Results 1 to 36 of 36
  1. #1
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,044

    Me, the capital of Pedalstrikistan

    I swear, man, I had more pedal strikes this morning on National literally than I've had in the last year. I think it's a combination of factors that I'll outline for input.

    First, my "regular" bike is an Astrix Monk FS (120mm) 29er. I've run most of the trails in the Valley on this bike and it's great. Unsagged, the bottom bracket is 13.75 high (to the middle of the spindle) and I run 175mm SLX cranks with Time clipless pedals.

    My "new" bike I built more for National and the like. It's a 26er C'Dale Prophet. It has adjustable geometry and I prefer in the slack 67.5 head angle position. Float R air shock and Pike coil, 140mm both. Unsagged, the bottom bracket is 13.5 high to the middle of the spindle, also with 175mm SLX cranks and Atomlab flat pedals.

    Running the frame in the XC setting does raise the BB a bit, but I don't like the 69 degree head angle. I almost never pedal strike on my 29er and I don't run it super-firm (ie, I get full 120mm travel).

    Couple observations: Obviously the flat pedals are a lot larger. I get that. I'm running a touch more sag on the Prophet, which I can correct. I feel like the Prophet runs a lot lower in its travel, though. Taken into account the larger pedals and .25 lower BB height, I assume this combo is causing all the pedal strikes.

    This may sound like much ado about nothing, but to me it's a big deal. This number of strikes makes the bike nearly unrideable in the terrain I built it to ride. Other than that I'm very pleased with the way the bike handles.

    Thoughts?

    Honestly, I wouldn't be averse to trying a new longer-travel (150-160) frame/fork that's slack-ish with a higher BB.

  2. #2
    sixsixtysix
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant
    I swear, man, I had more pedal strikes this morning on National literally than I've had in the last year. I think it's a combination of factors that I'll outline for input.

    First, my "regular" bike is an Astrix Monk FS (120mm) 29er. I've run most of the trails in the Valley on this bike and it's great. Unsagged, the bottom bracket is 13.75 high (to the middle of the spindle) and I run 175mm SLX cranks with Time clipless pedals.

    My "new" bike I built more for National and the like. It's a 26er C'Dale Prophet. It has adjustable geometry and I prefer in the slack 67.5 head angle position. Float R air shock and Pike coil, 140mm both. Unsagged, the bottom bracket is 13.5 high to the middle of the spindle, also with 175mm SLX cranks and Atomlab flat pedals.

    Running the frame in the XC setting does raise the BB a bit, but I don't like the 69 degree head angle. I almost never pedal strike on my 29er and I don't run it super-firm (ie, I get full 120mm travel).

    Couple observations: Obviously the flat pedals are a lot larger. I get that. I'm running a touch more sag on the Prophet, which I can correct. I feel like the Prophet runs a lot lower in its travel, though. Taken into account the larger pedals and .25 lower BB height, I assume this combo is causing all the pedal strikes.

    This may sound like much ado about nothing, but to me it's a big deal. This number of strikes makes the bike nearly unrideable in the terrain I built it to ride. Other than that I'm very pleased with the way the bike handles.

    Thoughts?

    Honestly, I wouldn't be averse to trying a new longer-travel (150-160) frame/fork that's slack-ish with a higher BB.

    Usually the longer the travel, the lower the BB height once you get it sagged properly. Typically "AM" bikes have a BB height of 13.5-13.9"

    Maybe try some 170mm cranks?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,363
    Give it time. Your brain will adjust.

  4. #4
    parenting for gnarness
    Reputation: chollaball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,231
    could also be that you are off-rhythm with where your feet are while learning the flats, and simply not avoiding all the pedal strikes with your otherwise-better pedal control? Putting your Times on the Prophet would test that theory.
    YES to Scottsdale Prop 420
    Our Preserve, Our Taxes, Our Vote

  5. #5
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,044
    Quote Originally Posted by sixsixtysix
    Usually the longer the travel, the lower the BB height once you get it sagged properly. Typically "AM" bikes have a BB height of 13.5-13.9"

    Maybe try some 170mm cranks?

