Bottom Bracket Height Confusion- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    JRuss1524
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    53

    Bottom Bracket Height Confusion

    I am a little confused about bottom bracket height measurements. My Orbea occam bottom bracket is said to be 335mm according to the geo chart, while my v1 ripmo states it is 341mm. The ripmo(lowest bike Iíve ridden) is significantly more low slung than the occam, despite the the measurements. What is going on here? Is there different ways of measuring among manufacturers?

    I am thinking about pickup up a knolly fugitive lt sight unseen. Is says the BB is 339mm. I find the occam tolerable, but the ripmo way to low for my tastes. Any ideas? It is hard to tell when from my experience there is no consistency.

    thanks!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,542
    Ripmo V1 BB height is 341mm with 2.5 tires. Don't know where you got your number of 442.
    Ibis Ripmo V2
    Ibis Ripley V4
    Pivot Mach 4SL
    Pivot LES SS
    A road bike

  3. #3
    JRuss1524
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    Ripmo V1 BB height is 341mm with 2.5 tires. Don't know where you got your number of 442.
    Thatís what I meant to write.. symptom of no sleep. Thanks for the heads up!

  4. #4
    Ride More - Suffer Less
    Reputation: TraxFactory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Posts
    2,380
    I like to look at BB Drop.

    Ripmo V2 - 30mm
    Occam (current) - 35mm

    What cranks lengths you running?
    Are you bashing pedals?

  5. #5
    JRuss1524
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by TraxFactory View Post
    I like to look at BB Drop.

    Ripmo V2 - 30mm
    Occam (current) - 35mm

    What cranks lengths you running?
    Are you bashing pedals?
    Smacking the bottom bracket itself when going over logs. There is stuff the occam pops over no problem that the ripmo couldnít. Both running 170mm cranks

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    1,483
    Maybe too much sag in the shock?
    whatever...

  7. #7
    JRuss1524
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    53
    Quote Originally Posted by steadite View Post
    Maybe too much sag in the shock?
    both bikes setup properly. You hear a lot of people commenting about how the ripmo BB is crazy low as well, but the numbers donít reflect that. Makes me scratch my head a bit

  8. #8
    Ride More - Suffer Less
    Reputation: TraxFactory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Posts
    2,380
    Maybe bust out the tape measure since you have both....

    Shock pressure as other mentioned definitely worth looking at.

    I think OCCAM is slightly shorter wheelbase which help get over obstacles without bottoming, but its not much and CS is slightly longer.

    My V1 Following had very short WB and short CS could get over anything...I don't have that luxury now with the limo geometry bikes I own.

    I went to 170 on the V1 Ripmo because of pedal strikes, then 165 on my META TR, just soo low. I am happy with the 165 now.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,200
    Quote Originally Posted by TraxFactory View Post
    I like to look at BB Drop...
    Yeah. BB drop is independent of wheels and tires so is a good way to compare frames. Resulting BB height will be the tire outer radius minus the BB drop.
    What, me worry?

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    42
    I have been on an Occam (large) with a Fox 160 and 2.5 High Roller front and 2.4 Dissector rear on Inine Carbon Enduro wheels. From the ground to center of BB is 13.5
    That is a good # to me for Austin riding, I can still rail around berms at a park but can get over rocks and ledges.. I still get the occasional pedal and ring strike with 175s

    I have ordered a new one (different color) and I will be running 170s and a 30t vs the 32 because I place cleaning technical climbs as important ( if not more) than ripping bermed hardpack downhill.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    124
    Are all MTB bikes today only for west coast/downhill or bike park/lift riding?
    What bikes today are very good true singletrack= ,bars just fit between trees, pedaling uphill, downhill, everywhere, tight switchbacks, flat areas, mountains, loose over hard, loam, sand, rocks, mud, roots... MIDATLANTIC MTB riding.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,664
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikerva1 View Post
    Are all MTB bikes today only for west coast/downhill or bike park/lift riding?
    kind of yes, but not all. there are still bikes being made that have actual natural terrain in mind.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,881
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikerva1 View Post
    Are all MTB bikes today only for west coast/downhill or bike park/lift riding?
    What bikes today are very good true singletrack= ,bars just fit between trees, pedaling uphill, downhill, everywhere, tight switchbacks, flat areas, mountains, loose over hard, loam, sand, rocks, mud, roots... MIDATLANTIC MTB riding.
    I've gone from a steel Fuji (1989 with 26x2.1" tubed tires) to a Sugar 2 up through several others to, finally, a Trance 29. For natural trails in Utah and Montana, I thought each successive bike design was better in all categories. To get between narrow trees just get shorter bars. For different conditions such as loose over hard, loam, sand, rocks, mud, roots, etc. - that's tire dependent.

