[dyg2001]

Have you considered that one reason you might be getting pedal strikes is that you're throwing the weight balance of the bike off by slackening it out so much with the cup and a 160mm fork?

I love it when the voice of reason chimes in.

Guys the bike was developed around 135x150 travel. Pivot who did extensive testing through shop workers, engineers, pros etc know better than anyone on the forum.
Why do people always have to mess with geo? You mess with geo you get problems.
I understand its preference and ride style and all that, but dont you think the designers of the bike know what works the best. Do you really think you use the extra 10mm of fork travel?

According to Pivot, "The Switchblade was designed for either a 150mm or 160mm fork". And Pivot recommends using the 17mm cup with B+ wheels which is what I'm running. So no I don't think I am messing with the geo in an unreasonable manner.

As for the suggestion that a higher front end caused by a longer fork and taller bottom headset cup would lead to suboptimal weight distribution and more pedal strikes, I guess that would be possible if the rear shock sag was not set correctly. But lots of other factors contribute to front-back weight distribution (body dimensions, stem length, saddle setback, etc.) and in general raising the front end should of course raise the BB and result in less pedal strikes not more. I haven't tried it, but I think pedal strikes would be quite pronounced with the Switchblade on rocky trails with B+ wheels and a 150mm fork and the zero-stack bottom cup.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

The Rekons when sagged are close to 27.5 diameter. WTB Trailboss and Duri Crux are taller and gave less pedal strikes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[techfersure]

Been running fork at 160mm without 17mm cup for both wheelsets, in 27.5 pretty much eliminated numerous pedal strikes to the occasional which on eastern Pa rock knar can happen on any bike. Like the tad more slack on 29er wheelset, happy compromise without having to mess with cup.

 

[motoguru2007]

I have been running my SB with a few mms of sag past the sag indicator. The bike is noticeably smoother with little effect on climbing. The downside is I am getting more pedals strikes with my tires around 18 psi in mixed Socal terrain. Not super rocky stuff but occasional rock gardens. Stock 2.8 Maxxis Plus recons.

I thought I read somewhere that Maxxis was going to offer a 3.0 Recon?? I would like to get the BB up a bit and I like the tire for allaround use.

 

[bear]

I thought I read somewhere that Maxxis was going to offer a 3.0 Recon?? I would like to get the BB up a bit and I like the tire for allaround use.

While waiting for future-ware you could try either the Schwalbe Nobby Nic 3.0 or Vee Bulldozer 3.0, the former is listed a bit lighter than the latter. I haven' ridden either so no opinion on them (other than I'm thinking about trying them for similar reasons and the Vee tires is relatively cheap).

 

[motoguru2007]

I have bad luck with Schwalbes, the tall square knobs don't hold up well for me and also they seep sealant. I have had good luck with Maxxis Minons in 29r format as far as durability sidewall and sealant retention. Looking at 3.0 Speshy Purgatory and Ground control, but the GRID casing seems to be back ordered.

 

[Flat Pedals]

Has anyone removed the 17mm cup to go with the recommended 29er configuration? If DIY what was that process like? How are you liking it with the cup. Now that I've been riding my Firebird the SB feels tall and narrow. My SB came with 740mm bars. Moving up to 785mm and want to drop the front end down both to make the SB feel lower but more trail HTA given I have the low, slack monster truck in the Firebird.

 

[invol2ver]

Has anyone removed the 17mm cup to go with the recommended 29er configuration? If DIY what was that process like? How are you liking it with the cup. Now that I've been riding my Firebird the SB feels tall and narrow. My SB came with 740mm bars. Moving up to 785mm and want to drop the front end down both to make the SB feel lower but more trail HTA given I have the low, slack monster truck in the Firebird.

run no lower cup and the fork at 160. the geo is dialed. i also have a firebird and a switchblade

 

[Snowsed341]

According to Pivot, "The Switchblade was designed for either a 150mm or 160mm fork". And Pivot recommends using the 17mm cup with B+ wheels which is what I'm running. So no I don't think I am messing with the geo in an unreasonable manner.

As for the suggestion that a higher front end caused by a longer fork and taller bottom headset cup would lead to suboptimal weight distribution and more pedal strikes, I guess that would be possible if the rear shock sag was not set correctly. But lots of other factors contribute to front-back weight distribution (body dimensions, stem length, saddle setback, etc.) and in general raising the front end should of course raise the BB and result in less pedal strikes not more. I haven't tried it, but I think pedal strikes would be quite pronounced with the Switchblade on rocky trails with B+ wheels and a 150mm fork and the zero-stack bottom cup.

So basically you just contradicted yourself.

The bike is recommended to be in the stock configuration that is why it is sold as is. You just stated the the 160mm is possibly causing the issue. Just because pivot says you can run a 160mm does not mean that it is the best solution. It is saying that primarily for warranty reasons btw.

Many bikes can run other sizes for forks but are sold with the fork they are for a reason. I rode a spider 275 with a 150mm fork and a 160mm fork. It descended great and Intense even cleared it when i called them. IT DID ADJUST THE CLIMBING THOUGH!

Why do people have to always justify the decision that they made whether right or wrong.

I think Noah knows the bike better than most if not all of us as HE RIDES FOR PIVOT AS A PRO.

