fartymarty profile

It does eat freehubs - I have gone to a steel freehub on one of my Hope now so will see how that lasts.  Also running 10sp XT chains.

I'm on a Shim HG500 11-42 (10sp) and really rate it if you don't need the 46.  It shifts better than the Sunrace (I was running both for a while).  Plus its damn cheap - I just picked up one for £25 from CRC.

@WheelNut - I don't see this being an OEM thing at all.  It is for more experienced / stronger riders who know exactly what gears they can get away with.  Also those type of riders are not going to walk into a shop and buy a bike.  They will build up the bike they want with parts they want or have.

Good to know.  Once you have had double shifting its hard to go back to single.

"Ultra lightweight 5 speed cassette" and mech mounted in a box at or near the bottom bracket would do it for me.  Shimano - please hurry up and release your gearbox.

Andrew - I like what you did with the bait and trap in the articles.  Throw out the crazy idea of less gears* in Part 1 and then back it up with some data in Part 2.

* what sort of mad man would suggest less gears when we have been moving towards cassettes with more cogs for decades....  (Where as in reality we have been moving towards less gears for a while - my first mtb had 21 gears and my current geared bike has 10...)

I'm on a single speed and 10 speed so would be more than happy with 5.  11-42 /32 gives me all the range I need I  Surrey, UK and even in Wales.  I don't use the 11 much so that's up for grabs and ditto the cogs in the middle.  I could live with slightly clunky changes as you aren't going to change as often so timing becomes more important (no more changing under power mid tech climb).  Wider spaced cogs and wider chains also probably make changing more precise.

You forgot to mention (or I missed it) the benefits of improved suspension performance with less weight hanging off you rear wheel.  Every review I have read of gear box bikes rave about how good the rear suspension performs with less undamped mass.  Wide 5 could easily half cassette weight plus smaller hence lighter free hubs.

Hopefully this article will reach the right (progressively minded) people in the industry and the wide 5 will be a reality (albeit probably aftermarket as I can't see this being a marketable OEM feature as it goes against everything we have been fed for the last few decades....)

I don't ride CC but would try bacon strips then extra Stans (I usually carry a 60ml bottle as an emergency).

This is pretty much what I have done for the last 5 years.  New 10 speed drive train (cheap and cheerful) on the spring once it stops raining and the mud dries up and run it for as long as possible (generally a year) and repeat the following spring.

I do wipe it off and relube after every ride though so at least it looks a bit clean.

I would also never change drive trains pre winter as the noise of mud grinding away a new one would be unbearable however with an old drive train I'm not bothered.

That said I am going to try the 3 chain thing for my next drive train.

I use disc brake cleaner and plenty of paper towels.  Degreaser should work but you will need to flush with disc cleaner before greasing.

Also does anyone use Exus E-G01 Semi-Synthetic Performance Grease?

@Dan - thanks for the info.  I will try three chains when I put my new drive train on.

I've just got a Lezyne 1800i.  1800 proper lumens for €150. I have it helmet mounted and my old lights on the bars.

Posted by: grambo

Posted by: cerealkilla_

And don't think the bespectacled protectors of the frogs who hate all bikes aren't just rubbing their grubby little hands together...

Awesome post that perfectly sums up my feelings and fears on this subject. Nothing to do with getting passed by ebikers (I personally don't give a shit, but I worry about perception by other user groups getting dusted by these guys on Old Buck/BP(s)/single track).

Awesome to see UROC making an unequivocal statement for Cumberland Community Forest... Non-motorized = NO ebikes.

I also agree with cerealkilla_ like it or not ebikes are a sub category of mountain bikes and we need to work together to maintain trail access.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: nouseforaname

I think some folks just hope that by dropping the gear inches, climbs will stop sucking as much. They don't, the suck just goes on for longer.

the best thing about pushing yourself a bit more is that the climbs get easier and suck less as you get better even though you're actually putting out more effort at the improved pace. pushing hard when you're fit is way easier than pushing hard when you're not.

Climbs don't get easier they just take less time.  They still hurt.

I don't notice the lack of travel as it is really progressive.  What I do miss is the slacker HA and longer WB.  It is a bit twitchier at high speed but not a deal breaker.

Another thing to consider would be an angle set.  I have a Works -2 and it drops the bars and steepens the STA.

Plus my terrain (in Surrey UK) doesn't warrant much more than 120mm (I have just changed back to Pikes after 2 months rigid)

Posted by: RAHrider

120 fork on a "hardcore" hardtail is too short IMO. I have a honzo that is supposed to run 120. When I got it I accidentally put a 140 on it (I thought it was a 120 but when I was measuring it in the process of replacing the fork realized what I had been riding). I set my DVO to 130 when I put it on and have found it shorter than I would like ever since. 

On the other hand I suspect 180 would be too much to my liking. I think 140-160 is the sweet spot. Too short and it makes it difficult to carry speed when the going gets rough. Too long and you lose the fun of riding a hardtail.

IMO it depends on your bike and set up.  I was running my 29HT with 140 bit it looped out too much on climbs.  I now run it at 120mm with a Debonair air spring in my Pikes and them stuffed full of tokens.  It has better mid stroke support and hardly ever bottoms out.

Get a DHR2 in 3.0 or Bonty SE5 if you want something similar but not Maxxis.

Posted by: nouseforaname

There's always plenty of RS Pikes in the Pinkbike Buynsell. Easy and cheap to convert between 130-160. I feel like on a HT if there's TOO much fork up from it becomes weird handling - BB too high, shortens up the reach, slackens the seated climbing position. I'd probably go with a Pike at 130 or 140.

I reckon you'd be better off with more quality suspension than more travel. But that's only IMO.

Just like with freeride bikes back in the day, those tires will suck. Upgrading to some better rubber will make a big difference - sturdier sidewalls, better tread, better rubber. Even if it's just SE4 27.5*2.8 from where you picked the bike up from. But winter riding is rarely best riding.

Glad to see you got back in the game!

The new Debonair air spring is great if you want to run a shorter travel more progressive fork.  I have mine at 120mm and stuffed with tokens and rarely bottom it out (usually have a 1/2" spare).

Quality >> Travel IMO

Posted by: nouseforaname

Posted by: FLATCH

Posted by: heathen

Posted by: shoreboy

Water bottle compatibility has zero bearing on my decision to buy a bike or not. Nice to have, but absolutely not a concern at all to me.

This. 

Plus I love my camelbak. Fanny packs are supper trendy right now

C'mon they're hip packs, fanny packs were in the nineties

If you're not hip, they're fanny packs.

You can't call them fanny packs over this side of the pond...

Posted by: Ddean

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: fartymarty

Logically ebikes must cause more trail wear as you can cover twice the distance in the same time as a non ebikes.  Hence twice the trail wear.

no - that's not correct nor logical. yes, ebikes have the potential to cause more trail wear but it doesn't mean they necessarily will and there is no real support for the notion that ebikes will cause twice the trail wear as a pedal bike. we could also just as easily say that in order to limit or reduce trail wear we won't allow any more new riders into the sport, for two riders will cause twice as much wear as one. we could also say that people can only ride two days per week, for if they ride four days per week they will cause twice the trail wear.

I think what he means is that assuming that they cause no more wear per equal distance as a pedal bike, that because you're going twice as far there is in total twice the wear on the trails - same amount of wear on any specific trail but more wear overall due to distance traveled. Makes sense to me, although assuming equal wear per foot traveled is a generous assumption. More power should equal more wear.

That's exactly what I meant but as pointed out we aren't limiting the amount of people into the sport so I guess trail wear is a moot point.