Low bb height and pedal strikes.- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 171 of 171
  1. #1
    AKA Pat McGroin
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    48

    Low bb height and pedal strikes.

    I've had a few modern frames lately and, although I love 425mm chainstays, a bit more travel and slacker head angles, it all goes in the toilet when I have ridiculous pedal strikes. One hardtail frame I really wanted to love in particular, even with 170mm cranks was catching roots and small rocks all the time!

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    611
    One riders low BB is apparently another's handling dream. I find bikes with too low of a BB to be dangerous. It isn't that I can't time, ratchet, and turn as needed to avoid serious strikes. I can. It is that once in a great while I just screw up and have a massive strike that causes a crash. At first I thought it was a random event, and it some ways it is. But it happens only on my bikes with what I consider to be an excessively low BB. After a concussion where I only remembered the actual strike two weeks later, granted the mangled pedal was a bit of an immediate clue, I decided to get a bit more serious about the problem.

    I now have two bikes with 165mm cranks which has ended the surprises. Full squish bikes are a bit more of a challenge because determining where the BB is at is a moving target. Part of that moving target is more dependent on suspension kinematics. Despite a tendency to stay high in the travel, starting at "barely adequate for a hard tail" isn't really a great place to start.

    I'm experimenting with a crown race spacer, but like everything else I'm sure it will come with compromises.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    9,634
    It's not black or white. You can get pedal strikes with any reasonable height BB. A little lower and you can get a few more pedal strikes. No matter the BB height, pedal strikes are avoided by phasing the cranks properly and ratcheting as needed. It's more a matter of awareness and skill than BB height.
    What, me worry?

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    177
    The new long/low geometry of bikes the last couple years lends itself to more pedal strikes, but the benefits of handling far outweigh the occasional strike. After a couple months I learned to anticipate where and when they might occur and adjust my pedal position accordingly. I rarely have an issue now.

  5. #5
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    34,411
    Some have taken it too far. Although a few pedal strikes while climbing may be a bit annoying, it's downright dangerous when you are low on energy or tied, cruising at a decent speed, and you clip your pedal/crank on something because you let your pedal/arm hang too low. Those crashes hurt and break stuff.
    "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.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: veloborealis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by adaycj View Post
    One riders low BB is apparently another's handling dream. I find bikes with too low of a BB to be dangerous. It isn't that I can't time, ratchet, and turn as needed to avoid serious strikes. I can. It is that once in a great while I just screw up and have a massive strike that causes a crash. At first I thought it was a random event, and it some ways it is. But it happens only on my bikes with what I consider to be an excessively low BB. After a concussion where I only remembered the actual strike two weeks later, granted the mangled pedal was a bit of an immediate clue, I decided to get a bit more serious about the problem.

    I now have two bikes with 165mm cranks which has ended the surprises. Full squish bikes are a bit more of a challenge because determining where the BB is at is a moving target. Part of that moving target is more dependent on suspension kinematics. Despite a tendency to stay high in the travel, starting at "barely adequate for a hard tail" isn't really a great place to start.

    I'm experimenting with a crown race spacer, but like everything else I'm sure it will come with compromises.
    Most pedal strikes are merely an annoyance, but I agree they can sometimes be dangerous. I have to be especially careful when I'm tired. My worst strike happened on an exposed decent on the Black Canyon Trail. I was in the last four miles of an all day ride and not paying attention to my pedal position. I went down hard, thankfully on one of the few sections of trail where that didn't mean launching off a cliff into rock and cacti. The pedal was fine (RF Chester), but I cracked the bottom bracket shell of my carbon Fuel EX.
    Veni vidi velo!

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: DethWshBkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,426
    I hate low BBs.
    This one trail, its not hard as far as rocks/roots. Not at all.

    But, its all off camber, and narrow.

    My Remedy, I had a total of 4 very light and gentle pedal touches in the entire 10 mile loop.
    My one other bike, I had over 25 in the first 1.5 miles. Some were very strong impacts. Just pedaling around caused the impacts as the crank kept smacking the upside of the off camber hill.
    That bikes BB is WAY too low, and its the lowest BB of all of my bikes, and all of the bikes of my entire family.

    Low BB height and east coast are stupid.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by Xlr8n View Post
    The new long/low geometry of bikes the last couple years lends itself to more pedal strikes, but the benefits of handling far outweigh the occasional strike. After a couple months I learned to anticipate where and when they might occur and adjust my pedal position accordingly. I rarely have an issue now.
    Same. Learned to be more aware ratchet ect.

    I wouldn't trade it though that low center of gravity has changed my riding.

    If all your doing is rock crawling then a higher bb might work for you.

    My last bike was a Recluse and it has a highish bb and short stays. I never got used to it or entirely comfortable.


    Edit just measured my bb height and it's right around 340mm on a 130mm travel bike. Now my bike is built up on this frame https://www.lightcarbon.com/all-new-...s958_p118.html

    So my center of gravity is low just based on suspension design and where the weight is (low).

    I'm running 170 cranks and me03 ht magnesium pedals. Which are very thin.

    So what is low?

  9. #9
    No good in rock gardens..
    Reputation: Sideknob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,413
    Alright if you like coasting downhills or pedal like mad on smooth trails without rocks and roots.

    Bloody awful if you like climbing and hammering down rocky and rooty stuff.

    I've found it dangerous.

    Some will say "ratchet and time your pedalling". Which is kind of hard when you're busting a gut to get up a rocky trail with rocks everywhere...lose momentum and you're done for.

    It's a shame that these FS bikes with all their traction can get gazumped by simple pedal strikes.

    It's like having a 4x4 as low as a street car.

    Flame suit ON.
    Less isn't MOAR

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    7,288
    No free lunch! Low BB gives freaking awesome handling, cornering, etc. on reasonably smooth trails. Higher BB gives awesome pedaling on really chunky pedaling and/or climbing trails.

    You just have to find the compromise BB height that works for you and your main riding area. For me, ~335 on my 115 bike and ~340 on my 130 mm bike works well. Sometimes, I wish for lower when I'm blasting down a flow trail, and sometimes I wish for a bit higher on a long day of chunky pedaling.

    Rear suspension support matters, too. Sometimes just inserting a slightly larger volume reducer in the shock makes a noticeable difference with pedal strikes. The worst bike I ever had in this regard was an old, old Epic. Low BB, locked out until it wasn't, then once the brain opened, it was kinda like a trap door opening -- bam, down to the bottom! Not a great feature at the end of an exhausting endurance race.
    Whining is not a strategy.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Blue Sky View Post
    I've had a few modern frames lately and, although I love 425mm chainstays, a bit more travel and slacker head angles, it all goes in the toilet when I have ridiculous pedal strikes. One hardtail frame I really wanted to love in particular, even with 170mm cranks was catching roots and small rocks all the time!
    My 2016 Stumpjumper FSR (29x2.3) AND my 2019 Chameleon (27.5x2.8) has higher BB height than my year 2000 26" Stumpjumper hard tail.

    I struggle over the idea of today's bikes having low BB height. It's a continual comment but I have yet to have somebody post the actual height of their new bike relative to their previous bike.

    I'm not saying it isn't true. It's just that I have not personally seen a spec indicating a lower height than they used to be on small bikes.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CCSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by adaycj View Post
    I now have two bikes with 165mm cranks which has ended the surprises.
    Smart. Ride chunky and/or extended, rocky off-camber trails with a low BB and you will have pedal strikes. Especially on a SS when powering through uphill rock gardens. Regardless of how awesome your phasing/ratcheting skills are.

    Iíve got a 34Ē inseam and over the last year have switched both of my MTBs (rigid SS) and my SSCX to 170mm cranks. Huge improvement and no way Iíll go back to the 175s (and 180s) of yesteryear

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,800
    In july i went from 175 to 165 for a few $, great results, just do it.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    BB height really should be based on application (not simply good or bad). If you never ride high speed descents and stick to typical XC trails there's not a big benefit to a low BB. The benefits come on the downhills, especially at speed (i.e. enduro racing, DH, bike park) by improving stability. Personally, I've never had a significant pedal strike while I wasn't pedaling and don't consider a low BB an issue when coasting.

  15. #15
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    34,411
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    The benefits come on the downhills, especially at speed
    Oh yeah.

    Low bb height and pedal strikes.-img_5387.jpg

    To be fair to the cranks, they only failed after years of DH and enduro, enduring many hits.
    "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:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    So Iím calling BS on the improved handling that comes from a reduction in BB height of 5-10mm. Seriously, no one but a pro could tell the difference, itís just not enough especially when you consider all the other variables like seat and bar height, crank length, shoe/pedal thickness, even tire pressure and compliance.

    Sure, you can tweak your shock to provide more platform, thatís a given, but what youíre suggesting is utter nonsense.

    The real issue is why have bike manufacturers chosen to drop the BB so low?

    I have current model/geo bikes that vary from 330-345mm in BB height. I prefer the 345mm height for reduced pedal strikes, and I notice no difference in ride quality or handling.

    I also run 165mm cranks on all my bikes.

    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    No free lunch! Low BB gives freaking awesome handling, cornering, etc. on reasonably smooth trails. Higher BB gives awesome pedaling on really chunky pedaling and/or climbing trails.

    You just have to find the compromise BB height that works for you and your main riding area. For me, ~335 on my 115 bike and ~340 on my 130 mm bike works well. Sometimes, I wish for lower when I'm blasting down a flow trail, and sometimes I wish for a bit higher on a long day of chunky pedaling.

    Rear suspension support matters, too. Sometimes just inserting a slightly larger volume reducer in the shock makes a noticeable difference with pedal strikes. The worst bike I ever had in this regard was an old, old Epic. Low BB, locked out until it wasn't, then once the brain opened, it was kinda like a trap door opening -- bam, down to the bottom! Not a great feature at the end of an exhausting endurance race.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  17. #17
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    So Iím calling BS on the improved handling that comes from a reduction in BB height of 5-10mm. Seriously, no one but a pro could tell the difference, itís just not enough especially when you consider all the other variables like seat and bar height, crank length, shoe/pedal thickness, even tire pressure and compliance.

    Sure, you can tweak your shock to provide more platform, thatís a given, but what youíre suggesting is utter nonsense.

    The real issue is why have bike manufacturers chosen to drop the BB so low?

    I have current model/geo bikes that vary from 330-345mm in BB height. I prefer the 345mm height for reduced pedal strikes, and I notice no difference in ride quality or handling.

    I also run 165mm cranks one all my bikes.
    Hmmm. Never seen any nonsense coming from Kosmo, utter or otherwise.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47 View Post
    Hmmm. Never seen any nonsense coming from Kosmo, utter or otherwise.
    Me neither, I just made it, bored I guess.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    I thought the handling difference between a moderate and low BB was pretty obvious.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Forest Rider View Post
    My 2016 Stumpjumper FSR (29x2.3) AND my 2019 Chameleon (27.5x2.8) has higher BB height than my year 2000 26" Stumpjumper hard tail.

    I struggle over the idea of today's bikes having low BB height. It's a continual comment but I have yet to have somebody post the actual height of their new bike relative to their previous bike.

    I'm not saying it isn't true. It's just that I have not personally seen a spec indicating a lower height than they used to be on small bikes.
    That bike from the year 2000 almost certainly had a fork with less travel than your new Chameleon, and it definitely had less travel front AND rear than your FSR. Of course they will/should have higher bottom brackets.

    I'm tired of some riders from certain areas telling other riders from other areas that they need more skill to avoid pedal strikes. It's not always skill. Sometimes it's a requirement to pedal through chunky terrain.

    Perhaps those people defending ridiculously low bottom brackets need to learn the skills to corner properly.