 

[invol2ver]

i have plus tires on mine with the flush cup at 160 and my home trails are southern utah so plenty rocky. i have no issues with pedal strikes. you just have to learn to pedal with a low bb

 

[dyg2001]

So basically you just contradicted yourself.

The bike is recommended to be in the stock configuration that is why it is sold as is. You just stated the the 160mm is possibly causing the issue. Just because pivot says you can run a 160mm does not mean that it is the best solution. It is saying that primarily for warranty reasons btw.

Many bikes can run other sizes for forks but are sold with the fork they are for a reason. I rode a spider 275 with a 150mm fork and a 160mm fork. It descended great and Intense even cleared it when i called them. IT DID ADJUST THE CLIMBING THOUGH!

Why do people have to always justify the decision that they made whether right or wrong.

I think Noah knows the bike better than most if not all of us as HE RIDES FOR PIVOT AS A PRO.

Dude, what point are you trying to make? How did I contradict myself? Are you saying it is unwise to modify in any way the stock configuration of a high-end MTB like a Pivot? Remember, Pivot says right there on their website that "The Switchblade was designed for either a 150mm or 160mm fork".

 

[Pyrider]

Mine is in road...😊
He probably will arrive at the end of next week 😀
But the wheels will arrive at the end...of the month 😣
And for the tyres 29", I would put a Butcher on the front and à Purgatory on the rear, with the grid version.

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

29er without the cup, love it. Stupid rocky here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snowsed341]

Dude, what point are you trying to make? How did I contradict myself? Are you saying it is unwise to modify in any way the stock configuration of a high-end MTB like a Pivot? Remember, Pivot says right there on their website that "The Switchblade was designed for either a 150mm or 160mm fork".

It actually says this:

"Designed for a 150mm fork, fits forks up to 160mm."

Does not say designed for a 160 fork at all. Fits is not designed. The fact that you are not getting optimal climbing is probably because again you modified the intended geometry.

The sooner you come to grips with this better off you will be man. That is all i am trying to say. If you want the optimum climbing performance from the bike then leave it as intended. If Noah rides with 150mm front travel i am pretty sure you can. I highly doubt you ride the bike harder than he does!!

I'm not trying to make this a pissing match, but stating facts. I run my 5.5c with a 150mm fork and i like the way it feels and rides but i know that it was designed around a 160mm fork. I know that it will ride differently if I go to 160mm. I dont complain about the bike based around this though.

 

[Shawn in da Canyon]

It actually says this:

"Designed for a 150mm fork, fits forks up to 160mm."

Does not say designed for a 160 fork at all. Fits is not designed. The fact that you are not getting optimal climbing is probably because again you modified the intended geometry.

The sooner you come to grips with this better off you will be man. That is all i am trying to say. If you want the optimum climbing performance from the bike then leave it as intended. If Noah rides with 150mm front travel i am pretty sure you can. I highly doubt you ride the bike harder than he does!!

I'm not trying to make this a pissing match, but stating facts. I run my 5.5c with a 150mm fork and i like the way it feels and rides but i know that it was designed around a 160mm fork. I know that it will ride differently if I go to 160mm. I dont complain about the bike based around this though.

This right here is the truth. Everyone thinks more travel is better. It's not!

 

[Pyrider]

I think it depends the terrain, the practice and What people are searching...
For example, I always ride in mountains and I prefer the descent at the climb.
When I will ride it, I will try first with 150 but maybe it would be better for me to reach 160...
I always ride 160 forks but my bikes was 26 or 27,5", with 29" maybe I will be fine with à 150...I don't know.

 

[Snowsed341]

I think it depends the terrain, the practice and What people are searching...
For example, I always ride in mountains and I prefer the descent at the climb.
When I will ride it, I will try first with 150 but maybe it would be better for me to reach 160...
I always ride 160 forks but my bikes was 26 or 27,5", with 29" maybe I will be fine with à 150...I don't know.

Luke Strobel won DH races last year while testing the Wreckoning. He was riding a 160 fork. 29er wheels allow you to get away with less travel.

 

[Stupordave]

Have ridden my SB now in 150mm and 160mm with 17mm cup installed. The fork is actually only a .25" higher when weighted at the same pressures. Can't say I noticed much difference with the exception of maybe losing a bit of small bump compliance. Could be just due to new stiction from the rebuild or geo change. Planning to switch the cup to the zero stack which I believe will be about spot on for most of the CO front range trails. I like to ride towards the back anyway and use my fork travel for emergencies.

 

[dyg2001]

It actually says this:

"Designed for a 150mm fork, fits forks up to 160mm."

Does not say designed for a 160 fork at all. Fits is not designed. The fact that you are not getting optimal climbing is probably because again you modified the intended geometry.

The sooner you come to grips with this better off you will be man.

The Switchblade works great with either a 150 or 160 fork. Those of us Switchblade owners who are running 160 forks are not irresponsibly "messing with the geo". I made a comment about the low BB and pedal strikes on chunky trails (which I maintain is NOT a result of having a longer travel fork). I never said I'm getting poor climbing performance. I like the bike a lot. So how about you ride your bike and I'll ride mine and let's keep the vibe positive.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Buffalo Soldier]

BB is a little low. Rarely throws me off my my line though[emoji108]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk