Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

21 - 39 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,367 Posts
RX rear

I was saying it would be $800 for the whole rear end, carbon seat stays included, but I looked on titus's site and the corresponding RX rear is about 1/4 inch shorter than the ML rear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
craigstr said:
I was saying it would be $800 for the whole rear end, carbon seat stays included, but I looked on titus's site and the corresponding RX rear is about 1/4 inch shorter than the ML rear.
the difference in the geometry numbers has always been do to the location of the pivot. at least in the pre 2006 era, you could swap the chain stays. seems like every 2 weeks somebody is saying they will not fit and then we learn they fit.
 

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
"Yes the Racer X chainstay will fit on a Moto Lite. However it is not being offered individually as an aftermarket upgrade. It is being sold as a rear assembly kit with the carbon seat stays and will include hardware. The kit will retail for $710."

Jeff Titone

Account Manager/Inside Sales

Titus Cycles

800.858.4887 x.15

www.titusti.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I'm confused do riders want more clearance because the racer X chainstays are only accomodating to a 2.1-2.2" tire. Why would you need to go back to a smaller stay if everyone seems to be wanting more clearance. The Racer X according to the catalog is16.65" chainstay and the Motolite is 16.85" I'm not an engineer so i couldn't tell you if that matters but i would gues that it effects the geometry and where the stresses are placed on the different sections of the frame. I'm a firm beleiver in letting the designers tell me what will and what will not work on the bikes they designed.
 

·
Paper or plastic?
Joined
·
10,026 Posts
dulyebr said:
"Yes the Racer X chainstay will fit on a Moto Lite. However it is not being offered individually as an aftermarket upgrade. It is being sold as a rear assembly kit with the carbon seat stays and will include hardware. The kit will retail for $710."

Jeff Titone

Account Manager/Inside Sales

Titus Cycles

800.858.4887 x.15

www.titusti.com
I say, get the friggin FR lowers. They work great. Let the sissy carbon stays to the XC racer guys! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
lessgearsmorebeers said:
I'm confused do riders want more clearance because the racer X chainstays are only accomodating to a 2.1-2.2" tire. Why would you need to go back to a smaller stay if everyone seems to be wanting more clearance. The Racer X according to the catalog is16.65" chainstay and the Motolite is 16.85" I'm not an engineer so i couldn't tell you if that matters but i would gues that it effects the geometry and where the stresses are placed on the different sections of the frame. I'm a firm beleiver in letting the designers tell me what will and what will not work on the bikes they designed.
lessgears.
the chain stay length on the geometry charts is measured from the centerline on the bottom bracket to the wheel dropout. the actual chainstay swing arm part is the same length. they just mount to the frame at a very slightly different location.

the new 2006 racer X chain stay fits bigger tires then the old 2005 version that the motolite shared with the racerX in 2005.

the free ride lower is heavier and can fit 2.6 inch tires easy. but you can't put a 2.6 tire on a motolite, there is interference at the bridge of the seat stay. from the pictures I've seen of the new racerX chain stay( which is not carbon) would fit a 2.1 nevegal easy, with mud clearane to spare.

thus giving the original poster the ablity to fit a nevegal 2.1 without incuring the 100g free ride lower penalty. seems like the perfect option to me.
 

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
well put.

I emailed Jeff from Titus if he knew why they didn't spec the 2006 ML with new RX lowers - no response.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
dulyebr said:
well put.

I emailed Jeff from Titus if he knew why they didn't spec the 2006 ML with new RX lowers - no response.
thanks.

personaly, I like the freeride lowers for me. it looks stronger then the new RX swing arm. and I was able to fit an 8 inch rear disc on my Moto-lite with the FR lowers. I just wish my enduro pro 2.4s fit with more top bridge clearance.

I like the FR lowers as standard, but it would be nice to have the new RX lower as an option. a moto lite-lite.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
So looking after reading this thread... not sure of the answer. Will a 2.35 Nevegal fit on the rear if you have a F/R rear end?
 

