Cube one77 2025

[FlashToBang]

With many here commenting the BB is a little too low, whilst waiting for mine to arrive at my LBS I’ve started checking the geometry on similar MX bikes with the same Gen 5 CX motor. The BB drop from hub line is 13mm on the Cube One77, whereas on the latest Trek Rail+ Gen 5 the BB drop is 18mm on high setting and 24mm on low, so that’s notably lower than the cube. The Merida e180 is 12mm BB drop, so about the same as the Cube. The Orbea Wild is 22mm BB drop in MX, so notably more than the Cube too. So either:

1. All these latest Enduro eMTBs are simply too low for people‘s liking,
2. and/or people are comparing this Cube to previous bikes that were full 29ers, that inevitably have a slightly higher BB line and therefore BB height from the ground for the same BB drop.
3. and/or, there‘s something in the Cube’s suspension dynamics that means it blows though early travel more than others, causing the BB to be lower than others once loaded by the rider weight,
4. and/or, this low feeling BB got mentioned early in this thread and, as there’s nowhere else where this bike is being talked about on the internet, that’s unconsciously set up a positive cognitive bias with anyone who has read this thread, leading to readers being hypersensitive to rock strikes, even though it’s likely no different to the next bike.
5. Some combination of one, some or all of the above.

Is there anyone that has access to one or more comparison bikes, that can confirm which of the above statements is right?

My uneducated guess from basic trigonometry has me thinking the MX vs full 29er effect being mostly responsible. These MX bikes are lively fun bikes at the cost of losing around 15mm of BB height from the ground when compared to the exact same bike in full 29er trim. (A 27.5 inch wheel hub is 19mm lower than a 29 inch wheel hub and the BB is much closer to the rear wheel than the front, hence 15mm(ish).)

 

[ryanflynn11]

Yeah it's an interesting question - only comparison I have is to my non e bike, a commencal meta am with 170mm travel front and rear and both wheels 27.5". On that bike I never noticed pedal strikes being an issue, on my first ride out on the Cube I had several pedal strikes even round a fairly gentle lap of my local trails.

The issue is drastically improved by the 140mm cranks I've fitted and I don't think I'd actually change the bb height as I absolutely love the ride position of the cube, it really feels like you're kind of in the bike instead of perched on top of it if you know what I mean, which gives a very confidence inspiring ride.

Oddly the thing I have noticed even since fitting the shorter cranks is pedal strikes even when standing and riding with the pedals flat, I once hit a stump with a pedal so hard it caused a pretty nasty crash (and bent my pedal spindle but caused no issues with the motor which impressed me!). I wonder if that's because the pedals are a bit wider apart on an e bike because the motor is wider than a standard bottom bracket and I just haven't learned to adjust for it yet? No idea if that's true, just guessing!

 

[FlashToBang]

Good point about the pedals being that slight bit further apart too, also causing more crank/pedal strikes. The times I usually end up smashing the my cranks on my regular Enduro MTB is normally squeezing between rocks, so that would make things ever so slightly worse. Another one to add to the list!

 

[Rando_12345]

What really matters is BB height from the floor, which Cube does not quote.

Manufacturers quote BB height in order to be more accurate when accounting for tyre variations, however this has become a problem due to different wheel sizes, especially MX.

Cube quote a 13mm drop which we assume means from the rear wheel 27.5 axle and based on other bikegeo charts should result in a roughly 340mm BB height. This would be borderline but ok.

My bike stock out of the box was closer to 330mm, the other issue is that this is a 170mm bike, so at sag and full travel it will be even lower than a lot of the 150/160mm bikes quoted above. A 2025 orbea wild is 2.5cm higher unweighted.

That said, yes there are other very low bikes out there: giant reign, canyon torque and strive on, recently announced forbidden.

 

[jon2o4]

Nice discussion. I am returning to MTBing after a number of years and 1 week in on new ONE77 (after coming from Trek hardtail) can say def get more pedal strikes than I remember. But I took that as expected given it is full sus mullet and the motor means slightly higher q factor on the pedals - ie. bit wider on the trail. Annoying though for sure, esp when returning rusty and not an overly technical rider wrt line and pedal position. Have ordered some cheap 155 cranks as a result to see if has any effect before maybe going shorter as seems to be the new trend in the industry!

