Ask PB: Foxy vs Mega, Fast Rolling Rear Tires, and Crank Arm Lengths

Jun 23, 2015
by Pinkbike Staff  
Ask Pinkbike Header

Here at Pinkbike we get inundated with all kinds of questions, ranging from the basic "Can I have stickers" to more in-depth, soul searching types of queries like if you should pop the question or what to name your first child. Ask Pinkbike is an occasional column where we'll be hand picking and answering questions that have been keeping readers up at night, although we'll likely steer clear of those last two and keep it more tech oriented.




Foxy vs Mega

Question: Pinkbike user MTB-Lee89 asked this question in the All-Mountain, Enduro and Cross-Country forum: I'm looking into getting a new bike and thinking about either the Mondraker Foxy XR or the Nukeproof Mega AM. The Mega seems to have a better spec, but the Foxy has featured in some Bike of the Year awards... Has anybody had either of those two bikes and is able to tell me if they're worth the money? I'm also struggling to figure out the correct size on the Nukeproof (i'm 6ft tall) as no local chops have them, meaning I'll have to order it off the internet.

bigquotesBoth of your options are great bikes, but they're drastically different machines on the trail that each have their own strength and weaknesses, so it's going to depend on what you are looking to do on the bike. I've spent a load of time on Mondraker's Foxy XR, and while it is a great rig, it's also a quirky one that some riders may or may not gel with. First, the good: it's a 140mm travel bike that pedals nearly as well as a cross-country race rocket, which makes it a blast on trails that require a bit of legwork to get the most from. Due to the long reach and short stem geometry setup, it feels immensely confidence inspiring on steep trails and at high speeds, but the downside to the bike is that, for the same reason, I found it pretty awkward when on tighter terrain. The Foxy is a great bike, but it's also one that some riders will have to learn how to get the most from.

The Mega AM, on the other hand, is a 160mm bike that is much more forgiving out back than the shorter travel Foxy. Its geometry is more traditional, and it will be easier to jump on and get used to right away, all of which might make it the better choice for an average rider who's just looking for a bike to smash into things on. However, it falls short of the Foxy when it comes to bike weight and pedalling abilities - I'd much rather be on the Foxy if my rides included a ton of pedalling and not much in the way of truly hairball terrain.
- Mike Levy

Mondraker Foxy review test Photo by Paris Gore
Nukeproof 2015 Mega AM Pro 11-14.08.14. NUKEPROOF Launch Hondarribia Spain. PIC Andy Lloyd www.andylloyd.photography





Fast-rolling Rear Tires

Question: JesseJames1107 asks in the All Mountain, Enduro & Cross-Country forum: What tire would you choose on rear? I think about Maxxis Ardent 2.25 or Conti Mountain King 2.2. I'm looking for something with low rolling resistance, but fully controlled (like my front High Roller ll Razz). Any ideas?

bigquotesBecause you are already a happy Maxxis customer, the logical choice would be a 2.25-inch Ardent for the rear. The Ardent has a low tread profile on the crown and it is a fast roller on most any surfaces, which makes it a popular combination with your High Roller II. You said, however, that you wanted the same cornering grip as your HRII up front and the 2.25-inch Ardent is not trustworthy in the corners. The 2.4-inch version actually corners better than the HRII, but it rolls about as bad and weighs more (I believe). I suggest the Schwalbe Rock Razor. It has a low, fast-rolling crown, paired with grippy edging blocks that rival the performance of the Maxxis HRII's. - RC


n a
Schwalbe's Rock Razor is a fast-rolling semi-slick style rear tire that can corner fast enough to win EWS-level enduro races.




Are Shorter Cranks Better?

Question: mandotwentysixer asks in the Bikes, Parts and Gear forum: I'm curious, has anyone ever switched to lower cranks? Is it a good upgrade or isn't it? Just wondering what you guys think.

bigquotesI wouldn't necessarily call switching to shorter cranks an upgrade - it's usually a change that's dictated by a specific event, whether that's related to a bike's geometry, or a fit issue you're trying to resolve.

