[Whoops]

Ok so read this;

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/DT-Swiss-7-Speed-Downhill-Hub-First-Look-sea-otter-2011.html

and then riddle me this... For the average punter, a chainring/chainguide strike happens maybe once every 2 or 3 hundred years (approx). So. There seems to be little benefit from going smaller upfront to the avg punter with current geometry.

Aside from just being another devious bike marketing-foo plan to 'sell more ****' (tm) or wanna be Sam Hill-itis... this 'more ground clearance' idea seems to be backwards... it will only be of real value IF frames are designed with lower BBs.


Discuss!

 

[no skid marks]

I hit my bashie every run where I'm riding at the moment.

 

[Pslide]

Also, more compact = lighter.

Less chain ring, less chain, less hub in the back, less cassette, less = moar.

 

[amishmatt]

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241523

 

[dbozman]

Really terrain specific. Where I ride, I probably hit my bash/taco 10-15 times per run. Even when I ran a Hammerschmidt on my pedal bike, the tiny bash on that was destroyed within six months.

 

[IH8Rice]

http://www.ridemonkey.com/forums/showthread.php?t=241523

 

[Whoops]

Ta for the links.

I'm not talking about other 'benefits' (weight, gear spread etc), or issues like pulsing... just that the full advantage of ground clearance would be better flipped over and any gain in gc used to lower bb.

15-20 times per run? ur doin it wrong (or I am)

 

[slowitdown]

Really terrain specific. Where I ride, I probably hit my bash/taco 10-15 times per run. Even when I ran a Hammerschmidt on my pedal bike, the tiny bash on that was destroyed within six months.

Where are you riding?

Maybe it's just me but if that happened to me as often as you describe, I'd be trying to float the bike more... I'd definitely change my lines or my tactics.

It sounds like something that would stress your frame's BB cluster quite a bit. Every strike translates that force back up to the BB shell, either through the crank if the bashguard hits, or through the BB cluster's ISCG tabs if you hit the taco. Just sounds painful!

I ride a lot of rocky stuff and have maybe 5 bashguard strikes per season. Am I just lucky? Maybe my trails are a different kind of rocky.

 

[dbozman]

Arizona. Nothing but rocks here.

 

[dw]

Ok so read this;

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/DT-Swiss-7-Speed-Downhill-Hub-First-Look-sea-otter-2011.html

and then riddle me this... For the average punter, a chainring/chainguide strike happens maybe once every 2 or 3 hundred years (approx). So. There seems to be little benefit from going smaller upfront to the avg punter with current geometry.

Aside from just being another devious bike marketing-foo plan to 'sell more ****' (tm) or wanna be Sam Hill-itis... this 'more ground clearance' idea seems to be backwards... it will only be of real value IF frames are designed with lower BBs.


Discuss!

The reason that I designed the first thermoplastic bashguards back in the early days of e.thirteen (then Evil branded actually) was to alllow for running less ground clearance and lower BB heights. The impact absorbing design let me design the Sunday with an at the time unheard of 65 degree head angle and 13.75 BB height (with an 8" fork mind you). Similarly, one of the big advantages of running the dw-link on DH bikes is it's ability to let us run lower and slacker geometry without having the bike sag massively into its travel when you are pedaling (the dw-DHR runs a 13.4 BB height and Pivot Phoenix a 13.6 BB height, two of the lowest on the market). (and lower than the Specialized WC bike without needing an extra small ring or 9T cassette). SO, seeing as much of what I've tried to accomplish with DH geometry, suspension, and componentry has revolved around optimizing geometry for specific purposes, yeah, I see the benefit. Assuming that the other issues can be designed around, (accelerated drivetrain wear, pulsing at the cranks) I definitely see the benefit.

 

[norbar]

Ok so read this;

http://www.pinkbike.com/news/DT-Swiss-7-Speed-Downhill-Hub-First-Look-sea-otter-2011.html

and then riddle me this... For the average punter, a chainring/chainguide strike happens maybe once every 2 or 3 hundred years (approx). So. There seems to be little benefit from going smaller upfront to the avg punter with current geometry.

