just6979 profile

"The A50 sees an upgrade to an 18t star ratchet DT Swiss 370 hub but I'm never going to be happy with 20° of hub engagement, so for me that's not a benefit over the A30's budget Novatec hub spec."

But at least the DT hub can be upgraded to better engagement, and isn't that part of the min-max battle: upgrading individual parts as needed instead of needing entire new systems. It's part of what makes a Linkglide setup so nice, why wouldn't it be a big bonus on the wheels?

Not saying the A50 is a better overall prospect, just that dismissing the hub spec that quickly maybe isn't maxing the mins.

Fit before fashion? Fit is fashion! Riser bars look dope: slam that stem, chop that steerer, and go 40mm or 50mm (or more) bar rise FTW!

Most any multi-link suspension is going to be slightly more amenable to a small chainring than a single-pivot, but it's not going to be completely agnostic. The chainline is still going to move down in relation to the instant-center, which is going to increase anti-squat from chain-tension. Because the IC usually isn't right there at the main pivot and close to the chainline as on a (low) single-pivot, the chainline moves relatively less on a multi-link, but it still moves. Even with high-pivots, you're still moving the chainline from the idler to ring away from the IC, which will increase AS.

Those bikes are definitely not completely agnostic to chainring size, but defintiely less finicky than simple single-pivots.

It's most at home in fast rough terrain, and it's unfazed by high speeds on chunky trails. But it requires a strong, skilled rider to handle it going fast and straight? So, is it only at home and unfazed under a strong skilled rider?

And doesn't everything really require a strong skilled rider to handle it at maximum speed? I'm confused as to whether this is a naturally fast and stable bike, or if it's only happy under an especially strong rider that does a lot of the work themselves (the kind of rider that people like to say could ride just about any bike and still win races), because I'm reading both sides here.

Now there is an answer. Still, it's not about changing oil specifically, it's about full rebuild.

Though I would argue that I've never heard of a shop that would (and I wouldn't personally) change the seal head without disassembling the stack and inspecting the shims as part of "full rebuild". Especially with allegations such as: "the shims in Fox RC/Marz CR have notoriously short lifespans" floating around.

However, you did find a single reason to remove the piston & shims as one piece.

"The mention in the article that shim removal isn't required for an oil change/bleed."

This is not unusual, though, I don't see why it's worth mentioning. "If you wish to" you can keep the entire stack on the shaft to change the oil, just like anything else. The removability is just a quirk of their design, how they chose to hold the piston to the shaft. It's not functionally better or worse than other designs, despite the implication that it's something special and useful specific to this damper. That's why I asked if there is a damper out there that would contrast to this one and require shim removal for an oil change.

What shocks require disassembling the shim stack to change the oil? I've only opened, or helped with, a half dozen different shocks in various configurations (inline, piggyback, upside-down), and all of them allowed changing the oil without taking the stack apart. Only time I've had to take apart the piston stacks for purposes other than changing the shims was to change stroke length.

Not that it coming off in one piece is bad, just genuinely wondering why it's notable re: regular maintenance.

Knipex Pliers Wrench. To ignore the full name is to ignore what makes them special: that they are a valid replacement for a wrench, unlike plain pliers.

Knipex makes a bunch of high-quality regular pliers and pipe wrenches, but the Pliers Wrench is special, and should be treated as such.

@Cooper, offsetting it to somewhere out of the way of the chain. Timer's point was that carbon parts don't have to run in straight lines or be the same size throughout, and Trek claims to be one of the best at carbon, so they surely could play around with funky shaped and angled tubes to get the clearance they needed.

Or perhaps they just valued aesthetics over quietness and durability...

By (the best) definition, they only guide or tension. That's the differentiation, that's what matters. If it's not just guiding, it's just a pulley, not an idler by definition.

Every pulley guides or tensions the chain or belt, and non-idlers also do work, as do the "extra" pulleys on any high-pivot where the "extra" pulley moves with the suspension.