One reason for running shorter cranks is to gain additional ground clearance to help keep from constantly smacking your pedals on mid-trail obstacles. This is most common on downhill bikes where the combination of a low bottom bracket and loads of suspension travel makes running full length cranks all but impossible. Many DH bikes use 165mm crankarms, and even some longer travel all-mountain / enduro bikes benefit from using 170mm versus the most common 175mm size.

Aside from ground clearance, bike fit is another reason for using a different crank length. In most cases, longer cranks work best for taller riders, which is why large and XL frame sizes often have longer crankarms than the smaller frame sizes. You'll find endless debates about crankarm length among road cyclists, since road biking involves much more seated pedaling at the same cadence compared to the more frequent in and out of the saddle movement that occurs in mountain biking. It's best to visit a reputable bike fitter in your area if you're experiencing any knee pain or other issues that are making you consider shorter cranks - there may be something as simple as a saddle height or position change that could help. - Mike Kazimer

Hope crank forgings
Most cranks come in three or more different lengths to suit various riding styles and rider dimensions.



Have some unresolved tech questions? Jump in the Pinkbike Forum and we'll look to answer it for next time.


129 Comments

  • 154 3
 Pick a crank size and be a dick about it!
  • 66 0
 Spending $700 on shorter cranks can save weight. Wow! I just saved 20 grams!
  • 83 6
 Pick a dick and be a crank size about it!
  • 162 2
 Pick a dick size and crank about it
  • 7 1
 @rickthehuman Whoa. Please, no crank before posting.
  • 73 0
 My logic: If I like it, I should put chainring on it
  • 7 0
 Quit yanking my crank. Just pick one already!
  • 12 15
 Pick a dick and crank it
  • 4 2
 you're just a bunch of cranks, and will go to great lengths to prove it (etc etc)
  • 15 1
 My crank worx pretty good!
  • 6 0
 I'm thinking about naming my first child either Gershawn if it's a boy or Misty if it's a girl. What do you folks think?
  • 6 8
 "Pick a dick size and crank about it"

For the Win!!!
  • 2 0
 I switched from 175 to 170 on my all-mountain and found that pedaling was much harder than before (183cm / 6feet).. any ways went OTB on tree stumps with both setups
  • 1 1
 What your crank size says about your dick size!
  • 3 2
 Hi all,
On crank lengths maybe you should take a look at this: www.stevehoggbikefitting.com/bikefit/2011/06/crank-length-which-one
  • 1 0
 Lower weight, increased stiffness, greater ground clearance & lower torsional stresses (increased strength) all result from going shorter. That's not a crank yank, it's true!
  • 20 0
 What's up with that Minion SS? Last I read release was scheduled for "late June", now THAT would be one killer rear tire to consider.
  • 2 0
 Yeah also waiting on that one
  • 2 0
 I've been riding with a German racer this week who had the Minion SS on the rear of his AM bike. Says he likes it, brakes OK and runs it in all conditions.
  • 2 4
 "I think about Maxxis Ardent 2.25 or Conti Mountain King 2.2"