Aside from just being another devious bike marketing-foo plan to 'sell more ****' (tm) or wanna be Sam Hill-itis... this 'more ground clearance' idea seems to be backwards... it will only be of real value IF frames are designed with lower BBs.


Discuss!

All depends on the track. A good example is Maribor WC rockgarden. I smashed my bash there every 2 runs. Look at the picture and tell me you would go smooth all the time.

the dw-DHR runs a 13.4 BB height and Pivot Phoenix a 13.6 BB height, two of the lowest on the market)

I agree with you on the rest but don't get carried away with the marketing I'm quite sure Nicolai is lower in the slackest setting. Wouldn't be suprised with some other bikes.

 

[dw]

I agree with you on the rest but don't get carried away with the marketing I'm quite sure Nicolai is lower in the slackest setting. Wouldn't be suprised with some other bikes.

I'd hardly call it "marketing".. Take a count of the full page ads for any other design in any mountain bike magazine and then lets talk about marketing.

Curious if you have ever ridden a dw-DHR or Phoenix? I only note the geometry becuase of their startlingly low numbers considering how few pedal strikes happen when you are riding the bike on an actual DH trail as opposed to ripping it up on an internet forum. Sure you can make a bike with a lower BB, the question is, how usable is it in the real world..

Dave

 

[Whoops]

Ok - let me rephrase the question...

Ceteris paribus.... Is a *too* low BB a problem because of bash-strike, or because of pedal strike? Don't say both, because that screws with my logic...

My gut feeling is that *I* would be faster on a bike with 25mm lower CoG than I would with 25mm more ground clearance. Maybe I'd have to run shorter cranks but I'm sure Shimano/SRAM will come out with a 7-46 11 speed cluster to allow me to maintain teh optimum gearing for my Olympic class pedaling abilities.

Oh wait.

As I said above - I'm thinking about the avg punter (i.e. the bulk of DH firms' PAYING customers). I don't pedal that hard, but I like to feel like I rail corners. A bike design will never make me fitter/stronger, but sure can make/break my roost-ability.

As a weak example - I've never felt/been faster than on a friends Sunday (thanks Dave), and it also happens to have been the lowest (and longest) bike I've ridden. I was conscious of bottoming out the bash however. If it was another inch lower for the same ground clearance I'm fairly sure I'd be faster than Jesus on it.

 

[UiUiUiUi]

sounds like you want a bike like the zerode G1 with a really low bb.
or the mythical SuperCo Silencer.

and i understand your feeling i did conescutive runs on a 2009 Norco Team DH and the Silencer proto in whistler. felt way more secure and fast on the silencer.

 

[norbar]

I'd hardly call it "marketing".. Take a count of the full page ads for any other design in any mountain bike magazine and then lets talk about marketing.

Curious if you have ever ridden a dw-DHR or Phoenix? I only note the geometry becuase of their startlingly low numbers considering how few pedal strikes happen when you are riding the bike on an actual DH trail as opposed to ripping it up on an internet forum. Sure you can make a bike with a lower BB, the question is, how usable is it in the real world..

Dave

Dave I know what you mean. It only rubs me the wrong way a bit when I see the most/the best/the lowest claims anywhere.
I ve tried a sunday and now ride a legend. I know how a good suspension helps you to have less pedal strikes Ive got to say if the DHR was available sooner Id have been a tough choice between it and the legend.

 

[W4S]

I don't need my bb any lower but I do know that sometimes I avoid lines because i know there's a high probability that I'm going to hit my bash, more clearance without raising the BB is a huge bonus, imo. 155mm cranks are next, haha! I rode dh today in santa barbara and it reminded me why these are all good ideas, probably most times you don't need all the benefits a truly compact drivetrain provides but it would be great to have when you do.