Results 1 to 59 of 59
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: telemike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    661

    Why are bottom brackets so low?

    The bottom brackets on all the mountain bikes I've ridden are low enough so pedal strikes just happen even though I practice pedal management. It's even worse with a full suspension bike when the shock and the fork are compressed. The bottom bracket may lose several inches in a compression!

    I suspect that there are design tradeoffs that limit the height of the bottom bracket. I'm also sure that some of the other members can explain it rigorously - that'd be great.

    Anyway, pedal strikes are great business for Shimano pedals!
    My mantra: Hike, Bike, Paddle, Ski

  2. #2
    SS Pusher Man
    Reputation: mtnbikej's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    7,365
    Because the trend towards smoothed out flow trails allow for low BB's without fear of pedal strikes. For those of us that don't ride flow trails, that have rocks, roots, steps, ruts.....you know, mountain biking....they don't play well.
    Bicycles donít have motors or batteries.

    Ebikes are not bicycles

  3. #3
    WillWorkForTrail
    Reputation: Cotharyus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by telemike View Post

    Anyway, pedal strikes are great business for Shimano pedals!
    Not if you don't buy Shimano pedals.

    Seriously though, in theory a lower BB makes it easier to turn the bike, because your center of gravity is lower, and makes the bike more stable. Raising the BB would have the opposite affect. That said, I've demo'd a couple of bikes that I felt like I was using my feet on the pedals as paddles to "row" the bike up rocky sections of trail. Some people have intentionally begun to run shorter cranks to help with pedal strikes. I think there's for sure an upper limit, probably one that was explored in the 90's, but I think maybe now we are exploring the lower limit. Time will tell.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    361
    The short crank idea is something I have considered. Seems shorter cranks have little to no disadvantage, assuming it doesn't cause a fit issue for you. Any leverage loss is easily regained by shifting gears.

  5. #5
    Having a nice day!
    Reputation: LoneStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,253
    I have a Pivot Mach 5.7C that has a tall bottom bracket by today's standards. That goes up a little more when I run a 27.5 wheel in the back sometimes. It can feel a little tall at times, but pedal strikes are almost non-existent. That said, it makes the addition of the dropper post that much better as the bike springs to life on fast sections when you drop it a little. Which does bring up the question...with dropper posts on pretty much everything now, is having the frame designed with such a low BB really necessary? Something to ponder.

  6. #6
    Hardtail Steel Forever
    Reputation: jestep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,757
    I felt the BB height has remained fairly static in the transition from 26 -> 27.5 and 29in wheels, the exception is what seems to be becoming more common in running 27.5 on a 29 compatible frame which.

    As far as shorter cranks, there's been a number of studies showing shorter crank arm length is beneficial for most riders. I'll try to find one of the studies I'm referencing and update.

    Update, a few I was able to find:

    https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/t...-crank-length/

    Bunch of references in this posting:
    Crank Length Research. When do they help? How short should you go? (Video) | Bike Fit Adviser
    WTB: Med Bontrager Ti Lite, PM Me...

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Lone Rager's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by Cotharyus View Post
    ...a lower BB makes it easier to turn the bike, because your center of gravity is lower, and makes the bike more stable. ,,
    Makes it easier to turn and less stable. More stable would be harder to turn. A bike is balanced by keeping the wheels under the center of gravity. A higher CG makes this easier. It's like the difference between balancing a broom on your palm vs trying to balance a hammer. Taller is much easier.
    Do the math.

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    5,123
    Your rocks are just too tall.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    109
    how has standover height not come up as a reason? Frames no longer have horizontal top tubes, but you can only lower the top tube so far. water bottle cages and rear shocks all want to occupy that space, and if you drop it too far, the frame will become weaker (like the old "girl's" bikes with step through frames).

    personally, i would never buy a bike that i couldn't comfortably straddle.