  21. #21
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,740
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    I thought the handling difference between a moderate and low BB we're pretty obvious.
    This^^^^. At least that's what the latest marketing angle is anyway. 😎

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    That bike from the year 2000 almost certainly had a fork with less travel than your new Chameleon, and it definitely had less travel front AND rear than your FSR. Of course they will/should have higher bottom brackets.

    I'm tired of some riders from certain areas telling other riders from other areas that they need more skill to avoid pedal strikes. It's not always skill. Sometimes it's a requirement to pedal through chunky terrain.

    Perhaps those people defending ridiculously low bottom brackets need to learn the skills to corner properly.
    You can tune into YouTube anytime you want and see people riding every sort terrain possible.

    Riding the same low bb bikes we are.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,800
    The new bike is always shitty, never buy it.
    They will tell u in 3 months.
    My saddle and seatpost are 20 years old they do the job.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    I thought the handling difference between a moderate and low BB we're pretty obvious.
    I can definitely feel the difference. The moment I got on my recluse for the first time I just felt uncomfortable. Like I felt tippy and teetery.
    My 958 feels completely different.

    Also 5-10mm at the bb is same as 1-2 degree head angle change or 10mm at the chainstays.

    But really I think it's bb drop that's more important. I think that may be why my 29er feels so amazing in corners.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Okay, now youíre comparing BB height to head tube angle and chainstay length?

    Please lord, take me now!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Van Deventer View Post
    I can definitely feel the difference. The moment I got on my recluse for the first time I just felt uncomfortable. Like I felt tippy and teetery.
    My 958 feels completely different.

    Also 5-10mm at the bb is same as 1-2 degree head angle change or 10mm at the chainstays.

    But really I think it's bb drop that's more important. I think that may be why my 29er feels so amazing in corners.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    I thought the handling difference between a moderate and low BB was pretty obvious.
    It is, same reason super/sports cars are low to the ground. I personally dont like low BB bikes since I need to pedal to where they're beneficial. On a down hill trail with lifts low is great. It is easier to change direction on a higher BB bike.

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Okay, now youíre comparing BB height to head tube angle and chainstay length?

    Please lord, take me now!
    I can't think of any bike fit measurement where a 10mm change isn't noticeable.

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    I can't think of any bike fit measurement where a 10mm change isn't noticeable.
    That's what I was getting at

    It must also be pointed out that 10mm at the bb is magnified because as you lean the bike it is like a lever.

    And you can't tell me that if you run 2.3 tires and the switch to 2.8 that you can't feel the difference in height.
    So if you are saying that 340mm is low what is not low? 350? 360? Which is a difference of 10-20mm.

    Also it is not lost on me that we are arguing 30mm or an inch and a half.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    14,217
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Blue Sky View Post
    I've had a few modern frames lately and, although I love 425mm chainstays, a bit more travel and slacker head angles, it all goes in the toilet when I have ridiculous pedal strikes. One hardtail frame I really wanted to love in particular, even with 170mm cranks was catching roots and small rocks all the time!
    I'm not a fan of low BBs since I ride chunky terrain. So I avoid them. I've been able to find bikes with short CS, slack HTA and reasonable BB heights. No issues with how a higher BB bike handles.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    3,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Van Deventer View Post
    You can tune into YouTube anytime you want and see people riding every sort terrain possible.

    Riding the same low bb bikes we are.
    Don't see much technical climbing on YouTube, and I've seen even less videos where you can see the pedals.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    I can think of many, but itís not worth the effort.

    Damn snow, I could use a good ride, skiing just ainít the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    I can't think of any bike fit measurement where a 10mm change isn't noticeable.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  32. #32
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    34,411
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Van Deventer View Post
    You can tune into YouTube anytime you want and see people riding every sort terrain possible.

    Riding the same low bb bikes we are.
    Which is not very useful given halo/hero runs and cuts-n-edits.
    "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.

  33. #33
    HHL
    HHL is online now
    Que je suis bete!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    437
    It is not just pedal strikes, for those of us that no longer have any "ups,", but also clearance over logs, big rocks, and high rise shelf rock for chainrings. Anything under 13" is too low, for what I am capable of, and I prefer 13.5" to 14." I think the low bottom brackets are fine for those that need a stable down hill bike, but the higher brackets are more appropriate for mere mortals. I can ratchet my ass off in rock gardens, but I'm still catching a lot more stuff inadvertently with low bottom brackets and long crankarms. I'm currently on a bike with 170's and just under 340 and enjoying it nicely. I think the handling factor on most trails for most of us has more to do with the dynamics of HOW we are riding the bike and traction than bottom bracket height. Notice I said "I think:" firm opinion, stated diplomatically.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Ray Lee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    1,388
    Quote Originally Posted by mountainbiker24 View Post
    Don't see much technical climbing on YouTube, and I've seen even less videos where you can see the pedals.
    I do not either, seem like more sit and spin up and shred down... I dont see reviews, adverts, super popular YouTube vids on chunky tech much. Hard to put into words, its more what I think of "west coast" good elevation...long climbs almost fire road like with fast swoopy downs, often with rocks, roots and drops but enough momentum that low BB would never be an issue (easy to time your strokes with momentum) and always seem to have a clear direction. We do not have those long downhill runs here (PA/NJ), we are constantly going up and down on trails that are fun either direction so sometimes you have to slowly crank up and over some chunky stuff.

    Some models are clearly off the rails with the extreme long low slack thing but on many the BB height is tuff to figure out without a good long test ride, a lower BB might get you less strikes than a higher one if the bike doesn't squat into the travel as much as the higher BB model

    I was constantly hitting pedal on my 2014 Spec with 338mm BB and NEVER on my 2019 Intense Primer with a 337mm. Now the Primer felt a bit to stiff, shock was just not active enough so I swapped the link to a slightly less progressive one and changed out the rear shock... same BB hight, same geo but almost perfectly split the difference in feel/pedal strikes between the 2014 Spec Stump and the stock Intense Primer. 3 set ups all with basically the same BB height and same travel but 3 very different outcomes.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by HHL View Post
    It is not just pedal strikes, for those of us that no longer have any "ups,", but also clearance over logs, big rocks, and high rise shelf rock for chainrings. Anything under 13" is too low, for what I am capable of, and I prefer 13.5" to 14." I think the low bottom brackets are fine for those that need a stable down hill bike, but the higher brackets are more appropriate for mere mortals. I can ratchet my ass off in rock gardens, but I'm still catching a lot more stuff inadvertently with low bottom brackets and long crankarms. I'm currently on a bike with 170's and just under 340 and enjoying it nicely. I think the handling factor on most trails for most of us has more to do with the dynamics of HOW we are riding the bike and traction than bottom bracket height. Notice I said "I think:" firm opinion, stated diplomatically.
    You are spot on, pedal clearance and BB clearance have decreased and it's playing havoc with mountain biking. Perhaps a low BB helps newer riders, but it makes it miserable for those of us who know how to ride.

    I suspect the changes in trail development, to a more flow orientation, is the reason the bikes are being dumbed down.

    I liken the difference between a flow bike and a mountain bike to off and on piste skis.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    167
    My 09 fsr xc comp has bb of 13.10, my abajo peak has 13.5. 26 vs 29. I ve noticed fewer pedal strikes with abajo.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    1,177
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post

    I suspect the changes in trail development, to a more flow orientation, is the reason the bikes are being dumbed down.
    Nope. Its what ever the general public asks for, or in our case what is perceived as popular.

    Im happy having 13" under the crank arm at spindle, we have some huge rock gardens. some you try and ride through, some walking through is best. I live in mtb heaven and within 30 minutes there are 20 trails, and all of them different in what to expect, less one thing they all have some pretty steep canyon climbs.

  38. #38
    Ride More - Suffer Less
    Reputation: TraxFactory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Posts
    2,461
    Down right dangerous i would say... Having to go to 165's and still striking alot I'm searching for something with more reasonable bb drop.

    If you ride machine cut/groomed smooth trails... Ya no problem.

    I like primitive trails with rocks and techy obstacles = Low bb problematic.



    Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    611
    I think there is a tendency to try to "put a number on it". For me 12.75 inches (323mm) on my HT was too low. 13.25in (336mm) on my FS was also too low with 175mm crank arms. But this is the underlying problem. Is the bike HT or FS? Squishy fat, plus or not so squishy skinny tires? What is the rider's weight, what is the sag, what is the anti-squat? Then riding style, terrain, skill level? Is it an endurance bike, race bike, casual trail day?

    I'm in agreement that BBs are too low too much of the time. But there is a reason most manufactures don't even list BB height, and list a more nebulous BB drop number instead. They don't have any better of a system to express how a given BB height will impact the rider than we do.

    I used online compare tools to compare at least a dozen bikes before I bought my new FS. It was for a host of reasons, but one was to insure that I wasn't buying an experiment of an even lower BB. In general it is up to the consumer to figure out a way to deal with it if they deem it is an issue. Much like stem length, and seat rail position, I know I'm probably looking at contact point changes if I feel the BB is too low. It stinks that crank sets aren't cheap, but for me it is worth it.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    14,217
    Quote Originally Posted by adaycj View Post
    I'm in agreement that BBs are too low too much of the time. But there is a reason most manufactures don't even list BB height, and list a more nebulous BB drop number instead. They don't have any better of a system to express how a given BB height will impact the rider than we do.
    I agree BBs are generally too low for chunky/techy terrain and that a lot of factors come into play so two bikes with 13.5" BBs in the geo chart may have quite different rates of pedal strikes for the same rider out on the trail.

    One thing I don't agree with is that BB Drop is nebulous or misleading. BB drop is a more accurate way to describe BB height since it takes out of the equation tires. If you just use BB height you have to then figure out what tires the bike had on when the measurement was taken. Sometimes that is clear and sometimes it is not. If you know the BB drop you can compare two frames more easily.

    Getting both BBH and BB drop in the geo chart is nice.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Iím pretty sure the low BB height issue is primarily on FS bikes, hardtails are less problematic because the BB height varies less in use.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  42. #42
    be1
    be1 is offline
    the beat goes on
    Reputation: be1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    284
    if this has already been brought up - please forgive me.

    i had 170 mm cranks specced on a particular bike, so i thought i could get away with smaller tires and lower BB. turned out the cranks were actually 175s that they had drilled at 170. so there was the extra 5 mm at the end. i didn't notice this at the time, and i had a bad crash due to crank strike. stayed off the bike for 3 weeks or so. lucky i didnt break anything. just something to consider. need to make sure of your crank length.
    i have true 165s on one of my bikes now.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by kosmo View Post
    No free lunch! Low BB gives freaking awesome handling, cornering, etc.
    All a myth that bike industry made people fall for.

    Considering your center of gravity is about ~4 ft. high off the trail and can be adjusted by raising or lowering your body especially with a dropper posts...that few mm difference at the bottom bracket between lower and higher BB has zero affect on handling and cornering but has 100% effect on pedal strikes vs. no pedal strikes.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by be1 View Post
    i had 170 mm cranks specced on a particular bike, so i thought i could get away with smaller tires and lower BB. turned out the cranks were actually 175s that they had drilled at 170. so there was the extra 5 mm at the end.
    That's freaking outrageous...

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    All a myth that bike industry made people fall for.

    Considering your center of gravity is about ~4 ft. high off the trail and can be adjusted by raising or lowering your body especially with a dropper posts...that few mm difference at the bottom bracket between lower and higher BB has zero affect on handling and cornering but has 100% effect on pedal strikes vs. no pedal strikes.
    I think the greater BB drop is primarily what gives the increase in stability. Either way the difference is pretty obvious. I understand why some don't think the lower BB is worth the trade-offs but I don't understand how you guys can't tell any difference other than more pedal strikes.