    Are those sagged numbers? The Prophet is 13.5 unsagged.

    Jason: I was thinking the same thing. I'll put my spare set of Times on for the next ride and see what the difference is.

  6. #6
    Saucy Size
    Reputation: Paul B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,482
    The unsagged numbers don't matter. That's what he's saying.

    I ran into a pedal strike problem with my RIP9 for similar reasons -- mostly it came down to imposing my old rhythm on the new bike. Your brain *will* adapt.
    Don't be that guy! Read the forum guidelines.

  7. #7
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,673
    It does take a while to adapt to a lower BB. When I got my foes I had originally with a shiver SC, so the BB was pretty darn low. I had a lot of strikes, and that was not good for the eggbeaters that were on there. Those pedals died pretty fast due to some hits, but as above, you will adapt and get better. Flat pedals may be holding you back a little here because you might be able to time the pedal strokes with more control with some form of clipless.

    On the other hand, I have a bike with a 15" BB (when set up with 8" of rear travel), and I still hit the pedals rather hard on rocks and stuff. We live in a damn rocky state, and a very low BB is just not going to work well at times. Sometimes I use the pedal-strikes to propel me forward.


    This ain't Whistler and our trails have some super-chunky sections/trails. While I don't want a sky-scraper BB on my main every-day-all-around bike, I definitely don't want something real low either. It could be nice with that lower BB at some times, but cranks and pedals are not cheap and I'd rather not get stalled by some of the pedal strikes. I think 13.9-14.25 is perfect for an arizona-do-everything-bike with 6-6.5" of travel. Some may disagree with me, but after having owned quite a few of these bikes with similer travel (and varying BB heights) I just don't want to put up with all the negatives that come with something significantly lower.

    The whole "slopestyle" bike thing is beyond my comprehension. Sure, it would be nice IF I rode terrain where that would be nice. Otherwise it would be a bike that would sit in my garage 99.999% of the time because another bike can do almost as well downhill in the not-super-choppy downhill stuff and better everywhere else.
    "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.

  8. #8
    sixsixtysix
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    It does take a while to adapt to a lower BB. When I got my foes I had originally with a shiver SC, so the BB was pretty darn low. I had a lot of strikes, and that was not good for the eggbeaters that were on there. Those pedals died pretty fast due to some hits, but as above, you will adapt and get better. Flat pedals may be holding you back a little here because you might be able to time the pedal strokes with more control with some form of clipless.

    On the other hand, I have a bike with a 15" BB (when set up with 8" of rear travel), and I still hit the pedals rather hard on rocks and stuff. We live in a damn rocky state, and a very low BB is just not going to work well at times. Sometimes I use the pedal-strikes to propel me forward.


    This ain't Whistler and our trails have some super-chunky sections/trails. While I don't want a sky-scraper BB on my main every-day-all-around bike, I definitely don't want something real low either. It could be nice with that lower BB at some times, but cranks and pedals are not cheap and I'd rather not get stalled by some of the pedal strikes. I think 13.9-14.25 is perfect for an arizona-do-everything-bike with 6-6.5" of travel. Some may disagree with me, but after having owned quite a few of these bikes with similer travel (and varying BB heights) I just don't want to put up with all the negatives that come with something significantly lower.

    The whole "slopestyle" bike thing is beyond my comprehension. Sure, it would be nice IF I rode terrain where that would be nice. Otherwise it would be a bike that would sit in my garage 99.999% of the time because another bike can do almost as well downhill in the not-super-choppy downhill stuff and better everywhere else.
    I'll agree that at 6-6.75" of travel and a 14.25 BB with 170mm cranks is about perfect for a do it all bike in AZ. My last bike had that setup and I never really had a problem with pedal strikes even with some thick pedals.

    My current AM rig has a 13.7 BB height with 175mm cranks and only 5.5" of travel and I clip the pedals on that thing all the time.