  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    236
    The low BB drives me crazy. I have wrecked so many times from pedal strikes. I pump my shock up harder than I should to hold me higher. One of the main criteria for my next bike will be a higher BB. I'm willing to sacrifice the benefits the low BB to not wreck and to be able to pedal instead of ratcheting.
    2018 Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol XXL
    2017 Rocky Mountain Element XXL
    2016 Fuse Pro XXL 29er

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,789
    Are bb's really any lower than they used to be? Seems like 13-13.5" is about the norm which is about what I remember them always being. My HT is ~12.5" and works great for me, maybe the prevalence of longer travel fs bikes is resulting in increased pedal strikes? In other words maybe bb's aren't lower than they used to be but just need to be higher than they were before.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    236
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    Are bb's really any lower than they used to be? Seems like 13-13.5" is about the norm which is about what I remember them always being. My HT is ~12.5" and works great for me, maybe the prevalence of longer travel fs bikes is resulting in increased pedal strikes? In other words maybe bb's aren't lower than they used to be but just need to be higher than they were before.
    This is true. I think my Fuse has slightly lower BB height per the specs, but that does not include sag. I have much fewer pedal strikes on my Fuse than my Stumpjumper. I don't know if they are lower than they used to be; I just know on my SJ it is too low for me now, and I have my shock air pressure near max. Granted I am a clyde.
    2018 Guerrilla Gravity Trail Pistol XXL
    2017 Rocky Mountain Element XXL
    2016 Fuse Pro XXL 29er

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    462
    Shorter cranks don't make a big different in pedal strikes but it obviously does help slightly. I just switched from 175 to 170 and had a pedal strike that sent me OTB. Total rider error as I though I had the pedal timing right around a root. It wouldn't have mattered if my BB were 14" instead of 13".

    With my 31" inseam I love the shorter cranks but I didn't switch for clearance. My pedaling feels much more smooth and round instead of having a little hitch I've never gotten rid of at 6 and 12 o'clock. I think its great if you like to spin 80+ rpm but I can see people who ride with low cadence hating it. I haven't had any noticable gain in pedaling clearance with the 170mm cranks.

  14. #14
    WillWorkForTrail
    Reputation: Cotharyus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    Makes it easier to turn and less stable. More stable would be harder to turn. A bike is balanced by keeping the wheels under the center of gravity. A higher CG makes this easier. It's like the difference between balancing a broom on your palm vs trying to balance a hammer. Taller is much easier.
    Fair enough. I should have completed my thought and worded it more specifically. It makes it easier to push a bike through rough terrain with your feet, and makes it feel less like you're going over the bars. More confidence inspiring, so to speak, rather than more stable. In fact, thank you for making me actually put that into words. Also, your hammer vs broom example is quite good.

  15. #15
    Having a nice day!
    Reputation: LoneStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Fajita Dave View Post
    Shorter cranks don't make a big different in pedal strikes but it obviously does help slightly. I just switched from 175 to 170 and had a pedal strike that sent me OTB. Total rider error as I though I had the pedal timing right around a root. It wouldn't have mattered if my BB were 14" instead of 13".

    With my 31" inseam I love the shorter cranks but I didn't switch for clearance. My pedaling feels much more smooth and round instead of having a little hitch I've never gotten rid of at 6 and 12 o'clock. I think its great if you like to spin 80+ rpm but I can see people who ride with low cadence hating it. I haven't had any noticable gain in pedaling clearance with the 170mm cranks.
    Agreed. I switched to 170's recently due more to sizing issues rather than pedal strikes. Can't say I've noticed a bit of difference in that area. Also can't say I've noticed any drawbacks to the shorter cranks. If anything, my climbing is better. Going to keep them at 175 on my singlespeed though.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1
    the bottom bracket on my '97 rigid is the same height as my new 29er hardtail. i run 175s on both and all pedal strikes i get are def 100% rider error.