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SoDakSooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    899
    My current bike (Mach 5.5) is specc'd at .2" higher than my old one (2005 SC Heckler), yet I seem to get a lot more pedal strikes, and for the first time ever one sent me off the bike a few weeks ago. 175mm cranks on both. I haven't actually measured actual bike to bike but seems odd. I suppose I am riding deeper in the travel possibly. Not a huge concern as I just try and pay attention and time my pedal strokes. I just find it odd. I am running slightly smaller tires than factory on the new one and larger on the old, but the difference is really noticeable. We do ride a lot of chunky stuff too. However if increased pedal strikes are the tradeoff between the two bikes, I'll take it.

  47. #47
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,740
    Quote Originally Posted by be1 View Post
    if this has already been brought up - please forgive me.

    i had 170 mm cranks specced on a particular bike, so i thought i could get away with smaller tires and lower BB. turned out the cranks were actually 175s that they had drilled at 170. so there was the extra 5 mm at the end. i didn't notice this at the time, and i had a bad crash due to crank strike. stayed off the bike for 3 weeks or so. lucky i didnt break anything. just something to consider. need to make sure of your crank length.
    i have true 165s on one of my bikes now.
    Seems the norm on 175->170 cranks.

  48. #48
    be1
    be1 is offline
    the beat goes on
    Reputation: be1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47 View Post
    Seems the norm on 175->170 cranks.
    all of my other 170 cranks didnt have the extra 5 mm. it's not normal. it's a cost-saving measure.

  49. #49
    HHL
    HHL is online now
    Que je suis bete!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    437
    Your Mach 5.5 has a pretty long wheelbase, so that may have something to do with it. It is going to take you longer to clear the obstacle in the bottom bracket area than a shorter bike: eg., Jeeps clearing boulders better than a full-sized pickup on up and down trails.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    I think the greater BB drop is primarily what gives the increase in stability. Either way the difference is pretty obvious. I understand why some don't think the lower BB is worth the trade-offs but I don't understand how you guys can't tell any difference other than more pedal strikes.
    Same I can clearly feel it I actually work that shit. The bb drop and the weight distribution make we want to get as low on the bike as I can. It's encouraging me nail my technique because the capability is so high.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    14,217
    Quote Originally Posted by HHL View Post
    Your Mach 5.5 has a pretty long wheelbase, so that may have something to do with it. It is going to take you longer to clear the obstacle in the bottom bracket area than a shorter bike: eg., Jeeps clearing boulders better than a full-sized pickup on up and down trails.
    Good point. I just built a custom hardtail and set the BB height based on another hardtail [actually rigid] I ride and love. Assumed I wouldn't have low BB issues so I didn't include ISCG tabs for a taco bash. One of my first rides I was charging over a large rock and hit my dang chainring hard. Turns out the much longer bike with a suspension fork puts the BB in harms way a lot more than my old bike.

    So I got a MRP ISCG adapter and a mini-taco bash. I seem to hit it about once a ride. Not a lot, but without the bashguard my chain and chainring would eventually get KIA'd and force me to do the walk of shame.

    Interestingly with 170mm cranks and thin pedals I am not having notable pedal strike issues just the low BB/chainring. My other bike has 175mm cranks. So the shorter cranks seem to make enough difference to mitigate this issue.

    If I ever re-powdercoat this frame I am welding on ISCG tabs!
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: SoDakSooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    899
    Quote Originally Posted by HHL View Post
    Your Mach 5.5 has a pretty long wheelbase, so that may have something to do with it. It is going to take you longer to clear the obstacle in the bottom bracket area than a shorter bike: eg., Jeeps clearing boulders better than a full-sized pickup on up and down trails.
    Good point! I missed that part....

    Sent from my LG-LS998 using Tapatalk

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    137
    This is an interesting thread and thank you to all of you that contributed.

    With shorter cranks, the legs aren't spread as wide. This raises your center of gravity. With shorter cranks, riding seated also requires raising the seat to get full leg extension. If you are having to ride shorter cranks due to pedal strikes, than the low BB benefits of lowering your center of gravity are probably being offset. What's the point?

    There does become a point where we are all worried about minutia, looking for ways to justify more purchases. I get it if we are all professional racers and every millisecond counts. But for most of us, these minor details that may indeed make a minute difference end up wasting a lot of money chasing the perfect setup. Really it's probably best to just go out and ride what you have, become one with it, improve your skills, and not worry so much if you have to hike-a-bike over a rocky section; learn other approaches to deal with off camber stuff, just deal with it.

    I just got back from a Thanksgiving camping trip where we rode at Santos in FL and Big Creek in Roswell GA. My daughter ended up hijacking my Nimble 9 hardtail, leaving me to ride the dirt jumper I had brought along for fun at the campsite. Short cranks, huge gear, very high BB, stiff fork, skinny tires, steep HA and yet I still managed to have a blast and rode all the trails I would have. We are not racing, just regular people having fun on bikes.

    These are first world problems....

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Shorter cranks only raise your center of gravity when you've shifted all of your weight to one pedal. It's not the apex of a corner (very dynamic point) that you need the stability so much as everywhere in between. Also, on higher speed trails you don't need to weight the outside pedal much.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    I think the greater BB drop is primarily what gives the increase in stability. Either way the difference is pretty obvious. I understand why some don't think the lower BB is worth the trade-offs but I don't understand how you guys can't tell any difference other than more pedal strikes.
    Because that few mm difference at the bottom bracket makes no difference in handling and cornering because center of gravity is up near your ass on the seat. But it does make a difference in pedal strikes vs. no pedal strikes.

    Thinking otherwise is just in your head.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    Greater handling is a subjective term. Since the center of mass Is between the hips and shoulders depending on how much muscle or fat someone has. To lower the center of gravity you bend your knees and flatten your back. So longer reach and lower seat and top tubes do more for corners than BB height.
    A low BB gives a greater sense of stability. Since there is less pitching of weight. So you feel less movement when braking and turning. This is more of a confidence builder than an effect on handling. But if you are more confident you will brake less. This does have an effect on changing direction. A higher BB is better for an S-turn situation since the COM can be changed faster.


    I still like low BB on down hill bikes since the speed is greater and controlling body pitch isn't something I need to think about.

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    Because that few mm difference at the bottom bracket makes no difference in handling and cornering because center of gravity is up near your ass on the seat. But it does make a difference in pedal strikes vs. no pedal strikes.

    Thinking otherwise is just in your head.
    The BB drop on my Megatower is 33mm. With the amount of sag it has that results in a pretty low BB. The difference between a BB 5mm higher and it is 22%. That's a 22% increase in leverage (due to the lever arm increasing 22%) between the BB and axles. That in addition to the lower CoG is why the difference in handling is so noticeable. It's very odd you can't tell if one of your contact points moved by over 20%.

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    A low BB gives a greater sense of stability.
    The lower BB literally changes the roll rate of the system. It's an objective change.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    The BB drop on my Megatower is 33mm. With the amount of sag it has that results in a pretty low BB. The difference between a BB 5mm higher and it is 22%. That's a 22% increase in leverage (due to the lever arm increasing 22%) between the BB and axles. That in addition to the lower CoG is why the difference in handling is so noticeable. It's very odd you can't tell if one of your contact points moved by over 20%.
    5mm is ~3/16" of inch. Not very much change near the ground.

  60. #60
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    5mm is ~3/16" of inch. Not very much change near the ground.
    Ah yes, 5mm is smaller the closer to the ground you are. Solid argument. /s

  61. #61
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    All a myth that bike industry made people fall for.

    Considering your center of gravity is about ~4 ft. high off the trail and can be adjusted by raising or lowering your body especially with a dropper posts...that few mm difference at the bottom bracket between lower and higher BB has zero affect on handling and cornering but has 100% effect on pedal strikes vs. no pedal strikes.
    Yup, pretty much a myth perpetuated by people who aren't engineers and by bike manufacturers who want to sell an idea.

    Simple math is all that's necessary:

    5mm is what percentage of 1200mm?
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  62. #62
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Simple math is all that's necessary:

    5mm is what percentage of 1200mm?
    100% irrelevant

  63. #63
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    All a myth that bike industry made people fall for.

    Considering your center of gravity is about ~4 ft. high off the trail and can be adjusted by raising or lowering your body especially with a dropper posts...that few mm difference at the bottom bracket between lower and higher BB has zero affect on handling and cornering but has 100% effect on pedal strikes vs. no pedal strikes.
    Not correct. BB height has to do with the BBD, or BB drop, which is the distance between the height of the BB and the center of the wheels. Have this negative and you'll have a hard time to even balance on a bike. The bigger BBD, more stable the bike will be.

    I can say that my bike has a BB some 5mm lower than my previous one, depending on frame settings. At first I have several pedal strikes. After I got used to it, I'm faster with less (or the same) number of strikes. Remember, we're talking of a 5mm difference on a BBD from 25 to 30mm.

  64. #64
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    100% irrelevant
    So is most of this discussion and your point is?

    I mean really, we got a guy comparing a 10mm change in BB height to a half degree change in HTA.

    Then we got a guy who actually thinks he rails a corner way better because his BB is 1/4" lower.

    Seriously, this is some pretty ludicrous stuff, at what point has this low BB benefit nonsense jumped the shark?

    I would agree that raising the BB too much, like lowering the BB too much, could lead to problems, but we're talking about 5-10mm, not enough to matter in regards to handling, but clearly (based on rider feedback) enough to increase pedal strikes.

    What sucks is that I've had to reduce my crank length to 165mm to make my bikes rideable, and the BB is still too low.

    My BB threshold is 340mm for all mountain, and 345 for rock crawling, anything less is a PITA.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  65. #65
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    166
    [QUOTE=jeremy3220;14457275]100% irrelevant[/QUOTE


    Don't know where you got the 22%/5mm BS but it seems pretty irrelevant to me.I think you should give up on math and go ride.

  66. #66
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    [QUOTE=joecx;14458035]
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    100% irrelevant[/QUOTE


    Don't know where you got the 22%/5mm BS but it seems pretty irrelevant to me.I think you should give up on math and go ride.
    From the people who say it doesn't matter. I did fine in all my calculus/Diff. E courses.

  67. #67
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    166
    [QUOTE=jeremy3220;14458063]
    Quote Originally Posted by joecx View Post

    From the people who say it doesn't matter. I did fine in all my calculus/Diff. E courses.
    Whatever, I'm done with this idiotic discussion

  68. #68
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post

    I would agree that raising the BB too much, like lowering the BB too much, could lead to problems, but we're talking about 5-10mm, not enough to matter in regards to handling, but clearly (based on rider feedback) enough to increase pedal strikes.
    BB drops and heights are relatively short distances so yeah 5-10mm is a big change. Decreasing your reach or chainstay length by 10mm are less drastic changes. I can feel the difference in my hardtail and enduro bike with the hardtail being easy to tip side to side. BMX bikes with their high BB (positive BB drop I think) are ultra obvious. I can tell the order of my three bikes' BB drop even though I haven't actually calculated the BB ride heights.

  69. #69
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,376

    Low bb height and pedal strikes.

    Just a quick question as it seems many if you may know. I have an Intense Primer that came with a 34 130 fork. Iím considering a 34SC 120. It will suit my XC style more. I do not tend to have a lot of strikes now. I also run the rear shock in the 115 mode all the time. Lastly I run the sag at 25 percent and like a firm pedal platform. Will the 10mm shorter fork drop the BB height much? Any guesses if it would be substantial? HTA affect? Thanks in advance!



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  70. #70
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by trmn8er View Post
    Just a quick question as it seems many if you may know. I have an Intense Primer that came with a 34 130 fork. Iím considering a 34SC 120. It will suit my XC style more. I do not tend to have a lot of strikes now. I also run the rear shock in the 115 mode all the time. Lastly I run the sag at 25 percent and like a firm pedal platform. Will the 10mm shorter fork drop the BB height much? Any guesses if it would be substantial? HTA affect? Thanks in advance!



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I'd say 3mm per 10mm change in fork length is about average. You could strap a large velcro strap to the crown and arch to limit travel to see how you like it.

