been this fast. I think now that I am getting used to the low BB height, I may not ever be able to ride anything that isn't this low again.
    X-prezo Super-D, 26in style.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    306
    i decided on yesterday's XC ride that the EG is more a trail centre/man made course bike, for local bridleways with small steps, rocks and logs everywhere i might keep around a higher BB bike. locking the fork out for climbs helps, shame the lever on the Monarch RT3 doesn't reduce sag at the back at all!

    btw i run 170mm cranks with kona wah wah pedals and have just raised the front a bit with headset, still having major strike problems on climbs, sometimes it feels ridiculously low like i'm wallowing on the ground! i still love the feel going down but it is a fear, i've never been good at judging heights of things on the ground anyway.

    how far below wheel axis line should bb be then? Revelation fork unshimmed.

    edit: ah forget the above (mostly), my rear shock was down to 50psi, must be leaking! put it back to 100psi and try again!
    Last edited by Smiff; 09-16-2012 at 04:33 AM.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,896
    edit: ah forget the above (mostly), my rear shock was down to 50psi, must be leaking! put it back to 100psi and try again!
    Had tha same issue and sent mine back to sram. Should be back next week some time.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    898
    Reading these posts make me happy that I still have the v2 (even though I don't have it built up). My main ride is a 700 acre rock garden so I would probably be bashing my pedals all the time.
    I think people would also hate running a CCDB Air on the v3 because the shock is meant to be setup with alot of sag which would lower the BB even more.
    One thing that might help is getting a really thin peddle if you ride flat peddles. Something like a thin Canfield peddle.

    Chris

  33. #33
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    Times ATAC pedal is an ideal pedal for those who want to run clipless on EG V.3 since it take a lots of pounding without any issue. I would avoid CB clipless. High engagement rear hub is another good one to run since you will be pausing and racheting pedals a lot...ie CK, Hadley, I9...

    I can confirm the following based on my EG V.3 setup:

    More linear mounting hole: 66 deg HA & 12.7" BBH
    More progressive mounting hole: 67 deg HA & 12.9" BBH
    sth

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound View Post
    Times ATAC pedal is an ideal pedal for those who want to run clipless on EG V.3 since it take a lots of pounding without any issue. I would avoid CB clipless. High engagement rear hub is another good one to run since you will be pausing and racheting pedals a lot...ie CK, Hadley, I9...

    I can confirm the following based on my EG V.3 setup:

    More linear mounting hole: 66 deg HA & 12.7" BBH
    More progressive mounting hole: 67 deg HA & 12.9" BBH
    Not sure about the Hadleys as the engagement system is diff from Kings.
    Im using CK but have to say its a love-hate affair at best. Hard hitting descend and gnarly tech climbs needing some quarter-cranking is great--- but lots of resistance otherwise and I just think it overall doesnt gel well with the linkage curve of the EG as it eats into the travel while still pedaling. Just my opinion though and my bike's a pig @ 36lb so that could affect things somewhat.

  35. #35
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,158
    Quote Originally Posted by anvil_den View Post
    Not sure about the Hadleys as the engagement system is diff from Kings.
    Im using CK but have to say its a love-hate affair at best. Hard hitting descend and gnarly tech climbs needing some quarter-cranking is great--- but lots of resistance otherwise and I just think it overall doesnt gel well with the linkage curve of the EG as it eats into the travel while still pedaling. Just my opinion though and my bike's a pig @ 36lb so that could affect things somewhat.
    I don't understand what you mean by "eats into the travel while still pedaling". How does the hub affect travel?

    In my experience, Hadley hubs have very low resistance especially if assembled with the recommended lube (teflon based oil). Mine spin just as well as other hubs I've owned (DT 240 and Hope Pro II) - maybe even a bit better. That was one of the reasons I bought Hadleys for my bike. I played with lots of hubs on my friends bikes and at the LBS, and I didn't like the amount of resistance in all the rear I9s and CKs I tried.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by miniwisejosh View Post
    I don't understand what you mean by "eats into the travel while still pedaling". How does the hub affect travel?