  17. #17
    Having a nice day!
    Reputation: LoneStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    1,253
    True. Not sure BB heights have fluctuated that much on hardtails. But I know the BB on many FS bikes that I've been interested in is now 1/4" lower than my Les hardtail on 30% sag and obviously more than that on compression. Doesn't matter how good you are as a rider, pedal strikes will happen and they will likely happen more often with a lower BB. Am I against this trend? Nope, not at all. Seems though that bike design yo-yos between extremes all the time though. Seems like we are closer to the low end now.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LargeMan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    481
    Had a Scott Spark and a Salsa Bucksaw and due to their low BB had to sell them, my trails have a lot of roots and rocks and there was no way to pedal. Never have had any issues with any other bikes that I have owned, you can compress the rear and the pedal is roughly an inch from the ground. Did put a 120mm fork on the Bucksaw and had good results, but any future purchases I will not buy a design that when the suspension compresses puts the pedals that low.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    946
    Since I went to 170mm cranks on all my bikes, more for fit than anything else, I've noticed substantially less pedal strikes on rocks and roots. 5 mm's is .2", which is a pretty significant change in BB height.
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,405
    What is considered low, high, and average? My rigid 29er has the center of the BB about 11 3/4" off the ground. It goes not cause problems, but it also lacks suspension that would allow the BB to sag any significant amount.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,405
    never got an answer to my question: what is considered "low" these days?

    I have a 68mm BB drop ( on paper) and the center of the cranks is just under 12" from the ground on a 29er HT. is that "low"?

    170mm cranks and think flat pedals in chunk city central Texas. I don't hit my pedals on anything very often so I don't see what the big deal is.

  22. #22
    Bicycles aren't motorized
    Reputation: life behind bars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    3,889
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    never got an answer to my question: what is considered "low" these days?

    I have a 68mm BB drop ( on paper) and the center of the cranks is just under 12" from the ground on a 29er HT. is that "low"?

    170mm cranks and think flat pedals in chunk city central Texas. I don't hit my pedals on anything very often so I don't see what the big deal is.



    It's like wheel size, pick one and defend it.
    Wanted, SRAM GX 2x11 rear derailleur

    It ain't supposed to be easy.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,075
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    It's like wheel size, pick one and defend it.
    Ha... or:

    It's like wheel size, pick one and enjoy it.

    Seriously though just added a lower bb bike to the stable didn't take long to adapt and I do ride rockier stuff, I already use 170mm cranks anyway so maybe that is why. Long Term though with any of these bikes you have to sepnd time on them in the right terrain to get to point where you the rider are really utilizing near the full capabilioty of them.
    XC, Road, XXC, Endurance, Mtn, All-Mtn, Cross, Gravel, just go have fun on 2 wheels!

  24. #24
    Self Appointed Judge&Jury
    Reputation: DIRTJUNKIE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Posts
    32,683
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    It's like wheel size, pick one and defend it.
    Lol
    Quote Originally Posted by mileslong View Post
    I passionately remove rocks and corners and other stuff I find too hard to ride.

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,789
    I think low bb's are mainly to piss people off and give subject to start threads.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,405
    Quote Originally Posted by HEMIjer View Post
    Seriously though just added a lower bb bike to the stable didn't take long to adapt and I do ride rockier stuff, I already use 170mm cranks anyway so maybe that is why. .
    low compared to what? someone give me some numbers that mean something in this context so I know what they mean.

    I am familiar with the difference between BB drop and BB height, but I don't have a frame of reference for what is considered "low" and "high".

  27. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,075
    Hear ya ...the manufacters never really tell us if the geo measurments are with sag and if so what percent. For me "low" was based on comparing geo charts of 4 bike, my current 100rear/120mm front XCish bike (obviously gonna be higher has 71 degree head angle to), to 3 other bikes that were ~120mm/130mm bikes. Out of those 3 I chose the one with lowest bottom bracket but that was not a primary factor in my decsion. I did use height not drop though (Pivot and Ibis specify bb height agan not sure if that is with bike sagged or not).

    mack...you think like an engineer or scinetist I like it! Numbers do matter, but you are right it has to matter relative to aanother measurement and even than you need a good statistical sample or an accepted standard, the bike world seems to have niether (and no one tell me bottom bracket size, dropout/axle spacing, etc. has a true standard, it only kind of does)
    XC, Road, XXC, Endurance, Mtn, All-Mtn, Cross, Gravel, just go have fun on 2 wheels!

