Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Downhill & Freeride' started by poonstar, Jan 6, 2008.
If you can't setup an LG-1, you are clinically retarded and probably should not be riding a bicycle.
Please register to disable this ad.
It's not hard, but the gamut is still simpler to install. Happier on more frames too. Have you ran one on any of your bikes?
That is damn sexy! Such a shame that MRP's blatant ripoff LG1+taco makes it to market before E-13's taco. Ah well. Supply and demand.
Two direct mount stems. One was a Romic, one was an e13. Unsurprisingly, a whole lot of other stuff was also fubared both times, including bars, top crown and fork lowers (in at least one case anyway). How did it happen? Exactly as I said - crashes where the bike came down heavily on the front wheel, which then turns until the bar hits the ground, then the whole momentum of the bike tries to turn the bar and wheel opposite directions. This is different to what happens to a fork when it hits the frame only, because instead of a stanchion being pushed against in between both crowns leaving little room for flex, you now have the upper crown and lower crown being twisted "unsupported" in opposite directions. This can't happen if the stem can slip obviously.
Personally I will not run a direct mount stem for this reason. Maybe it's lighter and yeah in theory you don't have to line it up (unless anything is the slightest bit sloppily toleranced or twisted), but I get unintentionally separated from my bike way too often to want to increase the risk of damaging stuff.
In my personal opinion, direct mount stems are just one of those fashion things... they'll probably stick around but I don't think there's actually any real-world advantage to em (that said, coming from someone who cares very little about weight).
I think every kid that has a thing negative to say about the E13 guides should be forced to take an older M1, DHi, DHR, Super 8, LTS or other bike and then set them up with the available offerings from 1 year prior to the E13 guide. They can have their choice of all the wonderful guides we had to choose from:
the MRP and it's millions of tiny little washers
Mr. Dirt with it's never rotating wheels and zero mud shedding ability
The gloriously brilliant AC
The Bullit Bros rear derailleur tensioner
Once installed, they are welcome to ride it down anything more severe than a gravel road and see if their chain even so much as rolls...let alone stays on, doesn't jam, rotate, pivot, bend, etc.
Wouldn't that be fun...just to watch them!
They aren't even lighter, at the lightest end of the spectrum (of stems that can safely be used for DH) there are lighter conventional stems available than the lightest direct mounts.
I think the real benefit is if you're a (v.) serious racer and want to lose as little time in a crash as possible. Sure if you crashed, you've just written off the win anyway - but if you're fighting for series points it's a lot faster to grab your bike and keep riding then to have to try and straighten your stem up before taking off again. It's obviously no fun trying to ride with it significantly off centre either.
Obviously less places lost = more points. If that's not an issue to you (isn't for me) then I reckon normal stems are probably the way to go. But I can definitely see why some people might want a direct mount.
Sounds like you needed a stronger bar, crown and fork or something. I crashed this way so hard that I broke 4 ribs when a part of my front end failed riding last summer. The bike cartwheeled end over end about 4 times at full speed, bouncing about 3 feet in the air each time. Da Peach will verify, we he was right behind me.
I thought the fork was mangled, it turned out something was simply twisted (took it all apart and put it back together and it was ok).
I honestly find it hard to believe you broke stems 2 times in this situation. I could believe bars, but stems are difficult to fathom.
everyone needs to install an AC chain guide before they are allowed to bitch. They must also maintain it for an entire race weekend.
I'm no weight weenie, so I don't have exact numbers handy, nor do I really care about weight so I don't think about it too much, but I find it hard to believe there's a stem out there that's lighter than an e.thirteen direct mount stem on a boxxer?
Sunline V-One MTN or Syntace are lighter.
I've seen two of the e.13 Boxxer stems break, but they're fairly crap anyway.
It's not hard. The lightest integrated Boxxer stem is the Sunline one (unless you count the Bullmoose or whatever). Sunline make a lighter standard clamp stem themselves, and the Thomson Elite is in the same ballpark.
I run integrated stems because I hate straightening my bars, and I haven't seen a stem in the same weight class as an integrated that functions as well.