  71. #71
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by trmn8er View Post
    Just a quick question as it seems many if you may know. I have an Intense Primer that came with a 34 130 fork. Iím considering a 34SC 120. It will suit my XC style more. I do not tend to have a lot of strikes now. I also run the rear shock in the 115 mode all the time. Lastly I run the sag at 25 percent and like a firm pedal platform. Will the 10mm shorter fork drop the BB height much? Any guesses if it would be substantial? HTA affect? Thanks in advance!



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You can do an extended crown race or crown race spacer to make up for this if you want to keep the geo while going lighter with the fork.

  72. #72
    bike tester
    Reputation: syl3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,281
    Quote Originally Posted by fmendes View Post
    Not correct. BB height has to do with the BBD, or BB drop, which is the distance between the height of the BB and the center of the wheels. Have this negative and you'll have a hard time to even balance on a bike. The bigger BBD, more stable the bike will be.
    That is absolutely not true.

    Explain how nobody ever complains about balance on these bikes:


    Low bb height and pedal strikes.-bromp.jpg

  73. #73
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by syl3 View Post
    That is absolutely not true.

    Explain how nobody ever complains about balance on these bikes:


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bromp.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	69.2 KB 
ID:	1296637
    I don't know what that is but as I mentioned before BMX bikes have a positive BB drop and it's very noticeable how twitchy that makes the bike side to side. That doesn't mean it's hard to balance per se, it suits its purpose well, but that purpose isn't rough high speed mtb trails.

  74. #74
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by syl3 View Post
    That is absolutely not true.

    Explain how nobody ever complains about balance on these bikes:


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	bromp.jpg 
Views:	43 
Size:	69.2 KB 
ID:	1296637
    Better yet, explain why anyone would ride that. I can't imagine someone riding that and not complaining about it afterwards. LOL

  75. #75
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    So is most of this discussion and your point is?

    I mean really, we got a guy comparing a 10mm change in BB height to a half degree change in HTA.

    Then we got a guy who actually thinks he rails a corner way better because his BB is 1/4" lower.

    Seriously, this is some pretty ludicrous stuff, at what point has this low BB benefit nonsense jumped the shark?

    I would agree that raising the BB too much, like lowering the BB too much, could lead to problems, but we're talking about 5-10mm, not enough to matter in regards to handling, but clearly (based on rider feedback) enough to increase pedal strikes.

    What sucks is that I've had to reduce my crank length to 165mm to make my bikes rideable, and the BB is still too low.

    My BB threshold is 340mm for all mountain, and 345 for rock crawling, anything less is a PITA.
    Between this and railing about people breaking pr's on their new bikes I'm going to have to ignore.

  76. #76
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Van Deventer View Post
    Between this and railing about people breaking pr's on their new bikes I'm going to have to ignore.
    More power to ya, just need to watch those ski tips as you jump the shark
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  77. #77
    NedwannaB
    Reputation: JMac47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    12,740
    Quote Originally Posted by be1 View Post
    all of my other 170 cranks didnt have the extra 5 mm. it's not normal. it's a cost-saving measure.
    I sit corrected.

  78. #78
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HotelBravo26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    111
    I have a bike with a 425mm chainstay and a 308mm BB height (which is just over 12") and a 175mm crank. Yes, pedal strike is an issue if I'm not mindful of my pedal position cornering on technical single tracks. This thing handles well and rock steady on the downhills. I don't have to think about it, it is natural part of riding.

  79. #79
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    105
    My Ripmo has 341mm BB and 175mm cranks. It has the lowest BB that I have ever owned and I got a lot of pedal strikes the first few months of riding it. I got better about the strikes and still get some, but I am constantly aware and am always thinking when I get close to something that I might strike so I flinch waiting for it. It is a mental thing now and I hate having that feeling! I am thinking about getting shorter cranks to help overcome the mental part of it.

  80. #80
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,875
    Quote Originally Posted by ToYZiLLa View Post
    My Ripmo has 341mm BB and 175mm cranks. It has the lowest BB that I have ever owned and I got a lot of pedal strikes the first few months of riding it. I got better about the strikes and still get some, but I am constantly aware and am always thinking when I get close to something that I might strike so I flinch waiting for it. It is a mental thing now and I hate having that feeling! I am thinking about getting shorter cranks to help overcome the mental part of it.
    It used to be a 13.4 inch BB height was plenty. But today's suspension travel on average bikes is ever increasing, and what was once a high BB is now low. An example is the Ripmo, a 6" travel bike. All of a sudden, a 13.4" BB height is low (assuming a rider is using sag and all of the travel). And if you don't want to strike pedals on a 6" travel bike, you're probably getting into the mid 14" BB heights, which is high by almost everyone's standards. I guess that leaves some riders decreasing sag or getting 165mm cranks.

  81. #81
    be1
    be1 is offline
    the beat goes on
    Reputation: be1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by JMac47 View Post
    I sit corrected.
    just something you need to verify depending on your cranks. some do it that way. some don't. if i had checked i would have saved some bruises. lesson learned.

  82. #82
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Thatís not that low for a hardtail, compare to the Kona Honzo which has a 310mm bb height.

    Folks with pedal strike issues are on full suspension bikes for the most part.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotelBravo26 View Post
    I have a bike with a 425mm chainstay and a 308mm BB height (which is just over 12") and a 175mm crank. Yes, pedal strike is an issue if I'm not mindful of my pedal position cornering on technical single tracks. This thing handles well and rock steady on the downhills. I don't have to think about it, it is natural part of riding.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  83. #83
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    True, but the pedal strike issues are not generally happening while there is significant suspension compression, pedal strikes are a problem while pedaling, at or near sag.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pisgah View Post

    It used to be a 13.4 inch BB height was plenty. But today's suspension travel on average bikes is ever increasing, and what was once a high BB is now low. An example is the Ripmo, a 6" travel bike. All of a sudden, a 13.4" BB height is low (assuming a rider is using sag and all of the travel). And if you don't want to strike pedals on a 6" travel bike, you're probably getting into the mid 14" BB heights, which is high by almost everyone's standards. I guess that leaves some riders decreasing sag or getting 165mm cranks.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  84. #84
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Get 165mm cranks and never look back. You wonít notice any difference in performance, pedal strikes will greatly decrease, only issue will be raising seat and cockpit to accommodate shorter cranks.

    I havenít ridden anything longer than 165mm cranks for the last five years, my wife runs 160mm, my Muniís are all 150mm.

    Long cranks are from a bygone era when mountain bikes were simply road bikes with knobbies and flat bars.

    Quote Originally Posted by ToYZiLLa View Post
    My Ripmo has 341mm BB and 175mm cranks. It has the lowest BB that I have ever owned and I got a lot of pedal strikes the first few months of riding it. I got better about the strikes and still get some, but I am constantly aware and am always thinking when I get close to something that I might strike so I flinch waiting for it. It is a mental thing now and I hate having that feeling! I am thinking about getting shorter cranks to help overcome the mental part of it.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  85. #85
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HotelBravo26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Thatís not that low for a hardtail, compare to the Kona Honzo which has a 310mm bb height.

    Folks with pedal strike issues are on full suspension bikes for the most part.
    Well stated. Thank you for the insight, Nurse Ben.

  86. #86
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,800
    I am totaly with post #84. For some trails my HT is much more fun with 165 and the negative side is more rumors if you ask me.

  87. #87
    be1
    be1 is offline
    the beat goes on
    Reputation: be1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by 33red View Post
    I am totaly with post #84. For some trails my HD is much more fun with 165 and the negative side is more rumors if you ask me.
    just got some 165s and it does feel different in a good way. feels more natural for my short legs. not aware of any negatives.

  88. #88
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Get 165mm cranks and never look back. You wonít notice any difference in performance, pedal strikes will greatly decrease, only issue will be raising seat and cockpit to accommodate shorter cranks.

    I havenít ridden anything longer than 165mm cranks for the last five years, my wife runs 160mm, my Muniís are all 150mm.

    Long cranks are from a bygone era when mountain bikes were simply road bikes with knobbies and flat bars.
    165mm? I was thinking 170mm, but I was wondering if 5mm would really make any difference at all. What 165mm cranks are you running? Also how tall are you and what is your inseam?

  89. #89
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by ToYZiLLa View Post
    165mm? I was thinking 170mm, but I was wondering if 5mm would really make any difference at all. What 165mm cranks are you running? Also how tall are you and what is your inseam?
    6', typically wear a 34/35" inseam pant, sz 13 feet.

    I like SRAM GX DUB, DM chainrings from SRAM are quality and not expensive, a couple offset options. I run Shimano XT 8100 12 sp, previously ran GX 11sp, works great, same crank and chainring for both systems.

    I think the new Shimano XT 8100 12sp stuff comes in 165mm, not sure about the DM chainringe options cuz it's new

    Each 5mm is ~1/4", doesn't seem like much, but taken together a 10mm shorter crank will make a vary big difference in pedal strikes.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  90. #90
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Tinshield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,153
    I hate the new low BB trend. As an east coast rider itís one of the first specs I look at when buying a bike. Both my Devinciís I run in high mode as well.

  91. #91
    Dark Meat
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinshield View Post
    I hate the new low BB trend. As an east coast rider itís one of the first specs I look at when buying a bike. Both my Devinciís I run in high mode as well.
    I agree; Iím 6í2Ē...175mm cranks are already downsized for me...I used to run 180mm cranks. I will add, that the issue is during climbing...not so much on the DH

  92. #92
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    105
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    6', typically wear a 34/35" inseam pant, sz 13 feet.

    I like SRAM GX DUB, DM chainrings from SRAM are quality and not expensive, a couple offset options. I run Shimano XT 8100 12 sp, previously ran GX 11sp, works great, same crank and chainring for both systems.

    I think the new Shimano XT 8100 12sp stuff comes in 165mm, not sure about the DM chainringe options cuz it's new

    Each 5mm is ~1/4", doesn't seem like much, but taken together a 10mm shorter crank will make a vary big difference in pedal strikes.

    Thanks for the info. I am 5'10 with a 32" inseam. Right now I am running with what came stock on the bike which is a 12sp SRAM NX drivetrain.

  93. #93
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Meat View Post
    I agree; Iím 6í2Ē...175mm cranks are already downsized for me...I used to run 180mm cranks. I will add, that the issue is during climbing...not so much on the DH
    Maybe you could try an easier gearing. My inseem is 34.5 and i love 165. All my bikes are geared to climb and i feel the smaller/shorter dead spot is usefull to climb but i accept the low speed. I just love not always needing to ratchet for some trails.

  94. #94
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    I climb a lot, nothing flat Sheri live. My long rides are generally +5k, much of it is 250-500í per mile, High Sierras, Cascades, and I do it all with 165mm cranks.

    Iíve ridden long cranks; most large frames come with 175mm cranks, it was only after I started riding muni and played with crank lengths ranging from 75-185mm that I really learned how much is enough and how much is too much.

    You owe it to yourself to try shorter cranks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Meat View Post
    I agree; Iím 6í2Ē...175mm cranks are already downsized for me...I used to run 180mm cranks. I will add, that the issue is during climbing...not so much on the DH
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  95. #95
    Having a nice day!
    Reputation: LoneStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,415
    This thread must have cursed me. Had my first pedal strike ejection in forever yesterday after a friend and I traded bikes for a bit. Maybe it was because of a low BB. Maybe because of riding deeper into the travel. Maybe it was because of longer cranks. Maybe it was because we can't see obstacles right now due to too many leaves. I dunno. All I know is it hurt like hell and I don't fancy doing that again any time soon!

  96. #96
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    29,584
    This thread is pretty ridiculous.