  28. #28
    No known cure
    Reputation: Vader's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    2,576
    I had my current 6" frame built with a 13" BB and even in punchy terrain with a 36t ring, I rarely have pedal or ring strikes.
    Ripping trails and tipping ales

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: l'oiseau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,200
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    Makes it easier to turn and less stable. More stable would be harder to turn. A bike is balanced by keeping the wheels under the center of gravity. A higher CG makes this easier. It's like the difference between balancing a broom on your palm vs trying to balance a hammer. Taller is much easier.
    This would be true if a bicycle/human system was an inverted pendulum, but it's not. It's far more complex because of the steering axis of the front wheel. If you were to lock the steering axis so both wheels were inline, it would behave like you describe, but since no bike does that, none behave that way. Look into "bicycle self-stability", you might be surprised as it has baffled physicists for years but recent experiments have taken out all the other variables and found the true effect.
    Life is too short to ride a bike you don't love.

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation: One Pivot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    7,792
    My kona dawg was about 14.5. My 2010 reign was nearly 15, I think 14.8.

    Im still getting used to my 13.5". Saggy debonair cans dont help.

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,789
    I always thought 12-ish was low and 13+ was high. That's on a hardtail though, on a fs the bb height changes moment by moment.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  32. #32
    Elitest thrill junkie
    Reputation: Jayem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    30,013
    These days, if you get tired, and hang a pedal low....BAM
    "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
    Barely in control
    Reputation: Schulze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,842
    I just installed a new hardtail 27.5 frame with 51mm of bb drop and spec'd 170mm cranks to help a bit. It's a good setup for tight, rocky trails. The previous bike had 28mm of drop and sucked to turn fast. I really hated it.

    Like most things mountain bike, you have to play with it to find out what you like. Yes, this will cost you money.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ALimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    814
    Quote Originally Posted by telemike View Post
    The bottom brackets on all the mountain bikes I've ridden are low enough so pedal strikes just happen even though I practice pedal management. It's even worse with a full suspension bike when the shock and the fork are compressed. The bottom bracket may lose several inches in a compression!

    I suspect that there are design tradeoffs that limit the height of the bottom bracket. I'm also sure that some of the other members can explain it rigorously - that'd be great.

    Anyway, pedal strikes are great business for Shimano pedals!
    Because manufacturers are trying to build bikes that outhandle their competitors.... so they keep lowering the BBís and we have to deal with the pedal strikes.

  35. #35
    Make America Bike Again
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Rager View Post
    Makes it easier to turn and less stable. More stable would be harder to turn. A bike is balanced by keeping the wheels under the center of gravity. A higher CG makes this easier. It's like the difference between balancing a broom on your palm vs trying to balance a hammer. Taller is much easier.

    That doesn't seem right. Please correct if anything is wrong below:

    Older geometry bikes tend to have higher bottom brackets
    Older geometry bikes supposedly turn better
    Older geometry bikes have a higher center of gravity, feel top heavy, and are LESS stable, even though the BB is higher.
    Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres: quod Belgiae, quod Celtae, et quod Aquitainae.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,199
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    That doesn't seem right. Please correct if anything is wrong below:

    Older geometry bikes tend to have higher bottom brackets
    Older geometry bikes supposedly turn better
    Older geometry bikes have a higher center of gravity, feel top heavy, and are LESS stable, even though the BB is higher.
    Yeah what you quoted is completely off.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  37. #37
    Make America Bike Again
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,412
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    low compared to what? someone give me some numbers that mean something in this context so I know what they mean.

    I am familiar with the difference between BB drop and BB height, but I don't have a frame of reference for what is considered "low" and "high".

    OK, let's point out the elephant in the room and resolve this run-around once and for all:

    DO OLDER-GEOMETRY BIKES TEND TO HAVE HIGHER BOTTOM BRACKETS OR NOT.


