Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm putting together a new bike that requires an E-type derailleur with bottom pull. Which one should I choose? Weight is important, but they don't appear to vary too much according to WW.

This is for a Maverick American ML7. The other option is to use a road derailleur (Ultegra or Dura Ace) with a special bracket that Maverick American can provide. They recommended the 2004 E-type. For other bikes, I've found that I really don't like E-type due to the lack of adjustment for clearance (height). I'll be using a 44-34-22 chainring, 11-30 8 speed cassette ESP GripShift setup.

PS. How much weight could I save by grinding the "extra" off one of those dual-pull designs?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,615 Posts
I use XT

I use XT on my Palomino. Never had a problem. Try to find '99-'03s XTs.
XTR is kinda heavy for '03 and '04.
I've been using E-type since 99 and never had an issue, EVER.

B R H said:
I'm putting together a new bike that requires an E-type derailleur with bottom pull. Which one should I choose? Weight is important, but they don't appear to vary too much according to WW.

This is for a Maverick American ML7. The other option is to use a road derailleur (Ultegra or Dura Ace) with a special bracket that Maverick American can provide. They recommended the 2004 E-type. For other bikes, I've found that I really don't like E-type due to the lack of adjustment for clearance (height). I'll be using a 44-34-22 chainring, 11-30 8 speed cassette ESP GripShift setup.

PS. How much weight could I save by grinding the "extra" off one of those dual-pull designs?
 

·
Whatever
Joined
·
583 Posts
Get a Dura Ace

B R H said:
I'm putting together a new bike that requires an E-type derailleur with bottom pull. Which one should I choose? Weight is important, but they don't appear to vary too much according to WW.

This is for a Maverick American ML7. The other option is to use a road derailleur (Ultegra or Dura Ace) with a special bracket that Maverick American can provide. They recommended the 2004 E-type. For other bikes, I've found that I really don't like E-type due to the lack of adjustment for clearance (height). I'll be using a 44-34-22 chainring, 11-30 8 speed cassette ESP GripShift setup.

PS. How much weight could I save by grinding the "extra" off one of those dual-pull designs?
BRH, do yourself a favor and get a Dura Ace triple front, it's only a bit more than an Ultegra. Since they didn't make them in 04, you'll need an 03. It'll be cheaper and lighter than an E-type, I think. Not sure how much the Maverick mount weighs. Also way better performance. I haven't had any problems with mine. And it shifts noticeably faster (I use SRAM X.9 triggers but used 9.0 twist shifters before) than the old XT bottom pull front I used on my old bike. FYI I use the Avid rollamajig that Maverick provides.

I want to experiment with a Campy triple, to make my ML7 Shimano free, but don't want to buy one just to try. Anyone out there with experience using a Campy road triple?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 · (Edited)
Maverick actually recommends 2004 E-type over their previous fix using the Dura Ace & special bracket, so I assume it must be working out well. I really hate those Rollamajigs, but I don't think there is any other option in this case. Too bad Maverick didn't route the cables on the downtube instead somehow. I don't know what the special Maverick mount weighs either, but my guess is that the combination is the same or heavier than E-type. When I first saw E-type, I liked the idea, but it didn't work so well on my wife's Specialized Enduro. It just wasn't adjustable enough and seemed weak and slow compared to a traditional bottom-swing top-pull design. Older XT E-type are really inexpensive. I've been running a cheapo XT (traditional) on my bike for 3 years and only messed with it when trying different cranks. It's one of the few parts I've never had problems with and is lighter than XTR by quite a bit.

What about those E-type with "differential plates" vs. the more standard looking fixed type of plates? Is the differential thing one more thing waiting to fail? Do they shift any better?

I thought Campy indexing was different that Shimano? I don't know if this would really be an issue with GripShift, but it seems like it should be with triggers.
 

·
Whatever
Joined
·
583 Posts
B R H said:
Have you tried E-type on your ML7 though? If so, which model?
BRH, I've not tried any E-type on my ML7. I've only heard the same you've heard -- poor/slow performance, mostly attributed to flex, and harder to adjust.

I haven't heard Maverick recommend the E-type, but their new 7.2 rear shock now allows the XT/XTR front derailleurs to be used. They're much bigger than a road triple, but aren't better. In fact I would say my Dura Ace shifts faster. As for weight of the D-mount, it is not nearly as much as the front derailleur. I bet the setup is very similar in weight to using an E-type.

Luckily, front derailleurs all use fairly similar cable pull, so in theory you could use a Campy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
One concern I have with the road derailleurs is that they are made for large chainrings so the curve of the shift plates is a rather poor match. Do you have any troubles with chain rub? I also worry about durability of both the derailleur and MA "D-mount".

