Downside to the geometry trend of low bottom brackets...(WFO/RIP)- Mtbr.com
Results 1 to 49 of 49
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    278

    Downside to the geometry trend of low bottom brackets...(WFO/RIP)

    Not a lot of people in these forums are willing to criticize their own bikes but I will because my experience is a good example of the downside to some trends. Specifically, low bottom brackets.

    "Long, low, and slack" is the trendy modern bike geometry. I like long and slack but not low. I rode a 2015 Niner WFO 9 for three years and this summer I replaced it with a RIP-9 RDO. What I've experienced since riding the new RIP9 summer and fall in Pennsylvania is that I'm consistently striking my pedals going through rock gardens in a way I was definitely not back on the taller WFO9. And hitting the lower suspension linkage more when hoping logs.

    The RIP 9 has a lower BB than the previous WFO9, I confirmed that from Niner. Niner says there's a cornering improvement with lower BBs, but I'd rather have a taller bike that gets through rock gardens and hops logs better since that's my terrain out here. These low BB bikes seem designed for people riding fast on smooth Western trails or maybe enduro riding (don't they have to ride rock gardens too?). But for riding the east coast with logs and rock gardens, the lower BB sucks.

    Also, since Niner's suspension linkage is located below the BB, that also reduces clearance under the BB. The CVA suspension design IMHO is therefore not a good fit for lower BB bike designs because it already starts out lower.

    I'm hoping to soon upgrade from current 2.3 tires to the largest tires (2.5/2.6) I can fit into this frame to gain slightly more height. Frame max size is 2.5 so I have some space to work with but not much. If anyone with RIP9 RDO can recommend the largest 29er tires that will fit this frame, please let me know some options.

    I wanted to love this bike, and it's a gorgeous looking bike, but I'm just not happy with it due to these clearance issues. The gnarliest bike in a company's line-up should be able to tackle the gnarliest terrain and this one falls short.

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: titusquasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,423
    I too am interested in tire size fitment. I would bet a 29X26 Nobby Nic will fit just fine.

    I was frustrated with the other end of this discussion with my last bike. I had an E29 original and it was short in reach and high at the bottom bracket (14.0"). This led to a tippy/ unstable sensation during slow speed technical moves.

    My new RIP RDO bottom bracket is at 13.4 with 29er tires. This is in the range where I'm thinking "is this too low?" I have really had to work on pedal timing but I'm getting along OK. I get what you're saying, however.

    Do you have the Cytoe lower link/ down tube guard? At least that will protect the link from damage. I've just become used to the lower link contact going over logs and rocks and with the guard I'm not concerned with damage. Once I came to expect that type of contact it became a non-issue. I would agree that the CVA suspension's achilles heel is the lower link clearance in technical terrain.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    278
    I think I definitely need to spend more time working on pedal timing but it's a bummer the frame drop requires this.

    Bigger tires should help a little bit too. I'm not seeing a lot of these 2.5 and 2.6 tires for sale anywhere online yet.

    The only place I could find the Nobby Nics in 2.6 is at German site Starbike.com. Comes to $70 per tire, shipping included, so that's not too bad. Might pull the trigger, but would like to do a little more research on any similarly large alternatives. I know Maxxis has some 2.5 and 2.6 but I've heard real world measurements are showing them not be as high volume as advertised.

    Good tip on those Cytoe guards. I just found their ads. Looks like a good idea.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    19
    Iíve got 29x2.6 nobby nics on my 2017 rip9 rdo. It feels taller than when I had 2.35 magic Maryís or 2.4 maxxis.

    I havenít found pedal strikes to be a big issue with the 29 wheels and any of the above tires.

    I have swapped out for 27.5+ wheels, and find I get a lot more pedal strikes with that setup. I was running 3.0 nobby nics.

    You could try adding the lower headset cup that Niner adds to the 27.5+ version. My understanding is that itís meant to address the bb height/pedal strike issue.