    In my experience, Hadley hubs have very low resistance especially if assembled with the recommended lube (teflon based oil). Mine spin just as well as other hubs I've owned (DT 240 and Hope Pro II) - maybe even a bit better. That was one of the reasons I bought Hadleys for my bike. I played with lots of hubs on my friends bikes and at the LBS, and I didn't like the amount of resistance in all the rear I9s and CKs I tried.
    Oops.. havent had morning coffee. And I'm not terribly good with the right terminology in this aspect.... What I meant was in those parts when the travel gets used up more (my trails have a lot of rollers and dips) and you torque down on the crank/pedal-- the CK rear creates a resistance that is much more noticeable due to its spline drive which kinda works more like a on/off clutch. The progressivity of the linkage design of the EG stiffens up as it moves into the travel + the stiffening up in the hub kicks in-- it throws off the pedaling momemtum for me on lots of occasion.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,200

    Kick back

    Quote Originally Posted by miniwisejosh View Post
    How does the hub affect travel?
    Depending on where you are in the travel, hub moves closer or further from bb.. you will feel the affects with such a high engagement hub like hadley or king when the slack in the chain gets taken up.. less engagement gives the chain more slack
    Last edited by Deerhill; 09-17-2012 at 01:18 PM.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by anvil_den View Post
    Not sure about the Hadleys as the engagement system is diff from Kings.
    Im using CK but have to say its a love-hate affair at best. Hard hitting descend and gnarly tech climbs needing some quarter-cranking is great--- but lots of resistance otherwise and I just think it overall doesnt gel well with the linkage curve of the EG as it eats into the travel while still pedaling. Just my opinion though and my bike's a pig @ 36lb so that could affect things somewhat.
    On a completely different subject... I9 hubs are great for the 1/5 paddle uphill..... Drag comes naturally with hi engagement gear..... U can't have have daylight in the middle of the night *wink wink*

  39. #39
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,824
    Quote Originally Posted by miniwisejosh View Post
    In my experience, Hadley hubs have very low resistance especially if assembled with the recommended lube (teflon based oil). Mine spin just as well as other hubs I've owned (DT 240 and Hope Pro II) - maybe even a bit better. That was one of the reasons I bought Hadleys for my bike. I played with lots of hubs on my friends bikes and at the LBS, and I didn't like the amount of resistance in all the rear I9s and CKs I tried.
    I haven't tried CK's and I9's... only Hope Bulbs and my Hadleys.

    My experience is the same with Hadley. They have less resistance.
    The only drawback is that Hadley use only the outer seal on the main bearings, so more care is required if you ride in wet places.


    Nothing is perfect, I would think.

    They make for a really fast wheelset, though. My Hope hub'd wheelset was about the same weight as the one I have with Hadleys and the Hadleys are faster by a lot. Engagement is really nice to have also.
    Check my Site

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    931
    Quote Originally Posted by anvil_den View Post
    Oops.. havent had morning coffee. And I'm not terribly good with the right terminology in this aspect.... What I meant was in those parts when the travel gets used up more (my trails have a lot of rollers and dips) and you torque down on the crank/pedal-- the CK rear creates a resistance that is much more noticeable due to its spline drive which kinda works more like a on/off clutch. The progressivity of the linkage design of the EG stiffens up as it moves into the travel + the stiffening up in the hub kicks in-- it throws off the pedaling momemtum for me on lots of occasion.
    Make sure your chain isn't too short. Sounds like your chain may be rubbing at compression.
    X-prezo Super-D, 26in style.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound View Post
    Yeah, I was thinking my EG V.3 BBH will be in the low 13" range but after building it I am very surprised indeed. BBH of 12.6" is way too low for my taste and for 6" all mtn bike, IMO. If I put a 180mm Totem the BBH will prolly sit dead even 13.0". Here's better pictures. My fork's AC height is more like 545mm same as Fox 36 160mm.

    Something very odd there. I measured the V3 EG With 160mm Lyrik at 335mm (13.2in) static, with rocker in lower position today. With 2.2 Smorgasbords, and a Smoothie Regular external headset.

    You've not got a 200mm shock installed by mistake have you?
    It should be a 216mm.

  42. #42
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    That is very odd then. My EG has same A/C length fork, headset, and linkage mounted on the same hole as one you measured but BBH is off by 0.5". I did measure the shock stroke length (stanchion length) few days ago when I was suspicious, which measured 2.5" (63mm), but didn't measure the i2i length. I will measure it tonight and let you know.
    sth

  43. #43
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,158
    Quote Originally Posted by DeerhillJ View Post
    Depending on where you are in the travel, hub moves closer or further from bb.. you will feel the affects with such a high engagement hub like hadley or king when the slack in the chain gets taken up.. less engagement gives the chain more slack
    I know about chain growth, but never thought about how its effects might be more or less noticeable depending on hub engagement.

