Quantcast

my 2008 sunday factory

Bulldog

Turbo Monkey
Sep 11, 2001
1,009
0
Wisconsin
Theres always the MRP G2 as well. I got mine a week or so ago and its pretty darn light. That is if you don't feel like waiting for a taco, don't want to cut a bash ring and need something that's currently available.
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.
 

Steve M

Turbo Monkey
Mar 3, 2007
1,991
45
Whistler
Broken two of what?

First off, I dont think it is very likely that a bike a going to bounce up into a vertical position and then come back down so that the bars are turned exactly 45* and the tire and bar end contact the ground at the same time. It is much more likely that the bar OR tire will contact the ground at some incident angle of less than 90*, then the fork will swing to lock (against the frame) and bounce to land in some other position...not saying it never happens, just not very often.

Second, IF the bike were to land on the bar end and tire at the exact same time, the twisting forces seen by the fork would not change..in escence you have two opposite torques at either end of the fork now, each with half the value of the original torque provided if the bike landed on just the fork OR bars while at lock...and you have less bending forces seen by the fork's lower half as the mass (forces) of the bike is spread over two contact points....

I do agree (as I said above) that the bar can/will see more force, and you could make an arguement for the upper crown as well.

In my own experience of riding nothing but direct mount stems (DH bike) for the last 4 years, (and a seasons pass @ whistler every one of those years)..I have never seen on my bike, or any one elses, a failure of this kind from a direct mount stem.
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).
 

bizutch

Delicate CUSTOM flower
Dec 11, 2001
15,928
24
Over your shoulder whispering
If you can't setup an LG-1, you are clinically retarded and probably should not be riding a bicycle.
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
Any Blackspire
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! :lighten:
 

Udi

RM Chief Ornithologist
Mar 14, 2005
4,915
1,200
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).
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.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
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).
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.

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
Any Blackspire
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! :lighten:
everyone needs to install an AC chain guide before they are allowed to bitch. They must also maintain it for an entire race weekend.
 

bdamschen

Turbo Monkey
Nov 28, 2005
3,377
156
Spreckels, CA
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'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?
 

Lollapalooza

Monkey
Jan 22, 2007
527
0
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.
 

toodles

ridiculously corgi proportioned
Aug 24, 2004
5,516
4,768
Australia
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.
I've seen two of the e.13 Boxxer stems break, but they're fairly crap anyway.

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?
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.
 

toodles

ridiculously corgi proportioned
Aug 24, 2004
5,516
4,768
Australia
thomson already has prototypes being ridden.
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
 

bizutch

Delicate CUSTOM flower
Dec 11, 2001
15,928
24
Over your shoulder whispering
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.
as you and I both know, Thomson prototypes are just blocky hunks of rounded off metal that look uglier than an adobe mud hut. :D


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...
 

Prettym1k3

Turbo Monkey
Aug 21, 2006
2,864
0
In your pants
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.
 

dw

Wiffle Ball ninja
Sep 10, 2001
2,943
0
MV
This may be a little OT, but I really don't understand the LG-1 obsession.

I've been running a Gamut and an STS the past 1 or 2 seasons, along with my buddies having the LG-1s. The gamut is lighter than the LG-1 + taco and way easier to set up. Most importantly, no mud problems whatsoever.

I hated how the SRS roller needs to much attention/cleaning. With the gamut I never worry about mud; there's simply nowhere for it to collect. It also concerns me that the taco puts the force through the guide plate and ISCG tabs rather than the cranks.

In any case, give a gamut a try. I just picked up a 2nd gamut (p30) for the DH bike to replace the clunky STS. I can say I'll never buy another e13 with that pesky lower roller design again. I should note that the LG-1 looks bad-ass and the new colors look awesome.
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!
 

poonstar

Monkey
Jan 6, 2008
134
0
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.
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...
 

General Lee

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2003
2,860
0
The 802
. . . It also concerns me that the taco puts the force through the guide plate and ISCG tabs rather than the cranks. . . .
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.
 

RaID

Turbo Monkey
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.
 

Inclag

Turbo Monkey
Sep 9, 2001
2,752
442
MA
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.
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?
 

bizutch

Delicate CUSTOM flower
Dec 11, 2001
15,928
24
Over your shoulder whispering
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.
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. :D
 

Superdeft

Monkey
Dec 4, 2003
863
0
East Coast
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?

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.
 

General Lee

Turbo Monkey
Oct 16, 2003
2,860
0
The 802
I'm thinking an E13 internal gearbox...to make their own products obsolete. :think:
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.
 

poonstar

Monkey
Jan 6, 2008
134
0
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...:clapping:



 

Cant Climb

Turbo Monkey
May 9, 2004
2,683
10
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.....?
 

poonstar

Monkey
Jan 6, 2008
134
0
What size/ply tires.....?...........and what rims.....?
WTB Laser Disc FR rims
DT 440's
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.
 

Supa8

Monkey
May 3, 2002
493
0
Middle of MA
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...
 

poonstar

Monkey
Jan 6, 2008
134
0
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?
 

poonstar

Monkey
Jan 6, 2008
134
0
Revolution spokes + DH = no way jose
I don't care what you weigh.
Sweet bike though :thumb:
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.
 

Supa8

Monkey
May 3, 2002
493
0
Middle of MA
do you know what your weight savings were by running a rcs ti spring instead of the stock steel one?
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.
 

Eren

Turbo Monkey
Mar 18, 2006
2,874
0
mill creek, WA (now in Surrey UK)
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.
what about runnin ti spokes?

but they are 10 bucks a pop
 

-C-

Monkey
May 27, 2007
296
10
I just weighed a 3" 350 steel & Ti spring, the steel was 548g, the Ti was 358g.

200g isn't a bad saving :)