    I havenít tried that myself, but when Iíve had a 29x2.6 up front and a 27.5x3.0 out back I didnít have much of a problem with pedal strikes.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    OP, you can thank the smooth and bermed out trail crowd for this progression in frame geometry, if people actually wanted to have to ride MTB and do some work instead of just going as fast as possible with the aid of berms and smooth jumps, then BBs would still be a reasonable height. Pedal timing can help, but a 140mm> travel FS with a <13.5" high BB is assinine to say the least, but the entitled nature of people in general these days and laziness to climbing smooth fireroads instead of proper trails or using chair lifts to then turn around and bomb down trails basically so smooth you could ride them on a rigid if you could ride, that is the blight and manufacturers are catering to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  6. #6
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,179
    Bah. Iíve got a Ď17 RIP9 alloy with a diminutive Maxxis Aggressor 2.3 rear AND a -1* headset (which subsequently lowers the BB another 1/8Ē)

    I love chunky, rocky, technical trails. Bike does fine.

    If youíre hitting while climbing, ratcheting helps. Ratcheting also helps because you can place your pedals in the power zone of the pedal stroke... so you can be ready for those 1-2 stroke bursts that are needed to get up and over a technical feature.

    The bike carries awesome speed, so Iíve nev had any issues with pedal strikes while descending. Iíve had friends tell me that they want a really tell B.B. so they can hammer through chunk and rock gardens. If youíre going that fast, youíre going to want a low B.B. the next time the trail turns.

    Anyway: do I love the lower BB? Absolutely. Way faster and more stable everywhere else on the trail. Would not want t any higher. Do I strike from time to time while climbing? Yeah, but no worse than any other all-mountain style of MTB Iíve ridden.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,265
    Not a fan of the "Low/Long" movement either. My WFO was an odd bike for sure but did require me to watch my toes in the rocks and roots of Davis WV.

    Now with the new 2017 rip rdo I'm even lower to the ground.

    You could try adding the lower headset cup that Niner adds to the 27.5+ version. My understanding is that itís meant to address the bb height/pedal strike issue.
    Do they sell this seperate?
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  8. #8
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by tim709 View Post

    You could try adding the lower headset cup that Niner adds to the 27.5+ version. My understanding is that itís meant to address the bb height/pedal strike issue.
    Thatíll likely slacken your head angle 0.5*... just be mindful if thatís not what youíre looking for. I, for one, love my RIP9a setup with a 66* HTA (and 75.75* STA!)

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    19
    You can buy it separately:

    15mm ZS Lower Headset Cup

  10. #10
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6,027
    I have had the RIP9RDO '17 modrlmfor a bit over a year now. Live near Wilkes Barre PA so PA rocks and roots are also my home. Previous bike was a '12 Yeti SB95.

    Love my Niner ... Much more than then yeti, worlm better for me in all conditions.

    Definitely had to adapt to the low bb geometry but it's a non issue now, using either 27x2.8 Rekon or 29x2.4 Continental der Kaiser or the current 29x2.6 Nobby Nic Addix tires.

    Yes in have a Cytoe guard, I'm not stupid.



    FYI, the Nobby Nic 29x2.6 is fine on nthe bike, Stans Flow rims. Thinking about trying the 29x2.6 Rekon in the spring but the NN has been solid form the last two months in many conditions . great volume, decent knobs, seems to be warring well. Front still looks new.

    PS. I bought the 27.5 edition with the 170mm Lyrik fork, I run it at about 35% sag, with the shock at 30%.

    Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    883
    I'd rather have a long frame with long travel with a BB at -12 / -14 at static sag.

    Sure, lower BB makes turning the bike easier, but when does "easy" become a compromise?

    When you are ejected from pedal strike?
    Goodbye '95 ZJ. Just so you know, transfering box of left behind womens panties to next truck. Thank you ZJ!

  12. #12
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6,027
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxmark View Post
    I'd rather have a long frame with long travel with a BB at -12 / -14 at static sag.

    Sure, lower BB makes turning the bike easier, but when does "easy" become a compromise?

