primoz-resman profile

I was really happy to see someone offering custom clothing and shorts in different lengths. I was sad to see the medium comes in 14" as the longest option. I currently ride 15" shorts and even those are too short!

I hate this so much... See above, i can't even get shorts to be long enough (yeah, sounds weird, but i suppose you understand that).

Thanks for the info. L through XXL pants should be 83 cm inseam (32 3/4 inch). I'm running the shorts that have a 15 inch inseam (the Agent ones, but i also have a pair of Ambush shorts and a Dakine Derail, which are all 15 inch inseam) and they are on the short side, to even prevent pad gap on my thigh they would need to be 16 or ideally even 17 inch :/

Looked at the 7mesh stuff, holy cow, finally some long enough shorts (mostly). But, holy somethingelseentirely the pricing?! :D

EDIT: i have a to-the-floor inseam of around 91 cm. And i'm an M waist size :/

That would be a relatively good measurement, but you also have wildly different offsets to think about then.

Plus this is mainly an issue for taller riders, who get sat much farther to the back. It could be an issue for smaller riders as well, who effectively get an even steeper seat tube angle, but given the rotation of the main frame due to differing sag values the issue is less pronounced.

Speaking of sag and climbing, seating further back over the rear axle makes changes in sag while climbing again even more pronounced for taller riders, where the actual angle gets even more slack (because you set the sag with the bike being level).

I'd say for anything that has to be pedalled up the hill (this of course includes enduro class of bikes), the primary geometry considerations should be cockpit geometry while being sat down. We spend much less time descending to optimize purely for that compared to pedalling up the hill.

Then i wouldn't be surprised if having more or less the same weight distributions of front vs. rear would bring the effective ride quality comparing different sizes of frames more in-line with each other. Maybe that would mean a steeper seat tube angle for the XL frame, which would be then sagged lower while climbing, even longer top tubes, maybe even longer chainstays (but not the Norco way, where the move the BB forwards on larger bikes to lengthen them, thereby again decreasing the seat tube angle).

It might even mean different suspension geometries between sizes!

Composites are not immune to fatigue failures. I'm beginning to wonder if there are any materials besides steel that have a fatigue limit (a stress value under which the material can handle unlimited cycles).

As for what they take, aluminium is strong enough (apparently) and light enough when designed correctly while being much, much cheaper. Which makes it good enough. Also, regarding repairing carbon, i'd personally think thoroughly as to what i would have repaired and what not. I would probably inquire about a crash replacement before anything else.

It's actually rare not to have reinforced plastic, since you almost always needs more strength and less creep than pure plastic usually allows.

There are also guidelines with many different classes of products as to how much recycled plastic can be included in the final product and how many times a certain plastic can be recycled.

It's quite obvious the ASTA numbers are just as horrible as any other of their bikes. Google Bird Aeris 145, that's about as much of a difference between ESTA and ASTA that should be allowed.

EDIT: interesting that they don't offer bang side on shots :)

I cracked seatstays on carbon frames by literally tipping over and the stay hitting a rock in one and a wooden ledge in the other case. On the other hand i dented and opened up a top tube with the shifter and had a cracked swingarm (banana style Meta), but that happened after 7 seasons of riding and the crack appeared on a weld on t he non-drive side. The brake side. Clear as chips as to what was the cause - cycles, with braking and suspension cycles combining in one single weld.

So yeah, i'm not much of a carbon fan, though mainly due to the price and marginal benefits given the price difference.

How tall are you? Because at ~800 mm of seat extension on a bike with a bent seat tube (last gen Reign) i hate how far back i sit over the rear axle. Bent or offset seat tubes are the worst and Knolly is one of the main offenders in this regard since, like, forever!

Mind you, this is not an issue for less tall riders (mainly M frame sized), could be an issue you described on S and XS frames, since you get too far forward, but it's just horrible for large seat post extensions on L and XL frames.

What i was thinking at the end of the article, given a 1000+ CAD difference in price between the two relatively same speced bikes, the difference in price could go towards a lighter wheelset and other similar components, to bring the weight much more inline and maybe even bring the performance of the ALU bike on a slightly higher level.

For me, carbon doesn't make much sense, aluminium is plenty good enough to make frames.