Will say I test rode 2025/2026 Trek Ride, Focus JAM and SAM and Merida OneSixty and OneEighty through and the height of the One77 certainly did not stand out as low, every mm counts there though I guess!

 

[Raptor]

I've got some miranda 150mm cranks on my one77 and definitely have less pedal strikes on my usual trails compared to the stock ones

 

[Raptor]

First ride yesterday and…. Interesting.

The bb is definitely too low. I fitted 145mm cranks and had one pedal strike but I was never totally at ease pedalling up technical climbs.
I’d just like another 10mm quite honestly.

To compensate I added more pressure to the rear shock. I’m circa 80kg and was running about 220psi.

However, I absolutely loved the ride. Incongruously it gobbled up rock gardens and gave me great pop off jumps, I had an absolute blast!

I really appreciated the ability to run a 170mm dropper on my medium (I’m 173cm) and reckon I could probably fit a 180mm OneUp dropper as there’s 290mm of space in the seat tube.
Also, my little legs and arse enjoyed the fact it’s a mullet and it ripped corners and I didn’t get buzzed on any steeps.

Final bonus for me was the ability to remove the battery and comfortably get the bike in the back of car for my hotel stay last night.

The ride was a mix of trail riding, flow and older school dh tracks.

So far so happy. Happy to answer specific questions if you have any. View attachment 160059View attachment 160060View attachment 160061

You didn't fancy the stock tyres then?

 

[mintyjim]

Also, I’m very happy with the battery cover and removal. Very easy

What really matters is BB height from the floor, which Cube does not quote.

Manufacturers quote BB height in order to be more accurate when accounting for tyre variations, however this has become a problem due to different wheel sizes, especially MX.

Cube quote a 13mm drop which we assume means from the rear wheel 27.5 axle and based on other bikegeo charts should result in a roughly 340mm BB height. This would be borderline but ok.

My bike stock out of the box was closer to 330mm, the other issue is that this is a 170mm bike, so at sag and full travel it will be even lower than a lot of the 150/160mm bikes quoted above. A 2025 orbea wild is 2.5cm higher unweighted.

That said, yes there are other very low bikes out there: giant reign, canyon torque and strive on, recently announced forbidden.

I measured my BB height at 340mm with my precision, calibrated, 8m Stanley tape measure.

I thought the points about a wider track/Q factor interesting, certainly some of the off piste riding I do involves narrow ledges and/or ruts.

 

[mintyjim]

You didn't fancy the stock tyres then?

I left the tyres that were already on my replacement wheels, however I definitely prefer the latest Hillbilly on the front to the Magic Mary.

Currently running the Big Betty on the rear until it’s dead then I’ll fit the Tacky Chan but I’ve also got a radial Albert waiting on the shelf and another part worn Big Betty.
Pretty spoilt really.

 

[FlashToBang]

Cube quote a 13mm drop which we assume means from the rear wheel 27.5 axle

From all of the geometry charts, the BB drop is measured from a line through the front and rear axels, so with an MX that line rises from 27.5 hub height at the rear to 29 hub height at the front, so where the BB is along that line should be slightly above the height of rear axel. With the nominal height difference between the hub on the 27.5 rear to the hub on the 29 front being about 19mm, and the axels are the wheel base distance apart (1269mm), and the BB should be the chainstay length (443mm) along the line, then the line where the BB drop is measured from should be 19 x 443/1269 = 6.6mm higher than the rear wheel hub. Not massive, but every little helps.

The extra travel (front and rear) on One77 vs the others mentioned is certainly another factor that will add to the lower real height once loaded.

 

[Kepa]

I’ve also replaced the cranks to shorter ones, but IMO the biggest change one can do is the way you ride and line choices.

I realise the low BB, way lower compared to my hardtail, but just observe the trail ahead and it shouldn’t be too much of an issue.

 

[Rando_12345]

From all of the geometry charts, the BB drop is measured from a line through the front and rear axels.

I am curious about this: I have never seen any geo chart that specified this method of measurement, and anytime something is specified they refer to the rear wheel, or give the drop from both wheels.

If they were indeed measuring the true BB drop, then based on your numbers we would expect the stock BB height to be around 346mm high, which is quite a bit above what most of us are measuring.


