MotoLite and Kenda Nevegal tires
21 - 39 of 39 Posts
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
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.craigstr said:
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
Jeff Titone
Account Manager/Inside Sales
Titus Cycles
800.858.4887 x.15
www.titusti.com
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.
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
lessgears.lessgearsmorebeers said:
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.
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
thanks.dulyebr said:
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.
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
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.tazdevl said:
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.
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!
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!
Joined
·
98 Posts
Eww, I'm kinda concerned now. I just ordered some Weirwolf 2.3's for my 2005 Motolite
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...)
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...)
Joined
·
2,721 Posts
thanks for the info, that should mean that the 2.35 will clear the bridge by 3mm if Shiggy's site is correct.dulyebr said:
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.
21 - 39 of 39 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!