or more specifically, when will manufacturers stop hyping Low BBs as a benefit on mountain bikes?

I’m somewhat in the market for a new bike with a bit more travel and a bit more rigidity for the alps in summer. Every now and again I find something which looks reasonable only to see those dread words “low bottom bracket for stability to rail corners etc”.

I don’t want to rail corners. I want to cycle up hills as well as down. I want the challenge of cleaning difficult sections of tech uphill, perhaps after a few attempts. Having a stupidly low BB is just a pain in the arse.

I’m assuming that, like Biopace and U Brakes, the market will eventually move on the the next big thing. But can’t really be bothered waiting that long.

Until then, any recommendations for bikes that don’t have low BBs ?

?

Having a stupidly low BB is just a pain in the arse.[/I]

Not where I live/ride and nor with a +34″ inside leg either.

Until then, any recommendations for bikes that don’t have low BBs ?

Depends on what you mean by low – what’s your current bike?

When more people prioritize riding slowly uphill instead of going round corners and having a stable bike at speed?

Well, I ride big old mountains with massive rocks all the time and having done my first one on my Transition Patrol with a 2 degree angle set in it I can’t really understand what you’re doing wrong. It was mind bogglingly amazing, even coming from a Commencal Meta AM V4, which was pretty rowdy in the first place.

There are a fair few bikes with “flip chip” arrangements that allow you to ride with a higher BB and steeper HA if you’re so inclined.

Check out Trek’s Fuel EX in 29er form (as opposed to B-plus), the stock bike is set up to appeal to the more conservative end of the market and it’s a fine all-rounder.

When more people prioritize riding slowly uphill instead of going round corners and having a stable bike at speed?

Fair point

But that doesn’t mean they all need to have low BBs, in the same way that they all don’t need to have 1xs or 29″ wheels or 150mm travel or dropper posts etc. They make loads of different options to cater for many different tastes. So why can’t they make 1 or 2 bikes for riding uphill as well as down?

What BB drop are you looking for and in which wheel size?

No issues with my transition suppressor.

If you want to ride uphill by a XC bike and some Lycra.

Have you actually tried one?

thegeneralist – Member

I’m somewhat in the market for a new bike with a bit more travel and a bit more rigidity for the alps in summer.
I don’t want to rail corners. I want to cycle up hills as well as down. I want the challenge of cleaning difficult sections of tech uphill, perhaps after a few attempts. Having a stupidly low BB is just a pain in the arse.

That’s why I’ve got a Liteville 301, except that I’ve never been to the alps, unfortunately.
Good for difficult tech stuff going down, too.

http://www.liteville.com

oh and im a 301 owner too.

(all be it with 2 offset bushed and a plus shock running at 30% sag to get that bb nice and low 🙂 )

Lots of manufacturers say they have a low BB but actually theyve only took 1-2mm off what they used to run.

Just ignore the marketing and go and try some bikes.

You will probably find one that suits you.

I wouldn’t go on BB height. For instance my transition Patrol (339mm BB) has a similar BB than other bikes I have ridden (Nomad 340mm) and get less pedal strikes.

Lots of manufacturers say they have a low BB but actually theyve only took 1-2mm off what they used to run

I reckon there’s probably a lot of truth in that.

Without numbers I wouldn’t believe any blurb. Specialized describe their Turbo Levo FSR as having “roomy top tube for an easy fit, ultra-short chainstays for nimble handling”.

The medium frame is 415mm reach and 585mm ETT. And the chainstays are 459mm long.

Massive liars.

Also the BB height when pedalling can vary hugely between bikes which have the same static BB height, depending on preferred sag and pedal anti-squat kinematics.

Plus tyres and fork choice all make a difference in BB height

Bear in mind a lot of these more modern bikes are specced with shorter cranks too.

My transition scout has few issues with pedal strikes that I’ve not had elsewhere on other bikes, so get out and try some bikes, ignoring the marketing BS would be a good idea.

I’m actually with the OP on this one, mostly.

Slack is good. Long is good, up to a point… but a low BB is not a good feature for me personally.
It’s the only thing that’s putting me off buying a P7 at the moment.

The Litevilles are fairly high in the BB which is one of the main reasons I like them. I crunch my chainring into far too many steps and obstacles already. I certainly don’t want it any nearer the ground than it already is.

I’m XL but my height is mainly in the legs, so I’m not sure I want frames to get much longer either.

Stable is stable, it’s not just a bonus going down. Obviously long and low both cost ground clearance at times so that can take more care with pedalling… But single ring wins back some absolute ground clearance on steps and edges and the like.

Basically, like anything else trying to treat anything as a standalone or an absolute just doesn’t work, bikes are a whole bag of traits, sometimes conflicting, sometimes complementary. If all you do is ride up rock steps all day and then ride a fire road back down then short and tall would be perfect but the truth is, it’s rare it really affects you at all and most of the time you can easily ride round it… While the benefits are constantly present and worthwhile.

