pete@nsmb.com profile

So true, although many brands are responding. Maybe most haven't gone as far as someone your height requires, but...getting closer at least.

On many of them, you can disable that side light function - including on some L&M lights (sometimes that corresponds with race mode, even though race mode is primarily to do with fewer brightness settings for faster setting selection).

Here's a Canadian dealer list with BC highlighted: 

https://7protection.com/us/dealers/#canada

This may be a comment with regional bias: I love trails with 5 or 10 degree slopes, however I also love trails with significantly more and they also have flow (and we don't ride them all that fast, relatively). But I guess as a rule of thumb for flow-based riding across a wide array of skill levels, that makes sense.

Really well said. Big picture thinking applied to specific events is always important.

This merits a further look for sure. And it came up recently in a conversation I was involved in. Definite uphill sledding! But I'm married to an Argentinian, and she has family that relates to your comment, Luix.

Appreciate the way you brought it up, too ;)

Evil_b, re: 'the Tribe thing', this is where people need to check themselves. I had the same reaction, quite frankly - but that's because I didn't know the history and significance behind the term. So, rather than just proclaim that it 'isn't offensive', I actually went and read the petition and - what do you know! - I learned WHY it is offensive to some.

And if I've learned ONE thing in the last few months/years, it's that, as a white male, I don't get to decide whether something is or isn't offensive to someone else. 

I don't know anything about you - perhaps you're First Nations - and in that case, you are uniquely equipped to declare that is isn't offensive - to you. But you don't speak for the rest of the First Nations, some of whom are offended by the use of the term. Simple as that.

The Squampton thing - yeah, the way it happened sucks and as I mentioned above, people have to get better about how to approach this stuff. But ultimately, society is changing, and we all have to learn how and why it's important to keep up to those changes.

It is discussions like these that we'll be able to look back upon and take a bit of solace that maybe we were able to add just a touch of gravity to our decisions and influence as mountain bikers in some small way. I've been fairly pessimistic lately about MTB's impact in a greater sense, and it doesn't sit well with me that just because we're playing on bikes, that we can't also assume a sense of responsibility about wider issues.

This discussion and others lately are restoring a bit of that confidence, but there's a lot of work to do.

That's not a fair take. If you're going to make a comment, you owe it to yourself and the author to read the whole thing to make sure you take it all in. You can skim gear reviews all you want, but pay attention to editorial because that's the shit that matters.

The folks that presented the petition to Yeti publicized that fact, in effect forcing Yeti to respond publicly. For them to say nothing publicly would open them up to a lot of criticism for not responding.

Thinking companies are going to make the necessary considerations and steps but then not responding when they've done so is wholly unrealistic. Yeti knew they'd take more hits no matter what they did. But as soon as that story went public, they became entitled to respond publicly.

If we want an environment where individuals and companies take appropriate steps to make things better, we also have to understand the environment within which they're being asked to do so. If you want to change your racist friend's behaviour, I don't think that coming at them like a screeching gargoyle is the way to do it - and yet a lot of really passionate entities are using that tactic. It's ineffective. 

If you start by yelling, you'll get a defensive response. A huge part of the problem with polarized society right now is that there's a lot more self-righteousness than there is a dedicated effort to engage in discourse. Spreading the learning and talking about differences is more important than 'being right' but both sides are still more focused on the latter.

That's not a fair take. If you're going to make a comment, you owe it to yourself and the author to read the whole thing to make sure you take it all in. You can skim gear reviews all you want, but pay attention to editorial because that's the shit that matters.

The folks that presented the petition to Yeti publicized that fact, in effect forcing Yeti to respond publicly. For them to say nothing publicly would open them up to a lot of criticism for not responding.

Thinking companies are going to make the necessary considerations and steps but then not responding when they've done so is wholly unrealistic. Yeti knew they'd take more hits no matter what they did. But as soon as that story went public, they became entitled to respond publicly.

If we want an environment where individuals and companies take appropriate steps to make things better, we also have to understand the environment within which they're being asked to do so. If you want to change your racist friend's behaviour, I don't think that coming at them like a screeching gargoyle is the way to do it - and yet a lot of really passionate entities are using that tactic. It's ineffective. 

If you start by yelling, you'll get a defensive response. A huge part of the problem with polarized society right now is that there's a lot more self-righteousness than there is a dedicated effort to engage in discourse. Spreading the learning and talking about differences is more important than 'being right' but both sides are still more focused on the latter.