I just wish Easton or Thomson would come to the party with integrated designs.
Thomson is doing one - don't have an eta, but they are.
thomson already has prototypes being ridden.
Had an AC guide for awhile, biggest mistake ever.
Ah nice... Last time I emailed them about the possibility they said they were waiting for some kind of direct mount standard to arrive. Lets hope the stem is a goodie and is nice and low
It's decent looking. Not super light from what I understand, and not exceptionally low. I have seen it, but not held or ridden it.
it sounds like you are describing a fat stripper
wow awesome, another person who likes sundays. haha. they are sweet.
Stems and strippers have alot in common
as you and I both know, Thomson prototypes are just blocky hunks of rounded off metal that look uglier than an adobe mud hut.
As for a finished product....oh so glorious.
As for the Sunline direct mount stem, I looked down at that thing when it was mounted to a buddies bike and had doubts as to whether or not I could take 1 hand on the bar and snap it off. I like Sunline alot..but that stem is so minimal, it scares me.
Edit: As for...as for...as for...
I'd go with a lighter saddle, 6" rear rotor, and Crack Brothers Acids.
That should drop almost 3/4 of a pound right there. That'll get you almost ride smack to the 37lb.-even mark.
P.S. Beautiful bike, and I love the new links.
That thing lost me more races than it helped me to win. Absolutely horrible. I has better luck after I took it off and ran naked.
I totally respect your opinion, but I have to point out that the lower roller design that the Gamut uses was first used on the original Evil Security guide, which became the SRS and LG1.
Its just funny because the design was changed to give better efficiency by cradling the chain by the rollers, not the side plates, and no possibility of breaking the inner part of the roller off and losing the chain. Funny how old ideas get recycled as new ones sometimes.
The LG1 comes fully assembled and uses color coded washers to coincide with your chainline. I honestly can't think of another way to make it as strongly mounted and as simple to set up. To each his own, as long as you are happy, thats dope!
thx...we're gonna start a pool to see how light i can get this without sacrificing too much performance. i've got a rcs ti-spring and new wheels on order. installed my e13 stem today...i would really like to get a carbon railed slr saddle and maybe some acid 2 pedals...the bike calculator says it possible to get it down to 35.07lbs lol...but thats kinda extreme...
It's been my experience with the traditional E13 guide/bash guard and the LG-1 that not mounting the bash guard on the crank, but rather on the guide plate or ISCG tabs is in fact a better idea. Many cranks, especially the lighter weight DH versions that everyone wants these days, don't have spiders designed to support the impact of your bashguard slamming into a rock. Bending my spider (FSA Gravity Lite) was a regular occurrance with the standard SRS. The advantage of the 'taco' system is that it is supported by pretty sturdy ISCG tabs mounted to the frame (at least in the case of the Sunday) and i have never had an issue with bending anything since switching over. Can't comment on the backplate-mounted taco, but I'll give it an initial vote of confidence because the back plate has the ability to rotate slightly on impact; in theory keeping the risk of bending to a minimum.
And, an often ommitted benefit to the LG-1 style taco is that being inboard by about 1", and being only slightly larger in effective diameter than the chainring (usually more low-profile than the crank mounted bashring), it comes into contact with rocks and other trail object far less frequently than the traditional, wider set-up.
Everyone has their own preference, but I've yet to see a chainguide be more efficient and easy to install or maintain than the LG-1.
I agree with the fact that spiders on cranks were not designed to absorb impact from attached bashguards especially lateral impacts. Ive managed to slightly tweak the spider on my saints from a not so nice rock landing. Given the size of the ISCG05 tabs, they are not likely to fail any time soon.
However with the LG1 inboard taco setup vs the outboard SRS bashguard, your chain ring is very exposed to outboard side impacts
A friend of mine found that out rather nicely on his first ride with an LG1 with a taco managed to destroy both the chainring and spider on his saints. due to a side impact from a rock. He definitely would have been better of if he was running a SRS setup in that case. I think if your riding involves a lot of rocks your better off on an SRS than the LG1.
