At least this thread had brought a smile to our Autumnal faces 😉

Laughing at your statement KINGTUT……..

Love Tubs, are you an ‘engineer’ by any chance?

Ah, but they look completely shite, so he has a point.

Ah, but they look completely shite, so he has a point.

1st gen definitely looked grim, second generation is passable to look at.

I remain steadfast that it’s an utter pile of shite, sporting p1ss poor design

They are quite clever really, rotating BB means you get the benefit of anti-bob design (in a time of basic shocks) with the benefit of a stiff back end (in a time of crap flexy bushing shod sus bikes). Of course now we have mutiple different (Dave Weagle) anti-bob designs which are just as complex and have even more bearings to wear out.

And the front mech dosnt have to be stationary in relation the the cranks, afteral you will be hovering in one place in the sag anyway, plus, front mechs, a bit of metal shoving a chain over? hardly the pinacle of design ay?

Yep, OP is still here. Stick and stones….. ❗

Now, I really must get back to work which isn’t a euphemism for cowardly antics. I really have to go 😥

This is hilarious really. Several people, with direct experience of exactly this bike, have nicely pointed you to the problem. Plus this isn’t exactly a niche bike – there are thousands of them out there.

Yet you remain utterly convinced that you can’t possibly be wrong?

Why not just check?

It’s probable that your bike is built right, but that that section of outer cable that links the front triangle with the BB is slightly too short, so when you squish the suspension it is pulling itself out of it’s housing and allowing the inner cable to pull on the mech.

It’s an easy mistake to make because if you do a static setup and measure the cable as you would with other bits you’ll get tit too short. Look at the picture of the blue one above, it shows how much ‘extra’ outer cable you should have, it’s not a direct run between the two stops at all.

As for the design, I really rated mine, which was a 1999 XCR2000, it was a bit heavy, but for the £1000 I paid for it in 2000 it did a brilliant job and lasted a decade before it needed moving on. I’ve not ridden one of the modern ones, but would like to see if the design still makes as much sense as it did. For the sceptics; why do you think the design hasn’t changed in a decade?

Friend built it up. I’m assuming he’s replaced all the bits correctly…there, perhaps, is the crux of the problem.

I love the smell of back pedalling in the afternoon..

so does it still ghost shift when back pedalling?

Maybe thats the answer – ride everywhere backwards (and if I was you I would be backing out of here at high speed!)

you get the benefit of anti-bob design (in a time of basic shocks) with the benefit of a stiff back end

Swallowed any brochures lately?

Not any more than followers of DW’s new ‘better than the last one I designed and said was the best’ suspension designs. You have to remember, when GT first knocked out the Idrive all we had were flexy specializeds, trashcan Oranges and basic air shocks. Ok so it’s not perfect but look at some of the rubbish that companies are still trying to tout as the best ever, it was and still is pretty decent.

p.s I’m not saying that because I had one, I had an FSR.

when GT first knocked out the Idrive

I had a RM Instinct. 4-bar & it didn’t ‘bob’. My mate had a single pivot Cannondale, that didn’t ‘bob’ either. GT came up with a gash solution to a problem that didn’t exist (IMO)

My mate had a single pivot Cannondale, that didn’t ‘bob’ either

oh they did! they were terrible for it, so were marin and orange.

Your right tho in that the problem dosnt exist if you adjust your riding to suit the bike. All these anti-bob designs are designed for hardtail riders who jump on normal sus bikes and stomp on the pedals, casuing them to wallow all over the palce, if your capable of pedaling smoothly then you hardly need any anti-bob, in design or damping. Its down to the skill of the rider.

Yeah, that’s true, I don’t’ suffer from pedal bob on my Bullit and that’s designed for blating down stuff without pedalling. But regardless, the design is very good in terms of ride quality etc.

S’what I meant Stato 🙂

if your capable of pedaling smoothly then you hardly need any anti-bob, in design or damping. Its down to the skill of the rider.

that sounds to me like you have to make up for the failings of the design…

simonfbarnes – Member

if your capable of pedaling smoothly then you hardly need any anti-bob, in design or damping. Its down to the skill of the rider.

that sounds to me like you have to make up for the failings of the design…

I’m not sure about that.

Learning how to pedal smoothly (in circles, rather than mashing the pedals) is a basic of road riding and it is hardly going to hurt when riding a MTB, regardless of how what type of suspension?

No Simon, wrong. You (we) just have to make the most of the wonderful invention that is the fully suspended mtb.

Yeah, that’s true, I don’t’ suffer from pedal bob on my Bullit and that’s designed for blating down stuff without pedalling.

really? My bullit bobs all over the f@$#%ng place! unless i turn up the LSC then its as stable as a very stable thing with zero bob.

Learning how to pedal smoothly (in circles, rather than mashing the pedals)

the path of your feet is constrained by the pedals, but in any case, off road you often have to modulate the movement of the pedals in maintaining balance and avoiding obstacles, so “smoothness” may be contraindicated…

You (we) just have to make the most of the wonderful invention that is the fully suspended mtb

Not me – I gave up rear suspension as not worth the inconvenience 🙂

rs – My Bulit didn’t bob too bad.

sfb – I have both fs and ss rigid. both great for certain situations and unnecessary in others

sfb – ss rigid fixie so pedaling is really constrained

Hi all, please forgive my bumping this thread..but…

After my tongue-in-cheek dig at this bike, and subsequent verbal lambasting, I was almost 100% confident that it was a ‘case of the missing cable outer’.