  9. #9
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,044
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayem
    ... I think 13.9-14.25 is perfect for an arizona-do-everything-bike with 6-6.5" of travel. Some may disagree with me, but after having owned quite a few of these bikes with similer travel (and varying BB heights) I just don't want to put up with all the negatives that come with something significantly lower.
    In my experience, I agree 100% with this and it was what I was getting at in the original question.

    On my 29er, that in static form only has a .25-inch higher BB (but smaller pedals and rides higher in its travel) I almost never pedal strike on that bike. Today, I must've had 50 or 60 minor and major pedal strikes, at least a dozen of which really hung me up.

  10. #10
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,044
    To follow up on this: Rode the same trail (up Mormon, down National) today. I made one change, I added about 15psi to my rear shock, reducing my sag and making the bike ride a touch higher in its travel.

    Experienced far, far fewer strikes and I don't think my technique has improved much in two days (although I was really paying attention to it).

    With all that said, I would welcome some feedback on new frames to consider, based on the details outlined in an earlier post.

    What I'd want: I pedal-able bike with about 160mm travel. I would prefer to use air on both ends. I'd like a higher BB (14 inches or so), roughly a 67-ish head tube and would like the final build to be in the area of 30-ish pounds without resorting to weenie parts.

    Thanks.

  11. #11
    sixsixtysix
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant
    To follow up on this: Rode the same trail (up Mormon, down National) today. I made one change, I added about 15psi to my rear shock, reducing my sag and making the bike ride a touch higher in its travel.

    Experienced far, far fewer strikes and I don't think my technique has improved much in two days (although I was really paying attention to it).

    With all that said, I would welcome some feedback on new frames to consider, based on the details outlined in an earlier post.

    What I'd want: I pedal-able bike with about 160mm travel. I would prefer to use air on both ends. I'd like a higher BB (14 inches or so), roughly a 67-ish head tube and would like the final build to be in the area of 30-ish pounds without resorting to weenie parts.

    Thanks.
    Transition Covert.


    Yeti 575


    Both fit the bill pretty much spot on.

  12. #12
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,044
    Thanks. I've had a 575 previously and liked it a lot.

    BUT: I should have mentioned in the previous post, I also want to try some form of suspension other than single pivot. All my suspension bikes to this point have been some type of single pivot and I find I'm starting to get really sensitive to the pedal feedback while climbing in the little ring.

  13. #13
    sixsixtysix
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant
    Thanks. I've had a 575 previously and liked it a lot.

    BUT: I should have mentioned in the previous post, I also want to try some form of suspension other than single pivot. All my suspension bikes to this point have been some type of single pivot and I find I'm starting to get really sensitive to the pedal feedback while climbing in the little ring.

    Ah, gotcha.

    In that case your options for a virtual pivot bike with 160mm are Specialized, Trek, or Giant

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Evil Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,754
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos
    Give it time. Your brain will adjust.
    You're right, but the problem is that rock gardens that one used to blast through without
    thinking twice will now need to be carefully negotiated with an interrupted cadence timed
    just right to avoid the impacts. Who wants to "be careful"? I just wanna keep on truckin'!
    -- Evil Patrick

    Some of my Music

    My Videos

    The trail...shall set you free.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Patrick
    You're right, but the problem is that rock gardens that one used to blast through without
    thinking twice will now need to be carefully negotiated with an interrupted cadence timed
    just right to avoid the impacts. Who wants to "be careful"? I just wanna keep on truckin'!
    I don't pedal through rock gardens.

  16. #16
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,044
    Quote Originally Posted by sixsixtysix
    Ah, gotcha.

    In that case your options for a virtual pivot bike with 160mm are Specialized, Trek, or Giant
    I was thinking: RFX/6 Pack, Firebird, Rune (not sure the linkage system), along those lines.