As someone above mentioned, every mm matters, simplifying quite a bit (travel and crank length ignored), over the past 15 years racing enduro bikes, personally:

355mm zero strikes
350mm very rare strikes, mostly uphill
345mm timing required in technical climbs
340mm good timing required in technical climbs, occasional dangerous strikes downhill
335mm and below: risk of very dangerous downhill crank strikes, and motor strikes

Obviously it doesn't happen every ride, or even that often, but once you have had your bike stuck in place while you get propelled 40kph through the air, you really start to fear low BBs.

 

[mintyjim]

I am curious about this: I have never seen any geo chart that specified this method of measurement, and anytime something is specified they refer to the rear wheel, or give the drop from both wheels.

If they were indeed measuring the true BB drop, then based on your numbers we would expect the stock BB height to be around 346mm high, which is quite a bit above what most of us are measuring.


As someone above mentioned, every mm matters, simplifying quite a bit (travel and crank length ignored), over the past 15 years racing enduro bikes, personally:

355mm zero strikes
350mm very rare strikes, mostly uphill
345mm timing required in technical climbs
340mm good timing required in technical climbs, occasional dangerous strikes downhill
335mm and below: risk of very dangerous downhill crank strikes, and motor strikes

Obviously it doesn't happen every ride, or even that often, but once you have had your bike stuck in place while you get propelled 40kph through the air, you really start to fear low BBs.

I agree 100% with that last comment. Bloody terrifying going from 40kph to zero following a pedal strike! Bad enough going up techy climbs, but techy dh is a right bum squeaker when you connect.

 

[FlashToBang]

My bike stock out of the box was closer to 330mm

Hmm, that does seem the specs from Cube are off, if we assume the rear wheel diameter to the outer edges of the tyre are actually 27.5”. ‘Theoretically’ 27.5” is 698.5mm, divide by 2 and that’s 349mm from centre of rear hub to edge of tyre. Subtract the 13mm from the 349mm gives 336mm. But given we ‘should’ be able to add 6.6mm as the height to the line between hubs, that gets us to 343.6mm. Thus 330mm actual is lower than expected.

I have never seen any geo chart that specified this method of measurement

The Cube and Trek geo diagrams show this slightly differently (not super clear), so I am probably wrong in adding the 6.6mm:

 

[jon2o4]

The Giant had something like 325mm BB height in "low" flip chip, and 330mm in high which is what you had to use. I broke 3 sets of 155mm cranks on it in rock gardens despite running 2.6 tyres and 180mm fork, last one resulting in a massive crash and concussion, so baby cranks for me from now on until I find a bike with reasonable BB height.

Copy pasting from myself in another thread:

Out of the Box: BB height 334mm
2.6 tyres front and back: +3mm, BB 337mm
+ Headset cups in steep mode: +2mm, BB 339mm, HA 64.4

Theoretical numbers as it will void your warranty:
+ 190mm fork: BB 345mm (head angle 64degrees with steep cups)

2mm Offset bushing "the wrong way": +4mm at the BB, this would be perfect, plenty of clearance, but they rotate in a single DH run ending up in the -4mm position. This confirms to me that a +3mm clevis or yoke would fix the entire bike.

My bike shop said the giant was still under warranty with a 180mm fork, but Cube are pretty clear on their website that you can't use a longer fork without voding the warranty. So if you were going that route, might as well go all the way to 190mm. With the cups in steep HA mode, you will be pretty much at stock geometry up front so no additional constraints on the frame.

How difficult is it to rotate the cups to the steeper angle? I assume the slacker angle is the shipped setting? Must admit I have never pulled one apart!

 

[Rando_12345]

How difficult is it to rotate the cups to the steeper angle? I assume the slacker angle is the shipped setting? Must admit I have never pulled one apart!

Very easy, you just need to keep track of which direction they were in as stock, it helps to have a third hand to push everything back together.

You don't need to take anything apart, just loosen it all up with 2-3cm of space for the cups to come out and be able to rotate.

 

[Raptor]

How difficult is it to rotate the cups to the steeper angle? I assume the slacker angle is the shipped setting? Must admit I have never pulled one apart!

Slack is stock setting. Cups have a notch on outside. With bottom cup notch facing rearward and top cup notch facing forward is steep setting

 

[ZR1]

I went to a demo day and tried a few bikes, only had pedal stirke problems with the one77, wasn't sure if the shock was too soft or the bike just very low, seemed to hunker down a bit when you pedalled after reading this thread looks like it might just be the bike. On paper it's geo is very similar so not sure if it is actually the suspension (anti squat?) causing it

 

[Rando_12345]

Other than that, how did it stack up to the other bikes you tested?