    When you are ejected from pedal strike?
    I have lost a pedal a few but never harshly enough to wipe out. Guess I am just lucky.

    Sent from my SM-T700 using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    278
    I ordered the Schwable Nobby Nics Addix 29x2.6 after seeing the recent PinkBike article giving them high marks.

    High volume, good tread, but lighter than the likes of Minions and other big blocks. The new compound has improved what previously had been poor tread wear ( I know I had a set in 2013 that wore out really fast).

    https://www.pinkbike.com/news/schwal...rs-review.html

    The RIP9 should stand a half inch taller, according to the PB article. i'm hoping that's going to be noticeable and help with the pedal / lower linkage strikes.

    Purchase tip: it was hard to find these tires in stock from an online retailer. Comment thread in PB review recommended Bike24.com in Germany for cheaper than US retail of approx $90/tire. I got them for $55 per tire including VAT and shipping to the US. I'll post here if I have a problem, but sounds like Bike24 is reputable and has competitive prices even including shipping.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,265
    After a couple more weeks of riding mine with the stock stans MK3 wheels I'm going to "barrow" the wheels/tires from my wifes Ibis Ripley to try. They are the carbon 942 ibis wheels with Schwalbe NN 2.6x29. I did a trial fit and they seem to have almost the same clearance at the chainstay yoke but I just eyeballed it.

    I wish there was some kind of "flip chip" option like the santa cruz bikes just for those of us that live in areas with lots of roots, rocks or off camber trails with narrow bench cuts.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  15. #15
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6,027
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    ... carbon 942 ibis wheels with Schwalbe NN 2.6x29 ....
    I doubt you'll hate the ride. I expect those would be too wide for my use (the ibis is 35mm inner?) but not by a whole lot - I really like the fit of the Flow Mk3 with those tires. Still, may depend on your terrain, I ended up dealing with some moist trail last Saturday and there was NOT a lot of "mud room" on my bike with those tires.

    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    I wish there was some kind of "flip chip" option like the santa cruz bikes just for those of us that live in areas with lots of roots, rocks or off camber trails with narrow bench cuts.
    Maybe offset shock hardware could be leveraged? Clearly there's a bit of room for the lower link to move more 'down' ... unsure how much more on the upper link but definitely some. Of course the bushings would have to hold in a different mount position than properly designed ... like both offsets 'up' to force the rear triangle down a bit. Would not be a big change though, only a couple mm.

  16. #16
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,179
    So, y'all got me thinking and I did some more research.

    The RIP9 does have a low BB, but it seems on par with the other 150mm AM/Enduro 29ers.

    BB Drop/BB Height

    SC HTLT 32mm/338mm
    Whyte S150 36mm/335mm
    Orbea Rallon 28mm/343mm HI - 35mm/336mm LO


    Compare to the RIP9 29mm/342mm

    My RIP9 is more like 31mm/339mm with the -1* headset

    (I'd like to compare to an E29 or Wreck, but they have 161-165mm of rear travel, so the static BB heights don't compare the same as a 150mm bike)
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: titusquasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,423
    The original E29 is a higher BB. My original E29 was aroung 14" with a 160mm Pike. I believe the newest E29 is a bit lower but not as low as the RIP.

    I have a RIP RDO with a 160mm Yari and a -1 headset. With 29X2.35 Schwalbe tires the BB height is 13.4". I also have a Wreckoning with a 170mm 36 and a -1 headset in the highest BB setting. With the same Schwalbe tires the BB height is also 13.4". On the Wreckoning the taller fork and -1 headset basically cancelled each other out and the BB height remained the same as stock. So...a stock RIP and Wreckoning have near identical BB heights.

  18. #18
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6,027
    Thanks TQ.

  19. #19
    Rocks belong
    Reputation: 06HokieMTB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    5,179
    Quote Originally Posted by titusquasi View Post
    So...a stock RIP and Wreckoning have near identical BB heights.
    Correct. But a RIP is 150mm rear travel and the Wreck is 161mm (and new E29 is 165mm). When you sit on it, a longer travel bike will sink into a deeper sag (BB will drop more) than a shorter travel bike (30% x 160mm vs 30% x 120mm, for example) ... so static BB heights are comparable, but only sorta/kinda.

