Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1. #1
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546

    XR Rockers, Burner and Fox RC - 4.6"?

    If you replace the stock Burner rockers with XRs and then add a Fox RC 6.5" x 1.75" do you end up with 4.6" of rear travel? Seems like the geometry would not change due to the same 6.5" eye to eye, but is there a risk of hitting the seat tube with the seatstay pivot or rear tire?
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  2. #2
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,771
    yes and no and yes and I think you end up with some whack ratios also.
    Last edited by airwreck; 10-28-2005 at 02:04 PM. Reason: forgot a no

  3. #3
    rr
    rr is offline
    I don't do PC
    Reputation: rr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    7,415
    Quote Originally Posted by cutthroat
    If you replace the stock Burner rockers with XRs and then add a Fox RC 6.5" x 1.75" do you end up with 4.6" of rear travel? Seems like the geometry would not change due to the same 6.5" eye to eye, but is there a risk of hitting the seat tube with the seatstay pivot or rear tire?
    OK, since I already had the shock off(and I'm bored), I checked the seatstay clearance by moving the rocker/shock mount to a distance of 4.75", which mimics the 1.75" stroke at full compression, there was over an inch clearance on the seatstay pivot but the rear tire was close, 1/4" or so. I imagine the XR rockers would have even more clearance cause their longer right?

  4. #4
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,102
    Would that also flatten out the rocker angles and start to imfringe on the ICT patent?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    348

    Doing it with my XCE

    I've been running this way with my XCE for a couple of months now with no problems and I have a pretty tall 2.25 Trailbear on the back. I have never hit the rear tire on the seat tube and the XR rockers position the seat stay yoke very far back so there is ne fear of hitting this on the tube. I do not do large jumps or drop offs and do not bottom out my shock too often but when I have it wasn't a problem. I have no idea if the geometry on the Burner is exactly the same as my 2002 XCE but I think they are very close.

    The Vanilla RC is a little softer with the XR rockers due to the higher leverage ratio but it was a little too firm for me before so it worked out beautifully. This setup in no way has affected the geometry of the rear of the bike. I also have a TALAS that I ususlly run at 110-115mm but raise it all the way for the descents. This new setup has made a pretty big difference, for the better, on how the bike feels.

    If anyone would be interested in buying my Paul's XR rockers and or my 1.75" Vanilla RC (650 lbs spring) they will be in the classifieds and/or EBay soon. I recently scored a killer deal on a 5-Spot frame that I will be building tonight so I will be mutilating and selling my XCE. She gave me two years of the best riding I have ever had.

  6. #6
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,771
    I think that it was the seat stay bridge that hit, might be different for some size frames.

    sorry I jumped to conclusions.

    One other thing to consider is that it makes the bb even lower during compression.

  7. #7
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by rmac
    Would that also flatten out the rocker angles and start to imfringe on the ICT patent?
    I guess I'll need some ICT stickers...
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  8. #8
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by WV_XCE
    If anyone would be interested in buying my Paul's XR rockers and or my 1.75" Vanilla RC (650 lbs spring) they will be in the classifieds and/or EBay soon. I recently scored a killer deal on a 5-Spot frame that I will be building tonight so I will be mutilating and selling my XCE. She gave me two years of the best riding I have ever had.
    WV - might be interested in the Fox - check your PM.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  9. #9
    Bite Me.
    Reputation: cutthroat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    I think that it was the seat stay bridge that hit, might be different for some size frames.

    sorry I jumped to conclusions.

    One other thing to consider is that it makes the bb even lower during compression.
    Airwreck - I believe the leverage ratio of 2.6 is the same whether you use a 6.5 x 1.5 or 6.5 x 1.75 shock. The rocker length is the same either way, you're just getting more stroke. The BB bracket height is an issue, but if I run the Reba at 115 I gain a bit of height. I'm just trying to make a FrankenBurner to avoid actually springing for a 5 Spot.
    When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. ~H.G. Wells

  10. #10
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,102
    So with a 125 mm fork, does that lift the BB height back up and make everything OK with the geometry?

  11. #11
    ~~~~~~~~
    Reputation: airwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    5,771
    Quote Originally Posted by rmac
    So with a 125 mm fork, does that lift the BB height back up and make everything OK with the geometry?
    The geometry does not change with any combination of rockers and 1.5 or 1.75 stroke shocks. I was refering to the my perception that the already low BB would become lower during compression, but I can't back that up, so I'm retracting everything.

    I guess everyone's idea of what's okay is different.

    FWIW, I just did some measuring and I got 69.5 HT angle and nearly 13" high BB with Talas at 125, 2.3's, 1.75 RC, X rockers.

  12. #12
    My cup runneth over
    Reputation: rmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    2,102
    Quote Originally Posted by airwreck
    FWIW, I just did some measuring and I got 69.5 HT angle and nearly 13" high BB with Talas at 125, 2.3's, 1.75 RC, X rockers.
    Hmmm, seems like that wouldn't be bad for a 5/4.6 bike. How does it ride?

Posting Permissions

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