cyclotoine profile

Beauty, my brother had basically the same truck, even a 70 I think with original orange paint in decent shape. These trucks have beauty interiors with the metal dash before they went vinyl covered foam (try finding one of those that isn't split). Unfortunately, my brother's truck was stolen and never recovered. It had the original 350 V8 in it. I understand the motivation with an L/S swap but those old carbed Chevy 350 may be the best American motor ever made.

What is unclear to me about the sight, and could not be answered by someone on a live chat on the Norco website, is does the actual seat tube angle vary with size? 

The geometry chart shows the actual and effective seat tube angle intersecting at some height about the horizontal top tube which makes me think maybe they are measuring effective SA at some average saddle height for the expected range of a given frame size and therefore the actual seat tube angle is different across sizes (like the sight). But the Sight gets steeper as you get bigger which makes it clear that that it is changing. The Sight leaves on guessing.

AJ can you ask your contacts at Norco whether actual seat angle varies across size and, as a bonus, why, if they think steeper is better for climbing and taller folks as evidenced by the Sight geo, they didn't make the seat angle steep on larger frames?

I too am 6'3" (well a little over) and I'm on the XXL Transition Sentinel (515mm reach) and I would not go back to anything shorter, I even upped the stem length to 50mm. As many of the current XL "enduro" bikes are coming out with reach inline with my XXL transition, I anxiously await the next generation transitions which I expect to grow in reach (and If I am making Christmas wishes, will have size specific seat tube angles). I also ride an XL Pole Taiga fat bike with a 510 mm reach (674mm ETT), 50mm stem and it feels great. I'd take a steeper seat tube and 10 mm more reach if I had the option but compared to almost all other fat bikes on the market, it's a monster and has made fat biking way more fun. I feel like I can ride almost anything on it.

I had to go check that out. I love that they are doing that. Now if only the rest of the industry could follow suit so we can compare apples to apples.

Oops. I wrote models previously and meant sizes. It is an assumption based on the fact that the reported angle doesn't change across sizes. I'd like to see effective seat tube reported for the average seat height of the averaged sized rider for a given frame size. This would have way more meaning to the potential buyer. I want to buy a Norco sight if only because they've actually addressed the issue of slackening effective seat tubes with increased saddle height. How is it the industry is continuing to ignore this glaring issue?

I'm 192cm and yeah I think the XXL looks a touch small on paper. I'd be more into the Jeffsy for my type of riding and on paper the XXL appears to be a way better fit with 510-515 mm reach (depending on model) and a steeper seat angle. I would say that they missed the mark on headtube angle though and I expect those to be a lot slacker on the next generation. Then again the short wheelbase created by the steeper head angle is likely part of what makes them so lively. I think the CF pro jeffsey with a 1.5 or 2 degree angleset and a 150mm lyric or 36 would be an amazing bike. I'd stick to 140 in the back to keep the seat angle steep and the angleset would increase front center while helping counteract the increase height of the fork. But then I'd more or less be pretty close to what I'm already riding, an XXL sentinel. 

Also, as you point out, the actual seat tube angle is way slack on YT and they are reporting effective at the same stack height across sizes (obviously since they don't change). So in reality, the effective seat angle for tall folks is pretty slack.

looks cool. I have the Park through axle adapter which doubles as a BB press with the right Park adapters. Being able to pull bearings would be cool though instead of hammering them with the old splayed pipe remover. I recently caved and bought the Wheels Manufacturing bearing press so I can do all my pivots like a pro. I have always been able to cobble together enough things to press in bearings with sockets and whatnot but I'm at a point in my life where time is more important, so I appreciate being able to just have the tool in front of me rather than having to improvise. Every once in awhile though I still have to use the old noggin. For example, I couldn't use the press with my Hope hubs because the bearings press onto the captive axle; Dammit, had to improvise with various pieces of the Park crown race setting tool.

the old Park BB tool which came out before any of the socket style BB tools works just fine on centerlock rings. You don't need the fancy socket.

Hozan chain pliers. Nice. 

I learned by ham fisting old bikes. However, with the right tools (Hozan lock ring pliers for example) any crapy old headset or bottom bracket can be adjusted without marring. Though I do agree tool interfacing has improved it's not always the case. I've seen super shallow notches on bottom brackets cups all chewed up and how many threaded bottom bracket tool standards do we need anyway? Each requiring its own precision-machined aluminum and anodized super expensive tool. It's infuriating. Every time I buy a new bike there are at least a couple of new tools I need to buy. 

Anyway, great read. I thoroughly enjoyed it. And nothing spins smoother than a record hub adjusted with a JA stein hub vise.