    If a 150 and a 160 bike have the same static BB height, the 160 bike will ride lower.
    I like 'em long, low, slack and playful

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: titusquasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by 06HokieMTB View Post
    Correct. But a RIP is 150mm rear travel and the Wreck is 161mm (and new E29 is 165mm). When you sit on it, a longer travel bike will sink into a deeper sag (BB will drop more) than a shorter travel bike (30% x 160mm vs 30% x 120mm, for example) ... so static BB heights are comparable, but only sorta/kinda.

    If a 150 and a 160 bike have the same static BB height, the 160 bike will ride lower.
    Correct. I see what you're saying now.

    And...I would agree that the BB height is just fine. I've ridden both ends of the spectrum of BB height on longer travel trail bikes. Both have ups and downs but I much prefer the lower BB.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    28
    I currently have a -2 angleset and a 150mm fork on mine. Bottom bracket area scrapes on the logs when I forget to pickup the back wheel but otherwise don't get much pedal strikes. on the climbs ratcheting is the key I think. I also ride through chunky rock gardens with the bike just fine.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,051
    Some bike companies are screwing up moving the bottom bracket lower.

    Considering that the center of gravity is approximately 4ft off the ground for the average rider, and even lower for those with a dropper post, the little they move it at the ground level matters not for stability and cornering, but it is the difference between having and not having a pedal strike.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,756
    I also get frustrated at this trend, I go through a crank boot pretty much every 3 or 4 rides on my Switchblade because I ride proper trails with rocks, who'd have thought?! I hope bike companies stop this silliness in time for my next bike purchase. Thankfully my custom hardtail was designed with this in mind and ignored fashion in this instance!

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by Just J View Post
    I also get frustrated at this trend, I go through a crank boot pretty much every 3 or 4 rides on my Switchblade because I ride proper trails with rocks, who'd have thought?! I hope bike companies stop this silliness in time for my next bike purchase. Thankfully my custom hardtail was designed with this in mind and ignored fashion in this instance!
    You don't have to wait for for bike companies to stop the sillyness of low BB. You just have to look for the companies that don't do that.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Just J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,756
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    You don't have to wait for for bike companies to stop the sillyness of low BB. You just have to look for the companies that don't do that.

    Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
    True, itís hard to find them though. For 29ers, Orange and more prominently Yeti are two that spring to mind.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

  26. #26

  27. #27
    I like turtles
    Reputation: TiGeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,343
    Quote Originally Posted by 0gravity View Post
    Not a lot of people in these forums are willing to criticize their own bikes but I will because my experience is a good example of the downside to some trends. Specifically, low bottom brackets.

    "Long, low, and slack" is the trendy modern bike geometry. I like long and slack but not low. I rode a 2015 Niner WFO 9 for three years and this summer I replaced it with a RIP-9 RDO. What I've experienced since riding the new RIP9 summer and fall in Pennsylvania is that I'm consistently striking my pedals going through rock gardens in a way I was definitely not back on the taller WFO9. And hitting the lower suspension linkage more when hoping logs.

    The RIP 9 has a lower BB than the previous WFO9, I confirmed that from Niner. Niner says there's a cornering improvement with lower BBs, but I'd rather have a taller bike that gets through rock gardens and hops logs better since that's my terrain out here. These low BB bikes seem designed for people riding fast on smooth Western trails or maybe enduro riding (don't they have to ride rock gardens too?). But for riding the east coast with logs and rock gardens, the lower BB sucks.

    Also, since Niner's suspension linkage is located below the BB, that also reduces clearance under the BB. The CVA suspension design IMHO is therefore not a good fit for lower BB bike designs because it already starts out lower.