Dave, I respect what you have to say, but I need to point out that flanged rollers with pressed bearings, fixed with a shoulder bolt and an e-ring have been used for millions of applications.
You could say that the LG1 lower roller design is a spin-off of the Roox (I'm sure there were a number of others that have also used similar pulley wheels). And as an engineer I'm disappointed to hear you say, "and no possibility of breaking the inner part of the roller off and losing the chain". That is why we spec out materials and design parts.
By the way, what was the efficiency gain?
Which happens to be why DW, Tobler and company have recommended that I stay with the SRS to preserve my chainring as they have witnessed my less than delicate treatment of bash rings over the years. The LG1 is perfect for everyone I ride with...but they'll all be the first to tell you I have no business on 1 for the sake of my chain.
Now, I think this is a little harsh, he isn't (i hope) claiming to have invented the technique, but using it for this application is inventive in and of itself.
To Mr. Weagle:
I think that the toothed roller more gingerly cupping/guiding the chain with teeth is a validly more efficient technique than the round roller. This is why we see rear mechs using this technique I suppose.
In the context of the e13 guides however, we have a plate on either side of the toothed roller unlike a rear mech's skeletal cage. When crud buildup is taken into account, I feel that the lower roller design of the Gamut actually has better efficiency for mtb. This is major splitting of hairs, maybe micro-joules per ride which I'm sure you've calculated somehow.
When taking my chain off, there is a noticeable resistance due to cheese on my STS lower roller compared to my other guide. In this case less may be more, and removing some material down there could eliminate much of the buildup.
I am curious to see how the LG series evolves. You've got the top half dialed: it looks like the wheel cover of a le-mans car, a dragon, an engine, or something fast and is totally functional. Add a cleaner/lighter lower roller, and with the noted benefits of the inboard taco you'll pull away from the competition again.
I'm thinking an E13 internal gearbox...to make their own products obsolete.
they need to start making their products breakable so they can continue to sell them. i had one of the original SRS guides and plastics for 4 years on one of my bikes and only got rid of it after Weagle made fun of me
4 years is of maintenence free use on a dh bike is like getting 200,000 miles out of your car without changing the oil.
so here is my latest progress on my 2008 sunday factory...i started at 37.89lbs...after a small diet...its currently sitting at 36.0lbs...and i'm still waiting for a ti-spring, acid 2 carbon pedals, dt rev spokes & alloy nipples and mavic rims...
What size/ply tires.....?...........and what rims.....?
WTB Laser Disc FR rims
DT straight gauge spokes/brass nipples
2.5 DHF 60
2.35 DHR 60 1 ply foldable
but i'm running mavics and dt rev spokes with alloy nipples once they get here.
i have three sets of wheels for different tire set ups i run a 2.5 front and rear, 2.5 front /2.35 rear and a 2.35 front and rear. my deemaxs run a 2.4 set up...keep in mind that i'm only 135 lbs and i run really light tires and set up...this might not be ideal for a heavier rider. my 2.5 front and 2.35 rear set up is at 36 lbs.
Very close to what my bike will be specs wise in a few weeks. The RCS Ti spring I have 300 x 3" weighs 274 grams on my digital scale. Looks like Minion 2.35"s? I will be running 2.5" Highrollers/welter tubes. 2.5" Swampthings for those not so fresh days...
do you know what your weight savings were by running a rcs ti spring instead of the stock steel one?
Revolution spokes + DH = no way jose
I don't care what you weigh.
Sweet bike though
i've never had a problem with the dt rev spokes...but then again i have 4 sets of wheels to use.
i've seen a bunch of guys run these spokes and they don't seem to mind them...they probably aren't the most durable...and require more attention to keep the wheels running but i guess its the price you pay for going light vs...durability.
Should know for sure in a few weeks when my frame is in. If you weigh your current spring post it up to compare. I estimate my build at just over 37Lbs. We will see how close I am.
what about runnin ti spokes?
but they are 10 bucks a pop
I just weighed a 3" 350 steel & Ti spring, the steel was 548g, the Ti was 358g.
200g isn't a bad saving