I think I can add some useful info to this thread. 

First, I'm also a big fan of photochromic lenses. I've had great luck with Smith and Ryders and most recently, these shades from Julbo: https://www.julbo.com/en_ca/segment

For north shore/heavily forested conditions, particularly in winter, even the 'clearest' photochromic lenses usually have a small amount of tint that inhibits a bit of light, so when it's really dark/crappy and wet, I go with a full clear lens (I never find myself wishing I had a tinted lens - even on the ride home - btwn October and March anyway).

Lenses and their coatings can get saturated - even Ryders' vaunted antiFog has its limits, and you'll meet those limits while climbing through wet conditions on a colder day. So, if the ride involves a climb first (don't they always?) I'll begin with the glasses inside a lens bag, in a pocket that won't get wet or see pass-through condensation. In other words, NOT a jacket pocket, back jersey pocket, etc. Hip bag/pack all the way. Pull them out for the descent, and the antifog coating will be intact and you've given yourself a head start. Use that lens cloth to dry/clean them periodically, then stash it in a dry pocket.

Stashing on the helmet when climbing is convenient if you can pull it off, but works a lot better for roadies or fast rides, otherwise the heat coming off your head will outmatch the air flow and your glasses will be fogged up. Again, in warmer conditions you'll have better luck, but below about 15 degrees C, it's tough to manage. A roadie trip that does work, however, is clipping the glasses to the back of your jersey or jacket. They won't be subject to ventilation or condensation. They can still get wet back there but it's not too bad, they'll stay in place for mellow riding, and you won't likely forget them there. They're also easy to get at if you decide you want them on while climbing.

Public parking in the Dempsey/Braemar area has been restricted to the north side of Braemar for quite a few weeks now. Residents only on the south side. It's been busy, but when the packed up cars are focused across the road from the residents, that at least provides a bit of a buffer. And the packed area doesn't extend too far away - you can park 300 meters down the road and have all the room you want.

Unsurprisingly this thread strayed a bit from the original question but it's been a good read. 

The poll is flawed, though: you need to include an option stating that the respondent feels as safe riding in the US as in Canada. Instead it goes from 'only when choosing a riding location carefully' to 'feel safer riding in the US than in Canada'. In any case I realize the poll is secondary to the question. 

I think it's an interesting topic and a use case outside the typical assumption for gun use - at least to people outside the US, whereas for many Americans this question probably doesn't seem out of the ordinary at all. Personally, I've been traveling to the US very frequently since I was very young and can count the number of times I've felt unsafe on one hand: one of those was when driving in Palo Alto and a wrong turn had us driving through a neighbourhood complete with several porches filled with guys that looked like gang members drinking Olde English in the middle of the day. We definitely missed the turn to Stanford. The irony of it all wasn't lost on us, once we had a chance to exhale and laugh about it. 

Anyway, I understand why people feel unsafe in the US but I also think it's irrational. Life is inherently unsafe and driving a car is the most dangerous thing you do on a daily basis. Of course there are dangerous people and your chances of being shot are higher in the US than Canada, but a high number of gunshot wounds are also either self-inflicted or caused by a weapon owned by the injured. Don't carry and your odds reduce significantly. 

But I also understand the American psyche and the attitudes and history that shaped the ideas around self-determination, guns and freedom, having studied it in university and being fascinated by American history for some time before and after post-sec. 

What's funny though is that despite all my time spent down there skiing, riding and golfing - often in remote places - I never encountered the discussion of carrying a gun while riding until about 5 years ago. We were in rural Oregon and bumped into a few fellas also out riding and we ended up shutting back up together. They were friendly and showed us a few trails. We had fun. At some point the topic of carrying while riding came up - I think because we encountered some shells on the ground (not a rare occurrence in Oregon) but one of them may have broached it when mentioning that there were some meth-cook RVs in the area a la Breaking Bad. Whatever it was, the one guy mentioned that he always carries when riding in that area - and always, as I recall. 

We asked if he'd ever bumped into any meth-cookers in the area? 'Yes'. 

Had any of them ever been a problem or made him feel threatened? 'No'. 

Huh. Ok then. America and guns in a nutshell. 