    I'm hoping to soon upgrade from current 2.3 tires to the largest tires (2.5/2.6) I can fit into this frame to gain slightly more height. Frame max size is 2.5 so I have some space to work with but not much. If anyone with RIP9 RDO can recommend the largest 29er tires that will fit this frame, please let me know some options.

    I wanted to love this bike, and it's a gorgeous looking bike, but I'm just not happy with it due to these clearance issues. The gnarliest bike in a company's line-up should be able to tackle the gnarliest terrain and this one falls short.
    Low/long/slack Koolaid....drink it or you are a lycra-clad XC rider not worthy of an opinion. Just kidding of course but I agree, this trend works great for bombing down hills and climbing back up easy/low-grade fireroads but if you use it here on teh east coast on normal terrain, you will have some issues. I went with the RKT 9 and am glad b/c it is somewhat "old-school" i.e. high/short/steep
    Geologist by trade...bicycle mechanic (former) by the grace of God!

    2018 Niner RKT 9 RDO - enduro AF

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: terrible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,265
    high/short/steep

    This should be the east coast biker rally cry.
    "I'm the fastest of the slow guys"

  29. #29
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6,027
    Quote Originally Posted by terrible View Post
    high/short/steep

    This should be the east coast biker rally cry.
    Year ago ('92) I had a Cannodale Beast of the East. They revived the model in '16 but it doesn't seem to have stayed around - I guess the public isn't buying that type of bike any longer.

    I do miss the old BoE now and then, very cool blue/black fade paint. Very, very harsh ride though with that Pepperoni fork.

  30. #30
    I like turtles
    Reputation: TiGeo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    6,343
    BoE!!!!! I remember that bike so vividly in the '90s. All the mags were touting the west-coast "NORBA" geo with a lower BB etc. (for the time). Us gnarly East Coast riders wanted something for our burly trails and the BoE was it!
    Geologist by trade...bicycle mechanic (former) by the grace of God!

    2018 Niner RKT 9 RDO - enduro AF

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    317
    This issue is one of the reasons I went with a Hightower over a Jet or RIP. The HT has a flip chip in the link so that you can run a bit higher BB. It is designed to account for slightly shorter 27.5+ tires, but some people run the bike in high mode for 29er too. That being said, after half a dozen rides, I cut way down on the pedal strikes and have a better feel for the bb clearance over rocks, now with about 300 miles on the bike, strikes are down to 1-2 per ride, which is fairly normal.

    As far as the lower link on the CVA goes, now that I think about it, I would rather bash the aluminum link than a carbon bb shell... The link can take quite a beating too. From a practical standpoint you will hit the chain ring first most of the time.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    4
    I too am plagued with peddle strikes..my new Jet 9's BB is an inch lower than my old Kona and I did get ejected on my first ride. Has anyone played around with decreasing sag or shorter cranks? My bike is currently a 27.5 plus and I have been looking at buying 29 in tires to raise it up but seeing all the posts from people running 29s and still having issues doesn't give me much hope for my 1000 dollars.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,574
    Quote Originally Posted by StrikerJet9 View Post
    I too am plagued with peddle strikes..my new Jet 9's BB is an inch lower than my old Kona and I did get ejected on my first ride. Has anyone played around with decreasing sag or shorter cranks? My bike is currently a 27.5 plus and I have been looking at buying 29 in tires to raise it up but seeing all the posts from people running 29s and still having issues doesn't give me much hope for my 1000 dollars.
    When I got my New Jet 9 27.5+. I had a ton of peddle strikes. Took it right to Moab after getting the bike. Hated it.

    I had one of the first new 18 models that came with the new head set cup and came with a 130mm fork

    The 2017s 27.5+ came with a 140mm fork to raise the B.B. I got home from Moab and swapped out my Fox air shaft from 130 to 140mm. I think the shaft was 50 bucks.

    I have a few rides now in Sedona and have almost eliminated my pedal strikes.