    Because if people are bitching about 'new' bottom brackets being so low, then what were they riding before? An upright, top-heavy cramped bike with road bike geometry, or the 1st generation of the new geometry? Let's start at square one before arguing about everything else. I agree it's annoying for a conversation to jump immediately into details without any overview at all.
    Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres: quod Belgiae, quod Celtae, et quod Aquitainae.

  38. #38
    Make America Bike Again
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,412
    Quote Originally Posted by life behind bars View Post
    It's like wheel size, pick one and defend it.

    Speaking of which, I'm not going into the 26" forum again, even when I myself continue to ride on 26" wheels often. They are really, really, stubborn and sensitive about their wheels to the point of just not listening to any other opinion.
    Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres: quod Belgiae, quod Celtae, et quod Aquitainae.

  39. #39
    Oh, So Interesting!
    Reputation: davec113's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,642
    Quote Originally Posted by BmanInTheD View Post
    Since I went to 170mm cranks on all my bikes, more for fit than anything else, I've noticed substantially less pedal strikes on rocks and roots. 5 mm's is .2", which is a pretty significant change in BB height.
    I agree.

    I got a '14 Trek Slash and it came with 175 cranks, it was a big adjustment dealing with pedal clearance. I switched to 170 cranks and it was a night and day difference, I could pedal in places I never could before.

    Recently got an '18 Slash and it's BB is higher vs the '14-'16 27.5" Slash, I greatly prefer the slightly higher BB and now I would never consider a bike with a super-low BB.

  40. #40
    Make America Bike Again
    Reputation: richj8990's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    1,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Fajita Dave View Post
    Shorter cranks don't make a big different in pedal strikes but it obviously does help slightly. I just switched from 175 to 170 and had a pedal strike that sent me OTB. Total rider error as I though I had the pedal timing right around a root. It wouldn't have mattered if my BB were 14" instead of 13".

    With my 31" inseam I love the shorter cranks but I didn't switch for clearance. My pedaling feels much more smooth and round instead of having a little hitch I've never gotten rid of at 6 and 12 o'clock. I think its great if you like to spin 80+ rpm but I can see people who ride with low cadence hating it. I haven't had any noticable gain in pedaling clearance with the 170mm cranks.

    Has anyone considered putting on wider (taller) tires to help raise the bottom bracket?
    Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres: quod Belgiae, quod Celtae, et quod Aquitainae.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    8,584
    I scower geo charts whenever I consider a new frameset - happens a lot. If you asked me 10+ years ago what the average BB height was for a FS trail bike i'd say 13.5-14". My current trail bike has a 13.25" BB height and have noticed a lot more pedal strikes.

    I'd say all of my older tall BB FS frames handles like a lifted 4x4. My newer FS handles quite well but the trade-off from BB strikes is a little annoying.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,405
    Crank length- i have to say that if 5mm of crank arm length makes a world of difference when it comes to pedal strikes, it's all in your head. Five millimeters? Really?

    Avoiding pedal strikes is mostly about skill. A few mm of clearance, even a centimeter, is not going to make up for timing and line choice.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,789
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    Crank length- i have to say that if 5mm of crank arm length makes a world of difference when it comes to pedal strikes, it's all in your head. Five millimeters? Really?

    I think it does make some difference, 10mm would for sure be noticeable for many people. I tried flats on a few rides awhile back and got pedal strikes left and right that I never got with clipless. I wonder what the difference in mm is between those?
    I brake for stinkbugs

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,405
    Flats vs clipless, the difference is probably more due to the surface area of the pedals' undersides rather than the stack height of the pedal.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,789
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    Flats vs clipless, the difference is probably more due to the surface area of the pedals' undersides rather than the stack height of the pedal.
    Still, as far as pedal strikes it has the same effect as increasing stack height, or raising or lowering the bb.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: l'oiseau's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,200
    My flat pedals are just as thin as my clipless pedals, and I whack them way more.

    It has more to do with the width of them IME. If you tilt the bike just just a little, the width makes them closer to the ground than a narrow clipless pedal.

    I also to believe that little bit of thickness makes a difference too as I never hit my shoe with clipless (or rarely do) and my flats do not extend beyond my shoes - both my clipless and flat shoes have the same last (5.10).

