Forum menu
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.