    I've got a FS bike that I have more pedal strikes with on technical climbs. It's irritating AF, is what it is. When I built my hardtail, my various component choices raised the bb, but I only went 5mm shorter on the cranks (to 170mm). What I notice with shorter cranks is the change in gearing, and it's not something I'm a big fan of.

    I want/need low end gearing for climbing long, steep stuff and the shorter the cranks, the smaller the chainring needs to be to compensate. I'm not really willing to experiment too much with crank length because that means spending even more money on experimenting to get the gearing how I want it. In conversations with some of the aftermarket chainring manufacturers about other issues, they're cutting back on NW chainrings smaller than 30t as it is, which is not a trend that makes me happy. Maybe with other people using shorter cranks, it'll encourage the chainring mfrs to continue offering more smaller sizes. But it probably won't happen until the bike mfrs start equipping bikes with shorter cranks from the start.

    Anyway, the bb on my hardtail is at a height that I like. I haven't measured it, but the mfr's geo chart doesn't really help. I'm running a fork 20mm longer than stock, and I'm also on 29x2.6 tires. I definitely notice that I can crank through chunk that I have to slow down and clock my pedals for (and oftentimes still have a pedal strike) on my FS. That makes me happy. When it comes time to buy a new FS, I'll probably measure it finally and use it as a consideration in my purchase. My trails local trails don't really have lots of high speed corners, though. Sure, I notice lower bb as a benefit on stuff like that, but that's not what I ride most of the time.

    A high bb DOES help on some of the descents around me. A fair number of the descents are fairly ledgy (eroded root drops) and there are usually lots of them in series where they occur. I'll huck them when the landing zone looks good, but if I don't like the landing zone, I'm going to want to take them a bit slower. Increased clearance for the bb makes a difference with how large of a ledge I can "roll", or more accurately, how much I have to float the front wheel out away from the lip of the ledge before I let it drop down. Wheelbase is a factor here, too, of course, but if your bike is long and low enough, that almost completely eliminates that slow speed rolldown from your options. You have to float the front wheel so much that you're effectively just hucking the ledge anyway. The faster, more aggressive riders will gap some of them, but that riding style has never been me.

  97. #97
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    This thread is pretty ridiculous.

    I've got a FS bike that I have more pedal strikes with on technical climbs. It's irritating AF, is what it is. When I built my hardtail, my various component choices raised the bb, but I only went 5mm shorter on the cranks (to 170mm). What I notice with shorter cranks is the change in gearing, and it's not something I'm a big fan of.

    I want/need low end gearing for climbing long, steep stuff and the shorter the cranks, the smaller the chainring needs to be to compensate. I'm not really willing to experiment too much with crank length because that means spending even more money on experimenting to get the gearing how I want it. In conversations with some of the aftermarket chainring manufacturers about other issues, they're cutting back on NW chainrings smaller than 30t as it is, which is not a trend that makes me happy. Maybe with other people using shorter cranks, it'll encourage the chainring mfrs to continue offering more smaller sizes. But it probably won't happen until the bike mfrs start equipping bikes with shorter cranks from the start.

    Anyway, the bb on my hardtail is at a height that I like. I haven't measured it, but the mfr's geo chart doesn't really help. I'm running a fork 20mm longer than stock, and I'm also on 29x2.6 tires. I definitely notice that I can crank through chunk that I have to slow down and clock my pedals for (and oftentimes still have a pedal strike) on my FS. That makes me happy. When it comes time to buy a new FS, I'll probably measure it finally and use it as a consideration in my purchase. My trails local trails don't really have lots of high speed corners, though. Sure, I notice lower bb as a benefit on stuff like that, but that's not what I ride most of the time.

    A high bb DOES help on some of the descents around me. A fair number of the descents are fairly ledgy (eroded root drops) and there are usually lots of them in series where they occur. I'll huck them when the landing zone looks good, but if I don't like the landing zone, I'm going to want to take them a bit slower. Increased clearance for the bb makes a difference with how large of a ledge I can "roll", or more accurately, how much I have to float the front wheel out away from the lip of the ledge before I let it drop down. Wheelbase is a factor here, too, of course, but if your bike is long and low enough, that almost completely eliminates that slow speed rolldown from your options. You have to float the front wheel so much that you're effectively just hucking the ledge anyway. The faster, more aggressive riders will gap some of them, but that riding style has never been me.
    I ride 160mm until I travel to where you are. Then I bump it to 165mm crsnks. Doesn't seem like much but the effective gearing feels more natural and I can stay out of my 50t ring in the back for a few days (I tend to ride 10days straight when I visit WNC). I think there is now a 28t with XT 12speed at least I hope since I plane to switch drivetrains in 2020

    I have no real issues with 165mm in Pisgah with the tech climbs and can peddle through stuff easier than my home trails. Granted my BB is 13.5"

  98. #98
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by ToYZiLLa View Post
    I am thinking about getting shorter cranks to help overcome the mental part of it.
    A higher bottom bracket bike is the better solution. Don't have to think about it then anymore.

  99. #99
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    8,257
    Low BB you say?? What could possibly go wrong?

    https://www.instagram.com/p/B50dEauFOKm/
    SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  100. #100
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by HotelBravo26 View Post
    I have a bike with a 425mm chainstay and a 308mm BB height (which is just over 12") and a 175mm crank. Yes, pedal strike is an issue if I'm not mindful of my pedal position cornering on technical single tracks. This thing handles well and rock steady on the downhills. I don't have to think about it, it is natural part of riding.
    Your bike would handle exactly the same if your BB height was 335mm. Except you wouldn't have to be mindful of your pedal position.

  101. #101
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    I swapped wheels on my Shred Dogg this weekend from 27.5 x 2.8 to 29 x 2.6, raising my BB from ~335mm to 350mm. Rode this morning on my back yard trails, got to this little three rock wall that is a 50/50 on my 27.5 set up because it's hard to work the pedals as you clamber over the rocks.

    This morning I literally rode straight over those rocks without ratcheting or pausing, all for the love of 15mm.

    Oh, and the bike handles fine
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  102. #102
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    7,587
    E13 and RF SIXC also come in a 165mm length.

    I hated the low bb on my V2 Ibis Ripley (12.99"). It's what bums me out most about the bike. Now on an Evil Offering with 170mm cranks and I gotta admit it wasn't that big a deal making the switch from 175s. Not sure about 165s but for anyone on the fence about down-sizing I suggest giving it a try.

  103. #103
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    "Length 165mm, 170mm, 175mm We are proud to be the only manufacturer offering Trail cranks in 165mm length to accommodate the ultra-low bottom brackets".

    73mm spindle width in carbon only: $399

    RF Cranks can run different spindle lengths.

    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    E13 and RF SIXC also come in a 165mm length.

    I hated the low bb on my V2 Ibis Ripley (12.99"). It's what bums me out most about the bike. Now on an Evil Offering with 170mm cranks and I gotta admit it wasn't that big a deal making the switch from 175s. Not sure about 165s but for anyone on the fence about down-sizing I suggest giving it a try.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  104. #104
    orthonormal
    Reputation: andy f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,760
    I thought this was a pretty interesting discussion on the topic. https://www.daveypushbikes.com/blog/...tood-dimension
    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

  105. #105
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    29,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    I ride 160mm until I travel to where you are. Then I bump it to 165mm crsnks. Doesn't seem like much but the effective gearing feels more natural and I can stay out of my 50t ring in the back for a few days (I tend to ride 10days straight when I visit WNC). I think there is now a 28t with XT 12speed at least I hope since I plane to switch drivetrains in 2020

    I have no real issues with 165mm in Pisgah with the tech climbs and can peddle through stuff easier than my home trails. Granted my BB is 13.5"
    I'll say that I don't have very high power output so for me it's a bit more notable.

    What pisses me off is that just about every aftermarket chainring mfr discounted my desire for a 28t ring for shimano m9100. Now, I also use the 10-45 cassette because I don't want a long-ass cage derailleur, but in order to do it I had to use the Eagle quick link method and just buy a regular NW ring in 28t flavor. I use 170mm cranks with this configuration and I do notice that it's a little tougher to push than an 11-46 with 175mm cranks on a heavier bike. If I went shorter on the cranks, I could see wanting to run a 26t chainring or compromise with the long-ass cage and a 10-51 cassette. Neither of which I care to do.

    When I first set up this drivetrain, I was on a 30t Wolftooth ring (the Shimano XT 28t wasn't available yet) and it was just too big. I could push it for awhile, but I kept blowing myself up trying to push it all the way up the bigger climbs. If I were to do it over again right now, I'd probably get a Shimano crank and 28t Shimano ring. But I still don't think I'd go shorter than 170mm on the crank arms. Especially since nobody makes a 26t ring for those cranks at all. At any rate, I don't have any pedal strike problems at all with this configuration, so I'm happy with it.

  106. #106
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    I run SRAM GX Eagle 165mm crank, DUB BB, and SRAM Round NW 26t chainring. I prefer NW but the smallest made with the zero offset I need for my GG bikes is a 28t.

    I just changed from SRAM GX 11sp to Shimano XT 8100 12 sp 10-51, works like a champ.

    I don't think the derailleur cage length is an issue, at speed it's tucked up because you're pushing bigger gears, climbing through tech is low speed so it's really isn't all that exposed, and anyway the part you smack most is the derailleur body. I do a serious amount of boulder grinding, my derailleurs need a skid plate

    Dream bike: Pinion FS. Waiting on a suspension that works, even if an idler pulley is necessary

    I'd consider running a 165mm carbon crank, but I'd need to run boots cuz I smack a lot of rocks, which would further reduce clearance, so I'm sticking with aluminum for now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    I'll say that I don't have very high power output so for me it's a bit more notable.

    What pisses me off is that just about every aftermarket chainring mfr discounted my desire for a 28t ring for shimano m9100. Now, I also use the 10-45 cassette because I don't want a long-ass cage derailleur, but in order to do it I had to use the Eagle quick link method and just buy a regular NW ring in 28t flavor. I use 170mm cranks with this configuration and I do notice that it's a little tougher to push than an 11-46 with 175mm cranks on a heavier bike. If I went shorter on the cranks, I could see wanting to run a 26t chainring or compromise with the long-ass cage and a 10-51 cassette. Neither of which I care to do.

    When I first set up this drivetrain, I was on a 30t Wolftooth ring (the Shimano XT 28t wasn't available yet) and it was just too big. I could push it for awhile, but I kept blowing myself up trying to push it all the way up the bigger climbs. If I were to do it over again right now, I'd probably get a Shimano crank and 28t Shimano ring. But I still don't think I'd go shorter than 170mm on the crank arms. Especially since nobody makes a 26t ring for those cranks at all. At any rate, I don't have any pedal strike problems at all with this configuration, so I'm happy with it.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  107. #107
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    29,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    I run SRAM GX Eagle 165mm crank, DUB BB, and SRAM Round NW 26t chainring. I prefer NW but the smallest made with the zero offset I need for my GG bikes is a 28t.

    I just changed from SRAM GX 11sp to Shimano XT 8100 12 sp 10-51, works like a champ.

    I don't think the derailleur cage length is an issue, at speed it's tucked up because you're pushing bigger gears, climbing through tech is low speed so it's really isn't all that exposed, and anyway the part you smack most is the derailleur body. I do a serious amount of boulder grinding, my derailleurs need a skid plate

    Dream bike: Pinion FS. Waiting on a suspension that works, even if an idler pulley is necessary

    I'd consider running a 165mm carbon crank, but I'd need to run boots cuz I smack a lot of rocks, which would further reduce clearance, so I'm sticking with aluminum for now.
    hitting rocks isn't my concern. it's sticks that poke out everywhere. some of which aren't just loose debris, but they're roots that are attached and poke out. Those are the real derailleur eaters. How far "tucked up" the cage is doesn't matter much. The length and how much leverage gets put on it WHEN it snags something is what matters. The shorter the cage, the less likely it is to bend into the spokes when that happens, and the less real estate there is for it to snag on a stick in the first place.