The other mention I wanted to make was with respect to wildlife and protection - bear spray vs guns. Came across this article awhile back and thought it was worth posting for those that are interested. 

https://www.outsideonline.com/2401248/does-bear-spray-work

Posted by: Stuminator

Played golf & rode on the same day. Life is good. (Did a lot better on the bike, lol)

As someone who loves golf and used to pack them both into a day on a regular basis, that is good living indeed. 6 or 7 am tee time, done before noon, ride in the early afternoon and retire somewhere with a bit of sun and a beer.

Had a quick thought about the second part of your post - that you did a lot better on the bike - and that made me think 'yep, that's me too these days'. But part of that is the quantifiable nature of golf. We don't HAVE to keep score, but we always do. The bike equivalent would be to monitor your speed in real time (a la Strava premium) and judge ourselves 60+ times over the course of a ride ("you suck! what kind of line was that?", "Damn I'm fat and slow" would be 90% of the time, and every now and then: "I am the greatest rider this trail has ever seen (at least in the last hour)").

Which made me go even further down the rabbit hole. Part of the misery of golf is that we obsess with keeping score all the time, but it's not necessary in some ways - and in mountain biking, we're free to enjoy ourselves and play like kids and not worry about bogeys or double bogeys (or losing $5 on a hole). Is this an inherent advantage of a sport like mountain biking? Yes, I think it is.

And lastly, a round of golf for the average hacker can involve a lot of bogeys, double bogeys, etc. Is there an equivalent in golf? If a par is making it through a section of trail according to an arbitrary standard (fairly smooth and fast, no mishaps) then a birdie would be hitting it faster or smoother than usual, or nailing a section you don't normally expect to ride clean. But a bogey, or worse, a double bogey? A come-off, and one with consequences. 

Good thing we don't have that many bogeys on a mountain bike ride.

Posted by: craw

Posted by: pete@nsmb.com

Hey craw, the new XT Trail pedals seem to have a stiffer spring than the new XTR Trails. I noticed this recently while swapping between test bikes and using both sets of pedals (both new). I fired a question off to Shimano to find out if the XT Trails have a stiffer spring but haven't heard back yet. I love the XTRs and run 'em cranked all the way down and that's sufficient for me, whereas those XTs were too stiff and I hadn't even cranked them in all the way. Only slightly heavier, but cheaper = great option.

That's an ideal solution if it's true. My current pedals are XTR but I have zero issue using XT. Do you think this logic applies to DX pedals as well?

I haven't had a reply. Will ask again, and include DX. Also, keep your eyes open, the new Saint clipless pedal will be available soon - we're trying to get a pair asap for testing and spring tension is something we'll pay specific attention to.

Posted by: grambo

Posted by: tungsten

They offer frame only yet?

Nope, not part of their business model which depends on doing massive OEM parts orders with Shimano, e13, Fox, RockShox etc. Also why they don't offer customization options instead focusing on limited SKU's with high volumes.

Pete: have had NSMB whitelisted on uBlock, no issues with ads.

Thank you!

I use uBlock as well. But you guys are whitelisting your favourite MTB site(s), right? And if not, I'd love to hear directly if we've been running ad types that you find offensive. We try to keep a pretty clean reading environment around here, but some ads are necessary.

I had the same problem with RF Indy pads tearing, but that was before I knew this trick (applies to ALL slide-on knee pads): 

When you put them on or take them off your foot, rotate them so that they face backwards. This puts less stress on the stretchy material, and they'll slide on and off more easily. Whatever knee pads you run, they'll last longer.

Also, I don't know if you can find them in many places yet, but I can recommend the Sweet Protection Bear Suit knee pads. Nice to pedal in, stay in place, no chafe.

Hey craw, the new XT Trail pedals seem to have a stiffer spring than the new XTR Trails. I noticed this recently while swapping between test bikes and using both sets of pedals (both new). I fired a question off to Shimano to find out if the XT Trails have a stiffer spring but haven't heard back yet. I love the XTRs and run 'em cranked all the way down and that's sufficient for me, whereas those XTs were too stiff and I hadn't even cranked them in all the way. Only slightly heavier, but cheaper = great option.

Hi guys, with a nod to the local shops, I have unstuck thus thread. Niels figured it was helpful, and it is, but you're right, it's also a bit of an extra push to the online guys which is unfair in light of the fact that the Inside Line is a paid board used mostly by local shops. 

<span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">We certainly advocate supporting your LBS whenever possible but also realize that the reality is that sometimes online pricing is impossible to resist. Poz's info is useful and naturally can remain as a reference - thanks for compiling it, Poz. </span>