Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 891
  1. #1
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814

    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
    4,362
    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
    1,814
    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
    1,814
    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
    1,171
    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
    1,977
    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
    1,814
    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
    1,814
    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
    1,977
    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
    1,742
    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
    8,115
    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
    1,274
    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
    1,814
    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
    1,977
    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
    1,814
    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
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712
    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
    1,742
    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
    4,362
    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
    1,977
    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
    4,362
    Dont know...just being an E-A$$.

  23. #23
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712

    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
    18,844
    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
    1,977
    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
    18,844
    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
    941
    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
    1,977
    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
    1,814
    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
    1,171
    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
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712

    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 J:; 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
    18,844
    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
    941
    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
    1,814
    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
    1,171
    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
    1,814
    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
    18,844
    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
    1,814
    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
    18,844
    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
    1,814
    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.

  51. #51
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712
    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

  52. #52
    "El Whatever"
    Reputation: Warp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    18,844
    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

  53. #53
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    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

  54. #54
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712
    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

  55. #55
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712
    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

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

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,977
    [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"

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    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

  59. #59
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,171
    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.

  60. #60
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712
    I've seen small w/ 40

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

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation: qbert2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,226
    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

  62. #62
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    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

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,742
    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

  64. #64
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712
    Your photo looks like ht is taller than the photo of the white bike?

  65. #65
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    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

  66. #66
    Let the good times roll.
    Reputation: miniwisejosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,171
    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...

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    306
    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.

  68. #68
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    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

  69. #69
    Dont Rep me
    Reputation: Strafer.2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    151
    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.

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    177
    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

  71. #71
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    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

  72. #72
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953

    ...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

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,115
    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?

  74. #74
    Outcast
    Reputation: Renegade's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    8,584
    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.
    ****

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    39
    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)?

  76. #76
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    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?
    Although I was very puzzled with measured geo # when I built up the EG V3, I am very happy with the bike since it rides so well on downhill. If I had paid over $2K for the frame I would probably have contacted them directly. Honestly I don't think Titus would have good explanation for me and dont really care at this point.

    I kinda gotten used to riding insanely low BBH and if I do any sort of technical climb rides I just plan on bringing different bike.
    sth

  77. #77
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    Quote Originally Posted by noufa777 View Post
    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)?
    Yes. It is getting better as I am become more aware of the pedal position but it still continues to happen more than I like. It happens mostly on technical chunky climb and time to time during cornering exit if I try to pedal out too early on exit.
    sth

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    259
    I have (Hi HO Silver) a V3 with a Fox Float 34 27.5 160 fork on mine with 27.5 wheels on both ends and my BB measures 13.5" but i measured the fork with a Fox Float 36 and the axle to crown is the same, so i think its the wheel size that makes the difference. I weighted it and thought 28.5 lbs. was a little heavy. I was shooting for 27 lbs.
    Last edited by doralswheels; 10-17-2012 at 08:55 PM.

  79. #79
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    Quote Originally Posted by doralswheels View Post
    I have (Hi HO Silver) a V3 with a Fox Float 34 27.5 160 fork on mine with 27.5 wheels on both ends and my BB measures 13.5" but i measured the fork with a Fox Float 36 and the axle to crown is the same, so i think its the wheel size that makes the difference. I weighted it and thought 28.5 lbs. was a little heavy. I was shooting for 27 lbs.
    Are you saying that you were able to fit 650B wheel/tire no problem on EG V.3 rear-end? That I didn't would be possible. If so that explains why your BBH is higher by 3/4".
    sth

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound View Post
    Yes. It is getting better as I am become more aware of the pedal position but it still continues to happen more than I like. It happens mostly on technical chunky climb and time to time during cornering exit if I try to pedal out too early on exit.
    With 540 A2C and still get pedal strike?
    I'm corious with your new A2C by using Vengeance 170 mm travel, and do you still find this pedal strike problem?

    OTOH, increasing A2C may compensate other concern in climbing : wheelie. Do you find this in Z1 and/or Vengeance? I know this bike is not for climbing, but I hope it can do respectively good

  81. #81
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25
    I've just built V3 el guapo with RS lyrik 160mm fork and got some pedal strikes. However they are controllable, just need to get used a bit. I dont think i need any more travel in front, 160mm is perfect.

  82. #82
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    Quote Originally Posted by noufa777 View Post
    With 540 A2C and still get pedal strike?
    I'm corious with your new A2C by using Vengeance 170 mm travel, and do you still find this pedal strike problem?

    OTOH, increasing A2C may compensate other concern in climbing : wheelie. Do you find this in Z1 and/or Vengeance? I know this bike is not for climbing, but I hope it can do respectively good
    Yes. 12.7" BBH on 6" travel bike = pedal smack, just no way around it.