  17. #17
    sixsixtysix
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant
    I was thinking: RFX/6 Pack, Firebird, Rune (not sure the linkage system), along those lines.
    Firebird/RFX (when it's actually released) are gonna be tough to get down to the 30lb mark, you're probably looking more at 35ish.

    The Rune is nice, and is their own funky suspension mash up. Also check out the Spitfire that they just unveiled at Interbike.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: KavuRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    4,745
    Quote Originally Posted by sixsixtysix
    Firebird/RFX (when it's actually released) are gonna be tough to get down to the 30lb mark, you're probably looking more at 35ish.

    The Rune is nice, and is their own funky suspension mash up. Also check out the Spitfire that they just unveiled at Interbike.
    KARPIEL!!
    Quote Originally Posted by azdog View Post
    I think he was born around the time of the Chernobyl fallout which would explain a lot.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Evil Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,754
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos
    I don't pedal through rock gardens.
    What if it's uphill?

    (forgive me, I'm the "AAM" guy that actually looks for NaStY, long, rock-garden climbs)
    -- Evil Patrick

    Some of my Music

    My Videos

    The trail...shall set you free.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Patrick
    What if it's uphill?

    (forgive me, I'm the "AAM" guy that actually looks for NaStY, long, rock-garden climbs)
    Refer back to Paul B's answer.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Evil Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,754
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos
    Refer back to Paul B's answer.
    That doesn't seem to apply.

    1) You don't pedal through rock gardens

    2) Rock gardens are often on steep climbs on the AAM trails

    3) Paul's post: "The unsagged numbers don't matter. That's what he's saying.

    I ran into a pedal strike problem with my RIP9 for similar reasons -- mostly it came down to imposing my old rhythm on the new bike. Your brain *will* adapt."


    ?

    "The unsagged numbers don't matter."?

    As far as I can tell, that part of Paul's statement has nothing to do with you not climbing
    through rock gardens.

    "That's what he's saying."?

    As far as I can tell, that part of Paul's statement has nothing to do with you not climbing
    through rock gardens.

    "I ran into a pedal strike problem with my RIP9 for similar reasons -- mostly it came down to imposing my old rhythm on the new bike. "?

    As far as I can tell, that part of Paul's statement has nothing to do with you not climbing
    through rock gardens.

    "Your brain *will* adapt."?

    As far as I can tell, that part of Paul's statement has nothing to do with you not climbing
    through rock gardens.

    [chirp crirp...chirp chirp]

    If you aren't pedalling and the trail goes uphill for more than, say, 100 linear feet, you're
    going to soon reach stall speed.
    -- Evil Patrick

    Some of my Music

    My Videos

    The trail...shall set you free.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Patrick
    That doesn't seem to apply.

    1) You don't pedal through rock gardens

    2) Rock gardens are often on steep climbs on the AAM trails

    3) Paul's post: "The unsagged numbers don't matter. That's what he's saying.

    I ran into a pedal strike problem with my RIP9 for similar reasons -- mostly it came down to imposing my old rhythm on the new bike. Your brain *will* adapt."


    ?

    "The unsagged numbers don't matter."?

    As far as I can tell, that part of Paul's statement has nothing to do with you not climbing
    through rock gardens.

    "That's what he's saying."?

    As far as I can tell, that part of Paul's statement has nothing to do with you not climbing
    through rock gardens.

    "I ran into a pedal strike problem with my RIP9 for similar reasons -- mostly it came down to imposing my old rhythm on the new bike. "?

    As far as I can tell, that part of Paul's statement has nothing to do with you not climbing
    through rock gardens.

    "Your brain *will* adapt."?

    As far as I can tell, that part of Paul's statement has nothing to do with you not climbing
    through rock gardens.

    [chirp crirp...chirp chirp]

    If you aren't pedalling and the trail goes uphill for more than, say, 100 linear feet, you're
    going to soon reach stall speed.
    I have no problem climbing on my bottlerocket which has a fairly low BB.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Evil Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,754
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos
    I don't pedal through rock gardens.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Patrick
    What if it's uphill?