    Another thing... when I strike, it's usually the outside edge of my flat (again tilting plus added thickness in that area) but I almost never hit my crank arm, which is on the inside and the radius around the threads is just as thick as my pedal. I say almost because in some tricky rocks, I have had strikes on my crank arms too, but it's very rare.

    I have to ride a lot different with my flats because of all this. I don't pedal in the same areas I could with SPDs and have to be ultra-precise with my timing. Sometimes I see my friends riding SPDs pull away in the areas because of this. I more than make up for that with my confidence in tricky sections where I'm not afraid to bomb into and put a foot out if I have to. They fall a lot in those kind of areas.

    FWIW both my bikes have about 12.5" high BBs and both have 175mm crank arms.
    Life is too short to ride a bike you don't love.

  47. #47
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by richj8990 View Post
    That doesn't seem right. Please correct if anything is wrong below:

    Older geometry bikes tend to have higher bottom brackets
    Older geometry bikes supposedly turn better
    Older geometry bikes have a higher center of gravity, feel top heavy, and are LESS stable, even though the BB is higher.
    Older geometry bikes tend to have higher bottom brackets:
    I have no idea if this is true or not

    Older geometry bikes supposedly turn better:
    I feel like someone should state this,bikes with higher BB'S do "turn better" they are twitchy/ easy to rotate (thanks in part to the steeper head tube angles). where "new bikes with lower bb's (and slacker head tube angles) are more stable but have better grip in the corners due to the lower center of gravity. more force will be transferred straight down through the tires with said lower center of gravity.

  48. #48
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,405
    when people say "old geometry has higher bottom brackets," how old is "old"? if you're talking about geo based on 26 tires, those had to be a lot higher because the smaller wheels would put the axles closer to the ground. this may be one of the unsung benefits of larger wheels- you can enjoy the benefits of getting your BB well below the axles without the pedals being dangerously low.

    I have a pretty darn low BB on my hardtail and I like it. the trails where I ride are very chunky and it does not seem to cause problems. a higher BB would mean it might be easier to pick sloppier lines in the chunk, but I find that the stability of a lower CoG is worth it.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,789
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    when people say "old geometry has higher bottom brackets," how old is "old"? if you're talking about geo based on 26 tires, those had to be a lot higher because the smaller wheels would put the axles closer to the ground.
    A 13' bb is a 13" bb whether the wheels are 20" or 29", a bottom bracket doesn't need to be higher for smaller wheels. Since tire size affects bb height I think bb drop is probably a better measurement but not as easily understood.


    My guess is that pedal strikes are more common now due to the predominance of full suspension bikes and their constantly varying bb heights. From what I've seen hardtail bb's are pretty much the same height as they've always been.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,405
    fair enough. there are important differences between BB drop and BB height, both can be described as low or high. the way I see it, a BB drop tells you how the bike rides regarding center of gravity and and BB height tells you how much clearance you have between the ground and the BB (and therefore the pedals).

    the question I would like to know is, if you remove pedal strikes from the equation, is a lower BB (in relation to the BB) better for handling in all situations? when is a high BB better from a handling standpoint?

    from there, you have to ask, how low am I willing to go when considering pedal strikes? it's possible to pedal strike on any normal bicycle, no matter how small your pedals are, how short your cranks are, and how high the BB is. it's always a trade-off.

  51. #51
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,789
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    the way I see it, a BB drop tells you how the bike rides regarding center of gravity and and BB height tells you how much clearance you have between the ground and the BB (and therefore the pedals).

    BB drop also tells how much clearance there is between the ground and bottom bracket. Larger wheels can have more drop and still have the same bb height as smaller wheels with less drop. BMX bikes have bb rise.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  52. #52
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,405
    Quote Originally Posted by J.B. Weld View Post
    BB drop also tells how much clearance there is between the ground and bottom bracket. Larger wheels can have more drop and still have the same bb height as smaller wheels with less drop. BMX bikes have bb rise.
    not exactly. it's subtle, but BB drop does change with tire and wheel size. the axles stay in one place. BB height is a combination of the BB drop and the wheel/ tire size. so if I put 29x3" tires on my bike, and then switch to 29.1.8" tires, the BB height will drop, but the BB drop will stay the same.