  34. #34
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6,027
    fwiw, pedal strikes are the only impact of the 'low' issue IMO, the lower link isn't in any more danger than the chainring as the chainring 'protects' ... on my rip9rdo I have the lower half of a MRP AMG guide (cut off the upper arm) with the taco bash to protect the ring. The alloy backing on that is solid enough for me to stand on and the taco is easily replaceable.

  35. #35
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    4
    Thanks , I agree that the low link is not a big deal but I ride in the East with lots of rocks and roots so I need to get the BB up a bit if I can.

  36. #36
    Chilling out
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    6,027
    Quote Originally Posted by StrikerJet9 View Post
    Thanks , I agree that the low link is not a big deal but I ride in the East with lots of rocks and roots so I need to get the BB up a bit if I can.
    I respect your personal need, but in NE PA, NJ, Central PA, and adjoining NY it's worked well enough for me.

    Not saying I didn't have to adapt a little to minimize / eliminate pedal strikes, just saying it's not necessarily a deal breaker for all.

  37. #37
    No good in rock gardens..
    Reputation: Sideknob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by LyNx View Post
    OP, you can thank the smooth and bermed out trail crowd for this progression in frame geometry, if people actually wanted to have to ride MTB and do some work instead of just going as fast as possible with the aid of berms and smooth jumps, then BBs would still be a reasonable height. Pedal timing can help, but a 140mm> travel FS with a <13.5" high BB is assinine to say the least, but the entitled nature of people in general these days and laziness to climbing smooth fireroads instead of proper trails or using chair lifts to then turn around and bomb down trails basically so smooth you could ride them on a rigid if you could ride, that is the blight and manufacturers are catering to it.
    Word.
    Less isn't MOAR

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    4
    Reading the threads and checking my bike, I realized my dealer didn't change the lower steering cup to the supplied 15mm lift cup..so put it in..every little bit. ..

  39. #39
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,098
    Pick your poison. There is no right or wrong here. Lower BB is more likely to strike, but handles better at speed. I've got a Banshee Prime, so can adjust the dropouts up or down within a 1/2" range. However I always end up going with the lowest setting, and dealing with strikes. But for rock crawling or tech climbs, no doubt a higher BB is better.

    Anyway if strikes are getting problematic, I'd suggest minimizing sag on the shock and fork, and going with the biggest tire that will fit (as already mentioned). Longer fork will help a bit as well, although that also makes the HTA and STA slacker.

    Of all those changes, minimizing sag on the shock seems to have the most benefit on the trail IME.

  40. #40
    Not the fake Jay Leno
    Reputation: Chinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    399
    I got the 2017 27.5+ bike with the 140mm Pike fork. I saw a few more pedal strikes than usual vs. my old spesh stumpy 29er. I bought set of 29er wheels, and I feel like things are back to ďnormalĒ. I still like riding both wheel sets. Iím really glad I got the 140 mil fork!

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    4
    I'm pretty sure I have the 140mm Fork and since the majority of my riding is cross country trail with rocks as opposed to downhill high speed stuff I think I'll get a set of 29 in rims and check that out. I appreciate everyone's feedback, thanks.

  42. #42
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    14,175
    When I was looking for a new bike I noticed Guerrilla Gravity's new 29er had a higher [than the typical low BB that's popular at the moment]. I asked them about why they went that way given the general trend to uber low BBs. They replied they had tried the low BB thing and riders had complained about pedal strikes enough that they decided they had found out what too low looked liked and decided to use a BB height that was more practical in techy terrain.

    I ended up buying one of their bikes because I ride techy trails. I can ratchet through a tech section if I have to, but when my whole ride is one tech section after another thinking about my feet all the time gets old.

    That said I don't think there is one magical answer to the question of BB height. If you mostly ride flow trails with only occasional tech or if you crank up fireroads and then bomb techy DH trails I can see why you'd dig a very low BB.