    (forgive me, I'm the "AAM" guy that actually looks for NaStY, long, rock-garden climbs)
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos
    Refer back to Paul B's answer.
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Patrick
    That doesn't seem to apply.

    Long, drawn out explanation deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos
    I have no problem climbing on my bottlerocket which has a fairly low BB.
    Unless itís an uphill rock garden, because:

    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos
    I don't pedal through rock gardens.
    -- Evil Patrick

    Some of my Music

    My Videos

    The trail...shall set you free.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Evil Patrick
    Unless itís an uphill rock garden, because:



    To tell you the truth,
    I'm not sure I know how to spot and official up hill rock garden. Can you give me some examples? Maybe a couple of pics?
    I could of climbed up some and not realized it.

  25. #25
    sixsixtysix
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos
    To tell you the truth,
    I'm not sure I know how to spot and official up hill rock garden. Can you give me some examples? Maybe a couple of pics?
    I could of climbed up some and not realized it.
    Have you pedaled up National? If so I think you qualify.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by sixsixtysix
    Have you pedaled up National? If so I think you qualify.
    Ahh...yes, I do in fact pedal through uphill rock gardens.
    Thanks Brent!

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant
    Thanks. I've had a 575 previously and liked it a lot.

    BUT: I should have mentioned in the previous post, I also want to try some form of suspension other than single pivot. All my suspension bikes to this point have been some type of single pivot and I find I'm starting to get really sensitive to the pedal feedback while climbing in the little ring.
    SC Nomad?

    I have one. And I like it a bunch. Have a van rc2 w/ rc5 coil in back and it sucks up the chunk pretty well for my ability. Even had some pretty fun shredding time in sunrise.

  28. #28
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,044
    yeah, I think the Nomad would be on the short list for sure. I'd think an older Horst 6 Pack could be built up near 30-ish pounds with air on both ends.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BIGHORN LEW's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    834
    titus el-guapo!
    RAM speed: UP, UP, and away....!

  30. #30
    .......................
    Reputation: ionsmuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant

    What I'd want: I pedal-able bike with about 160mm travel. I would prefer to use air on both ends. I'd like a higher BB (14 inches or so), roughly a 67-ish head tube and would like the final build to be in the area of 30-ish pounds without resorting to weenie parts.

    Thanks.
    Except for the weight bit, you need a Lenz Lunchbox.

  31. #31
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,044
    Must be a little wheeler. I already have a very nice 29er.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Evil Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    2,754
    Quote Originally Posted by tmarkos
    Ahh...yes, I do in fact pedal through uphill rock gardens.
    Thanks Brent!

    Man, what is in this Sh*t, man?
    Mostly Maui Waui man, but it's got some Labrador in it.
    What's Labrador?
    I had it on the table and the little motherf*cker ate it, man. Then I had to follow him around with a little baggie for three days, man, before I got it back. Really blew the dog's mind, ya know?
    You mean we're smokin' dog sh*t, man?
    -- Evil Patrick

    Some of my Music

    My Videos

    The trail...shall set you free.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant
    yeah, I think the Nomad would be on the short list for sure. I'd think an older Horst 6 Pack could be built up near 30-ish pounds with air on both ends.

    That frame has been on chainlove a lot lately. Last I say it was $699.

  34. #34
    No Clue Crew
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    6,044
    ???? I've never seen a Turner frame on Chainlove. Are you sure?

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation: tmarkos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by Blatant
    ???? I've never seen a Turner frame on Chainlove. Are you sure?
    Sorry. I meant the Titus. I probably made some people crazy for a bit there!

  36. #36
    I love bike!
    Reputation: dsittman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,157
    I have a 32lb TNT 5pack with Pike dual air, coil shock, and no weight weenie parts. You could probably get a used RFX (Pack) close to 30 with air front and rear and lightish parts. I wouldn't want to lighten mine up much more tho as the frame is built to be a bit burly.

Members who have read this thread: 0

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 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.