Its a bike built for a purpose not as an ornament. 🙂

Its for commuting to work – 6.5 miles uphill at 6am followed by a 13 hr shift followed by the ride home. I need to carry a fair amount of stuff so a rack is needed. I commute every working day all year round so mudguards are a must ( plus the funny mud-flap to protect the motor) I go right across Edinburgh on the badly potholed and cobbled streets so suspension and 1.75 tyres help. High mary bars are comfy and wind resistance don’t matter as going to work its uphill and I get the prevailing wind in my face and home is downhill. Disc brakes as some sections are high speed thru traffic and being able to hold your speed thru junctions is a big help but sticky tyres and discs give me greater margins. The e bike kit saves me 15 mins out of 37 on the way in. Thats significant

And I knew it would upset the STW sense of right 😉 Just wait until the pink brushed paintjob and the artificial flowers! I’ll get the pics up when I do!

Ok chaps – help me out here 0 the pedals seem absurdly low as in gettng pedal strikes going over speedbumps and on cornering even at tiny angles of lean. Its a 100mm fork on it with 20% sag. I can’t see why this would be so – any clues?

are they sticking further out?

Lower BB would be too obvious? -> shorter cranks..

don’t pedal over speedbumps and round corners. HTH.

Ah – that could be it – the elecy motor adds to the width I think – but even so the pedal seem absurdly low. Much lower than the genesis ioid all the kit bar the motor was on before. chainstay does seem to be a bit lower at the BB end. are all 100mm forks equal? How much difference in axle to crown measuremets are there? with the fork fully compressed the bottom of the crank arm is no more than an inch from the ground.

May be stating the obvious but are you sure that was a 26″ frame and not a 29’er?

pretty sure – not much clearance between the tyre and the seatstay bridge otherwise I would say yes thats my issue

Sounds like the replacement frame just has a lower BB than the old one. You’ll get used to it after a few rides.

Everything going onto a smaller less corroded frame

smaller frame, so maybe do need shorter cranks?

with the fork fully compressed the bottom of the crank arm is no more than an inch from the ground.

assuming 175mm crankarms, that puts your BB 8″ off the ground. IIRC the length of the fork affects the BB height by roughly a third of any change so if your measuring this with 100mm travel used up, then with 20mm sag your BB height is sitting at around 9-9.5″ which is low in the extreme.

aye – and according to the blurb I found for the frame – a 2012 claud butler cape wrath the bb should be 12″ high

its a 16″ frame

With the fork extended fully bb height is 11 1/4 inch

Prob a combination of A2C, BB height and motor width.

The quandary is what is the simplest fix?

It’s basically the bike self-harming, and who can blame it.

Smaller / lower profile tyres on it as well than it would have had in its incarnation as a mountainbike

I tried putting the genesis ioid frame alongside it. If I line the bb and rear spindle up the genesis frame is 2 1/2″ lower at the headtube. Line up the headtube and rear wheel spindle the bb on the claud butler frame is an inch lower at the bb ( roughly)

the main issue is I was going to put a rigid fork on it – but thats shorter than the sus fork! maybe I’ll just lengthen the fork to 120 mm ( it can be done) as that would help a little

all just seems a bit odd.

LOL @ IHN

jonnyboi – Member
Prob a combination of A2C, BB height and motor width.

The quandary is what is the simplest fix?

Narrower pedals.