Maxxis Ardent has to be the worst tire. The rubber is so hard, it has no grip and will slide out from under you. I gave away a brand new pair off my bike to Duthie bike park. Not sure why everyone on pinkbike is so In love with maxxis. I would go with continental, I have not ridden the mountain kings, but love the mountain queens for fast rolling gripper choice.
  • 2 1
 Maybe the tire is just his way of secretly conveying that he's a Nazi
  • 1 0
 Contis aren't a bad tire but the sides don't hold up. I've run ikons on my Xc bike with no issues amd got two full seasons out of them. I have ardents on my enduro bike and love them.
  • 1 0
 i have around 250km on my Rock Razor and i am really impressed , it is starting to get some tears on the smaller knobs and there is the odd puncture or two but it,s not as beat up as i thought it would be being a pacestar and for getting ridden on flat for a couple km during my last enduro race . as for the Minion SS , i,m really looking forward to it ,curious how it compares to the RR .
  • 2 1
 Specialized Slaughter. No love for Spesh here from me, but I've been running one for 6 months or so in all conditions and it's pretty much awesome, except for the fact that it doesn't brake for sh!t. That's okay though, I just brake less.
  • 1 0
 maxxis always making me wait for shit. their tread designs are so good for my area, but i just need harder compounds.
  • 1 0
 No 26" for Minion SS?... err... Any reason for this Maxxis?
  • 19 2
 but I love pedal strike Wink
low BB and long cranks FTW
  • 15 2
 The only time I smack my cranks is when I'm not paying attention or I'm tired.
  • 4 0
 I haven't used an ardent 2.4, but when I went from a HR2 to a 2.25 ardent, cornering grip is almost non existant on anything other than hardpack. Great rolling tyre and would be a great chioce for trail riding, but for agressive cornering the 2.25 is down right dangerous. The rock razor is good, rolls fast and corners great, just dont expect it to stop fast in a straight line.
  • 4 0
 Yea, i dont think Ardents are particualy fast rolling either compared to Schwalbe offerings like nobby nic or racing ralph.

Hit a root with one and you're off anyway.

Try a Minion DHR2 - 15% lighter than the HR, faster rolling, still very very good corner grip
  • 2 0
 I currently have a Nobby Nic rear. It's fast and light but the grip is poor. Too much of a compromise for me; I'll be back on Minions (or similar) front & rear next.
  • 2 0
 Dont expect the rock razor to last more than 400 kilometers either....especially the trail star compound.
  • 1 0
 Rock razor sounds good in principle, but the cornering knobs round off so fast with the trail star compound. You may well by a holy roller
  • 4 0
 Ardent Race - way better then the standard Ardent as a rear. Consistent row of side knobs. Rolls fast and grip is acceptable (IMHO).
Running it with a HR2 up front.
  • 1 0
 Yup, thats what im running, ardent 2.45 upfront, ardent race 2.2 at the back. The Ardent race is grippier, last WAAAAY longer then racing ralph/rocket rons.
  • 5 0
 My son & I tried WTB's Vigilante up front with a Trail Boss on the back and its been pretty awesome...any others try this??
  • 1 0
 Rock Razor is nice rear tire. It's a race weapon IMO not a good trail tire. Cornering grip out back is an on/off switch but it works well. the soft compound disintegrates after a solid handful of spirited rides however the trade off is Spider Man grip on roots and rocks. I ran it paired with a Muddy Mary while I was very satisfied with performance it rolled so slow I felt it negated anything gained from the Rock Razor. Overall rolling speed was worse than the HRII/Ardent combo I had been on. I am now running a Minion DHRII on the front, due to a failure of my Muddy Mary .... It is better than the HR2 in every single way. Lighter, faster, better grip. I would recommend it as a front or rear. It's fantastic.
  • 4 1
 I bought some wheels that came with a 2.4 wire bead ardent out back. It was so slow I almost went to see a doctor because I thought I was having a heart condition trying to keep up with my buddies and getting exhausted pedaling to the top of everything. The grip was meh and it was so damn big it made it twice as difficult to manual. I seriously thought something was wrong with me until I switched tires. Amazing what different rubber can do.
  • 1 0
 Ardent race > ardent. Crossmark if you really want fast rolling. Rear only for any of these.
  • 1 0
 I've been running Rock Razor (Rear) Magic Mary (Front) combo and absolutely love the combination. I ride trails throughout the Santa Cruz mountains and feel that this combo works perfectly (for me) in our trail conditions. True they do run down relatively fast, especially if you ride to ride (across town on pavement), but the cornering confidence I have experienced with the Rock Razor in particular has been outstanding. By design this tire is meant to be ridden hard and fast. As mentioned, however, don't expect killer straight line braking performance.
  • 7 0
 "the 2.25-inch Ardent is not trustworthy in the corners"........My freshly-healed collarbone agrees with this statement.
  • 2 0
 Specialized Purgatory Grid is a good fast rolling tire with decent side grip
  • 1 0
 Got the same combo on my 6" trail bike and it's the best combo I've ever used on that set-up / my local trails. Front grip seems to be endless and rear traction and braking hasn't been an issue whatsoever. I use a Bronson front and Nano rear on my xc bike with similar results (different trails obviously) with great side knob grip from the Branson and faultless rolling speed from the Nano. WTB FTW!!!
  • 2 0
 @DARKSTAR - been thinking the DHRII would be the replacement for the HR2 upfront. Only concern is it clearing mud as well. The HR2 is fairly open and clears well.
I figure if they are good enough for Minnaar to run on both ends, they must be pretty good...never saw a bad review.