    So long as I can get the gearing I want from a shorter cage derailleur, I have no reason to use a long-ass cage. Crank length plays into it, and if I don't have to run shorter than I have, then I also will not do that.

  108. #108
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HotelBravo26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    Your bike would handle exactly the same if your BB height was 335mm. Except you wouldn't have to be mindful of your pedal position.
    Well, it doesnít happen often enough to shift the entire center of gravity of the bike up an inch, or run a bigger wheel. Iíve seen those on this thread with a 335+ BB height that also site pedal strike.

    Iíve gone from pedals to clip-ins and that solves the problem as well.

    -HotelBravo26


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I race XC with a 2005 Raleigh M80. Yes, I really do.

  109. #109
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    18
    Only my opinion here, but it's not the low BB height. It's the LENGTH of the bike. Modern longer bikes sit lower over the obstacles. I can't draw a diagram on the forum, but it's just a basic triangle.

    Let's compare a 2 Door Jeep compared with a 4 door full size truck. Same ground clearance, but the big truck will high-center before the short Jeep. Same thing on your bike. The farther the wheels are apart (over a peak) the lower the bottom bracket.

  110. #110
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,800
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnotbroken View Post
    Only my opinion here, but it's not the low BB height. It's the LENGTH of the bike. Modern longer bikes sit lower over the obstacles. I can't draw a diagram on the forum, but it's just a basic triangle.

    Let's compare a 2 Door Jeep compared with a 4 door full size truck. Same ground clearance, but the big truck will high-center before the short Jeep. Same thing on your bike. The farther the wheels are apart (over a peak) the lower the bottom bracket.
    It is back to the surfer comparaison.
    Some love long boards some love the short ones.
    I prefer a bike with less stability, more playfull.
    Some prefer differently.

  111. #111
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by 33red View Post
    It is back to the surfer comparaison.
    Some love long boards some love the short ones.
    I prefer a bike with less stability, more playfull.
    Some prefer differently.
    To his point, surfboards don't have to worry about getting high centered. On certain features/obstacles his point is valid. The longer the wheelbase the worse the break over angle will be which could lead to more opportunities to strike a pedal.

    And to your point, I prefer longer. Bikes that is... I suck at surfing.

  112. #112
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnotbroken View Post
    Only my opinion here, but it's not the low BB height. It's the LENGTH of the bike. Modern longer bikes sit lower over the obstacles. I can't draw a diagram on the forum, but it's just a basic triangle.

    Let's compare a 2 Door Jeep compared with a 4 door full size truck. Same ground clearance, but the big truck will high-center before the short Jeep. Same thing on your bike. The farther the wheels are apart (over a peak) the lower the bottom bracket.
    and length of bike is mostly based on size of frame, so us big guys get screwed doubly.

    I think we all know how to use the terrain to reduce pedal strike, placing our wheels where they maximize clearance, so given that skill is more or less static, the low BB is an issue for all riders just to different degrees.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  113. #113
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    718
    Advice from someone who's learned from the 'Families and Riding with Kids' forum -- short cranks are where it's at!

    One of the other advantages aside from fewer pedal strikes I don't see mentioned is that "needing to raise the seat" also equates to "can fit a dropper with more extension".

    I'm ~5'11" and have switched to 152 / 155mm cranks on all my bikes now.

    Trailcraft makes a nice direct mount crank (currently using their cranks on my primary bike -- a older Niner EMD 9 with a 308mm BB):
    https://www.trailcraftcycles.com/pro...-mount-cranks/


    If you want a cheap way to experiment, you could try what I did to test -- older bike with a square taper BB + cheap kids cranks (Suntour XCT Jr, $30) + 64 BCD 1x chainring (USA Made Components, $17).


    For those looking for a smaller 0mm offset chainring, I'd come across these at 26T (note that I haven't personally tried them and they do have some notes about incompatibility with some chains):
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/Narrow-Wide...-/252763752200

  114. #114
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    7,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    and length of bike is mostly based on size of frame, so us big guys get screwed doubly.

    I think we all know how to use the terrain to reduce pedal strike, placing our wheels where they maximize clearance, so given that skill is more or less static, the low BB is an issue for all riders just to different degrees.
    I find it terrifying when racing enduro. Very easy to make mistakes when putting out maximum effort sprinting out of corners and such.

    One such pedal strike cost me a broken collarbone, scapula, glenoid, and ribs. Maybe it would have happened anyway, hard to tell because I never saw what I clipped.

  115. #115
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    I find it terrifying when racing enduro. Very easy to make mistakes when putting out maximum effort sprinting out of corners and such.

    One such pedal strike cost me a broken collarbone, scapula, glenoid, and ribs. Maybe it would have happened anyway, hard to tell because I never saw what I clipped.
    I clipped a big rock sticking out of a small bank on the edge of the trail. I was skidding down the trail on my face before I even realized what happened. Rock was hiding in the grass and I never even saw it. BB height was irrelevant there though as my crank arms wasn't even in the down position. Certainly has made me more cautious and I ordered a full face helmet a couple days later. LOL

  116. #116
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by TimTucker View Post
    Advice from someone who's learned from the 'Families and Riding with Kids' forum -- short cranks are where it's at!

    One of the other advantages aside from fewer pedal strikes I don't see mentioned is that "needing to raise the seat" also equates to "can fit a dropper with more extension".

    I'm ~5'11" and have switched to 152 / 155mm cranks on all my bikes now.

    Trailcraft makes a nice direct mount crank (currently using their cranks on my primary bike -- a older Niner EMD 9 with a 308mm BB):
    https://www.trailcraftcycles.com/pro...-mount-cranks/


    If you want a cheap way to experiment, you could try what I did to test -- older bike with a square taper BB + cheap kids cranks (Suntour XCT Jr, $30) + 64 BCD 1x chainring (USA Made Components, $17).


    For those looking for a smaller 0mm offset chainring, I'd come across these at 26T (note that I haven't personally tried them and they do have some notes about incompatibility with some chains):
    https://www.ebay.com/itm/Narrow-Wide...-/252763752200
    Canfield Bikes has Gpx style cranks down to 145mm.

  117. #117
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    I hit a rock hiding in the grass, I was cranking full speed on a flow trail, pedal hit the rock and I went flying, fortunately I only suffered some bruising, but when it was all said and done I ended up a good twenty plus feet from where I hit the rock.

    Clipping trees with my bars has caused broken bones and messed up bikes, but that is all on me, whoops

    So I saw that Canfield had some short cranks on sale, but all the spindles were 83mm. I'd take a shorter crank if I could get it, esp for my longer travel bike.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  118. #118
    mtbr member
    Reputation: HotelBravo26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    111
    Clipping trees is more of a concern to me than a pedal strike- this is why I am reluctant to go wider with my bars. I still run "antique" bar ends and they've save my hands more than once. I still manage to bash my shoulder cutting a tree too close- fun!
    I race XC with a 2005 Raleigh M80. Yes, I really do.

  119. #119
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    I hit a rock hiding in the grass, I was cranking full speed on a flow trail, pedal hit the rock and I went flying, fortunately I only suffered some bruising, but when it was all said and done I ended up a good twenty plus feet from where I hit the rock.

    Clipping trees with my bars has caused broken bones and messed up bikes, but that is all on me, whoops

    So I saw that Canfield had some short cranks on sale, but all the spindles were 83mm. I'd take a shorter crank if I could get it, esp for my longer travel bike.
    If they dont have them in 73mm spindles they should soon. If you hit the contact tab on the website and ask them to let you know when a size you want is in. They'll let you know.

  120. #120
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    718
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    Canfield Bikes has Gpx style cranks down to 145mm.
    They do, but they're both heavier and more expensive than Trailcraft.

  121. #121
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by TimTucker View Post
    They do, but they're both heavier and more expensive than Trailcraft.
    It's about a wash with the weight. Since the Canfield cranks weight is with the BB. They are less expensive though. How durable are they?

  122. #122
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    718
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    It's about a wash with the weight. Since the Canfield cranks weight is with the BB. They are less expensive though. How durable are they?
    Trailcraft is 570g for 152mm cranks and 26t chainring, 690g once you add in the BB.

    Canfield shows 760g for 155mm cranks and BB. Doesn't look like the weight includes a chainring, which would put you even higher.

    Hard to assess durability myself since I haven't had any pedal strikes since switching, but they feel solid and there are some pretty hard riding kids over in the family forum and I've yet to hear of anyone breaking them.

  123. #123
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    8,257
    What the heck is going on in this thread? Now we're sampling kids on 155mm cranks as a relevant data point??? Not only that but we're getting weight weenie about it at the same time? Awesome.

    And what would you say if someone said...

    The solution is is a properly designed bike, not 145mm cranks. (?)
    SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  124. #124
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    What the heck is going on in this thread? Now we're sampling kids on 155mm cranks as a relevant data point??? Not only that but we're getting weight weenie about it at the same time? Awesome.

    And what would you say if someone said...

    The solution is is a properly designed bike, not 145mm cranks. (?)
    Meh, this thread hasn't made sense since a few posts back, Post #1 I'd say.

  125. #125
    Just a flesh wound
    Reputation: Prophet Julio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,369
    I used to ride a 650b converted Prophet. It had to be run in XC mode, so the BB was 19mm above the wheel axles. I think the clearance was 14.5" or something crazy like that. Cleared everything! But I got an Ibis Ripmo with 29 x 2.5 tires. It is not as tall as the Prophet, and it has the same length cranks. I think that it is almost 3/4" lower but I got used to it pretty quickly. It handles so much better.

    I ride New England rocks and roots. MA, NH and VT. Still like the Ripmo more. I also ride a Fat Bike with a lower BB, but without suspension, no troubles. I think you get used to what you ride. Some configurations are better to get used to. I am 5' 8" tall, 160 lbs and 56 years old. When the BB is below the centerline of the axles, the bike is more stable. Now that is not to say that you can't ride like that but I like the center of rotation below the BB.
    My name is Chris and I ride a Ripmo now.

  126. #126
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,908
    Entertaining, to say the least. I never really had any issue with pedal strikes(and still don't) but I do think about it at times because of these type of threads. There is a time to pedal, a time to coast, times you'll need to bunny hop obstacles, times you need to ratchet your cranks. But maintaining 90rpm through a rock garden/root section simply isn't always feasible and as the rider it is our responsibility to be aware of our pedal position while navigating these technical sections.

    The idea of riding 155mm cranks is totally bonkers to me though.

    That is all...carry on

  127. #127
    Wanna ride bikes?
    Reputation: *OneSpeed*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    8,257
    Quote Originally Posted by itsnotbroken View Post
    Only my opinion here, but it's not the low BB height. It's the LENGTH of the bike. Modern longer bikes sit lower over the obstacles. I can't draw a diagram on the forum, but it's just a basic triangle.

    Let's compare a 2 Door Jeep compared with a 4 door full size truck. Same ground clearance, but the big truck will high-center before the short Jeep. Same thing on your bike. The farther the wheels are apart (over a peak) the lower the bottom bracket.
    Agreed. The chainring (aka: BB) is much more exposed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    so us big guys get screwed doubly.
    Yeah, that amplifies the problem too. Most notably on my new LLS trail bike (XL).

    I've tried it stock, I've tried it with a +15mm lower headset cup, both resulted in unpleasant characteristics. Currently running a +7mm crown race which is acceptable, but my next step is shorter cranks. I'll go from 175 to 170. I'm not interested or willing to go any shorter on cranks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Train Wreck View Post
    I never really had any issue with pedal strikes(and still don't) but I do think about it at times because of these type of threads. There is a time to pedal, a time to coast, times you'll need to bunny hop obstacles, times you need to ratchet your cranks. But maintaining 90rpm through a rock garden/root section simply isn't always feasible and as the rider it is our responsibility to be aware of our pedal position while navigating these technical sections.
    Indeed, and I'm well aware. One question though: Do you ride a full suspension bike with modern geometry? Is it an XL? And is the wheelbase near 190cm?
    SS 29er
    SS 29+
    Fat Lefty
    SS cyclocross
    Full Sus 29er (Yuck)

    Stop asking how much it weighs and just go ride it.