    Haven't had any ride time on Vengeance since it was sent to them to resolve some internal noise issue. I did managed to install it on my bike and spun around driveway before being sent out. BBH measured at ~13.2" and HA was close to 65 deg. I had trouble dialing in static sag. At lowest recommended 50 psi I was barely getting 20mm sag and felt ridiculously wallowy unless I dialed in 2/3 of avaliable low speed compression. Hopefully when seal and bushings wear I can get the sag sorted out otherwise climbing ability would suffer. Hope to get my fork back by end of this week.
    sth

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound View Post
    Are you saying that you were able to fit 650B wheel/tire no problem on EG V.3 rear-end? That I didn't would be possible. If so that explains why your BBH is higher by 3/4".
    yeah more info on this please.

    this bike does need quite a different ride technique, not that i've really ridden any DH bikes, but with things like pedalling out of corners as you say. still a lovely bike and fantastically stable and climbs well. i don't think i'd take a replacement with higher bb even if i was offered one tbh. maybe 1/2" higher would be nice.

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by SingleTrackHound View Post
    Are you saying that you were able to fit 650B wheel/tire no problem on EG V.3 rear-end? That I didn't would be possible. If so that explains why your BBH is higher by 3/4".
    Yes, i have a 27.5 wheel and a Pacenti Quasi-moto 27.5 X 2.10 on the rear with about 16mm of tire clearence at the front of the middle of the chain stay. 27.5" minus 26" = 1.5" divided by 2 = 3/4" or am i wrong? And i have the rear shock bolt in the lower rear location.
    Last edited by doralswheels; 10-18-2012 at 05:20 PM. Reason: Added rear shock bolt location

  85. #85
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    Quote Originally Posted by doralswheels View Post
    Yes, i have a 27.5 wheel and a Pacenti Quasi-moto 27.5 X 2.10 on the rear with about 16mm of tire clearence at the front of the middle of the chain stay.
    Interesting...on my 26" Mavic 819 rear wheel/ 2.25 Geax Sturdy combo I barely have 10mm clearance in the same location...I just measure mine. Pacenti Quasi-moto 27.5 X 2.10 must be really low profile tire.
    sth

  86. #86
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Smiff View Post
    yeah more info on this please.

    this bike does need quite a different ride technique, not that i've really ridden any DH bikes, but with things like pedalling out of corners as you say. still a lovely bike and fantastically stable and climbs well. i don't think i'd take a replacement with higher bb even if i was offered one tbh. maybe 1/2" higher would be nice.
    1/2" would be perfect since it put my BBH at 13.2". Heck, I wouldn't even mind dead even 13.0" with 540mm A/C fork.
    sth

  87. #87
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712
    Quote Originally Posted by doralswheels View Post
    Yes, i have a 27.5 wheel and a Pacenti Quasi-moto 27.5 X 2.10 on the rear with about 16mm of tire clearence at the front of the middle of the chain stay. 27.5" minus 26" = 1.5" divided by 2 = 3/4" or am i wrong? And i have the rear shock bolt in the lower rear location.
    16mm... did you have the yoke cut and welded?

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    306
    we've got a guy on STW bought his EG last month and says his bb is 13.2", but can't trust he knows what he's doing.. possible (not sure!) they've already updated ("fixed") the frame and not told us. that would be quite annoying, if they have..

    without comment from Brant or On-one on this, what else can we do but speculate.

  89. #89
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    Quote Originally Posted by Smiff View Post
    we've got a guy on STW bought his EG last month and says his bb is 13.2", but can't trust he knows what he's doing.. possible (not sure!) they've already updated ("fixed") the frame and not told us. that would be quite annoying, if they have..

    without comment from Brant or On-one on this, what else can we do but speculate.
    He might be running 180mm travel or 565mm A/C fork.
    sth

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    306
    he's not though, it's a stock bike apparently, but he's changed something in the 160mm lyric. hopefully he'll post here.

  91. #91
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    If he is running Lyrik 160mm, which is 545mm A/C fork, I wonder how he is achieving 0.5" taller BBH? I dont believe Lyrik is 650B compatible.
    sth

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    306
    exactly, by my math a 10mm longer fork only raises BB by around 7mm (probably less), which is only half of half an inch. someone with better trig can do this exactly, or knowing the a2c, perhaps lyric has much higher a2c? or i'm just overlooking something. like bigger tyres can both tyres be 7mm larger radius? he's running 2.25 smorgasbords on stans flow.

    edit: yeah that's plausible actually! i have 15mm tyre clearance at rear, with Advantage 2.1 on Flow 26". I could run a 7mm bigger rear tyre. that's an idea for raising bb eh
    he could tell us his tyre clearance in the bb area. if it's only 7mm then it's probably just a bigger tyre, if it's still 15mm then that's odd.
    Last edited by Smiff; 10-19-2012 at 09:59 AM.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation: anvil_den's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    953
    12.7mm = 1/2"

    Big volume tall height tires (2.4 and 2.5) account for 8-11mm increased height directly over the respective axle of the wheel its mounted on in comparison to most 2.25 tires.