RE: the Vigilante / Trail boss combo: sounds like a winner. I have Vigilante Team Ed. on my heavy duty wheels...WTB casings seem either over weight and durable OR decent weight and flimpsy. The Maxxis EXO seem like a better balance of strength to weight. Never had an EXO fail. I have worn through a WTB heavy casing. Grip wise, the Vigilante is really good all around.
  • 1 0
 @ReformedRoadie i used a DHR2 in the front for a bit - it's like the HR2 in that if you don't ride it really aggressively, it will feel unstable. i'm not an aggressive/good enough rider to use it in the front, so i ended up with a DHF up front (Very original, i know) and the DHR2 in the back. VERY happy with that combo
  • 1 0
 Another victim of the 2.25 Ardent here. I have the scars (two of them) to prove it doesn't corner well. That incident led me on a long tire hunt that has now settled on Minion DHF front and rear. Really an amazing combination in all conditions, even pretty good in the wet and mut. Downhill and on rolling terrain they are unbeatable and confidence-inspiring. Great for technical climbing. (The Minion DHF out back is superior to the HRII at everything except straight-line braking; the HRII is liable to spin out on roots and rocks when on a bumpy climb).

The Minions are very slow uphill and on flat terrain though. For any race involving a big climb I might change the rear out to something faster, just to decrease my chances of ending up DFL, but not sure what; dare I try an Ardent again? Or I might switch the pair over to a Purgatory/Ground Control combo, which would be much faster.
  • 4 0
 What would be perfect would be if Schwalbe made pace star compound in super gravity casing. Trail star wears out so fast that I get flashbacks from running minions DHF in 40a slow reezay which were useless after 2 DH runs, if not after one. Pace Star offers already really good grip even on wet rock faces, I have no clue why go softer on tyre used for Enduro and AM where rolling and durability are the key. I don't even want to know how fast their DH compound wears out judging by Trail star offerings. Then sidewalls in Evo SS version in pace star are made of toilet paper, which are easy to puncture and knobbs tear out easily in dry conditions.

I am also butthurt that Specialized is not releasing Slaughter in 26".

@schwalbe #amIspecialized
  • 4 0
 what would be perfect would be if schwalbe realized how crap they are and stopped inflicting their crap tyres on us. If you like cuts punctures and knob falling off get Schwalbe. They may be light but if you have to stop every 5 minutes to fix a puncture they are still bloody useless.
  • 2 0
 I completely shredded a knob off my Muddy Mary taking a chunk of the casing with it. Never seen anything like it. In addition to the wear issues, this put me back on the Maxxis train.
  • 1 0
 I have an old muddy mary 2.35 pacestar with a freeride casing. Complements my 2.35 magic mary trailstar super gravity perfectly. Not sure why scwalbe didn't retain the pacestar compound when updating the marys.
  • 3 0
 Surprised I have not seen any recommendation for the WTB Trail Boss tire. They look a lot like the Rock Razor...fast rolling siped center knobs and chunky edge knobs that hook up like crazy. The tires seem to be holding up well.
  • 6 0
 maybe he has a 26
  • 3 0
 Currently running a rock razor on my freeride bike. Gotta be comfortable with a lot of drift-n-grip to feel happy with this tire. Wet conditions or a little too rearward setup and it plants me on my butt.
  • 4 0
 Specialguys slaughter is similar and does last waaay longer.
  • 1 0
 Yeah the schwalbes were good but too expensive for my taste. The slaughter has been doing great the last 4 months its been on my bike.
  • 1 0
 No slaughter in 26" though. My buddy put one on when I got the razor and yeah, much sturdier.
  • 1 0
 Yeah, very true.
  • 2 0
 Check out Jim Martin's research - the paper that originally got people thinking about shorter crank arms. More road biased and doesn't necessarily relate to sudden steep pitches/changing cadence but very interesting how short we could potentially go - 145mm!!!