  128. #128
    mtbr member
    Reputation: In2falling's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    631
    Have my 2017 Niner Jet long shocked and over forked (fixed HA/geo with 1.5 angle headset).
    The BB measures right at 14", .6" higher than stock setup and its great. Can pedal right over most stuff I use to worry about getting pedal strikes on (do much less ratcheting) and elminated a lot of my pedal strike fears/phobia. I can now focus more on riding and pedaling, than thinking about ratcheting and where my cranks are positioned.

  129. #129
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Agreed. The chainring (aka: BB) is much more exposed.



    Yeah, that amplifies the problem too. Most notably on my new LLS trail bike (XL).

    I've tried it stock, I've tried it with a +15mm lower headset cup, both resulted in unpleasant characteristics. Currently running a +7mm crown race which is acceptable, but my next step is shorter cranks. I'll go from 175 to 170. I'm not interested or willing to go any shorter on cranks.



    Indeed, and I'm well aware. One question though: Do you ride a full suspension bike with modern geometry? Is it an XL? And is the wheelbase near 190cm?
    If you're a tall guy I feel for you. Bikes have gotten long in general. And the longer wheel base makes strikes worse as mentioned. Especially when climbing chunk. And longer legs loose some effective gearing with shorter cranks. I have 29" inseam so dont feel the loss of leverage/gearing until I go shorter than 160mm on the cranks. 165mm is my sweet spot.

  130. #130
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,908
    Quote Originally Posted by *OneSpeed* View Post
    Indeed, and I'm well aware. One question though: Do you ride a full suspension bike with modern geometry? Is it an XL? And is the wheelbase near 190cm?
    I don't, who offers a bike with a 190cm wheelbase?

    I've ridden/demo'd plenty of bikes though(Sea Otter Classic attendee for over 20 years) buts its kind of funny the way you present the question. Should I turn and run from that type of bike?

  131. #131
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,286
    In my opinion, if a person has pedal strike issues in chunk they need to change their riding style and not blame it on a long wheel base. I understand the concept, longer WB is more prone to high-center, blah blah blah.
    However, a 1/4" lower pedal position with a longer wheelbase is going to be an issue once in a while, not every pedal stroke.
    If a person has issues riding those conditions, perhaps they have the wrong bike and should have chosen a bike suited for primary use riding rock gardens. Alternatively, set the shock to firm setting before riding the chunky area to reduce squat -that outta give you back 1/2 of the 5mm you wish you had back?

    Long wheelbase won't affect the overall ride on normal trail conditions. On occasional root, sure -but pay attention to the root and don't pedal over it at speed, and/or ratchet if you're moving slowly.

  132. #132
    mtbr member
    Reputation: plummet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,250
    These low then theres LOW. Certainly if the bb is so low you cant enjoy your trails then its too low. I guess its shopping around for the bike that has the right specs for you.

  133. #133
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Itís surprising to me that folks will embrace longer reach, wider bars, longer wheelbase, shorter stems, 1x drivetrains, longer travel, but when it comes to crank length theyíre blocked.

    I suppose some changes are harder than others, even when thereís research supporting shorter cranks. I wish there was an inexpensive means for folks to try shorter cranks. Iíd be willing to bet that most folks canít tell the difference in performance between 165mm and 175mm cranks.

    I ride an uncommon bike (Guerilla Gravity), so I routinely let people try it out. Unless I tell someone Iím running 165mm cranks, I have yet to get a comment about crank length.

    A 10mm reduction in crank length makes a huge difference in reducing pedal strike.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  134. #134
    orthonormal
    Reputation: andy f's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,760
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    Itís surprising to me that folks will embrace longer reach, wider bars, longer wheelbase, shorter stems, 1x drivetrains, longer travel, but when it comes to crank length theyíre blocked.

    I suppose some changes are harder than others, even when thereís research supporting shorter cranks. I wish there was an inexpensive means for folks to try shorter cranks. Iíd be willing to bet that most folks canít tell the difference in performance between 165mm and 175mm cranks.

    I ride an uncommon bike (Guerilla Gravity), so I routinely let people try it out. Unless I tell someone Iím running 165mm cranks, I have yet to get a comment about crank length.

    A 10mm reduction in crank length makes a huge difference in reducing pedal strike.
    I notice a 5mm difference going from shorter to longer but not the other way around.
    The glass is twice as large as it needs to be

  135. #135
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    29,584
    Quote Originally Posted by Train Wreck View Post
    Entertaining, to say the least. I never really had any issue with pedal strikes(and still don't) but I do think about it at times because of these type of threads. There is a time to pedal, a time to coast, times you'll need to bunny hop obstacles, times you need to ratchet your cranks. But maintaining 90rpm through a rock garden/root section simply isn't always feasible and as the rider it is our responsibility to be aware of our pedal position while navigating these technical sections.

    The idea of riding 155mm cranks is totally bonkers to me though.

    That is all...carry on
    Quote Originally Posted by Forest Rider View Post
    In my opinion, if a person has pedal strike issues in chunk they need to change their riding style and not blame it on a long wheel base. I understand the concept, longer WB is more prone to high-center, blah blah blah.
    However, a 1/4" lower pedal position with a longer wheelbase is going to be an issue once in a while, not every pedal stroke.
    If a person has issues riding those conditions, perhaps they have the wrong bike and should have chosen a bike suited for primary use riding rock gardens. Alternatively, set the shock to firm setting before riding the chunky area to reduce squat -that outta give you back 1/2 of the 5mm you wish you had back?

    Long wheelbase won't affect the overall ride on normal trail conditions. On occasional root, sure -but pay attention to the root and don't pedal over it at speed, and/or ratchet if you're moving slowly.
    Lol...one root?



    Fairly regularly where I ride, you can't just coast over the roots. Momentum alone will only get you so far. I'm not trying to pedal 90rpm, but one or two pedal strokes is often necessary or the chunk will stop you. Sometimes smaller ratchet movements will work, but not always. And a fair number of them are on spots where you're having to run a fairly low gear because the trail is slow and techy, you're climbing, or you're gassed from a big climb you've already done. You see the guy in this pic geared pretty low. You've gotta start being concerned with the backpedal chain drop issue on 1x drivetrains at this point if you're relying heavily on ratcheting. Ratcheting a bunch in the big cog isn't a good idea because of that issue.

    It's exceptionally frustrating to be working through a spot like this only to be foiled by a pedal strike because of a combination of a low bb, a "standard" crank length, a long wheelbase, and a bit of shock compression. That happens sometimes with my Bucksaw and it pisses me off. It may not happen "often" but the mental impact of it sticks in my head. It happens on other trails when trying to climb ledges. Stuff I have no problem getting my front wheel onto, but the moment I try to make the move to get the rear wheel up, I get a pedal strike on the top of the ledge. Sure, my technique needs work, too, but the bike isn't helping. And to be clear, this is stuff that I can ride without much trouble on other bikes with more clearance.

    It's part of why I built my Pedalhead the way I did. It's definitely helping in some of those spots.

  136. #136
    Up In Smoke
    Reputation: Train Wreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    2,908
    It would be a dream to ride with some of you guys.

  137. #137
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    177
    Short wanks with short cranks? No thanks. It's too janks. I'll take my occasional spanks with proper 175mm cranks.

  138. #138
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    I hit a rock hiding in the grass, I was cranking full speed on a flow trail
    Me too last July. Broken ribs and concussion. Sucked.

    The nemesis of the fast rider - pedal strikes and clipping trees.

  139. #139
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rynomx785's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    1,041
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold View Post
    You've gotta start being concerned with the backpedal chain drop issue on 1x drivetrains at this point if you're relying heavily on ratcheting. Ratcheting a bunch in the big cog isn't a good idea because of that issue.
    Not the topic at hand but since you mentioned it, I have never had an issue with back pedaling on my 50 tooth. I have seen you mention issues with that before and that made me try it. Even back pedaling multiple times in a row and trying to create an issue, I could not get it to come off the 50 tooth cog. Is this a common problem for people? Am I just one of the lucky ones that isn't having issues?

  140. #140
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by rynomx785 View Post
    Not the topic at hand but since you mentioned it, I have never had an issue with back pedaling on my 50 tooth. I have seen you mention issues with that before and that made me try it. Even back pedaling multiple times in a row and trying to create an issue, I could not get it to come off the 50 tooth cog. Is this a common problem for people? Am I just one of the lucky ones that isn't having issues?
    No issues here either. Harold, you might need to tweak that b screw.

  141. #141
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    7,587
    There were definitely back pedaling or ratchet issues with the range extender cogs like OneUp, e13, and Wolftooth on 10 sp cassettes. The newer derailleurs (ie., 2.1) seem to have overcome the design limitations with the older stuff on 11 and 12 sp drivetrains.

    It was less than a decade ago that 1x was only possible with a chain tensioner. Wide-narrow chainrings had yet to be invented.

  142. #142
    mtbr member
    Reputation: CCSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by rockman View Post
    It was less than a decade ago that 1x was only possible with a chain tensioner. Wide-narrow chainrings had yet to be invented.
    Well, not exactly. 1x was definitely possible with a bash guard in the outer ring position and a fixed, inner retention device like the jump stop.

    Then came NW and clutch derailleurs.

    Then, for me, came single speeding and the rest was history

  143. #143
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rockman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    7,587
    Quote Originally Posted by CCSS View Post
    Well, not exactly. 1x was definitely possible with a bash guard in the outer ring position and a fixed, inner retention device like the jump stop.

    Then came NW and clutch derailleurs.

    Then, for me, came single speeding and the rest was history
    Not for me, way too much chain slap. Especially with a dW-link bike. Needed that roller pulley but of course that was a PIA because it required a bb plate if you didn't have ISCG tabs.

  144. #144
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    No issues here either. Harold, you might need to tweak that b screw.
    I had that problem with Eagle, no amount of tweaking solved the issue.

    Now riding XT 12sp and I can backpedal to my heart's content; also shifts better
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  145. #145
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Posts
    167
    My first and only 12 speed, so bag of salt. I can make my chain fall off if Iím rolling backwards, like moving the bike in the garage in the largest 2 rings. However, on the stand, sitting still, or moving forward it moves fine? If I shift into 3rd or 4th gear it doesnít ghost shift if I roll the bike backwards.

    I would be interested in trying 165mm cranks though. As is Iíve had about 20% of the pedal strikes on the 29er, vs my 26er full squish bike. 26 hardtail no issues at all.

  146. #146
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    718
    Quote Originally Posted by BujiBiker View Post
    My first and only 12 speed, so bag of salt. I can make my chain fall off if Iím rolling backwards, like moving the bike in the garage in the largest 2 rings. However, on the stand, sitting still, or moving forward it moves fine? If I shift into 3rd or 4th gear it doesnít ghost shift if I roll the bike backwards.

    I would be interested in trying 165mm cranks though. As is Iíve had about 20% of the pedal strikes on the 29er, vs my 26er full squish bike. 26 hardtail no issues at all.
    At one point I had a bike with 165mm cranks and one with 175mm cranks -- not much difference riding, but the 165's felt a little easier on the knees.

    Decided to go ahead and try 152mm cranks and haven't found any downside yet, but admittedly most of our local trails are more XC oriented with more sections that are appropriate to sit & pedal vs. stand & mash.