Low BB is a constant benefit on literally every ride I’ll ever do, high BB would be useful for a few seconds, from time to time.

i sold my Dialled PA as its BB is high and it just doesnt go around corners or ride as nice as my Cannondale with a circa 1.5 inch lower bb.

i dont get may pedal strikes with teh cracknfail. i do however notice the cornering – a lot.

my old commencal meta was mint to ride as well for the same reasons. i did smack pedals with that though but boy was it a great bike (untill it cracked)

Don’t Cotic claim to have a higher BB than the competition due to all the rocks where they ride? I’m sure I read something from Cy along those lines.

Since changing from a 2009 Nomad to my mega 275 with 170mm forks and 63 degree headangle, I’m constantly catching pedals on rocky climbs to the point where it’s now pissing me off! Great downhill though as long as I remember to pump not pedal 🙂

I have an Ibis Mojo HD3 which feels great to me. I think Ibis have embraced (somewhat reluctantly I feel) the new long, low, slack fad to be able to compete but they haven’t gone over the top with it so the HD3 is an amazing all rounder. The BB is low on paper but it sits reasonably high in it’s travel and I don’t find pedal strikes to be an issue. It is slack enough for serious riding but short enough for lots of fun handling.

There’s the whole plus size thing to contend with now as well though. You can get a shorter travel bike with fatter tyres to achieve the same end result as a longer travel bike without the clown tyres.

I would just test ride as many bikes as you can and get the one you like though.

roverpig is correct – I just found the email from Cy at Cotic. Copied and pasted the appropriate bit below:

Question:
iv) Can you educate me on Bottom Bracket height (there are no doubt myths around this). I’ve see a lot of emphasis placed on the benefits of low BBs lately.

Me:
This is getting to be one of my hobby-horses because we are now being accused of having BB’s that are high when 3 years ago the original Rocket was consider ‘slammed’ and pretty extreme. Yes, there are bikes that are going lower on the BB, and by quite some margin, but it’s a matter of what and where they’re being used, and how their suspension works. On groomed bike parks or even steep, rough ground where gravity keeps you going, a low BB is fine. Generally a lower BB makes cornering easier so it’s worth aiming as low as you can. However, I (and I suspect most people) like to pedal across rough ground, and particularly around here there are rocky, knobbly climbs which need some ground clearance to enable you to climb them. And I don’t buy the whole ‘you could walk faster’ crap. I never have, but especially around here and also on flatter, rootier terrain where you need to pedal to keep your speed up, walking is definitely not faster, it’s much slower. And I don’t like walking, I like riding! I have a prototype at the moment which is 5mm lower on the BB than the current MAX bikes and I can REALLY tell the difference. On my benchmark climb I catch my pedals more and often get stopped by a mis-timed pedal stroke. I tried it with the team lads and they immediately noticed as well, as they like to pedal and keep speed across really quite rough terrain. Low BB isn’t the be all and end all. Like anything with MTB, there’s a huge variety of terrain and rider out there and we pitch our frame layouts according to what we want to ride and what works for us. We hope in striking that compromise there will be other people who see the same as we do. The other thing to consider is that static BB heights are only half the story. Our bikes are quite progressive so they’re designed to run with 30% sag without feeling too soft or blowing through their travel. And because of the progressive nature of the spring curve that means they sit down a fair way from the static height with rider on board. Some of these super low BB bikes might need 20 or 25% sag dialed in to give them support if they have a more linear spring rate. For example, although it’s 140mm travel, the RocketMAX sags 50mm at the rear wheel when setup correctly. At 25% sag it would only sag 39mm at the rear wheel (the frame rate being progressive means it’s not a directly proportional relationship), which would lift the BB about 7mm for the same fork sag. It’s not recent experience, bit I know from riding Orange and Specialized bikes in the past that I have needed to run them stiffer with less sag than I can get away with on the droplink setup.

You could always try shorter cranks. It’s not something that’s often discussed on here, but lop 5mm off your crank length – most bikes seem to come with 175mm cranks – and you’re also going to increase clearances slightly.

It depends where you ride a lot as well and if you have other bikes. My lowest bike is my 29er hardtail which I do the majority of riding on locally where the trails aren’t overly technical so the low BB isn’t too much of a problem. If I’m in the mountains riding ruts and rocks I wouldn’t sacrifice BB height for slightly better cornering, no way.

The limiting factor on getting me up hill is my puny little legs, the BB height makes so little difference as to be irrelevant! 😆

Shouldn’t we be looking at chainring to ground distance? This is the limiting factor assuming you can time your pedal strokes to keep the pedals out of the way. The BB going a little bit lower is probably completely offset by a 1x setup which reduces the maximum size of the chainring.

Shouldn’t we be looking at chainring to ground distance?

No people are talking about pedal strikes

The Cotic statement rings true to. But I don’t claim to have ridden modern geometry bikes