    The gamut of riders and the terrain in mountain biking are both diverse enough it makes sense to have more than one geo option since one solution doesn't work perfectly everywhere.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  43. #43
    Bannėd
    Reputation: Trevor Ochmonek's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by vikb View Post
    When I was looking for a new bike I noticed Guerrilla Gravity's new 29er had a higher [than the typical low BB that's popular at the moment]. I asked them about why they went that way given the general trend to uber low BBs. They replied they had tried the low BB thing and riders had complained about pedal strikes enough that they decided they had found out what too low looked liked and decided to use a BB height that was more practical in techy terrain.

    I ended up buying one of their bikes because I ride techy trails. I can ratchet through a tech section if I have to, but when my whole ride is one tech section after another thinking about my feet all the time gets old.

    That said I don't think there is one magical answer to the question of BB height. If you mostly ride flow trails with only occasional tech or if you crank up fireroads and then bomb techy DH trails I can see why you'd dig a very low BB.

    The gamut of riders and the terrain in mountain biking are both diverse enough it makes sense to have more than one geo option since one solution doesn't work perfectly everywhere.
    Well said! With so many great bikes out there people should spend their time finding what fits their riding style/location rather than complaining on internet forums about trends. When I first got my new RIP I had some pedal strikes in techy spots that I usually ride that my old RIP wouldnít have the same issue but in short time I subconsciously adjusted and donít have strikes anymore than I used to.
    Quote Originally Posted by DIRTJUNKIE View Post
    That's more than Catfish would do.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,051
    Quote Originally Posted by JACKL View Post
    Lower BB is more likely to strike, but handles better at speed.
    .
    I disagree with this statement about handling better at speed.

    As I noted earlier in this thread...Considering that the center of gravity is approximately 4ft off the ground for the average rider, and even lower for those with a dropper post, the little they move it at the ground level matters not for stability and cornering, but it is the difference between having and not having a pedal strike.

  45. #45
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    14,175
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    I disagree with this statement about handling better at speed
    Sorry I've tried a bunch of different BB height bikes and I am not a fan of super low BBs for where I live, but they do corner/handle noticeably better.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  46. #46
    mtbr member
    Reputation: LyNx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    24,083
    It's not the center of gravity, it's where the weight is relative to the wheel axles when applied, that's why people found that 29ers with roughly the same height BB as older 26ers felt more stable and railed corners better at speed than said 26ers, because the pressure applied was below the axle.

    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    I disagree with this statement about handling better at speed.

    As I noted earlier in this thread...Considering that the center of gravity is approximately 4ft off the ground for the average rider, and even lower for those with a dropper post, the little they move it at the ground level matters not for stability and cornering, but it is the difference between having and not having a pedal strike.
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold
    You're doing mtbr wrong, you're supposed to get increasingly offended by the implications that you're doing ANYTHING wrong.

  47. #47

  48. #48
    Here, diagonally!
    Reputation: JACKL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    2,098
    Quote Originally Posted by prj71 View Post
    Still don't agree.
    That's cool, I'm not seeing anything on those links that changes my mind; we can agree to disagree. I didn't look for any links to support my statement, and it is just my opinion based on personal experience, and applying a little common sense to the question. In mountain biking, the terrain is generally rough and may involve sliding or drifting. In those situations, a lower COG makes the corrections easier. Also makes the rider less likely to go OTB.

    There is also the matter of transitions, for example a fast left / right / left. Higher rider has to move across a longer arc.

    Whether these differences are significant, or matter more than having freedom to pedal freely is up to the individual. For those that find no significant downside to a high BB, I'd suggest going for 14+ inches. And guess what - if you are under 6 feet, you'll still have a lower COG than I do.

  49. #49
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,051
    I'll take a higher bottom bracket as opposed to alleged stability with a lower one. Getting thrown off the bike from a pedal strike is no fun...

Similar Threads

  1. Trend: lower bottom brackets, pedal strikes and stars
    By Charlie Don't Surf in forum Riding Passion
    Replies: 266
    Last Post: 11-10-2017, 01:49 PM
  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. WFO it says, WFO it does
    By ric-the-mountainbike in forum Niner Bikes
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-12-2013, 07:30 AM

Members who have read this thread: 3

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.