    Quote Originally Posted by anvil_den View Post
    What I meant was in those parts when the travel gets used up more (my trails have a lot of rollers and dips) and you torque down on the crank/pedal-- the CK rear creates a resistance that is much more noticeable due to its spline drive which kinda works more like a on/off clutch. The progressivity of the linkage design of the EG stiffens up as it moves into the travel + the stiffening up in the hub kicks in-- it throws off the pedaling momemtum for me on lots of occasion.
    Do your CK hubs only have resistance when costing, or also while pedalling? Either way, I guess I would never notice what you describe with my Hadley rear. This sounds like an issue that could potentially happen on most long travel bikes, right? I think most of them are progressive (from linkage, shock, or both), and they mostly all have chain growth. If hub resistance and engament can be felt through the pedals, I wonder about the new clutch derailleurs.

    Like y0baily asked, any chance your chain is a bit short? I initially had disruption in pedalling and resistance in the suspension when climbing with the 36T cassette cog. My chain measured OK in the stand (even with the shock compressed), but adding one extra link solved all problems. Improved the shifting too.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    Quote Originally Posted by y0bailey View Post
    Make sure your chain isn't too short. Sounds like your chain may be rubbing at compression.
    OOps, looks like things deviated from bb height..

    Chain length is correct I would think.. if things are too tight with a CK-- there is a good chance of the crank backpedaling by itself which doesnt happen here... the resistance is more like having a large dead spot cranking on higher ratios which sucks up energy over time. Chain rubs if any are on easy ratio (due to chain guide back plate). Over the years I have even removed the seals from the inner bearings on the CK to help it go smoother..

    To troubleshoot, I have swapped a few wheels previously but used same cassette and chain.. 24 (Hope), 36 (WI) and 40 (some proto hub I was testing out) engagements... smoothest>>White Industries wins hands down.

    Anyway this CK rear was never quite like any I came across even from day one. Will pull it apart and look in detail but first need to get my new hoops up and laced this week.

    cheers.

  45. #45
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    Quote Originally Posted by brant View Post
    Something very odd there. I measured the V3 EG With 160mm Lyrik at 335mm (13.2in) static, with rocker in lower position today. With 2.2 Smorgasbords, and a Smoothie Regular external headset.

    You've not got a 200mm shock installed by mistake have you?
    It should be a 216mm.
    Measured shock dimension is 216mm x 63mm (8.5" x 2.5"). I agree, something doesn't add up. Same A/C fork, same headset, same linkage position, and yet BBH is off by 0.5".
    sth

  46. #46
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,824
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound View Post
    It measured around ~18-20mm. This one was little tough to measure accurately due to parallax error that I had to content with.
    It is consistent with your 1st picture. Drawing a line from axle to axle, you find the whole BB's axle below that line. The axle is 24mm, IIRC, so the BB drop has to be over 12mm.

    How much should BB drop be?

    Brant's bike on Shedfire has the BB crossed by the line from axle to axle. I'd say more like a BB drop of around 4-6mm

    Last edited by Warp; 09-17-2012 at 11:49 PM.
    Check my Site

  47. #47
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Warp View Post
    It is consistent with your 1st picture. Drawing a line from axle to axle, you find the whole BB's axle below that line. The axle is 24mm, IIRC, so the BB drop has to be over 12mm.

    How much should BB drop be?

    Brant's bike on Shedfire has the BB crossed by the line from axle to axle. I'd say more like a BB drop of around 4-6mm

    Warp, that was clever way of measuring my EG's BB drop. Measured BB drop was around 18-20mm even though it was tough to measure accurately. Warp's method also confirms this. Now I am really baffled?
    sth

  48. #48
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,824
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound View Post
    Warp, that was clever way of measuring my EG's BB drop. Measured BB drop was around 18-20mm even though it was tough to measure accurately. Warp's method also confirms this. Now I am really baffled?
    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.
    Check my Site

  49. #49
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,775
    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.
    When I measured BBH it was with fork ETA not engaged. Measured the axle to crown height of my fork at the same time and it was ~543mm.
    sth

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: brant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,842
    We are looking into this.

Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 11 ... 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
  •