www.recumbents.com/WISIL/MartinDocs/Determinants%20of%20Maximal%20Cycling%20Power.pdf
  • 3 1
 I have a 29x2.4 Ardent on the back of my Process 111, and a 29x2.5 Minion DHF up front. HUGE tires for that kind of bike, but I love how it rides. The big tire volume makes it ride like a bigger bike, and once you get those tires spun up, it'll hold a line like an absolute fiend. The Ardent grips well (enough for me) in Colorado dirt and the gravel of the Ozark Mountains.
  • 1 0
 I have a similar setup on my Process 111, 2.5 DHF on the front and 2.4 DHR2 on the rear, tubeless with dual-ply casing. I like 28 PSI in the front and 32 PSI rear. Maybe a bit heavyish, but pretty much ideal for this bike in PNW terrain and conditions. The Ardent is a scary tire in many situations IMO - but the DHR2 climbs well, brakes well, corners well, rolls well, durable and predictable. No complaints.
  • 2 0
 So now you're considering changing crank length, in addition to tires and/or wheel size, plus gearing (probably front chainrings on 1x)? To help avoid confusion, it is useful to use GAIN RATIO, instead of GEAR RATIO. Gain ratio accounts for crank length AND effective tire diameter, in addition to the gear ratio. This makes it easier to sort thru the effects of the changes you may be considering. Of course, pedal strike clearance is a separate issue.
  • 2 0
 The Ardent drifts in a controlled way, very much like a rally car. They are a lot of fun. As opposed to many tires that are either holding or letting go, it allows you to feel the slide and adjust before its gone. I think they are a fun tire.
  • 2 0
 I've been running the specialized slaughter on the rear of my Nomad and I absolutely love it. Of the semi-slick tires available, it definitely has the most aggressive center knobs which lend to its impressive braking for a semi-slick. That being said it still rolls super fast and obviously corners great!
  • 4 3
 my best friend tried going to real short cranks on his commuter. like 155's. now he swears by them on every single bike he owns including a xxl turner 5 spot. he is over six foot too and rides a ton. i believe there is some merrit in trying shorter cranks.
  • 3 0
 i feel crank length has to do with the way you climb too. 175 for mashing, shorter for sitting and spinning. shorter cranks = less leverage on knees.
  • 1 0
 I'm interested in hearing more feedback from people who switched to shorter cranks. The only thing I don't like about my Trance SX is the constant ground strikes with 175mm pedals. I'm thinking of dropping to 165. I can always get a smaller chainring to make up for the loss of torque. Thoughts?
  • 2 0
 Welll personally I ride 170mm cranks but that's just my preference. Try and experiment with different crank sizes and chainrings cause everyone has a different preference.
  • 2 0
 I've just changed from a round/175 combo to an oval/165 after reading an article about power and efficiency. Apparently as your cadence increases, your efficiency drops in correlation with foot speed. The longer crank gives more leverage, but also increases foot speed, offsetting any gains in leverage. Therefore I believe for mountain biking where cadence isn't that stable, it probably doesn't make any difference. Shorter cranks don't hit the ground as much though which is an undeniable benefit. Do it.
  • 2 0
 I've switched to shorter on my FS bikes (FSR and low single pivot). Shorter cranks sometimes aren't shorter in length. Sometimes it's just the pedal thread insert that is offset. That'll reduce pedal strikes, but not crank strikes. Crank and pedal strikes are brutal on frames... I suspect that my habit of pedaling through strikes as if they didn't happen, as my method of countering them, caused my CF frame to crack along the drive side of my CS by the bridge. I'm 5' 7" and ride 1x, giving up some high end gearing, preferring to spin 60-80 RPM. One reason to switch to shorter. Wink
  • 1 0
 On a Trance, I would go for a 170 if 175 feels too long. I'm on the new Scott Voltage running 165 cranks, and while I do feel they are good on this bike due to the crazy low BB, they absolutely suck when you try to really lay power down. I actually switched from a 175 to a 165 on my previous bike, a Rocky Mountain Slayer, and again, while it made pedal strikes less frequent, it made a reasonably pedalable bike into somewhat of a pig to grind on. I honestly didn't think I'd see any difference, but its more noticeable than switching from a 26er to 650b. If at all possible, especially to preserve in seat pedalability, go with a lower profile pedal first.
  • 4 0
 I switched from 175 to 165 and I'm more than happy about the results.
  • 3 0