    I would say that most mid travel bikes 27.5 or 29 are very well suited for true singletrack these days. I haven't ridden a lift this season and I'm up to about 125,000 feet of climbing on dirt so far this season.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    124
    I have ridden a little of Utah, Utah is not in the midatlantic. Utah is much closer to the Pacific Ocean than the Atlantic Ocean. The state lies in the heart of the West and is bounded by Idaho to the north, Wyoming to the northeast, Colorado to the east, Arizona to the south, and Nevada to the west. At Four Corners, in the southeast, Utah meets Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona at right angles, the only such meeting of states in the country.
    The above region has VERY different flora, climate, terrain, soil and trails as compared to what I and a lot of others consider the midatlantic region.
    The midatlantic in my mind is WVa, Va, NC, Md, Pa, Tn...
    We have MORE and IMBA that take all the hills out of trails and make a lot of switchbacks. We also seem to have a LOT of lazy, bad riding people that cut new straight trails vs doing the ride between trees, curves, turns, switchbacks, etc. if it is easier and faster that seems to be what some people out here do.
    I have been noticing a lot of trail cutting or people making/riding their own shorter trail vs the trail that was built. I wonder if it is due to STRAVA or are people just bad riders/lazy, etc.
    Good riding to all, where ever you ride!!!!!!!

  15. #15
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    34,103
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikerva1 View Post
    Are all MTB bikes today only for west coast/downhill or bike park/lift riding?
    What bikes today are very good true singletrack= ,bars just fit between trees, pedaling uphill, downhill, everywhere, tight switchbacks, flat areas, mountains, loose over hard, loam, sand, rocks, mud, roots... MIDATLANTIC MTB riding.
    Another person that thinks West Coast means a small subset in SoCal.
    "It's only when you stand over it, you know, when you physically stand over the bike, that then you say 'hey, I don't have much stand over height', you know"-T. Ellsworth

    You're turning black metallic.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: MSU Alum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    4,881
    Quote Originally Posted by mtnbikerva1 View Post
    I have ridden a little of Utah, Utah is not in the midatlantic. Utah is much closer to the Pacific Ocean than the Atlantic Ocean. The state lies in the heart of the West and is bounded by Idaho to the north, Wyoming to the northeast, Colorado to the east, Arizona to the south, and Nevada to the west. At Four Corners, in the southeast, Utah meets Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona at right angles, the only such meeting of states in the country.
    The above region has VERY different flora, climate, terrain, soil and trails as compared to what I and a lot of others consider the midatlantic region.
    The midatlantic in my mind is WVa, Va, NC, Md, Pa, Tn...
    We have MORE and IMBA that take all the hills out of trails and make a lot of switchbacks. We also seem to have a LOT of lazy, bad riding people that cut new straight trails vs doing the ride between trees, curves, turns, switchbacks, etc. if it is easier and faster that seems to be what some people out here do.
    I have been noticing a lot of trail cutting or people making/riding their own shorter trail vs the trail that was built. I wonder if it is due to STRAVA or are people just bad riders/lazy, etc.
    Good riding to all, where ever you ride!!!!!!!
    So remind me again. Where is Montana?

    Allow me to reiterate:

    To get between narrow trees just get shorter bars.

    Is 30" between trees different, the closer you get to the Atlantic?

    For different conditions such as loose over hard, loam, sand, rocks, mud, roots, etc. - that's tire dependent.

    That's why I use different tires here in Utah than I would if I were in the PNW or near the Atlantic Ocean.

    To your question, "Are all MTB bikes today only for west coast/downhill or bike park/lift riding?"

    No. They are not. Most mid travel 27.5's and 29ers make excellent natural singletrack bikes.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,476
    I'd look at the new Pivot Switchblade or GG Smash if you want a higher BB.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    176
    I am so glad you posted this question. I happen to be poking around for a possible replacement for my current rig, as I am bashing pedals constantly. Colorado riding and 170mm cranks.

    I measured my bb to ground at 12", or 304mm, which is suuper low (unweighted). This is on 29 x 2.6 up front and 2.4 in back. It still seems like bb height is the best measure, since every bike I've looked at has it, it's always 'unweighted', but it is dependent on wheel diameter and the tire you run?

    The highest clearance rig I have ridden (and very agile) is the Lenz Behemoth. VERY interested in options.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    205
    Quote Originally Posted by charlatan View Post
    I am so glad you posted this question. I happen to be poking around for a possible replacement for my current rig, as I am bashing pedals constantly. Colorado riding and 170mm cranks.

    I measured my bb to ground at 12", or 304mm, which is suuper low (unweighted).
    304mm is WAY low for a full suspension BB height; are you sure you measured correctly or is this maybe on a hardtail? BB height that bike companies publish is measured from the ground to the center of the bottom bracket; not the lowest point of the frame at the bottom bracket. And yes, the BB height measurement will change with wheel/tire diameter changes.

    For comparison sake, my bike which is a 170/150 FS 27.5 has a published BB height of 340mm but the frame at it's lowest point (the bash guard mounting tabs) is right at 304mm like yours. I went from 170mm to 165mm cranks this year to reduce pedal strikes but it wasn't that big of a problem to begin with though I am in the PNW so likely deal with fewer large rocks than you do.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by burkawitz206 View Post
    304mm is WAY low for a full suspension BB height; are you sure you measured correctly or is this maybe on a hardtail? BB height that bike companies publish is measured from the ground to the center of the bottom bracket; not the lowest point of the frame at the bottom bracket. And yes, the BB height measurement will change with wheel/tire diameter changes.

