If you can't setup an LG-1, you are clinically retarded and probably should not be riding a bicycle.The gamut is lighter than the LG-1 + taco and way easier to set up.
If you can't setup an LG-1, you are clinically retarded and probably should not be riding a bicycle.The gamut is lighter than the LG-1 + taco and way easier to set up.
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?If you can't setup an LG-1, you are clinically retarded and probably should not be riding a bicycle.
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.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.
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.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.
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:If you can't setup an LG-1, you are clinically retarded and probably should not be riding a bicycle.
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.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).
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.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).
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 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!
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.
Sunline V-One MTN or Syntace are lighter.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?
I've seen two of the e.13 Boxxer stems break, but they're fairly crap anyway.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.
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'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?
Thomson is doing one - don't have an eta, but they are.I just wish Easton or Thomson would come to the party with integrated designs.
Had an AC guide for awhile, biggest mistake ever.everyone needs to install an AC chain guide before they are allowed to bitch. They must also maintain it for an entire race weekend.
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 lowthomson already has prototypes being ridden.
it sounds like you are describing a fat stripperIt's decent looking. Not super light from what I understand, and not exceptionally low. I have seen it, but not held or ridden it.
Stems and strippers have alot in commonit sounds like you are describing a fat stripper
as you and I both know, Thomson prototypes are just blocky hunks of rounded off metal that look uglier than an adobe mud hut.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.
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.Had an AC guide for awhile, biggest mistake ever.
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.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.
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...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.
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.. . . It also concerns me that the taco puts the force through the guide plate and ISCG tabs rather than the cranks. . . .
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.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.
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.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.
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.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?
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 meI'm thinking an E13 internal gearbox...to make their own products obsolete.
What size/ply tires.....?...........and what rims.....?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
WTB Laser Disc FR rimsWhat size/ply tires.....?...........and what rims.....?
do you know what your weight savings were by running a rcs ti spring instead of the stock steel one?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...
i've never had a problem with the dt rev spokes...but then again i have 4 sets of wheels to use.Revolution spokes + DH = no way jose
I don't care what you weigh.
Sweet bike though
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.do you know what your weight savings were by running a rcs ti spring instead of the stock steel one?
what about runnin ti spokes?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.