I've been talking to Frank @ MA and he recommended 2004 E-type XT or XTR so I think that's what I'll try first. I believe this is the first year the E-type are actually recommended for 44 T and smaller chainrings, so maybe that was part of the problem in previous years (besides the fit). If I knew for sure the road setup was say 30 or 50 grams lighter, that just may be enough to sway me. It all adds up and I'm trying to keep this whole bike as light or lighter than my current bike (under 24 lbs.). That won't happen if I spring for the Fox fork though.
 

·
Whatever
Joined
·
583 Posts
B R H said:
One concern I have with the road derailleurs is that they are made for large chainrings so the curve of the shift plates is a rather poor match. Do you have any troubles with chain rub? I also worry about durability of both the derailleur and MA "D-mount".

I've been talking to Frank @ MA and he recommended 2004 E-type XT or XTR so I think that's what I'll try first. I believe this is the first year the E-type are actually recommended for 44 T and smaller chainrings, so maybe that was part of the problem in previous years (besides the fit). If I knew for sure the road setup was say 30 or 50 grams lighter, that just may be enough to sway me. It all adds up and I'm trying to keep this whole bike as light or lighter than my current bike (under 24 lbs.). That won't happen if I spring for the Fox fork though.
I really haven't had any problems. But I did with old SRAM twist shifters and an XT top swing/top pull. Just a lot of chainrub on the old Rocky Mtn bike. With the Maverick and the D/A front, no chain rub with either the SRAM twist shifter or the X.9 trigger I'm using.

I haven't weighed it lately, but mine is built up at 24 1/2 - 3/4 lbs and is an XL frame, and nothing is crazy non-durable light. Here's the spec:

Maverick ML7 frame
DUC 32 fork
King DisgoTech hubs 32hole
317 rear / Stan's ZTR355 front (soon to be Stan's rear too) / DT revo spokes / alloy nipples
Tires - two sets of wheels - Kenda Kharma DTC 2.0 for racing, and whatever big cheap
tires I can find for long days in the mtns (currently Kinetics Stick-E)
Stan's Notubes in all 4 wheels
Magura Marta brakes, '04 with the SL rotors
'04 XTR crankset
SRAM X.0 rear derailleur / Dura Ace triple front
X.9 triggers
ODI lock-on grips
Easton MonkeyLite DH bar
Nokon cable housing
FSA carbon integrated headset
Selle Italia SLR Ti saddle
Thompson seatpost
'04 Egg Beater's

Obviously I could spend more, or sacrifice durability here and there and get lighter. Especially pedals, seatpost & bars. But I prefer wide & stiff bars, refuse to ever use ti pedals after breaking 2 sets on the track, and I'm not so sure about a carbon seatpost with that much angle on the ML7 frame. Plus I've broken carbon posts as well (Easton & LP).

Where do you live? feel free to contact me offline for more info. I'm in Boulder.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
How do you like the DUC32? I loved the stiffness (simply amazing), but couldn't stand the height and couldn't set it up to not be a pogo stick. I'm pretty sure I'm going to use a Fox Float 100 RLT although I can't say that I've been wowed by it yet considering the high price tag. My $100 Noleen isn't too bad. I did ride a medium ML7 with a RLC, but I didn't really mess with the pressures or controls enough. I spent alot more time on a large ML7 with DUC32 and brought my pump along for the ride but still couldn't get that fork to behave at all. I ended up riding it in 100 mm mode most of the ride.

Lots of similarities between our builds. I'm transferring alot of stuff over from my current bike, including Stan's ZTR355, King ISO, CX-ray, X0 rear derailleur, SLR saddle, 9.0 Gripshift, 8 speed, Eggbeaters, etc. I've also got a new Deus XC crankset (warranty replacement for Next LP) as well. Love my flat bars and bar ends though. :)

I currently live in northern CA about halfway between Lake Tahoe and Sacramento. Lots of good riding around here but it's way too hot in the summer and too crowded. We almost moved to the Boulder area (jobs for me there) about 4 years ago but the housing prices were very unequal (much more expensive there than here). Things are more in balance now, so we are reconsidering. Did some riding in Horsetooth & Lory State Parks a few months back. Lots of fun, but a very windy day up by those towers.
 

·
Whatever
Joined
·
583 Posts
I really like the DUC32. I'm an ex-trackie, and like to have my handlebars significantly below my saddle -- 12" on my track bike, 6-7" on mtn bike, for climbing leverage. I'm 5'11" and ride the XL. I was wary about the Maverick fork's height, but took the chance based on the travel adjustment & weight. Now, after 10 months on the fork, I hardly ever use the 100mm setting and really like the position, especially for technical climbs. The 100mm position is too harsh for anything but fire roads in my opinion, plus it makes the bike too twitchy -- again wierd for me to say that, given my track background. I do like the fast rebound setting for technical stuff. I would only slow it down on fire roads/easy trails, but I don't have much time to ride so I avoid easy stuff anyhow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
5' 11" and you ride an XL? Hmmm... I'm 5' 10.5" and was planning on getting a medium. I hope that works out. The DUC32 did make the cockpit feel too short on a medium, but was OK on the large. A medium with regular fork and 120 mm stem seemed OK, but I didn't spend near as much time on that one. Maybe I should before I finish the order. A tape measure told me it _should_ be OK (i.e., very close to my current setup), but small changes in saddle height make a big difference in effective top tube on the ML7.