I appreciate that the elastic is comfy but would rather see a webbing style waist adjustment like the hook or buckle type (see chromag and 7mesh for some examples). Elastic inevitably fails and then you have to add a heavy and uncomfortable belt.

pretty much agree with everything craw says. and while I am riding 75+ degree ST angle bike now, my next bike will be a Pole, because I want it steeper. My partner really appreciated the climbing benefits when she went from a 73 degree ST trail bike to a 75 and she is a hair under 5'8". So maybe 75-76 is good for average sized riders and it needs to be adjusted from there.

I think Forbidden is a great example of where the industry is going. Riders want more choice and we will increasingly see these small brands eat away at the custom and big brand market because they will offer bikes that have semi-custom geometry off the shelf with different seat tube angles and rear centers in each size. It means some bikes will get even more expensive, but we have seen that people are willing to pay for it. I would take a size-specific geometry alloy bike (Pole just happens to be making what I think will work best for me at 192cm) with a nice GX build over a carbon superbike any day (and then put really nice carbon wheels on it). That is what is going to be the best performance to cost ratio for me.

So I think we're going to see more of what Forbidden is going in terms of geometry offerings.

I also think tire damping is a thing and we will see more tire companies launching their ideas for it in the next few years. I think there is likely a lighter way to incorporate damping into the tire and that will be the way it goes, but we'll see.

I also think we reached peak hardtail popularity and it will not begin declining in popularity but always maintain a low-level market share.

Posted by: bmak

Anyone ridden the new Instinct?

I guess you mean BC edition since this is a long travel thread, but yeah I am riding the new A70 and I think it is a great value. As a super tall dude I wish it had more reach, but it's not bad with a 60mm stem and a bit of rise. I had a 2015 BC edition previously which was a great bike, the new bike is way nicer. Climbs better and more fun/agile than the old bike. I won't comment on the suspension since I went from XFusion -which was great for the price point- to Fox performance elite and of course it's way better in every aspect. 

Posted by: craw

I'm 6'6" and tried 180s for a while. I liked the way they rode but the clearance issues were enough that I switched back to 175. 170 just felt too small. 175 is a good compromise for me.

Damn! What do you ride at that height? I would think almost all production frames are really too small for you?

I'm 6'3.5" and most XL bikes are not big enough for me. We still have a ways to go on reach. I need it longer. Pedal strikes keep me from riding longer cranks but I would not give up 175 mm cranks. I run 185 mm cranks on my monster cross and 180 mm on my other two road bikes. I have 180 mm cranks for touring too. I love the power of the longer leaver and at my height I don't have to worry about closing out my knee angle on the top of the stoke, it's just a non-issue. 

So it comes down to personal preference. I see everyone here has a full range of preference.

Fixed gear I have run 165 mm but prefer 170 mm and I have run 172.5 and 170 mm on the boards. I even have 177.5 mm cranks on one vintage road bike.

I have the Dainese trail skins, the first ones. The second ones look like they address my only grip with the originals in that they are more formed to the knee cap. They stay in place. have side protection, move well and aren't irritating, but the fit it a little awkward as they are not cupped enough to fit nicely on the knee. I would recommend them and figure the new ones are the way to go if you can find them. I live in the North so I pretty much have to buy online anyway since local options are extremely limited.

Pretty happy with my riders thorn anti-fog photochromatic glasses. They're a bit big but the anti-fog really works and I can't live without photochromatic lenses anymore. I lost pair of specialized berm's which were photo chromatic last winter on a back country ski trip. I was super bummed. Those were my favorite all time MTB glasses.

My partner road a giant dropper on her 2014 trance for three seasons. Never serviced, worked like a charm and sold the bike this spring (the black stanchion one). My friend had the older version with a gold stanchion and it wore out. Some people clamp their post too tight and damage their droppers. I did it with my first X fusion and didn't make the same mistake twice. My partner got a new trance this year with another giant dropper and I hope it holds up as good as the old one. I like the performance of my Xfusion better but it does need more frequent service.

Posted by: mrock

Posted by: shoreboy

Ordered about $500 of parts and apparel from them on Apr 3rd.  Shipped out Apr 4th, delivered in Vancouver Apr 8th.  I always choose the Canada Post option.  I got charged $9.95 handling and another ~$22 in taxes (which is lower than what it should have been).  Fast and cheap, no complaints at all here.

I'm at 18 working days now, and nothing has showed up for me. Ordered about $200 worth of Shimano drive train parts. My first order with CRC as well, and it's taking wayyyy longer than I expected. Hopefully better luck on some future orders, or better yet, I hope this order even shows up!

Don't start to worry yet. It can often take 3 weeks.

Is there hard evidence that wider makes you faster? Shouldn't we first ask how tall the rider is and if they have broad shoulders? 

It seems like everyone is going wider and wider and riding similar bars, but bars should be sized to suit the rider. I'm 6'4" with broad shoulders and am happy with 740mm bars though I do ride some tight trees. 

I had to put narrower bars on my girlfriends bike because the stock ones are ridiculous for a 5'7" women for trail riding.

Also keen, are they available currently? Sending PM.