    3 tallest tires I tried so far would be Rubber Queen, Maxxis Advantage and Ardents, all 2.4s

    It would be a little lesser in the bbh somehow... and in reality after accounting for tire height deflection when bike is loaded with rider weight-- the increase to bbh due taller tires is really not all that much. The overall feel good factor comes more from the big volume cush i think

    As for clearance-- already with large 2.4 rubbers-- clearnance to the end of the yoke is barely 5-7mm. With smaller 2.2-2.3 tires with low center knobs its about 13-15mm for me-- so I dont get how a 650B with tires can clear given the increased radius would push the an additional 0.75" (19.05mm) over a 26" rim. Unless the tire height of the 650B rubbers is 1/3 or lesswe than that of a small 26" tire.

    Slicks? Or unless the rear of the EG now is longer than before (Im running the V1s)

  94. #94
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712
    ^^ something been modded.. doralswheels, you the guy with the motherload Titus stable?.. I remember seeing a photo of bakers dozen or something like that...

  95. #95
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    306
    important thing there is the axle to tread tallest point right. is there a chart that includes more tyres like Maxxis Advantage?.
    edit: i measure my 26" Advantage 2.1 at about 332mm axle-to-highest point with 15mm clearance in centre between chainstays. if that helps. may be a bit inaccurate though! quite a worn tyre too..

    also i was wrong before, 10mm longer fork a2c doesn't raise bb by 7mm, it's more like 3-4mm? (result of HA and horiz. distance between axles and bb). so this is more likely there's variation in the frames.

    wish there was an easier way to determine bb position that doesn't involve fork or wheels, ideas?
    Last edited by Smiff; 10-19-2012 at 10:48 AM.

  96. #96
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,977
    wish there was an easier way to determine bb position that doesn't involve fork or wheels, ideas?
    Not really. It's a triangle and you can't get A+B=C without atleast two legs to measure.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  97. #97
    on my 3rd wind...
    Reputation: SingleTrackHound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    1,814
    General guide to head angle and bottom bracket height change based on fork axle-to-crown height change:

    1" (25mm) increase in fork height or lower headset stack height = 1 deg slacker HA and 0.5" taller BBH
    1" (25mm) decrease in fork height or lower headset stack height = 1 deg steeper HA and 0.5" lower BBH
    sth

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    306
    it's less than half because bb is nearer back of bike than front, and because a2c is not vertical. 30%-40% is a decent estimate until someone good at math comes along

    and 25mm is a huge increase in fork length! that means a 185mm fork from the stock (by your reckoning, 190-195 by mine, to give that +1/2" bb). you no longer have an AM bike then really do you

    i wonder how many EGs they sold in first batch of v3.. i never noticed how many were in stock, a few hundred at most, including built bikes?

    like i said i'm not too bothered i like my bike, but i think on-one should say something.. we shouldn't just be left to figure out what we've bought.

    going to try a bigger rear tyre (just took delivery of a 2.35 Hans Dampf), but in the mud, you need clearance..
    Last edited by Smiff; 10-19-2012 at 11:35 AM.

  99. #99
    J:
    J: is offline
    no E:
    Reputation: J:'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,712
    Quote Originally Posted by Smiff View Post
    important thing there is the axle to tread tallest point right. is there a chart that includes more tyres like Maxxis Advantage?.
    edit: i measure my 26" Advantage 2.1 at about 332mm axle-to-highest point with 15mm clearance in centre between chainstays. if that helps. may be a bit inaccurate though! quite a worn tyre too..

    also i was wrong before, 10mm longer fork a2c doesn't raise bb by 7mm, it's more like 3-4mm? (result of HA and horiz. distance between axles and bb). so this is more likely there's variation in the frames.

    wish there was an easier way to determine bb position that doesn't involve fork or wheels, ideas?
    It's from Shiggy site, if i remember he states his method if you want to look...must have taken a good chunk of time just filling the tires and waiting for them to stretch...other tires listed there too

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    2
    I'm the guy from STW with a 'complete' El Guapo. I have a BB height of 13.1/13.2 on my medium, with the stock lyrik upgraded to the rc2 DH internals (not that it makes any difference what the internals are AFAIK), hope pro evo 2 on stans flow with the 2.25 smorgasbords. I have a picture on the STW thread - I can't post a link here!

Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 3

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •