Anyone ridden the Mojo Nicolai yet?

Phil, can you elaborate on this please?

you should also find yourself in the higher gears more often with the anti squat properties.

Scott,

Two parts to it, depending on the front ring you decide to use there is a kind of magic gear! It sounds odd but I can only describe it as the right balance of anti squat point relative to your cadence and setup, you may find yourself not always dropping to the absolute lowest gear at the back where you normally would. Myself and others have found that there is a particular gear (4th in my case with a 32 front) that just feels very efficient.

The second is you are likely (If my own experience and many I people I've dealt with holds) to find yourself carrying more speed in general and looking for higher gears, over here (As I don't know what suspension you have on it?) a combination of really good suspension setup in conjunction with the geometry and forgiveness of the bike when breaking traction generally results s in people travelling faster on average than they have previously and just carrying bigger gears, particularly downhill and on the flat.
I often find myself in the higher half of the gears, 11spd for a large part of my rides.

Before the first ride.

[img] [/img]

With the chain ring in this position, it is lining up very close to the middle cog on the cassette.

[img] [/img]

This shows a piece of aluminium angle lined up with the middle chain ring position on the spider and the second smallest cog (10th gear).

[img] [/img]

Scott what size is your frame? How'd you find the first ride?

Read my posts above.

Sorry....I'd read it when you'd posted and well I'd logged it under TLDR..... 😆

What is TLDR? Too Lazy Didn't Read? 😆

Too Long Didn't Read.

That chainring setup just doesn't look right.

Chainline what angleset did you put in the G13?

I decided to keep mine standard at first but I feel like the balance will be closer to the 27.5 with a bit more length in the front.

Also I tried faster tyres with a semi slick on the back. I know they're a popular choice and they roll well but I just don't get on with them in the corners.

Too Long Didn't Read.

That chainring setup just doesn't look right.

agree - looks like he are using the wrong mounting point on the spider, he has the chainring mounted to where the granny ring would normally mount. A typical 32 tooth ring would normally mount to where the middle/outer ring goes.

Chainline - I read a post of yours a while back, I think it was on MTBR but not sure now. I think it was just when you were putting the Fox 40s on.
You mentioned it was going to be super slack, close to 60 deg iirc. Getting down that low helped counteract the steering flop in the 'head angle no mans land' of 63 - 66 degrees. Not sure if those were the exact figures you used.

Real world experiences of this now having ridden it a while? As good as planned or any downsides?

julians - Member

That chainring setup just doesn't look right.

agree - looks like he are using the wrong mounting point on the spider, he has the chainring mounted to where the granny ring would normally mount. A typical 32 tooth ring would normally mount to where the middle/outer ring goes.

It would if he ran a 73mm or boost crankset, but as stated in his earlier comments he is using a 83mm bb crankset and 4mm spacers.

Yeah but that's by design, that's how he's got it to a middly position in the first place.

From what I've read on here the geometron may work better with a lower position?

I think that has a lot to do with personal preference and body shape. You want to be able to put a lot of weight over the front and get it back off again.

The picture of Rubber Buccaneers GPI may be my favourite yet.

That's a bike that gets used. RB - Are you on Instagram?

Lazy, agreed Scott! 😉

It just looks very different to the others I've seen on here lesson proportion? Might be the high stem position! But asked before I'd re-read! LoL

Scott,

Can you confirm it's a std 148mm boost rear hub and a std 8mm BB with non boost setup.

It should be an 83mm crankset, non boost with 1 x drive side spacer (2.5mm) with a boost rear hub. set up like that and single ring, middle or non-spider, the builds going out line up to the 6th/7th gear at the rear.

I have no experience of the race face crankset however, but the BB cup spacing should be the same. Might be worth checking the std chainline for the Raceface middle ring position should be approx 50mm.

Do you have the 222 shock in? Is it in the 170mm position on the lever?

On other questions, the flop factor increases with slacker HA. Mine has a 60.8-61deg head angle and I love it. The increased flop factor makes the steering response quick even though it has a slacker HA but once you have your line it remains stable as you would expect. It is a different feeling. At slow speed you hold it up rather than drop it in almost.
it doesn't affect climbing as the rider position is such that the weighting is central so it doesn't wander, a function of the longer front and longer rear.

The table I published earlier shows the flop factors. Flop is the distance that the center of the front wheel axle is lowered when the handlebars are rotated from the straight ahead position to a position 90 degrees away from straight ahead.

G13 HA, -2 angleset.

I'm not sure why you would be concerned about the chainline.
83mm std BB is a 5mm increase in chainline either side compared to a std 73mm BB
Boost rear (148mm) is a 3mm increase on the driveside compared to 142mm spacing.
Thus with a std install the 83mm BB moves the chainline out by 2mm. a std install is a single drive side or no drive side spacer depending on the chainset used (dedicated 1x or a spider designed for a double)

I wouldn't be concerned about centering the crank relative to the downtube.

Too long, didn't read

Does this relate to his comments or the frame?

Ho ho ho.

"I'm not sure why you would be concerned about the chainline"

To be clear I meant 'concerned' before you ordered it!

TLDR! 😯

I'm not sure how to reply to all of the comments regarding chain line.
Some people seem to think it doesn't matter at all, some think it is "automatic" or "good enough" by using the "correct" parts. I disagree.

I am a Mechanical Design Engineer, and I approach this subject from an unbiased point of view, using logic and experience as my guide, not bicycle industry "norms", which are hard to pin down with the ever changing standards.

I chose to make my crank arms equidistant from the down tube because that is intuitively the correct thing to do ergonomically. Why should I vary from this if I don't have to? Moving the crank set to one side to improve chain line is a poor compromise at best.

In my opinion, the 148 boost cassette is dictating the proper location of the chain ring. I chose to make my chain ring align with the middle cassette cog because it is the ideal position to minimize chain angle and related issues like chain drop. With this chain line I suspect a chain guide will not be necessary.

It shifts superbly and thus far there have been no issues at all. And yes, it back pedals on the 42T without complaint or a hint of derailment. I will be keeping my chain line where I have it, as I see no reason to make it worse.

My chain ring measures at 47.4mm chain line. The center of a 148 boost cassette is 47mm, as seen here: [img] ?7100227419112134174[/img].

Some people recommend a chain line 49-50mm for various reasons, such as swing arm (chain stay) clearance and tire clearance. These issues don't concern me, so I will quite happily leave the chain ring where it is at the moment.

With the chain on the largest cog 42T, the 2.35 tire clearance is 9mm, while the industry minimum is recommended to be 6mm.

The chain ring is closer to the swing arm yoke (chain stay) than the industry would like, but I can easily clearance the yoke (remove a little material) to accommodate a larger chain ring or add more clearance.

Prior to ordering, during my analysis of the 2017 G16, I realized that there would be a significant discrepancy between the RaceFace specified 83BB chain line of 57mm, as seen here: [url= http://www.raceface.com/media/Crank_Q-factors_and_chainlines.pdf ]http://www.raceface.com/media/Crank_Q-factors_and_chainlines.pdf[/url]
and the 47mm chain line of the cassette. That is why I chose to use a spider instead of a direct mount chain ring, which has no adjustability. My chain line concerns were not enough to dissuade me from ordering this superb chassis because I assumed I could sort it out with the removable spider.

My middle ring position measures ~60mm due to not offsetting the crank. That is 13mm wider than what I consider to be ideal.

Like Chris Porter, I am capable of independent thought. I am not a follower, I am a free thinker and I make my own analysis and decisions. If I were a follower, I would have bought a major brand bicycle with no thought given to geometry or anything else.
Maybe that makes me eccentric or contrary, but I have proudly been a non-conformist my whole life.

I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right and someone else is wrong, I am just sharing my findings about the chain line on this frame. Others can take heed or dismiss it at their discretion.

Happy trails,
Scott

Regarding my handlebar position, it is a simple matter of ergonomics, rider preference and comfort. I like my saddle and bar to be nearly level. If the bar is too low I get the dreaded neck pain from looking up all the time.

There is a small price to pay for raising the handlebar on a very slack head angle frame, as it also moves rearward more than it would on a steeper frame.

Currently the top of the handlebar grip is about 20mm lower than the top of the saddle. This is a bit lower than I would like, but I am getting used to it and I think it will be fine. I have not detected any handling issues with this position.

I am quite pleased with the cockpit fit on this frame. As I stated earlier, at 183cm, I may also fit well on the Extra Longest frame.

For reference, on my motocross bikes, I always used a taller seat with taller handlebar clamps and higher rise on the handlebar.

Also a design engineer and I'd prefer a slightly out chainline than to remove material from the frame.

Mother of god, that last silver one.

Someone please pass the eye bleach & a scrubbing brush.

Confused! Where is the dropper post?

Scott, fair enough. I appreciate that point of view. If it isn't a problem to you and you are happy with it, enjoy! I rode a Jones Ti Spaceframe for years so I understand being told what I should and shouldn't like or do!

I did read it, I just didn't understand (from my perspective) why you would do it and interpreted the explanation as that there were issues to solve. I can see that isn't the case now.

Scott, fair enough. I appreciate that point of view. If it isn't a problem to you and you are happy with it, enjoy! I rode a Jones Ti Spaceframe for years so I understand being told what I should and shouldn't like or do!

My last bike was very non-conformist, but it had become too obsolete to carry on with it.

I did read it, I just didn't understand (from my perspective) why you would do it and interpreted the explanation as that there were issues to solve.

I'm not sure what you are saying Phil. I am saying that in my opinion the chain line is less than optimum on this frame. Others may not see it the same way I do, due to their point of view or the components they used. I am happy with the chain line I achieved, however unorthodox, and I am sure others will be happy with what they end up with. To each their own.

I rode it again today and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Also a design engineer and I'd prefer a slightly out chainline than to remove material from the frame.

I don't consider 10-13mm to be slight.

I have no need or intention of removing material from the frame. If I removed any material, it would be a slight amount on the yoke of the chain stay.

There are already a couple of large pockets cut out of each side of the yoke for whatever reason. My material removal would be much smaller than this and would have no effect on the strength of this part.

[img] [/img]<

Scott, I'm saying that I understand and respect your point of view even if I don't agree with it, nothing more that that.

material removal would be much smaller than this and would have no effect on the strength of this part

[quote=Rorschach ]material removal would be much smaller than this and would have no effect on the strength of this part
Without an FEA I would say......if you say so chief.
(Backs away slowly from thread)

+1

Speaking as a metallurgist 😉

Double post

Have you ever seen a Nicolai? I doubt it'd have little if any effect, it's not like it's an ultra light xc whippet built to be used once.

It shifts superbly and thus far there have been no issues at all. And yes, it back pedals on the 42T without complaint or a hint of derailment

But so does the normal 142mm Geometron without need for modification?

Fair enough though, if you have the skills and care enough to go through that rigmarole just to make the chainline look right then good luck to you, I respect your individuality and your enthusiasm is noted!

Have you spoken to Nicolai/Mojo about it? Will the modification invalidate your warranty?

I don't tthink Scott has machined anything so no warranty impact, certainly not from the adjustments made to cranks etc to effect the chainline. If there was material removed then yes it would.

Without an FEA I would say......if you say so chief.

FEA is of limited value, depending on the software used and the constraints on the part.

Did you notice the rather large pocket in the side of the yoke? What I am talking about would be a mere scratch compared to that. In addition, there is notch that you cannot see in that picture.

Here you can see the notch in the yoke:

[img] [/img]

In this picture I have drawn an oval to represent the small area where I would remove material if necessary for clearance. It would be very minimal compared to the pocket and notch.

[img] [/img]

I would be happy to run an FEA before and after if I had the part available to me, but it would be completely unnecessary in my opinion.

For those who may not have noticed, this yoke is now a very nice single billet part. Previously it was a bolted together three piece design.

Have you ever seen a Nicolai? I doubt it'd have little if any effect, it's not like it's an ultra light xc whippet built to be used once.

This.

Will the modification invalidate your warranty?

I don't think Scott has machined anything so no warranty impact, certainly not from the adjustments made to cranks etc to effect the chainline. If there was material removed then yes it would.

I have zero concern about warranty. If I removed a smidgen of material, and if by some miracle it failed at that spot, then it's on me.

Just to be clear, I am not angry about any of this, I have nothing against Mojo or Nicolai, I am just sharing my thoughts and findings on the subject. It is nothing more than a technical discussion to me.

Good clear thought process Scott, but i think assuming the middle of the cassette is best might be missing something.

While its the obvious choice I think there must be some reason manufacturers are developing 1x systems with 3-4mm difference to the actual middle of the cassette.

If you look at how the chain comes off a cassette in the extreme sprockets it is most effected when in the smallest sprocket, as the angle and reduced tooth count means the chain 'jumps' as it comes off each tooth. In the largest ring the increased diameter means the release from each tooth is smoother. I think this is likely what is driving a wider-than-centre chainline.

Of course if you are going to be in the bigger sprocket more, or wont be using the smallest 10t in anger, then the performance requirements move so your decision for a narrower chainline pulls more weight. Not sure id be bothered enough by 1mm to mod the frame though.

I moved a chainline out 1mm once to solve chainsuck issue and it was un-noticable, id rather do that than suffer a tight clearance.

Good clear thought process Scott, but I think assuming the middle of the cassette is best might be missing something.

I think we can all agree that being somewhere "near" the middle is best, and the further away from the middle the worse the system as a whole will work.

If you look at how the chain comes off a cassette in the extreme sprockets it is most effected when in the smallest sprocket, as the angle and reduced tooth count means the chain 'jumps' as it comes off each tooth.

I agree that there may be some minor nuances that I may be overlooking or unaware of.

I have also read that when the chain is on the smaller sprockets (10T) that the chain can catch on the next bigger sprocket due to the angle. I have not seen that effect though.

I don't think I have been using the 10T or 42T at all on the trails. I ride mostly in the middle gears and use 2nd and 3rd for the climbs, thanks to the 28T chain ring. When I switch to the 30T I may need the 42T on some climbs.

What I am doing is in the same spirit of experimentation that CP and Mojo use to achieve their superb frames. Empirical data for the win.

Be interesting to hear from Nicolai and Chris Porter on this one, they love to experiment. I know someone with an older Nicolai that didn't have stealth routing, he asked Nicolai and they advised him where to drill!

CP is happy with the Chainline I know.