 I switched to solely using 165s a couple of years ago. First let me say I'm only 5'6" and, while that wasn't the reason for changing from 170/175, I definitely pedal 165s better (whether that's because I've gotten used to em I dunno). I switched because of more bikes having low BBs and I wanted to be able to smash some of our rocky climbs without constant strikes, I can mostly do that now and happily I barely ever strike on the way down too. It's quite a noticeable difference in both clearance and the feel of the bike, especially when pedaling. I haven't changed my gearing but for me, if anything, I think I could go for a bigger chainring with shorter cranks. I have longer legs for my height, I ride medium bikes. Hope my rambling helps!
  • 2 1
 essentialy even though you will lose torque you will spin faster so it neglects any losses you will make switching to a shorter crank arm
  • 2 0
 switched from 175 to 165 cranks because I've got short legs. Its more noticable with kids bikes.
  • 2 0
 I'm 6ft4 and went from 175 to 170mm las tyear. Felt no difference in pedaling but get way less rock strikes.
  • 2 0
 @jaame pretty sure that is correct but only relevant to seated spinning on a road bike at higher cadence or seated climbing, out of the saddle (where i spend a LOT more time) longer cranks have their advantage like when you need to keep putting one or two high gear hard crank turns between corners or coming out of corners. riders who have 165 cranks with 34t chainring on their DH rig likely have 170 or 175 32t on the trail bike. horses for courses.
  • 3 0
 I swapped from 175 to 165, I've got short legs and run a slack 160mm travel bike. Less rock strikes and I 165 feels more instant and snappy power. Felt like my little legs were doing big circles with 175mm!!
  • 2 0
 I switched to 165 on my DH bike because of clearance but actually felt stronger pedalling the shorter cranks and have moved up from a 36t to a 38t. Not sure if this would work on a trail bike but the best way to see is to try it, you can get a hundred different opinions from people that aren't quite what you will experience when you try it... so give it a try buddy.
  • 1 0
 i have 175 on the mtb & 165 on the roadie. i have fairly short legs & the 175 can be hard work on long seated climbs needing to raise feet 20mm higher at the top of the stroke every stroke. standing & sprinting & flatout acceleration is another story on longer cranks which is why bmx racers have such long crank arms.
170mm would probably be a better allround length for me, longer crank arm does mean greater leverage & greater torque but i do understand it does not always translate into greater pedalling efficiency especially at high cadence pedalling for extended periods like on a road bike.
  • 1 1
 if you notice the range of arm lengths available for road cranks youll get an idea its a little more crucial to have a length that fits your body since body sizes (& limb sizes) vary quite considerably but the riding style is much the same, though ive read roadies opting for a slightly longer crank in mountain stages as offers advantages at lower cadences.
  • 1 1
 I've also heard of roadies using odd length cranks to compensate for leg length discrepancies. I actually tried it myself with a 170 hone left crank arm I found on eBay, but the pedal insert came loose after about half an hour so I couldn't evaluate it properly. My left leg is shorter than my right. I'm not sure how much difference it would make anywa on a bike with the seat right down
  • 1 0
 I went from 175 to 170. Took about half a block to get used to it. It is different but not nearly as extreme as I feared. I kind of wish I had gone all out and tried 165. I'm about 175cm tall.
  • 1 0
 my Process 167 has 170mm cranks and is a medium and i like them a lot , my last bike had 175mm and was a large , since switching to a smaller frame and shorter cranks my climbing and trail riding have improved .
  • 4 0
 you need to try a Specialized Slaughter : scarry when heavy breaking in line, but once on the edge, they master the job.
  • 3 0
 I was going to say Slaughter as well, but that it was surprisingly not scary for how fast it rolls. It actually seems quite forgiving for having a bit of moisture on the trail.
  • 4 0
 What about cornering and jumping. Does having your feet closer together make any diferrence?
  • 2 0
 I'm not totally sure so take this with a grain of salt but if your cranks are shorter you'd be higher off the ground which would raise your center of gravity and possibly make cornering worse. That's also assuming you're dropping your outside foot.
  • 1 0
 That was my thought on corning as well. However, I wonder about jumping as in theory it should be easier to pre-load if you have you legs closer together.