 

[JVC]

¿Qué tan difícil es girar las copas al ángulo más pronunciado? Supongo que el ángulo más relajado viene de fábrica. ¡Debo admitir que nunca he desarmado una!

Publicación en el hilo «¡El Cube Hybrid EMTB 2025 se ve espectacular!» Cube Hybrid EMTB 2025 looks lit!

 

[ZR1]

Other than that, how did it stack up to the other bikes you tested?

I don't claim to be a good bike reviewer but my overall impressions were that it was a solid all rounder, easy to get comfortable on but not quite as damped and planted as the levo gen4 sworks and not as plush/tanky as a merida 180. Just a bit confused by the pedal strikes.

If i'm honest I found comparing bikes difficult, I'd pick up on differences on suspension/brakes/tyres more so than the frames

 

[FlashToBang]

Having just measured the actual BB height of my Vitus Sommet 290 CRX (normal MTB full 29er) Enduro rig at 340mm, which has very similar suspension to the One77 AT (170 Fox 38 Factory forks and 162.5 rear travel linked to a Fox Factory X2 shock), and also with a short chainstay (especially for a 29er) at 440mm, I'm feeling happier with where the One77 is at before I finally commit to paying the balance for it. I know I'm comparing eMTB to normal MTB, but the cranks are 5mm longer on the Sommet (170mm) and the chainring on both is the lowest point. So, rock strikes on the Sommet should be as bad as, if not worse than, the One77; yet I've not had a particular rock strike issue with the Sommet. Maybe a really strong aftermarket motor cover is simply the realistic answer for all low+slack eMTBs, to account for the extra target width from the motor, rather than compromising by adjusting the geo to lift the BB/motor, which will raise the centre of gravity.

 

[Andrew8200m]

Absolutely love it!

 

[GDAS]

I've got some miranda 150mm cranks on my one77 and definitely have less pedal strikes on my usual trails compared to the stock ones

have you got a link for the ones you bought please - or would these be the ones?

 

[Raptor]

have you got a link for the ones you bought please - or would these be the ones?
View attachment 160241

Yep those are the ones

 

[Lalo]

View attachment 160196

Absolutely love it!

Having the same bike, absolutely like it so far.
But why do you have golden decals on your fork, mine is completely black?

 

[FlashToBang]

Absolutely love it!

I was supposed to pick up exactly the same model in size L from my LBS today, but when I sat and stood on it it just felt too small (I’m 184cm tall). So they’ve got the XL being transferred from another store for me. LBS are entirely happy, as apparently these One77 and One44 are selling fast; as I walked in to the shop there was someone on the phone buying the one in Blue version! Definitely worth checking sizing before you buy, if you can.

I took my tape measure with me and the latest Trek Rail+ and Merida e160 had the same 340mm BB height as the One77 I was nearly about to buy. So, 340mm bottom brackets height on the AT version is correct and just seems to be ‘the way’ on 160-170
eMTBs.

 

[Andrew8200m]

Having the same bike, absolutely like it so far.
But why do you have golden decals on your fork, mine is completely black?

I replaced mine as the black wasn't my bag. Got them from invisi-frame.

 

[Andrew8200m]

I was supposed to pick up exactly the same model in size L from my LBS today, but when I sat and stood on it it just felt too small (I’m 184cm tall). So they’ve got the XL being transferred from another store for me. LBS are entirely happy, as apparently these One77 and One44 are selling fast; as I walked in to the shop there was someone on the phone buying the one in Blue version! Definitely worth checking sizing before you buy, if you can.

I took my tape measure with me and the latest Trek Rail+ and Merida e160 had the same 340mm BB height as the One77 I was nearly about to buy. So, 340mm bottom brackets height on the AT version is correct and just seems to be ‘the way’ on 160-170
eMTBs.

At 178cm the L fits me just fine although its smaller than the S4 Status but a smidge which is noticeable. If I was 2-3cm taller I would want the larger bike thats for sure so the XL should fit you at 184cm just fine. It was hard work getting the bike, everywhere was selling out the following day so I had to be properly "on it" so to speak. For the money and the spec you get, is there actually anything with a Gen5 thats better value? I think likely not.

 

[Davvee]

At the half way house today (pub).