·
Paper or plastic?
Joined
·
10,026 Posts
tazdevl said:
So looking after reading this thread... not sure of the answer. Will a 2.35 Nevegal fit on the rear if you have a F/R rear end?
I haven't tried, but it's either gonna be very very tight at the bridge or it simply won't fit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
tazdevl said:
So looking after reading this thread... not sure of the answer. Will a 2.35 Nevegal fit on the rear if you have a F/R rear end?
that is a good question. I think it will. my enduro 2.4 fits but is really to tall. and can rub on the bridge. there was no width fit issue. that tire is a ballon and is to tall.

we put the same tire on a n10s 5.5 and it fit the same way. ie it was to tall and rubbed on the bridge on the seat stay.
 

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
They should...

Charles from Hammerhead Bikes rides Blue Groove 2.35s on his Hammerhead with the FR lowers. And, according to Shiggy's site, the BG 2.35 is 2.41" while the Nevegal 2.35 measures 2.39".

As far as the casing height, which would be the important measure concerning the clearance at the seatstay bridge. The Nevegal 2.35 is 51.3mm high, which should be fine. I'm currently running a Specialized Adrenaline 2Bliss 2.0, which measures 51.6mm, and no problems at all.

By the way, the Spec Enduro 2.4 is 54.3mm in height - freakin' huge!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
dulyebr said:
Charles from Hammerhead Bikes rides Blue Groove 2.35s on his Hammerhead with the FR lowers. And, according to Shiggy's site, the BG 2.35 is 2.41" while the Nevegal 2.35 measures 2.39".

As far as the casing height, which would be the important measure concerning the clearance at the seatstay bridge. The Nevegal 2.35 is 51.3mm high, which should be fine. I'm currently running a Specialized Adrenaline 2Bliss 2.0, which measures 51.6mm, and no problems at all.

By the way, the Spec Enduro 2.4 is 54.3mm in height - freakin' huge!
Thanks for the scoop. Was going to put a Nevegal 2.35 on my HH tomorrow. Figured why bother if it wasn't going to fit. 2.24" Mutanoraptor has worked out well, but I need a bit more traction on some of my regular trails.
 

·
Dan
Joined
·
84 Posts
I was running 2.1 nevegals on the front and rear of my mid-2005 ML. When I cut the sidewall of the rear tire, I replaced it with 1.95 Nevegal. Frankly it is a much better fit for the rear and I don't notice any performance difference. I still run the 2.1 up front.

I had no problem with rubbing with the 2.1 at the chainstays, but I did find it packed up pretty bad at the bridge during a 24 hour race when things got muddy. I actually had to stop several times and clear mud out to continue (albeit these were not normal riding conditions, but worth noting...)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
dulyebr said:
Charles from Hammerhead Bikes rides Blue Groove 2.35s on his Hammerhead with the FR lowers. And, according to Shiggy's site, the BG 2.35 is 2.41" while the Nevegal 2.35 measures 2.39".

As far as the casing height, which would be the important measure concerning the clearance at the seatstay bridge. The Nevegal 2.35 is 51.3mm high, which should be fine. I'm currently running a Specialized Adrenaline 2Bliss 2.0, which measures 51.6mm, and no problems at all.

By the way, the Spec Enduro 2.4 is 54.3mm in height - freakin' huge!
thanks for the info, that should mean that the 2.35 will clear the bridge by 3mm if Shiggy's site is correct.

so, just to clarify, the fit of the enduro 2.4 was so tite at the top of the bridge, that I couldn't slide a business card between the top of the tire and the bridge. but it rolled.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
Small HH100X with FR rear... just put on the 2.35" Nevegal... seat bridge has 0.3" of clearance and 0.4" clearance from the tire to the chainstay.
 

·
ಠ_ಠ
Joined
·
3,190 Posts
tazdevl said:
Small HH100X with FR rear... just put on the 2.35" Nevegal... seat bridge has 0.3" of clearance and 0.4" clearance from the tire to the chainstay.
Nice. Those are the biggest tires I could ever imagine running on my Moto-lite. Good to know that they fit okay.

Let us know how they work out.
 
21 - 39 of 39 Posts
Top