  • 1 0
 so natemeyer the crank arm difference is 5mm & then if you lean the bike over at 45 deg or more when cornering then id guess you would raise your c.o.g like maybe 3.5mm running 165 instead of 170mm cranks. maybe take the insole out from your shoes to compensate?
  • 4 2
 I love the 29er 2.4 ardent. Better than the smaller version in every way here in the desert. Rolls just fine. Or the Ikon 2.35.
  • 3 0
 Canfield CRANKS!!! 155,160,165 and 170mm! Been running 155mm cranks on my DH bikes for years, no way am I going back!
  • 1 0
 O my this is new news to me! Always wanted 160mm cranks! But could go 155! They come in 83 bb?
  • 1 0
 Affirmative
  • 1 0
 Glad canfield saved the world. Im gonna get a 155. Does shorter cranks affect anything on control?
  • 2 0
 get the foxy i used to have the 2013 one and it was so nice and it is better at dh than you would think
  • 2 0
 I've got a Foxy XR Carbon..... Absolutely love it, it's a dirt rocket. The forward geometry for taller riders is a revelation in my eyes (I'm 6'5" and ride an XL).
  • 2 0
 I'm crank size curious. Other than preventing pedal strike are there other benefits riding of shorter cranks?
  • 2 0
 Better cadence (i.e you can spin faster cause the diameter your feet describes is smaller) so better for high speed but loss of torque for the climbs because of the smaller leverage.
It's not better, just different.
  • 1 0
 cadence means pedalling rate by definition. but some times you dont want faster pedalling especially on rough ground or when standing.its all only relevant if you are sitting on the saddle. in the saddle on long smooth climbs a shorter crank will be more efficient (efficient but not necessarily faster). out of the saddle riding would normally require high gear ratios & much lower cadence. sometimes slower cadence is better cadence like when you change up a few gears switching from seated to standing climbing for example.
  • 4 0
 2.35 Ikon ftw!
  • 1 0
 Found it surprisingly draggy for that profile, about like a Purgatory. Also when it gets loose and a bit deeper it does not rail. It does not break loose suddenly either, more of like slowly/controllably smears around. But the in find the balance of rolling resistance and cornering grip unsatisfactory in the loose.
  • 3 0
 Love the 2.35 Ikon EXO. Way more braking and cornering grips than it looks like it would have.
  • 1 0
 Did anyone manage to plug their tr exo maxxis tires after slashing the sidewalls and for use with tubeless? Nothing seems to stick?!
  • 1 0
 If glue doesn't work try to sew slashed fragment and if needed sew in patch of old tire's sidewall inside tire in puncture's place if you got some old tires lying around. It should do the trick. I did that to Conti RQ which has paper thin sidewall (sew up the hole and sticked piece of sidewall using rubber glue). Also when using glue remember to clean surrounding area and sand it at least a bit (without killing threads Big Grin ).
  • 1 0
 2.4 ardent is no where near as heavy and poor rolling as a HR. Makes s great rear.just get the exo verdion as there only week spot is the sidewall cutting up. And thick mud.
  • 2 0
 Or rock a Spesh Slaughter 2.3 on the rear, very similar to RR but less expensive. Mine's paired to a HR2 front also.
  • 1 0
 If you don't lean when you turn, those low rolling resistance and big side knobs tyres are utterly not helping.
  • 17 0
 If you don't lean when you turn, you're not turning
  • 17 0
 If you don't turn when you lean, you've fitted Ardents
  • 2 0
 @brunse Heh... made me chuckle, too true...
  • 1 1
 The problem with Rock Razors is that the pacestar version is too light and hard, and the Trailstar version only lasts about 3 weeks. Ardent 2.4 is the solution.
  • 1 0
 Mine are on week 4 now. I'll need to replace them by about 6 though...
  • 3 0
 I had the Ardent 2.4s in the back, rolled about like a DHR2 60a but could not get used to the cornering: when you lean and load the cornering blocks start to deform before they grip so it was a bit vague. Also I think from that point until breaking loose is not far, they have a small margin before they drift. FIne in tight corners but on fast sweepers when you want it to stick not trustworthy. Have Nobby Nics pacestar in the back now for trail riding, way fast and ok grip but sketchy when wet. I am leaning towards DHR2 60a best allrounder front and back for trail riding/all mountain even in moderately wet unless wet and rooty/rocky.
  • 1 1
 Both are 2 of my favorite rear tyres. My experience differs from yours but yeah that's tyres for you. I wasn't sure how well the dhr2 rolled as I only used it with a Magic Mary on the front that I installed at the same time.