    For comparison sake, my bike which is a 170/150 FS 27.5 has a published BB height of 340mm but the frame at it's lowest point (the bash guard mounting tabs) is right at 304mm like yours. I went from 170mm to 165mm cranks this year to reduce pedal strikes but it wasn't that big of a problem to begin with though I am in the PNW so likely deal with fewer large rocks than you do.
    Yep, I measured wrong. Published for my Arktos is 343mm. Unweighted with the biggest 29" tires I can put on there I am at 335. I have the rear shock pretty spot on. Anyway, I just notice so many more strikes with this rig than my old one, it's starting to drive me nuts.

    I should also say this is my first full suspension bike, whereas the old one was an HT.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    205
    For what it is worth my bike has a 165mm travel mode and a published BB height of 330mm at this setting, and at first it was pedal strikes forever. I think your only solutions are one or more of the following 1. shorter cranks 2. less sag 3. more practice 4. new bike

    I have gotten quite a bit better at #3 but it has taken time. When I ride my bike in this mode I sometimes find myself doing weird backpedal maneuvers to avoid rocks but it works (mostly).

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,190
    Quote Originally Posted by charlatan View Post
    Yep, I measured wrong. Published for my Arktos is 343mm. Unweighted with the biggest 29" tires I can put on there I am at 335. I have the rear shock pretty spot on. Anyway, I just notice so many more strikes with this rig than my old one, it's starting to drive me nuts.

    I should also say this is my first full suspension bike, whereas the old one was an HT.
    I'm thinking you just need a bit more ride time on FS to learn how to work with it. I had the same issue when I switched from HT to a FS bike. You need to take into account sag and the suspension compressing when riding.

    My current bike's BB height is 338mm and I ride very chunky rock gardens without having any pedal strike issues. I'm using 170mm cranks.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sickmak90's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,078
    In the low setting my Fuel EX supposedly has a 335mm BB height and I usually run like 19mm sag. That puts my BB at about the same height as my NS bikes eccentric HT (315mm).

    With 175mm cranks I do get some pedal strikes when leaning and pedaling. When I first started riding FS I think I had more issues with BB strikes than I do now because I have adapted to it. When going over larger rocks or whatever I think I shift my weight now without even thinking about it.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    176
    Quote Originally Posted by burkawitz206 View Post
    For what it is worth my bike has a 165mm travel mode and a published BB height of 330mm at this setting, and at first it was pedal strikes forever. I think your only solutions are one or more of the following 1. shorter cranks 2. less sag 3. more practice 4. new bike

    I have gotten quite a bit better at #3 but it has taken time. When I ride my bike in this mode I sometimes find myself doing weird backpedal maneuvers to avoid rocks but it works (mostly).
    Quote Originally Posted by Fajita Dave View Post
    I'm thinking you just need a bit more ride time on FS to learn how to work with it. I had the same issue when I switched from HT to a FS bike. You need to take into account sag and the suspension compressing when riding.

    My current bike's BB height is 338mm and I ride very chunky rock gardens without having any pedal strike issues. I'm using 170mm cranks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sickmak90 View Post
    In the low setting my Fuel EX supposedly has a 335mm BB height and I usually run like 19mm sag. That puts my BB at about the same height as my NS bikes eccentric HT (315mm).

    With 175mm cranks I do get some pedal strikes when leaning and pedaling. When I first started riding FS I think I had more issues with BB strikes than I do now because I have adapted to it. When going over larger rocks or whatever I think I shift my weight now without even thinking about it.
    Thanks for the input!
    I can accept some of the pedal strikes being a rider issue... I've been on this rig now since Jan, and put some pretty good miles on it. My pedal timing can definitely improve, but on my normal tracks I feel like there's more to it. I have to pedal through some pretty chunky stuff, and sometimes I need clearance no matter what. Sometimes those subtle back pedals work...

    I've been poking around for higher bb bikes, and they're pretty tough to find with the popularity of slack rigs / geo. If I can get my skills up to snuff, I wonder if I could find a rear shock with a true lockout to keep sag to a minimum when climbing.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Sickmak90's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,078
    I am starting to think most riders don't need or even want some of these new slack and low bikes but its hard to get away from now. I kinda feel like my 2018 Fuel EX is about perfect for my area. It is just steep enough to climb pretty well and it isn't as long as a bus.

Similar Threads

  1. Sram Eagle GX with GXP Bottom Bracket - Space between chainring and bottom bracket?
    By katana97 in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-15-2020, 04:31 PM
  2. Threaded bottom bracket (2019 Stumpjumper): Want carbon crank with bottom bracket
    By rakerdeal in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-27-2020, 08:03 AM
  3. Using Bottom Bracket Wrench vs. Bottom Bracket Socket
    By BobaX in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-21-2016, 10:36 PM
  4. Replacing a Shimano MTB HT II bottom bracket with a Shimano Road HT II bottom bracket
    By AndrwSwitch in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-17-2015, 11:58 AM
  5. Bottom Bracket Confusion
    By TysonTy1 in forum 29er Components
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-22-2012, 08:09 AM

Members who have read this thread: 139

Posting Permissions

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

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2020 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.