  147. #147
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,286
    Quote Originally Posted by BujiBiker View Post
    My first and only 12 speed, so bag of salt. I can make my chain fall off if Iím rolling backwards, like moving the bike in the garage in the largest 2 rings. However, on the stand, sitting still, or moving forward it moves fine? If I shift into 3rd or 4th gear it doesnít ghost shift if I roll the bike backwards.

    I would be interested in trying 165mm cranks though. As is Iíve had about 20% of the pedal strikes on the 29er, vs my 26er full squish bike. 26 hardtail no issues at all.
    Crank length won't prevent the chain from walking off the 50t cog during backpedal.

  148. #148
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,214
    I ride one of the lower BB bikes out right now with 170 cranks and I do have to pay more attention. It is not terrible and I do ride a lot of rocks, but someplace like Phoenix, no way.

    BTW I love the people on here speaking in absolutes. This is horrible, that is perfect, no bike should ever be.... If I had said that almost every trail bike on the market was going to have an HA less than 67 degrees five years ago people would have lost their minds. Just because it is normal today, doesn't mean it is perfect and your favorite is not necessarily the best for everyone.

  149. #149
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    BTW I love the people on here speaking in absolutes. This is horrible, that is perfect, no bike should ever be.... If I had said that almost every trail bike on the market was going to have an HA less than 67 degrees five years ago people would have lost their minds. Just because it is normal today, doesn't mean it is perfect and your favorite is not necessarily the best for everyone.
    Yep, I think BB height should be based largely on application (see post #14) but some people think low BB's are simply evil and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong and brainwashed by the industrial marketing complex.

  150. #150
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    ... but some people think low BB's are simply evil and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong and brainwashed by the industrial marketing complex.
    They're not evil. But the marketing fluff that tries to tell you that a lower bottom bracket more stable, corners betterer etc. is nothing more than pure BS.

  151. #151
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    They're not evil. But the marketing fluff that tries to tell you that a lower bottom bracket more stable, corners betterer etc. is nothing more than pure BS.
    No physics tells us the lower BB increases stability. Whether that's a good thing depends on the application. I'm not really interested if you can tell a difference or not.

  152. #152
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    They're not evil. But the marketing fluff that tries to tell you that a lower bottom bracket more stable, corners betterer etc. is nothing more than pure BS.
    I may not be a fan of low BBs. But its proven to drastically reduce pitch. This allows for later braking and feeling steadier in turns. You can turn just as well by bending your knees more, but you'll still have more brake dive. I thinks there should be more options.

  153. #153
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    Yep, I think BB height should be based largely on application (see post #14) but some people think low BB's are simply evil and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong and brainwashed by the industrial marketing complex.
    I'm not seeing the connection between industry brainwashing and smacking the crap outta your pedals on some bikes more than others.

    I suppose that brainwashing thing goes both ways ....
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  154. #154
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    MTBR needs to design a bike for conspiracy theorists.

  155. #155
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    No physics tells us the lower BB increases stability. Whether that's a good thing depends on the application. I'm not really interested if you can tell a difference or not.
    Stability is generated approximately 4 ft off the ground depending on where your waist/butt/torso is. Not near the ground by the BB.

  156. #156
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    I may not be a fan of low BBs. But its proven to drastically reduce pitch.
    Where has this been proven? Do you have links to these facts?

  157. #157
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,800
    Stability is from my 16 speeds design.
    4x4, more weight in the center, less in the rear.
    I will be applauded.

  158. #158
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    243
    Actually, stability comes from the bottom bracket being below the center of the wheels.

    If the bike leans and you're standing on the pedals, it's a lot more stable than if you're saying on the seat.

    Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk

  159. #159
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post
    Actually, stability comes from the bottom bracket being below the center of the wheels.

    If the bike leans and you're standing on the pedals, it's a lot more stable than if you're saying on the seat.

    Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk
    We've told him that like 20 times. It just doesn't sink in.

  160. #160
    Just a flesh wound
    Reputation: Prophet Julio's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by rod9301 View Post
    Actually, stability comes from the bottom bracket being below the center of the wheels.

    If the bike leans and you're standing on the pedals, it's a lot more stable than if you're saying on the seat.

    Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk
    Yes. Thank You! I didn't have to point out the obvious.
    My name is Chris and I ride a Ripmo now.

  161. #161
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    and this whole time I thought stability was created by the rider ...

    Damn, bikes these days are quite amazing!

    If only people chose their bike for the qualities we espouse vs cost, appearance, and convenience.

    I figured out my problem: my feet are too damn big, 13-14.

    Iíve been in contact with a surgeon from North Korea, he says he can reduce my feet if I get him a meeting with the president ....
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  162. #162
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Nurse Ben View Post
    and this whole time I thought stability was created by the rider ...
    It's almost as if you're implying bike geo doesn't affect the handling characteristics...which is obviously absurd.

  163. #163
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    What we really need is even larger wheels lol. Low BB is a byproduct of BB drop. BB drop is what reduces pitch. You can lower a vehicle by dropping the suspension and lowering axle points or run smaller wheels. Even with the same COG the lowered car will be more stable due to pitch reduction.

    As pointed out the COG of a MTB is in the hips. Lowering your body changes this more drastically than lowering the BB, handling isn't only about cornering grip. And that seems what most people are arguing. I personally will take less stable with less pedal and ring strikes.

  164. #164
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    It's almost as if you're implying bike geo doesn't affect the handling characteristics...which is obviously absurd.
    Even more absurd is thinking that a difference of 5mm BB height at the ground affects the handling characteristics when the center of gravity is way above the bottom bracket. The few mm difference at the ground is negligible in how the bike handles.

  165. #165
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Salespunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,214
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    MTBR needs to design a bike for conspiracy theorists.
    They did, it is called the Ibis Mojo HD circa 2012

    Wheels 26
    Travel 160 mm
    HA 67*
    SA 71*
    Reach 403 mm (Lg)
    CS 435 mm
    BB 352 mm
    WB 1142 mm


    I rode one for 3 years. Net result 25+ broken bones (not kidding) including fingers, hands, ribs, kneecap, elbow, multiple concussions etc.

    Broken elbow was from clipping my pedal with a rock... on a bike with a 350 mm+ BB height. I also broke the BB out of one (totally my fault) with a different pedal strike... on a bike with a 350 mm+ BB

    Everyone can save a ton of money by just buying these perfectly adequate bikes cheap right now and then screwing the MTB marketing machine that is selling us stuff we don't need.

    Unfortunately I am already a victim of the marketing machine and ride a bike their stupid new geometry numbers

    Wheels 29
    Travel 140 mm
    HA 63.5*
    SA 75.6*
    Reach 475 mm
    CS 443 mm
    BB 328 mm
    WB 1252 mm

    I am very sad to learn I can't pedal my bike anywhere but parking lots and based on other threads I can't make any turn let alone tight switchbacks. Oh well, I will just suffer through it.

  166. #166
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    As pointed out the COG of a MTB is in the hips. Lowering your body changes this more drastically than lowering the BB, handling isn't only about cornering grip. And that seems what most people are arguing. I personally will take less stable with less pedal and ring strikes.
    I would think lowering the CG of just the bike would have some effect (even with rider+bike CG remaining unchanged). The bike and rider move as a system but the bike also moves somewhat independently of the rider too. It's not unreasonable to think lowering the bike's CG would increase stability. I'm not sure how much of a CG change would be needed to notice a difference though.

  167. #167
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jeremy3220's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    2,967
    Quote Originally Posted by Salespunk View Post
    They did, it is called the Ibis Mojo HD circa 2012

    Wheels 26
    Travel 160 mm
    HA 67*
    SA 71*
    Reach 403 mm (Lg)
    CS 435 mm
    BB 352 mm
    WB 1142 mm


    I rode one for 3 years. Net result 25+ broken bones (not kidding) including fingers, hands, ribs, kneecap, elbow, multiple concussions etc.

    Broken elbow was from clipping my pedal with a rock... on a bike with a 350 mm+ BB height. I also broke the BB out of one (totally my fault) with a different pedal strike... on a bike with a 350 mm+ BB

    Everyone can save a ton of money by just buying these perfectly adequate bikes cheap right now and then screwing the MTB marketing machine that is selling us stuff we don't need.

    Unfortunately I am already a victim of the marketing machine and ride a bike their stupid new geometry numbers

    Wheels 29
    Travel 140 mm
    HA 63.5*
    SA 75.6*
    Reach 475 mm
    CS 443 mm
    BB 328 mm
    WB 1252 mm

    I am very sad to learn I can't pedal my bike anywhere but parking lots and based on other threads I can't make any turn let alone tight switchbacks. Oh well, I will just suffer through it.
    Yeah, it's hard times riding these crappy new bikes.

  168. #168
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    243
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    Even more absurd is thinking that a difference of 5mm BB height at the ground affects the handling characteristics when the center of gravity is way above the bottom bracket. The few mm difference at the ground is negligible in how the bike handles.
    It's not where the com is.
    It's where that mass sits on the bike, ie the pedals.
    The lower the pedals, the more stability.

    That's not to say that this is more important than pedal strikes.

    Personally i just ordered 155mm cranks instead of the 175 my haibike nduro came with. Because I'm striking rocks on the way up.

    Sent from my Armor_3 using Tapatalk

  169. #169
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,607
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    I would think lowering the CG of just the bike would have some effect (even with rider+bike CG remaining unchanged). The bike and rider move as a system but the bike also moves somewhat independently of the rider too. It's not unreasonable to think lowering the bike's CG would increase stability. I'm not sure how much of a CG change would be needed to notice a difference though.
    I dont think 5-10mm drop is that noticeable. You may not feel as tired since you dont need to crouch as low. But dont dismiss control of pitch. The most previous generations of the Corvette and Ferrari have the axle angels dropped to reduce pitch, it's easier to control a vehicle that isn't bobbing you around, and the ability to brake later is awesome.

  170. #170
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by jeremy3220 View Post
    It's almost as if you're implying bike geo doesn't affect the handling characteristics...which is obviously absurd.
    Dude, dude, dude!

    Maybe I was making a joke?

    Go drink some damn egg nog or something.

    the holidays, geez.
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

  171. #171
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    8,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Cerberus75 View Post
    What we really need is even larger wheels lol. Low BB is a byproduct of BB drop. BB drop is what reduces pitch. You can lower a vehicle by dropping the suspension and lowering axle points or run smaller wheels. Even with the same COG the lowered car will be more stable due to pitch reduction.

    As pointed out the COG of a MTB is in the hips. Lowering your body changes this more drastically than lowering the BB, handling isn't only about cornering grip. And that seems what most people are arguing. I personally will take less stable with less pedal and ring strikes.
    When I was waaay into mountain unicycles, I rode a 36er for XC styled riding and let me tell you about having a high COG, damn! But I tell ya, once I got that baby rolling, it was an amazing ride and talk about carving turns, shiiite!

    Muni is the absolute best way to learn about how COG affects handling, wheels size determines your BB height, and talk about pedal strikes, try riding through a rock garden on a fixxy!
    GG Shred Dogg 27+/29 (go fast!)
    RSD Wildcat V2 (backyard kicks)
    Pivot Shuttle 27.5 (wifeys)

Similar Threads

  1. Which bike will produce less bottom bracket strikes - pedal strikes
    By TheNatureBoy in forum 26+/27.5+/29+ Plus Bikes
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-02-2019, 02:23 PM
  2. Low BB and Pedal Strikes
    By HeavyFlow in forum Massachusetts
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-14-2015, 09:00 PM
  3. Pedal strikes and chainring/bashguard strikes = frame damage?
    By Varaxis in forum Bike and Frame discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-25-2013, 12:45 AM
  4. Tallboy - low BB - frequent pedal strikes?
    By Variateur in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 07:38 AM
  5. Enduro SL - High Shock/BB Height vs Low Shock/BB Height
    By iguanabartola in forum Specialized
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 08:04 AM

Members who have read this thread: 17

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.