I actually found that the DHR2 was really quite drifty when pushed hard and I had to be very careful with what pressure I ran it at. A couple of psi too high for the grip levels and it was all over the show. Holy cow that tyre was fun through. It was definitely the most predictable drifter I'd ever ridden.

The 26" Ardent 2.4 was just very good everywhere for me. Tons of grip at all angles and conditions. It's just a shame that the 650b and 29 versions don't share the aggressive side knobs that the 26" has.
  • 1 0
 @sontator: couldn't agree with you more about the DHR2 60a but I've been using Nobby Nics with the trailstar compound on my hardtail trail bike this summer. Only got them because I didn't want to wait for backordered Maxxis. I was skeptical at first but they may be my new favorite tire. Best balance IMO between traction/rolling/durabiltity in everything from hardpack to rocks/roots and loose blownout. Have not had the chance to ride them in the wet though.. if/when it ever rains around here again, might have to revert back to the tried and true.
  • 2 1
 I run 175mm saints on my YT Tues. Low bb, lomg cranks. Not a single pedal strike.
  • 2 1
 Longer cranks = more torque. Nice pedals are an easier and cheaper way to get around rock strikes.
  • 1 0
 Foxy rear ends have a habit of cracking
  • 1 0
 160 cranks for 6+ guys no way
  • 7 9
 5mm = .196 inches (dahh less than 1/4"). I got too many other things to worry about -oh yeah.. I'm not racing WC downhill btw.
  • 2 4
 this Smile
  • 5 1
 going from 175 to 165 is 10mm each side.
  • 10 0
 Yup.... I've checked and rechecked (with a casio scientific calculator) and @poah 's calculation is definitely correct.
  • 2 0
 true true true
  • 1 0
 Indeed. It does shorten the stroke by a total of 20mm. Even a change from 175mm to 170mm cranks is very noticeable.
  • 1 1
 bontrager xr4 front and back is what I prefer.
  • 3 6
 Stay away from the snake bite version of any schwalbe tyre, they are so easy to rip. The super Gravity is awesome but weighs too much for trail riding.
  • 3 0
 I ride very rocky terrain and I cannot confirm that the Snakeskins are "easy to rip" from 6 weeks' use here. I get a few more nicks to the casing between nobs than I used to get with Maxxis EXO but only one so far which needed to be plugged.
  • 2 2
 I've holed a hans damf 3 times and a magic Mary twice on a full sus and the trail wasn't even rocky. Never had any issues riding the same trail on a hardtail with maxxis exo tyres. Maybe I'm just unlucky...

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.040807
Mobile Version of Website