    I remember putting various guards on my bmx bike BB shell and chainstay to keep from grinding it into oblivion despite the high BB. feeble grinds on rough concrete is hard on bikes. BMX bikes that were designed with dirt jumping specifically in mind often had lower BBs, slacker heat tube angles, and longer chainstays.

  53. #53
    mtbr member
    Reputation: J.B. Weld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    10,789
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    not exactly. it's subtle, but BB drop does change with tire and wheel size.

    It doesn't, bb drop is exactly the same for a given frame no matter what the tire or wheel size. Like you said, if you change tire size the bb height will change but the drop won't.
    I brake for stinkbugs

  54. #54
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ALimon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    814
    My stumpjumper came with 175mm cranks, pedal strikes were a regular occurance. I recently swithched to 170mm.... far less strikes, same trails.

  55. #55
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,405
    seriously, 5mm is a sudden magic bullet that significantly reduces pedal strikes? five millimeters?

    I am suspect of the idea that such a tiny change makes a big difference in ground clearance, all other things equal. that's about the width of a pencil. I suspect that using shorter cranks makes you expect to get fewer strikes, so that's what happens. someone put it in my head at some point that the BB height on my bike would cause pedal strikes, so it messes with my head and I now perceive more strikes.

    that's like saying that I hit trees with my handlebar until I cut 5mm off each end. that's 100% about skill and not the dimensions of any part of the bike.

  56. #56
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,937
    Check if rear shock pressure is too low.
    If Rear shock runs soft the bike will sag alot more leading to pedal strike

    Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk

  57. #57
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    2,199
    Quote Originally Posted by mack_turtle View Post
    seriously, 5mm is a sudden magic bullet that significantly reduces pedal strikes? five millimeters?

    I am suspect of the idea that such a tiny change makes a big difference in ground clearance, all other things equal. that's about the width of a pencil. I suspect that using shorter cranks makes you expect to get fewer strikes, so that's what happens. someone put it in my head at some point that the BB height on my bike would cause pedal strikes, so it messes with my head and I now perceive more strikes.
    Most of the ones I have been getting on 175mm have been glancing blows, even to the level of pins only. That extra 5mm of clearance would probably alleviate almost all of those.

    Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

  58. #58
    mtbr member
    Reputation: mack_turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,405
    Quote Originally Posted by Picard View Post
    Check if rear shock pressure is too low.
    If Rear shock runs soft the bike will sag alot more leading to pedal strike

    Sent from my SM-G965W using Tapatalk
    this is good general advice for FS riders. if that was directed at me, I don't have a rear shock.

  59. #59
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    946
    In a word, yes. Since switching all my bikes to 170 cranks from 175 (even on my road bike, but not for pedal strikes) I get much fewer strikes on my notoriously low-bb Ibis Ripley LS and Mojo 3. 5mm doesn't sound like much but ask any frame designer how much about a quarter-inch of bb height difference makes. Of course, tire size and/or pressure and shock pressure (sag) can make a diff too. But all else equal, 5mm won't alleviate strikes completely but can definitely eliminate a lot of the smaller ones. Hell, I'd even go 165 if I could find some good ones, not just for strikes but also for my hip flexor issue in my right leg.
    You can't buy happiness. But you can buy a bike. And that's pretty close.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 48
    Last Post: 04-19-2018, 06:31 AM
  2. Folsom Lake is Low Low Low
    By Tripower in forum California - Norcal
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 12-02-2015, 08:33 PM
  3. Are bottom brackets getting too low?
    By Swissam in forum All Mountain
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 12-02-2014, 12:28 PM
  4. Replies: 32
    Last Post: 03-10-2014, 10:36 AM
  5. Why do Bottom Brackets go bad?
    By What&son in forum Drivetrain - shifters, derailleurs, cranks
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 06-20-2011, 02:21 AM

Members who have read this thread: 219

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 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.