Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Leash Law Enforcer
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Just checked out the Ells site and the Epiphany's suggested fork travel is listed as 80-105mm. Huh? I thought that it would be able to take up to a 130mm fork. Am I wrong or is the website wrong?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
Pinch said:
Just checked out the Ells site and the Epiphany's suggested fork travel is listed as 80-105mm. Huh? I thought that it would be able to take up to a 130mm fork. Am I wrong or is the website wrong?
This is a typo: The epiphany was intended to be used with the 130mm fork. This is the same spec sheet that Ells posted in time for InterBike & Mountain Bike Action Mag and had apologized for having the typos...kind of suprised they didn't bother to correct it by now...
 

·
Amphibious Technologies
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
Pinch said:
Just checked out the Ells site and the Epiphany's suggested fork travel is listed as 80-105mm. Huh? I thought that it would be able to take up to a 130mm fork. Am I wrong or is the website wrong?
If that is correct then the published BB height and Standover will increase by at least +25mm (+1") and up to +50mm (+2") from the "event horizon" :rolleyes:

Event Horizon - the axel horizon line as referenced when dealing with bottom bracket height and standover.

As I mentioned in another thread, the event horizon is a lousy way of representing the BB and standover heights since they are affected by the AC height of the fork. Hence will still vary.
 

·
Time is not a road.
Joined
·
4,150 Posts
SCUBAPRO said:
If that is correct then the published BB height and Standover will increase by at least +25mm (+1") and up to +50mm (+2") from the "event horizon" :rolleyes:

Event Horizon - the axel horizon line as referenced when dealing with bottom bracket height and standover.

As I mentioned in another thread, the event horizon is a lousy way of representing the BB and standover heights since they are affected by the AC height of the fork. Hence will still vary.
Well, the other method then yields confusion also, as in with what components were measurements made? Are they to assume that everyone will use a Fox fork or Kenda tires or whatever other brands? Why try to nail down a number on such a variable measurement? It seems reasonable to measure the bike with a static "fork" that yields the desired HA, then calculate the standover height from there. It's a pure calculation.
 

·
Amphibious Technologies
Joined
·
3,472 Posts
chad1433 said:
Well, the other method then yields confusion also, as in with what components were measurements made? Are they to assume that everyone will use a Fox fork or Kenda tires or whatever other brands? Why try to nail down a number on such a variable measurement? It seems reasonable to measure the bike with a static "fork" that yields the desired HA, then calculate the standover height from there. It's a pure calculation.
I agree. Perhaps publish BB and Standover relative to a fork with a certain AC height and 26" diameter wheels and tires would make more sense. I believe that is how they did it before.
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top