I contacted mate and shot over to sort it for him, but no! I had expected to see the cable stops and evidence that indeed this had been fitted but no…I’m at a loss tbh. The lad is strapped for cash atm and I’d really like to help him out; get out on the trails.

I snapped some pic on mobile (can’t access em yet, tried sms to email that’s not working either) and will endeavour to post them up.

Essentially

1. The front mech is a strange sort of cantilever ‘over the top’ type of pull (I only know XT, Ult, DA). A cable outer would not work/fit with this, unless the lads failed to fit all of it? It looks and functions ok however.

2. The plastic cable guide running under the BB sort of tapers out to nothing and so again, I can’t see evidence or how to ‘butt-up’ a cable outer.

3. His frame is similar to the pictures posted, but still differs.

Any tips would be welcomed, like I say he’s a sound bloke and I’d like to help him out.

Cheers.

Is that an e-type front mech?

I have one of those on my Scott Strike and they are a bitch to set up, especially adjusting the little screws.

Doesn’t contribute much to this post but my Scott runs without a cable outer.

I think without pics of the mech and frame it’s going to be a nightmware to diagnose.

The key thing is that there is insufficient ‘slack’ in the cable outer so that when the suspension moves the inner cable is pulled rather than the outer moving with it – that’s the problem you need to solve.

The mech is designed to move vertically when the suspension moves, but not laterally across the rings. If it’s ghost shifting the outer is too short.

1. The front mech is a strange sort of cantilever ‘over the top’ type of pull (I only know XT, Ult, DA). A cable outer would not work/fit with this, unless the lads failed to fit all of it? It looks and functions ok however.

Front mechs dont have cable stops fitted (ignoring the new Shimano bolt on format as he wont have one of those).

2. The plastic cable guide running under the BB sort of tapers out to nothing and so again, I can’t see evidence or how to ‘butt-up’ a cable outer.

Have a look at my picture again, there is a cable stop on the front of the BB, it might be in a different place on his frame but the principle still applies (unless he has a DH frame and is trying to fit a front mech, in which case, slap him round the face and call him an idiot)

Any tips would be welcomed, like I say he’s a sound bloke and I’d like to help him out

No offence but do him a favour and help him by taking him to a decent bike shop, there are probably a number of other things wrong if you cant solve this issue and the guys safety may be on the line here.

sorry but now not intrested in thread have been side tracked by the ss’ed frame earlyer may be another option to the kona a

You would not believe the lengths I’ve been to in order to access/transfer these photos …..how many dodgy software sits?

you couldn;t just do a shot of the cable where it leaves the down tube and passes towards the BB could you? 😉

I’d say that was a top pull mech and you’re using it bottom pull – the cable routing around the mech looks like it’s wrong.

I still think you’ll need to sort out outer cable length from downtube to BB though…

I see no outer cable stops.

agree with wwaswas-looks like a top pull used incorrectly (or is it a dual pull?). And as many many respondents have said, using a too-short section of housing (even with the correct front mech 😛 will cause the front mech to move as the cable tugs it.

edit; ambrose, the outer stop is at the front of the BB housing just out of shot in the final pic. This then feeds the inner into a plastic channel around the bottom of the BB (which is clear in the pic). The final section of outer cable needs a curve in it to provide enough length to accommodate the BB housing rotating, if the outer is straight or almost straight from the frame to the BB housing mounted stop it will do as the OP describes (speaking from experience).

I got a ’99 XCR2000 as an insurance replacement for a stolen FSR, so had no vested interest in defending or liking it. It rode as well as the FSR or any other FS design I’ve ridden, the eccentric bearings were well sealed and never died, and the bike is still seeing regular action as a mates girlfriend’s bike.

GT went bust in 2001 due to financial mismanagement IIRC (no cash to pay bills) rather than poor product. They were bought up (along with Schwinn) by Pacific who initially said they would concentrate on the low end of the market and only sell bikes up to the ~$300 mark, but thankfully someone there recognised the value and history of the GT brand, the quality and distinctiveness of the I-drive design and the profit to be had in higher end bikes. I understand the company who owns Pacific now owns Cannondale (who went bust in ~2003).

Not that the last bit solves your mech problem 😳

we believe you went to a lot of trouble, but you still didn’t get the shot we all want to see…

you’ve got the same shot twice, twice.

we want to see how the cable gets from the downtube to the BB shell.

see here, the red circle? thats a cable stop, you need to run a cable outer to this from the frame.

3459657943_c3da1b5abc_z by dickyelsdon, on Flickr

Looks like a dual pull mech, so the cable looks fine at that point. I’m still going for outer cable too short between frame and bb shell rather than bad engineering on gts behalf.

Was this the inspiration for the iDrive perchance?