I could never ride with my bars that much lower. About 2" for me but with flat bars only. I don't like the sweep of most risers nor the width. I don't see how you can climb anything with that fork unless you stay seated all the time. Anytime I got out of the saddle it just started bouncing like crazy. I do get out of the saddle a bit too much, but most of the technical stuff around here seems to require it. I'll sit on the long climbs, but still need to stand occassionally to give my back a rest (lots of fractures). There are only a handful of rides that I could imagine actually enjoying that fork on and only then in the most nasty steep stuff that doesn't really last very long. Does it sound like the DUC32s I tried are messed up? All three seemed to behave the same.
 

·
Whatever
Joined
·
583 Posts
B R H said:
5' 11" and you ride an XL? Hmmm... I'm 5' 10.5" and was planning on getting a medium. I hope that works out. The DUC32 did make the cockpit feel too short on a medium, but was OK on the large. A medium with regular fork and 120 mm stem seemed OK, but I didn't spend near as much time on that one. Maybe I should before I finish the order. A tape measure told me it _should_ be OK (i.e., very close to my current setup), but small changes in saddle height make a big difference in effective top tube on the ML7.

I could never ride with my bars that much lower. About 2" for me but with flat bars only. I don't like the sweep of most risers nor the width. I don't see how you can climb anything with that fork unless you stay seated all the time. Anytime I got out of the saddle it just started bouncing like crazy. I do get out of the saddle a bit too much, but most of the technical stuff around here seems to require it. I'll sit on the long climbs, but still need to stand occassionally to give my back a rest (lots of fractures). There are only a handful of rides that I could imagine actually enjoying that fork on and only then in the most nasty steep stuff that doesn't really last very long. Does it sound like the DUC32s I tried are messed up? All three seemed to behave the same.
I'm all legs...have an inseam of about 34.5" and my road/track bikes are 59-60cm. The ML7 L and XL are the same seat tube, the XL has a slightly longer top tube. I chose that over running a longer stem. The weight difference didn't bother me... less than 1/4 lb. The DUC32's you tried were probably not set up right. I am 165# so according to the manual, I'm supposed to be at 90 psi. That is fine for racing but not plush enough for everyday riding. I normally ride at 82-85psi. I think because my bars are a lower I have no problem climbing. If you're worried about bobbing, it's not too bad. In 4" mode there is zero, in 6" there is some, about an inch if setup very plush like mine, but that's the tradeoff to be able to climb insanely technical stuff. Here's a pic...
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
My inseam (actual, not pants) is about 33.5" and 57-58 cm road bikes seem to fit best (I am currently shopping for one of those as well). I also weigh 165 and I'm pretty sure they set the fork up at 90 psi. I tried as high as 120 psi and it still bobbed way too much in 6" mode. Zero bob in 4" mode but, as you said earlier, it isn't compliant enough at all like that. I actually find it easier to climb the most technical stuff with a fork nearly locked out and as low as possible. There are times when I really did appreciate the ECC lockdown on my Marzocchi Marathon. Most of the time I don't like messing with knobs while I'm riding though because, sure enough, I end up forgetting to un-lock making coming down more challenging than it needs to be. The rear shock was set at 165 psi, but I preferred it closer to 150 with the rebound in the middle.

I'm really worried about the frame size now. I was planning on confirming the order for a medium this morning. Maverick has 2 mediums left, but no larges until October. Thanks alot! :)
 

·
Whatever
Joined
·
583 Posts
B R H said:
I'm really worried about the frame size now. I was planning on confirming the order for a medium this morning. Maverick has 2 mediums left, but no larges until October. Thanks alot! :)
Well, the MD is .7" shorter top tube than the L. But 2" lower standover height, which is huge. If you've ridden the MD and it works, go for it. As you said, having to raise the seatpost a bit more than on the L will also give you more stretch for torso. Should be lighter, too. I'd go with what you rode.

Honestly I should be on a L, but at the time they had none in stock, and the dealer I bought it from was a personal friend who only had an XL. I was really inbetween with what I wanted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,172 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I decided to go with the medium because the standover height was an issue a few times when I rode the large. Even with the lower fork, I think it would have been a bit too tall. Thanks for getting me to think more about standover. The geometry specs on the MA website show 30" and that's with a 100 mm fork (per Frank), so that matches my current bike too. My fingers are crossed, but I hope the medium works out!

I also decided to go with the road derailleur instead of E-type. :)

Thanks for the help!
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top